By: Ronald F. White, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, Mount St. Joseph University
Part I. Introduction to the Philosophy of Culture and Human Warfare
Part II. War Leadership: Vladimir Putin's Leadership in the Context of Russia's Bombing of Ukraine. Part III. The Nature and Nurture of Human Warfare: An Evolutionary Account
1. Walk Don't Run (Am)
2. Surf Rider Am)
3. Telstar (A)
4. Diamondhead (Am)
5. Tequila (E)
6. Penetration (F#m)
7. Apache (Am)
8. Sleepwalk (C)
9. Rockin and Surfin (E)
10. Wild Weekend (G)
11. The Last Date (C)
12. Miserlou (E)
13. Secret Agent Man
14. War of the Satellites (Am)
15. Ace of Spades (A)
16. Jack the Ripper
17. Rumble (E)
18. Out of Limits (E)
19. Pipeline (Em)
20. Wipeout (C)
By Ronald F. White, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Mount St. Joseph University
In light of the ongoing war in Ukraine, I thought it would be useful to explore the larger questions of how human leadership and human warfare are related; and. whether they are natural behaviors passed on to subsequent generations through our genetic inheritance (biology); or whether those behaviors are learned and therefore passed on over time via teaching and learning (culture). And, in light of those findings, I will speculate whether the quest for localized and/or global peace are realistic sociopolitical goals. But first, let's fill in some of the conceptual framework associated with evolution and warfare.
Darwinian evolution has two interrelated mechanisms: variation and selection. Systemic Variation is the product of a replicative mechanism that generates individuals that exhibit different qualities/attributes over time. Selection refers to the processes that determine which variations thrive, survive and/or suffer reduction in the number of replicants and/or ultimate extinction. I like to refer to the evolutionary process as "trial and error." In any given environment (biological or cultural) strong individuals/groups residing in a given environment, tend to survive and weak individuals/groups devolve, unless they adapt to that new environment, or relocate to another environment. Over time, organisms evolve/devolve genetically, in collective biological systems; and beliefs (ideas) evolve/devolve intellectually, within individual minds and/or collective belief systems. Western philosophers agree that "Human Warfare" is a collective and cooperative activity, involving large groups of human beings. The minds of those individuals are shaped by those collectives. Some collectives are intergenerational and therefore pass on genetic and/or cultural information (misinformation and disinformation) across past, present, and future generations, including account of their feelings, thoughts, and behavior. Cooperative collectives, invariably, entail leadership and followership. There are no leaders without followers and no followers without leaders. Throughout most of human history, leadership/followership has been hierarchical (top-to-bottom) whereby followers submit to the authority of leaders, which (over time) often gets locked into tradition. Followership can be either: voluntary (free will), involuntary (coerced), or nonvoluntary. In the United States, business and politics are still monopolized by white males, although women and racial minorities have recently penetrated that monopoly. Men have always been the primary movers and shakers of human warfare. Why? Some argue that human males are biologically and/or culturally programmed collectivize in pursuit of common goals, compete with other groups of males, and forge lifelong friendships... For example, male participation in violent sports such as football, soccer, and hockey. Males who serve in the military and engage in lethal warfare with high casualties, are especially prone to forge these lifelong friendships, hence the term "band of brothers." This raises recent questions concerning the status of female soldiers, "band of sisters?" and whether women ought to serve alongside men on the front lines? Or whether they should be limited to non-violent support positions. Similarly, should strong, athletic women be able compete for positions in male sports, or must they compete only against other women? Why? Some scholars question whether it is possible for followers to exercise free will, when leaders effectively manipulate information and/or threaten those who are non-compliant. Others argue that sustained leader-follower relationships require a degree of information manipulation and/or coercion, especially political leadership. The forging of multi-national alliances via treaties is an important element of modern warfare. Alliances can be either public (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) or private (secret). Secret alliances between nations (Iran, Korea, Chins?) have always been problematic.
Somit and Peterson argued that there are two polar organizational forms of government Totalitarianism and Democracy and that worldwide, totalitarian regimes vastly outnumber democratic regimes. And that democracy requires a highly educated populace that know the issues at hand and actually vote. Of course, voting can be manipulated by prevailing power structures and ruling parties by limiting the number of polling places, especially in minority neighborhoods, and by requiring multiple forms of identification proving age, residence, and political party. The longer it takes to vote at a polling place, fewer voters can show up, without missing work. And of course, there is always the question of how voters vote, who collects, and counts those votes. Ballot stuffing is often a problem (real or imagined) in democratic elections. Voting technology has evolved significantly from paper ballots to voting machines, to voting machines that produce paper ballots. In recent years, those who win the election, tend to trust the process, while those who lose tend to doubt those results.
