We had a tremendous showing at last week's Philosophy of Law discussion. The pizza was piping hot and the conversation was spirited. After an hour of group discussion the event was officially concluded, although many gathered in small groups and continued the conversation.
The questions we explored cycled round and round. What does the history of war reveal about human nature? Is this human nature good? Is it changeable? What makes a just war? Is there ever such a thing as just war? And if all wars are unjust, how else can conflict be resolved? Is this possible given our human nature? And so on and so on.
Four faculty members joined and were a boon to the conversation - Sharon Mattila, Scott Segrest, our Dean (and acting club advisor) Tom Kennedy, and discussion leader Michael Papazian. Following the discussion time, it was suggested that we look into bringing notable pacifist/just war proponent/realist to debate the issue as a campus event. Several names were suggested, and it is our hope as officers to follow through with this goal.
As a first event, this was a tremendous success! It is our hope that every participant felt welcomed to join the discussion and bettered by it. But it is true that sometimes written discourse is needed, so if you have a thought from last Thursday night's discussion that you didn't get to share, or lingering questions or thoughts, reply to this post and keep the conversation going...
-tricia
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Philosophy of Law
Posted by Philosophia Religioque at 8:57 AM
Labels: club meeting, war
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Weapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them.
Weapons are the tools of fear; a decent man will avoid them except in the direst necessity and, if compelled, will use them only with the utmost restraint. Peace is his highest value. If the peace has been shattered how can he be content? His enemies are not demons, but human beings like himself. He doesn't wish them personal harm. Nor does he rejoice in victory. How could he rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men?
He enters battle gravely, with sorrow and with great compassion, as if he were attending a funeral
-tao teh ching
According to Kant's "To Perpetual Peace" and "Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Intent," conflict is the expression of man's "unsociable" characteristics of selfishness and his "tendency to isolate himself." In order for man to overcome this aspect of his nature, he must find both a master for this nature in himself and ultimately a master to protect himself from his neighbors. This point leads to Kant's proposal to perpetual peace.
To achieve a universal peace without war, Kant argues that each nation must be republican, a federation of nations must be established and hold power, and a "hospitableness" must exist among peoples of different nations. He argues that nature wills this perpetual peace ("Universal History" outlines nature's role in all of this), and man will eventually reach it.
Today, an increasing number of nations are republics or at least show signs of popular sovereignty, and international agencies like the UN and the EU are gaining in power and support. It's a slow process, but according to Kant's essays, we just might be on the way to perpetual peace.
Post a Comment