We are reading Kaplan's Revenge of Geography, which quotes Hans J Morgenthau's 1948 Politics Among Nations with reference to Thucydides 2,400 year-old The Peloponnesian War.
The world "is the result of forces inherent in human nature." And human nature, as Thucydides pointed out, is motivated by fear (phobos), self-interest (kerdos). and honor (doxa). "To improve the world," writes Morgenthau, "one must work with these forces, not against them." Thus, realism accepts the human material at hand, however imperfect that material may be. "It appeals to historical precedent rather than abstract principle and aims at the realization of the lesser evil rather than of the absolute good."
I don't want to pretend to be wiser than Morgenthau - actually I do want to pretend that but have an immediate caution that this is likely ridiculous - but I don't think that is quite what is happening. We do take those forces into account, but each of us allows any one of them to blind us to the other two. We focus on the bent sense of honor in Moslem countries, or their fear or self-interest, but never it seems, on all three at once. As we likely need a three-legged stool of motives to convince ourselves to do something, leaving out one of the motives above opens up a slot for us to zip in one of those absolutes and pretend it is not a cat in a dog family among the others. Honor has elements of desire for not only praise, but justice. Self-interest is nearly always loyalty to a larger group, and thus includes selflessness. Fear includes caution, planning, counting the cost. Thucydides' motives are the abstracts, applied at a discount among fallen mankind.
The abstracts reflect the sun too well, not too poorly, and we cannot bear to look at them directly. Certainly not three at once, without tarnishing them back into something manageable. Yet the New Testament does instruct us to look at them directly, using the language of searing brightness at every turn.
5 comments:
Honor is greatly ignored by Modern moral philosophy; Kant only barely mentions it, and mostly as a disguise for his real intention of elevating the rational. Yet, as you know from the EN discussion, honor is the basic moral currency; what is most worthy of honor is the basic moral guide, at least for pre-Christian societies like Aristotle's. Perhaps even today.
I am reading a detailed, circumstantial account of the hideous diplomatic muddle that led to the outbreak of WWI. I always hope, in reading on this subject, to gain a glimmer of understanding of the various parties' motives, and always am left as baffled as before.
In a biography of H.H. Munro, however, whose career under the pen name of Saki was cut short when he was killed at the Battle of the Ancre, I read his sister's account of his attitude toward serving in the war. He thought it was blindingly clear that honor mandated England's entering the war in support of its treaty obligations. At the age of 43, therefore, he turned down a commission and enlisted as a trooper. This was a man famed for the cruelty of his satirical style, but his sister describes him as tender-hearted in the extreme and perfectly upright in his conduct.
I can see how the duty to honor a promise engaged his honor. I remain baffled by what fear or self-interest led all nations of Europe to blunder into the catastrophe. I suppose scarcely any of the decision-makers foresaw the pointless horror that was about to engulf them.
Here is an apparently candid account of William II's view: William II to Francis Joseph, telegram, 30 July, 1914: "I have no doubt left that England, Russia and France have agreed among themselves--after arranging to have the casus foederis arise for us through Austria--to utilize the Austro-Serbian conflict as an excuse for waging a war of annihilation against us. Hence Grey's cynical remark to Lichnowsky, 'as long as the war is confined to Russia and Austria, England would sit quiet, but if we and France mixed into it he would be compelled to take active steps against us', i.e., either we are shamefully to betray our allies and sacrifice them to Russia--thereby breaking up the Triple Alliance, or we are to be attacked by the Triple Entente in common for our fidelity lo our allies and punished, whereby they will satisfy their jealousy by joining in totally ruining us. That is the real naked situation in nuce which, slowly and surely woven by Edward VII, has been carried on and systematically developed by means of the conversa*tions (which are denied) of England with Paris and St. Petersburg, and finally brought to a conclusion by George V and set in motion. The stupidity and ineptitude of our ally is thereby turned into a snare for us. So the famous ‘encirclement' [Einkreisung] of Germany has now finally become an accomplished fact, despite every effort of our politicians and diplomatists to prevent it. The net has been suddenly thrown over our head, and England sneeringly reaps the most brilliant success of the purely anti-German world policy, which she has persistently pursued and against which we have shown ourselves helpless, as she twists the noose of our political and economic destruction out of our loyalty to Austria while we squirm isolated in the net. A brilliant achievement which arouses the admiration even of him who is to be destroyed as a result! Edward VII is stronger after his death than I who am still alive.... This whole business must now be ruthlessly disclosed and the mask of Christian peacefulness publicly and brusquely torn from its face in public, and the pharisaical hypocrisy exposed on the pillory!! And our consuls in Turkey, and India, agents, etc., must inflame the whole Mohammedan world to fierce rebellion against this hated, lying, conscienceless nation of shopkeepers, for if we are to bleed to death, then England shall at least lose India."
The reflection of the brightest light on these abstracts does blind us, but some more than others. ‘Honor’ in Saki’s eyes may have led him to believe his possible death a price to risk. But the death of his whole civilization? Doubt he thought of that. Strength with foolishness.
Whereas hatred can be relied on to be an honest motive, even if wrong. Wilhelm IIs hatred for Edward VII was a true thing in a weak man.
You may be right, but I don't see a "bent sense of honor" in Muslims. What we call excessive pride may is often some party's unwillingness to be held in the contempt we believe that party should be held. "Uppity" is the word with which we put down those who object to being put down.
Post a Comment