Like all human institutions, the history of human warfare reveals varying degrees of cultural evolution, devolution, and/or stability over time. We know that periods of both warlike and peaceful behavior are evident throughout much of human history. Scholars debate over whether warfare and peace are biologically and/or culturally determined. Some anthropologists argue that there is artifactual evidence indicating that groups of Hunters and Gatherers rarely (if ever) engaged in competitive warfare over resources, land, power, or ideology. There was (no doubt) plenty of food for groups of 50 wandering genetically related humans. Similarly, there was no rational reason to engage in internal "civil wars" over leadership. Leadership was contextual: that is to say that hunter-gatherer groups simply followed the hunting advice of the best hunters (usually men) and the gathering advice by best gatherers (usually women). Older men and women were most likely to accrue more experience and therefore were more-or-less respected by the rest of the group. Ineffective leaders were routinely replaced without violence.
Those same scholars agree that warfare emerged about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of the Agricultural Revolution, when humans stopped hunting and gathering and began to live together, collectively, in one geographical location, where they fenced the land and invented private land ownership, agriculture, and animal husbandry. As these stationary communities began to grow in population, more arable land, water, and food was needed. As public property was gradually transformed into private property, many groups were left with no means to feed their populations. Out of sheer necessity, (or perhaps laziness) some small agricultural communities, eventually, began to raid their agrarian neighbors and confiscate their food supply. This inspired the collateral cultural evolution of both offensive and defensive warfare. Henceforth, sustained political leadership required effective/efficient offensive and defensive warfare, which collaterally led to the cultural evolution of both increasingly lethal weapon-based technologies and increasingly global communication-based technologies.
The earliest weapons, no doubt, consisted of stockpiles of sticks and stones, which gradually evolved into more increasingly efficient killing technologies, from bows and arrows, to guns, aircraft, and ballistic missiles. Co-laterally, communication technology evolved from "word of mouth" (face-to-face) to written word, and most recently, to communication via technologies from radios and telephones, to cell phones, television, and computers. The Vietnam War was the first widely televised war in the United States. Evening media outlets included daily updates, and eventually, 24 hours a day coverage evolved from CNN and later other full-time outlets. Of course, the US government provided war statistics, which invariably suggested that the US was winning that war. Eventually, skepticism arose among those media outlets and the public at large. In the early years of the Vietnam War, would-be soldiers voluntarily enlisted in the "armed forces," lured by a sense of "honor," a reliable paycheck, and an assortment of other benefits including health insurance and college tuition. Many healthcare professionals, engineers and security experts were trained by and later employed by the military. Young men sought long-term military careers and or specialized training, especially in the Air Force. But as the Vietnam War dragged on, casualties mounted, and voluntary enlistment declined. Consequently, the US government revived involuntary conscription (the draft) which alienated middle- and upper-class males and their families. This was accompanied by to deferments for various classes of middle/upper class of males. Conscription was eventually replaced by a lottery system, which determined who was subject to the draft. When I was in college at Eastern Kentucky University, I drew a high number (190) and therefore I was spared the draft. But many of my university friends drew low numbers and were, immediately sent off to fight the Vietnam War. Given the enormous expenses associated with paying soldiers and providing an assortment of costly, military technologies (tanks, warships, bombers, bombs etc.), the Vietnam war became increasingly unpopular and financially unsustainable. Eventually, under pressure from the media and the public at large, the US unceremoniously withdrew from South Vietnam. The United States, Russia, and China still allocate a major proportion of their national budgets to paying and training soldiers and developing new technologies. Ever-burgeoning military budgets financed the development of larger, faster, more accurate, and more lethal technologies and the resulting threats of deploying various "secret weapons" (real or imagined). Innovative competition between nations and the rise of the private arms industry produced the so-called "arms race," which evolved increasingly more effective and efficient weapons by scientifically savvy nations, most notably the United States, Russia, and China. That competition still exists today. Today, well-armed defensive military forces and armed citizens often resist, if not expel, those would-be occupying forces. Near the end of WW II, the United States invented the ultimate weapon. The atomic bomb, which all nations pursued, in order to keep up with the United States and other nuclear nations. Today, warfare has been shaped primarily by increasingly efficient "missile technologies," especially missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons over long distances. These weapons were stockpiled by nuclear nations, which transformed traditional warfare into "mutually assured destruction" (MAD). Consequently, human warfare became increasingly, impersonal, as hand-to-hand combat and personal weapons were replaced by armed missiles launched from over the horizon. Ironically, atomic weapons became a deterrent to future wars, out of fear of "nuclear holocaust." And nations strategically released information, misinformation, and disinformation concerning their nuclear capacity and their ability to develop and deliver those weapons.
