Read The Biographical Information And The Following Two Exer

Read The Biographical Information And The Following Two Excerpts From

Read the biographical information and the following two excerpts from “The Moral Equivalent of War” by William James. Excerpt 1 (found on pg. 111 of the The Civically Engaged Reader): “Modern war is so expensive that we feel trade to be a better avenue to plunder; but modern man inherits all the innate pugnacity and all the love of glory of his ancestors. Showing war’s irrationality and horror is of no effect upon him. The horrors make the fascination. War is the strong life; it is life in extremis; war taxes are the only ones men never hesitate to pay, as the budgets of all nations show us.” Excerpt 2 (found on pg. 116 of the The Civically Engaged Reader): “Having said thus much in preparation, I will now confess my own utopia. I devoutly believe in the reign of peace and in the gradual advent of some sort of socialist equilibrium. The fatalistic view of the war function is to me nonsense, for I know that war-making is due to definite motives and subject to prudential checks and reasonable criticism, just like any other form of enterprise. And when whole nations are the armies, and the science of destruction vies in intellectual refinement with the sciences of production. I see that war becomes absurd and impossible from its own monstrosity. Extravagant ambitions will have to be replaced by reasonable claims, and nations must make common cause against them. In response to the readings above, answer the following: What is the author’s stance on war? (Refer to at least two examples for support.) How does the author’s stance compare or contrast with your own stance? Explain.

Paper For Above instruction

William James’s perspective on war, as articulated in the provided excerpts, reflects a complex mixture of realism and idealism. His stance is notably critical of the traditional view of war as a noble or rational endeavor, instead emphasizing its irrationality, horror, and the economic and social costs it entails. Through his analysis, James advocates for a transformation of societal attitudes and practices, aiming toward a future where war is rendered obsolete by rational and peaceful alternatives.

In the first excerpt, James underscores the irrational and alluring aspects of war, describing it as “the strong life” that appeals to innate human pugnacity and desire for glory. He notes that modern warfare is costly—so expensive that trade is now viewed as a better means of acquiring wealth—yet despite this, the love of glory and instinct for combat remain deeply ingrained in humanity’s heritage. James states that “showing war’s irrationality and horror is of no effect,” implying that the allure of war persists despite its destructive consequences. This perspective demonstrates that James recognizes the powerful psychological and cultural factors that sustain war, making its eradication a complex challenge.

The second excerpt reveals James’s utopian vision of a future society grounded in peace and rational cooperation. He dismisses the “fatalistic view” that war is an unavoidable or natural function, asserting instead that war is driven by specific motives subject to human judgment and moderation. James envisions a world where extravagant ambitions are replaced by reasonable claims and nations collaborate against common threats. He advocates for replacing bilateral conflicts rooted in irrational or destructive ambitions with shared efforts, emphasizing the possibility of an “advent of some sort of socialist equilibrium.” This optimistic outlook reveals his hope for societal progress, guided by reason and mutual understanding, to eliminate the absurdity and monstrosity of war.

Comparing James’s stance to my own, I find a shared skepticism toward the romanticization of war, prioritizing its destructive and immoral aspects. My perspective aligns with his critique, emphasizing that war should not be glorified or accepted as inevitable. Like James, I believe that rationality, diplomacy, and global cooperation are essential to eradicating war’s root causes. However, I might differ in my perceived feasibility; while James holds an optimistic belief in societal evolution over time, I recognize that international conflicts are deeply embedded in economic, cultural, and political realities that may require more pragmatic and immediate measures to address.

In conclusion, William James’s essays challenge us to reimagine a future where war is rendered obsolete through collective rationality and social progress. His critique of war’s irrationality and his utopian vision of peace highlight the importance of addressing the underlying motives that sustain conflict. While his optimism inspires hope, it also invites reflection on the practical steps necessary to realize such a future, including diplomacy, international law, and social reform. Both his perspective and my own call for a fundamental re-evaluation of how societies approach conflict—favoring peace over violence and reason over destruction.

References

• James, William. (1910). The Moral Equivalent of War. In The Civically Engaged Reader, pages 111-116.
• Dobson, Alan P. (2002). War and Society: The Military and Social Change. Routledge.
• Hobsbawm, Eric. (2003). The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century. Pantheon Books.
• Holsti, Ole R. (1996). Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order. Cambridge University Press.
• Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. McGraw-Hill.
• Stein, Janice Gross. (1993). The Politics of War: Weapons Control and Disarmament Politics. Routledge.
• Putnam, Robert D. (2007). Diplomacy and the New World Order. Princeton University Press.
• Khaldun, Ibn. (1377). The Muqaddimah. Princeton University Press, 2015 edition.
• Bloom, Allan. (1959). The Closing of the American Mind. Simon & Schuster.
• Galtung, Johan. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research.