The Biological, Cultural, and Technological Evolution of Human Warfare
Organized By:
Ronald F. White, Ph.D.
Philosophy Professor Emeritus,
Mount St. Joseph University, Cincinnati, OH
Sponsored by: The Association for Politics and the Life Sciences
Dedicated to: Steven A. Peterson, Ph.D. (Co-Founder of APLS)
Abstract
This Research Panel will explore the biological, cultural, and technological evolution and/or devolution of human warfare, including cultural forces and mental mechanisms that produce it. These sessions will focus on both the historical rise of collective conflict and the variations that have emerged at various times in various places. Together, these sessions will also explain how/why tribal, racial, ethnic, and religious differences affect both war and peace; and the role that long-term and short-term alliances between collectives have affected warfare today. We will also explore the applicability (and/or inapplicability) of Just War Theory to fragmented modern warfare driven by technological innovation, especially: communication technologies, transportation technologies, and weapon technologies.
Possible Presentation Themes
THEME #1. Weapon Technology: How has the evolution of weapon technology contributed to the rise of large-scale impersonal killing of human beings?
THEME #2. Communication Technology: How has the evolution of communications technology contributed to the frequency, lethality, and morality of human warfare?
THEME #3. Alliances: How has the formation and dissolution of evolving offensive and defensive alliances affected warfare between nations?
THEME #4. Religion: How have conflicting religious doctrines contributed to war within and between nations, especially "Just War Theory?"
THEME #5. Political Regimes: How have various political regimes contributed to the persistence of human warfare, especially, democratic, authoritarian, totalitarian, and/or theocratic regimes.
THEME #6. The Role of Women in the Military and During Wartime. Why are women frequently subjected to dehumanizing treatment in male-dominated military organizations. Should more women be recruited, drafted, and promoted to the higher ranks, or is it more complicated than that? Why is rape and murder of female non-combatants by invading forces so common.
THEME #7. The Russian Invasion of Ukraine: How does Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the response (so far) by the European Union and the United States raise questions about Just War Theory? What role might Russian generals, oligarchs, and the populace play in ending that conflict? How does Putin's threat to employ nuclear weapons in Ukraine play in these peace negotiations?
Participants
Chair and Commentator
Ronald F. White, Mount St. Joseph University
Panelists
John Amankwah
Kenneth Blanchard
Bonnie Chojnacki
Charles Kroncke
David Vanderburgh
Introduction to the Evolution of Human Warfare By: Ronald F. White, Ph.D
When cultural anthropologists study the evolutionary history of the human species, they inevitably seek to explain the emergence of both "peace" and "war," and perhaps wonder to what extent either or both have been shaped over time by biology, culture, or both. There are other primate species that exhibit peaceful and/or warlike behavior, including Bonobos (peaceful) and Chimpanzees (warlike)? It has been argued that for 3.5 million years, human beings lived as peaceful, co-existing hunter-gatherers, and that inter-tribal conflict was rare. Others argue that warfare is a natural human behavior common among many species and a part of the human condition. Some of our oldest artifacts and historical writings chronicle the organized destruction of individual human armies and innocent, bystanders, For philosophers and theologians, warfare has always been puzzling. How, why, and when did small groups of human hunters and gatherers go to war? How did human warfare relate to the pursuit of food via hunting and gathering? We know that with the rise of the Agricultural Revolution (10,000 years ago), human warfare became more evolutionarily salient. With the rise of morality and religion, it became obvious that warfare violated our most sacred and valued principles: beneficence, non-maleficence, liberty, justice, and utility? In times of war the familiar descriptive phrase of that group behavior includes "rape, pillage, and plunder," But it is only the beginning of the long list of moral transgressions that typically accompany human warfare. We can add a host of other equally despicable acts such as torture, lying, slavery, terrorism, and environmental devastation. Many religious texts documents, including the Old Testament, document the persistence of warfare. Although the act of war itself has not changed much in the past 1000 years or so, it has been reshaped over time by the cultural evolution of military technology, as the capacity for destruction increased exponentially. Today the United States and other technologically advanced countries have evolved the technological capacity to completely destroy any major city on earth and render it uninhabitable for hundreds of years. Thanks to the advent of biological and chemical weapons, we now, have the ability to kill every single inhabitant in any major city without destroying a single building. We can even watch all of this live on television! The task for philosophers and theologians has been to explore the intersection between war and morality and attempt to set limits to all this death and destruction. There are two questions that frame the ethics of warfare. Under what conditions is it morally acceptable (or Just) to "engage in war" and once engaged, what behaviors are morally acceptable (or Just) within warfare. There are two classic positions: Just War Theory and Political Realism. Just War Theory includes three alternative theories: Ideal Pacifism (Quakers and Buddhists) will not engage in violence or war, even in self-defense. It argues that killing human beings is always wrong because it belies a stark disrespect for human life. Modified Pacifism, as dictated by Just War Theory, says that failing to defend oneself (or others) against an aggressor reveals a fundamental disrespect for one's own life and/or the lives of innocents who are being attacked. Some modified pacifists are utilitarians and argue that the morality of war is to be judged based solely on the "Greatest Happiness Principle" or a favorable balance of benefits over costs. On the other extreme, there is Political Realism, which says that war is, in fact, imbedded in human nature. Human beings, they argue, have always acted out of individual and collective self-interest, and therefore will always go to war when the anticipated benefits seem to outweigh the costs. Political realists are utilitarians that believe that "might makes right" and that once a nation declares war, the ultimate goal is to win at all costs. In the history of human warfare, they say, you will find that there really are no rules of war, even though all nations declare that there are moral limits. Rules of war, they argue, are usually monitored and enforced by the stronger military force (winners) and are typically violated by both sides. In the real world, rules of war are often employed as propaganda tools intended to rally reluctant citizens behind their war-mongering leaders. That's why in all wars, at all times and in all places, each opposing side is "dehumanized" and portrayed by the other as an immoral. Political realists, however, see war as an instrument of foreign policy allegedly justified by utilitarian concerns. Just war theorists are pacifists that will engage in war, if and only if, that war is morally justified. In the course of human history there have been many theories of just war, however, the theory espoused by St. Augustine and the Roman Catholic tradition has long dominated the Western tradition. This theory states that a nation can justifiably go to war in order to prevent the loss of human life or the violation of human rights, and that nations may not use war as a means of advancing a nation's economic goals. Once engaged in war, nations may not engage in unnecessary or in discriminant killing or destruction beyond what is required to restore peace. While just war theory does aspire to bring war under the governance of moral principles, it is important to note that, the just war principles are broad, multiple conflicting interpretations. The process of building an army is also morally problematic. Some soldiers are physically forced to go to war, via conscription, while other soldiers enlist out of "patriotism," "honor," and/or financial reward. In any war, it is not always clear who is the aggressor, since all parties who engage in war believe that their actions are morally justified. And of course, when a nation goes to war based on Just War Theory, it is not likely to win if its opponent acts on the basis of Political Realism and, therefore, is willing to indiscriminately kill non-combatants (traditionally women and children), destroy its infrastructure unrelated to the war effort, and disrupt the distribution of civilian food and water supplies. For more detail, check out my earlier blogs on Just War Theory. The Ethics of War and Putin's Invasion of Ukraine.
https://ronaldfwhite.blogspot.com/2022/03/the-nature-and-nurture-of-human-warfare.html
No comments:
Post a Comment