Warfare today has been indelibly shaped by the interwoven, fast-paced, evolution of both weapon technologies and information technologies. The development of these technologies created markets and/or the desire to hide/reveal possession of those technologies from would-be enemies and/or allies. Eventually "rogue nations," including North Korea and Iran, claimed that they possessed "The Bomb" and the requisite missile technology necessary to deliver it longer and longer distances. Possession of the "The Bomb" was also used to threaten their neighbors, and/or protect themselves from the US, Russia, and/or China. Large offensive armies evolved (or devolved?) into occupying forces, that sought to control the flow of refugees, enforce new legalities, and even rebuild cities. Whether occupying troops could effectively serve as "untrained peace-keepers" or policemen, became an issue, as well. The evolution of increasingly portable weapon technologies and communication technologies; created and an ever-growing global market for those technologies; and highly profitable private corporations that manufactured, distributed, and marketed these weapons at home and abroad. Burgeoning national military budgets eventually outpaced all other budgetary concerns and the normalization of deficit spending, especially in the US.
Further Reading
Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud, Why War?
Ronald F. White, The Ethics of War Albert Somit and Steven A. Peterson, The Failure of Nation building: The Biological Bases of Authoritarianism, Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence (1997) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9781403978424 Albert Somit and Steven A. Peterson, The Failure of Democratic Nation Building (2005) Albert Somit and Steven A Peterson, Handbook of Biology and Politics (2017) Victor Kumar and Richard Campbell, A Better Ape: The Evolution of the Moral Mind and How it Made Us Human (2022)
By: Ronald F. White, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, Mount St. Joseph University
Introduction
Chapter I. Why War?
Chapter 2. Warfare Among Other Primate Species
Chapter 3. War and Peace Among Hunter-Gatherers
Chapter 4. The Agricultural Revolution and Cultural Evolution
Chapter 5. The Emergence of Private Property and Defensible Borders
Chapter 6. The Rise of the Nation-State
Chapter 7. The Evolving Social Structure of Military Organizations: Men, Women, Children, Gays, Lesbians and Transsexuals
Chapter 8. Economic Competition and the Evolution of War and Peace
Chapter 9. The Evolution of War Technology
Chapter 10. Warfare on Land, on the Sea, in the Air, and on the Internet
Chapter 11. World War and World Peace
Chapter 12. Contemporary Issues
In case you haven't been following recent media coverage, President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian army to invade, neighboring, Ukraine by bombing cities and killing thousands of civilians. Survivors migrated to other nearby countries, especially Poland. Critics noted that deliberately bombing cities and killing non-combatants violates the principles of Just War Theory, and that Putin is therefore a war criminal. Although Ukraine is not a member, the European Union has been sending humanitarian aid and military hardware aid to Ukraine. Recently, Volodomyr Zylenskyy, duly elected President of Ukraine, traveled to the United States seeking more military hardware, especially aircraft and missiles, to help enforce a no-fly-zone over those land areas that the Russians have been using launch to bombers and missiles. In sum, Putin's invasion raises complex leadership puzzles for Joe Biden and the various leaders within the European Union. Should the European Union and/or the United State intervene militarily, if so, should that intervention include sending not only armaments, but also armed troops into Ukraine? Would that inspire Putin to use nuclear bombs?
First of all, Leaders are judged based on four fundamental criteria: 1.) Does that leader inspire followers? 2.) What goals does that leader inspire followers to pursue? 3.) Are those goals good/bad, for whom? 4.) Is that leader effective and/or efficient at realizing those good/bad goals? Let's all agree that Vladimir Putin is a bad leader, because he deliberately targeted civilians, in violation of international law; and that he seems to have done so effectively. Let's postpone the question of whether the bombing is/was an efficient way to achieve his political goals.
