War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
-John Stuart Mill
My friend Brian sent this to me via e-mail today. The subject line read "Food for Thought."
In today's atmosphere, I could see how people could zealously throw this quote around to prove the point that pacifism is a "decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling"; that pacifists are "miserable creature[s]" who have "no chance of being free"; and, thus, pacifism is worse than war.
Right off the top of my head, I believe this quote is from Mill's treaty On Liberty, in which he suggests that people were becoming apathetic, too carefree in their feelings about their personal freedoms, and that they too easily conformed to the status quo. (If there is anyone out there familiar with On Liberty, I would love to hear from you.)
Mills himself was brought up in the classics, philosophy, and economics. His knowledge of war, to my recollection, didn't go much further than the textbook. I don't think he served as a soldier; I don't think he fought in any war. So I don't trust his notion that war is not the "ugliest of things." I suggest it is mere opinion, if not figurative conjecture.
I do trust the thoughts and observations of the esteemed war journalist, Chris Hedges, who explains in his work War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning the odd allure of war. Consider this introductory paragraph from page 3:
I learned early on that war froms its own culture. The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug, one I ingested for many years. It is peddled by mythmakers-- historians, war correspondents, filmmakers, novelists, and the state-- all of whom endow it with qualities it often does possess: excitement, exoticism, power, chances to rise above our small stations in life, and a bizarre and fantastic universe that has a grotesque and dark beauty....
The enduring attraction of war is this: Even with its destruction and carnage it can give us what we long for in life. It can give us purpose, meaning, a reason for living.
Besides the allure of war, Hedges relates his experiences of documenting the wars he's covered and numerous tales of soldiers and victims of war, painting a vivid picture that war is nothing more than tragic and ugly. In comparison, Mill's statement on war (above) simply lacks experience enough to make it valid.
In regards to pacifism and pacifists, the use of this quote in today's environment is disingenous. It's a myth that Democrats are pacifists. Democrats are fully behind the war against Al Qaeda, the culprits of 9/11. But this war on terror is different that Bush's war on Iraq. Iraq could have and should have been avoided. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no nuclear bomb that could hit London in 45 minutes. Saddam posed no immediate threat to the United States.
In light of this, Mill's quote once again seems nothing more than the rantings from a mind full of fancy, dramatic, yet one-sided ideas-- where is the consideration that pacifism is good in many situations? Where is the consideration of diplomacy?
I would like to propose that the truths gleaned from Mill's quote be kept strictly to the anthropological study of On Liberty-- how the different social classes become numb or apathetic in periods of peace.
10:31:41 PM  | |
|
|
