War & Martial Values
Does War Produce Courage & Honor?
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The defense of so-called "martial values" is perhaps one of the oldest arguments justifying wars, but it isn't something seen quite so often today. According to this argument, the institution of war requires and/or creates particular character traits in people which are of supreme value in culture, society, politics, family, etc.
Some of these values include honor, nobility, bravery, and self-sacrifice. These characteristics are commonly attributed to warrior characters in ancient literature, and it is often explained that these characteristics are result of the way in which they conduct war. Thus, an honorable warrior is expected to also be honorable in other dealings with people, a noble warrior is also noble in society and politics, and a warrior who will sacrifice himself for his comrades will also sacrifice for the benefit of his family.
Defense of martial values has also extended into the modern era; one of the most prominent defenders of them may have been Freidrich Nietzsche. For Nietzsche's †bermensch, war exemplifies his natural superiority over others and is a way for him to express his own inner strength. Under no circumstances should he feel obligated to submit to the Christian "slave morality" which requires humility and compassion.
Similar arguments defending martial values, but on a larger scale, were offered by Friedrich von Bernhardi. Influenced strongly by the work of Heinrich von Trietschke, Bernhardi argued that war is the means by which civilized nations express their strengths and prove their vitality over inferior states. Life is a struggle for survival and war is the way in which the fittest triumph over the weak; thus, war allows the best values and best virtues of a nation to be proven. Correspondingly, efforts to eliminate war would result in weaker nations continuing and lesser values surviving, something which would prove disastrous for the human race.
Other defenders of martial values and war include Machiavelli, who wrote, "Human qualities needed for war: courage, obedience, enthusiasm, and ferocity"; and Frederick the Great, who argued that war brought out man's finest qualities. At times, the defense of martial values can take on an almost religious quality. Although the horrors of war may be acknowledged, they are deemed an irrefutably better fate than the alternatives available in a "safe peace": the dreary world of clerks and shopkeepers where hardness and vitality drain away from the human race in a process of cultural and even biological degeneration.
More recently, at the time of the First Gulf War between the United States and Iraq, commentator Andy Rooney extolled some of the virtues of war during a sement of the news program "60 minutes":
There are some good things about war sometimes. Everyone accomplishes more in times of war. Our hearts beat faster. Our senses are sharper. ...This war in the Gulf has been, by all odds, the best war in modern history, not only for America, but for the whole world, including Iraq, probably.
It is sometimes even be acknowledged that the relevant virtues can be developed by other means in human society; this is not, however, a sufficient counter-argument because it is asserted that war is not simply a means to those ends, but the most efficient means. Military conflict with all of its intensity and terror is unmatched as a crucible in which our virtues, our values, and our very being can be tested. If found wanting, we cease to exist. If, however, we are up to the challenge, then we are supposed to come out all the better and stronger for it. Improvement is produced through competition and there is no greater competition than war where continuation of our lives, values, and civilization are at stake.
There are two questions to ask about claims made by these and similar people about martial values: are they right, and if so, does it actually matter? To begin with, it does seem fairly accurate to say that many positive virtues like courage, honor and self-sacrifice are encouraged in the general institution of war, in the military, and even some wars in particular. However, warfare has also encouraged many very negative "virtues" like brutality, dishonesty, cowardice, and more. Does the former offset the latter? Even if war is the most efficient means of acquiring the best virtues, isn't it also the most efficient means of acquiring the worst vices?
If we ignore the negative character traits developed in war, there is still the question of whether warfare is necessary for the development of those positive character traits. Can't virtues like courage and honor be encouraged just as well through other social institutions besides the military? Perhaps not, but that seems very unlikely. At a bare minimum, those who defend warfare through the development of martial values would have to explain why they defend war over some other means of inculcating those values.
-->
