A bad soldier is one who does not dream of becoming a general. Likewise, the ultimate goal of every country is to encompass the globe. A country seeks to expand its territories. And there arises the need to format the population according to the standards of the conqueror. And what is used to format? Ideology, of course. Ideologies are different. Take a banal example: capitalism, communism, nationalism. Communism is recognized by some philosophers and scientists as a religion, but for us it does not matter; any religion is also an ideology. When ideologies clash, there are often irresolvable conflicts, which lead to military confrontations. Wars due to differences. No ideology prohibits war. Many ideologies support war against non-believers.
There are many ideologies, and therefore people differ in many ways; therefore, the task must be simplified to two elements, and the first element is to divide ideologies into those that allow war and those that prohibit it. And secondly, to give a definition of the word war: the Oxford Dictionary gives the following definition of war — “an armed conflict between two or more parties.”
Now we will isolate the idea that lies at the foundation of war itself.
At the core of a conflict is the fact that one side believes it has a certain right. The second side believes that the first side does not have this right. Or such a right is limited by law, guarded by the second side, maintaining its status, believing that it has the right to protect such status. Thus arises a crisis of the implementation of rights. In case of inability or unwillingness to negotiate, one of the parties begins to act from the position of force, applying the idea of “the right of the strong” (ius fortis in Latin). One Gallic prince expressed this idea as follows: “Right is the advantage with which nature has endowed the strong over the weak so that the weak is obliged to obey him.”
As a result, the action in the implementation of a right turns into an act of coercing the opposing party to consent by force. Thus, one of the parties achieves its rights not through a legal process, but through war. (Kant, Perpetual Peace)
In this way, the right to kill another for the realization of one’s own right arises. On a collective level, the right to mass killings emerges.
Compare this with the private case, and you will understand that we are talking about cruel crimes. For example, criminal codes of all countries already prohibit killing another person in private disputes. Why is it allowed in war? Each country must be considered a person. Countries must be prohibited from starting wars. After all, people are prohibited from killing each other; people have accepted the ideology of the 6th commandment (do not kill) in private matters. War is mass murder.
In the world, there are ideas, for example: the right to physical integrity and the right to property inviolability. This concerns, for example, resources and territories. In private matters, killings are prohibited in situations when one tries to take what does not belong to him in fact or de jure, or another wants to retain what does not belong to him. There is no prohibition on killings in war. Modern international law only regulates the methods of killing in military conflicts.
This is the idea that divides people into two super-ideologies: those “for” war — for mass killings, and those “against” war — against mass killing.
A super-ideology is a primary idea that rises above second-order ideologies, whether nationalism, capitalism, or communism, since it does not enter into conflict with them. It enters into conflict for the basic value — life.
The law has changed many times throughout history, and has always aimed and developed in a humanistic direction. Imagine, in the past, ritual killings (sacrifices), slavery, the right of the first night were allowed; the list can continue by itself. Why is war not yet on this list?
The cult of worshiping war in human history is very ancient, starting with the first known religion to humanity — Sumerian (5500–1475 BCE). Hence all these glorifications of war, and conquering wars, and hero-conquerors. This cult is deeply rooted in humanity. But the same religion shows that at that time there were only two cultures: nomads and farmers. Therefore, humanity grows morally, because culturally it grows for sure. Kant believed that the right to war must go into the past. Therefore, the refusal to encourage wars is quite natural.
The right to start a war must remain in the past. Of course, wars will continue, ordinary people still kill each other in domestic conflicts. Therefore, the right to suppress war by symmetrical methods must remain in order to maintain peace. The humanization of society is a process. And today, humanity must take the first step toward preventing wars. The global community must prohibit wars and form an alliance with the super-ideology against war. In the future, all will want to join such an alliance.
We propose to start by establishing a limit on mass deaths. For example, if in an armed conflict 1,000 or more people die (in a conflict of any duration) from any side, it is recognized as war, even if there has been no declaration of war.
Leave a Reply