Russia's feeble economy is based on the export of oil and gas, and wheat to European countries. But European countries have come to rely on these commodities, and there are no other oil-producing or wheat-producing countries willing or able to fill the void. Thus, the political issues include the short-term question of whether or not political leaders in Europe ought to collectively boycott Russian oil, gas, and, wheat... even though it would inflict hardship on their own citizens? But do boycotts really work? If the EU decides to continue to import those products, they will be inadvertently helping finance Russia's bombing strategy, pay soldiers, and perhaps help expand that invasion to other European countries? Over the long run, if the EU decides to boycott Russian commodities, the followers of those respective leaders within the European countries, will suffer greatly, and the cost of oil and natural gas will skyrocket. How long will voters in the EU and the US tolerate this high gas and food prices? At what point will they vote those leaders out of power. In sum, how much suffering must Western democracies (European and US voters) be willing to endure, in order to support the boycott (and hopefully) end the Russian bombing of Ukraine? How long will the Russian people and military leaders tolerate the high cost of Putin's bombing campaign, and the death of many invading Russian soldiers? In general, how long can totalitarian leaders remain in power when they alienate military leaders, their own citizens at home, and the leaders of neighboring countries... for no good reason? Let's call it the way it is... this bombing campaign was not only illegal and immoral, but also profoundly stupid... It cannot end well for Putin.
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
Surf-Instrumental Rock
1. Walk Don't Run (Am)
2. Surf Rider Am)
3. Telstar (A)
4. Diamondhead (Am)
5. Tequila (E)
6. Penetration (F#m)
7. Apache (Am)
8. Sleepwalk (C)
9. Rockin and Surfin (E)
10. Wild Weekend (G)
11. The Last Date (C)
12. Miserlou (E)
13. Secret Agent Man
14. War of the Satellites (Am)
15. Ace of Spades (A)
16. Jack the Ripper (A)
17. Rumble (E)
18. Out of Limits (E)
19. Pipeline (Em)
20. Wipeout (C)
21. Ghost Riders in the Sky (Am)
22. Sailor's Hornpipe (A)
23. The Flintstones (G)
Country and Bluegrass Instrumentals
1. Foggy Mountain Breakdown
2. Blackberry Blossom
3. Salt Creek
4. Down Yonder
5. Bill Cheatam
6. Eight of January
7. Devil's Dream
8. June Apple
9. Old Joe Clark
10. John Henry
11. John Hardy
12. Black Mountain Rag
13. Bully of the Town
14. Foggy Mountain Special
15. Bluegrass Breakdown
16. Faded Love
17. San Antonio Rose
18. Billy in the Low Ground
19. Clinch Mountain Breakdown
20. Sally Goodin
21. Arkansas Traveler
22. St. Anne's Reel
23. Redwing
24. Red Haired Boy
25. Irish Wash Woman
26. Kesh Jig
27. Earle's Breakdown
28. Rawhide
29. Beaumont Rag
30. Under the Double Eagle
31. Dill Pickle Rag
32. Memphis Blues
33. Alabama Jubilee
44. Planxty Irwin (D)
45. Doc's Rag (C)
46. Green Sleeves (D)
47. Summertime (Am)
48. Woody Woodpecker (C)
49. Oh Susana (D)
Country and Bluegrass Vocals
1. Deep River Blues
2. Way Downtown
3. Old Slewfoot
4. Dark as a Dungeon
5. Long Black Veil
6. Dooley
7. Roll in my Sweet Bay's Arms
8. Uncle Pen
9. Blackjack Country Chains
10. Banks of the Ohio
11. Sweet Sunny South
12. Little Maggie
13. Footprints in the Snow
14. Blue Moon of Kentucky
15. Down the Road
16. Roll on Buddy
17. Dark Hollow
18. In the Pines
19. How Mountain Girls Can Love
20. Tennessee Walz
21. Nellie Cane
22. House of the Rising Sun
23. Love Potion Number 9
24. Bear Tracks
25. Tennessee Stud
26. Hot Rod Lincoln
27. Smoke, Smoke, Smoke
By: Ronald F. White, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Philosophy
Mount St. Joseph University
In this blog I will develop a preliminary framework for exploring the surprisingly complex meanings of the term "human culture," and the cultural basis for Human Warfare.
For Homo Sapiens it is important to acknowledge that "culture" is a collective concept that is shared within groups of humans, especially: families, religions, nations, businesses, and various ethnic groups. Of course, some human feelings, thoughts, and behaviors are entirely programmed by biological evolution and therefore, primarily, genetic in origin; others are shaped by teaching and learning via cultural evolution. And of course, evolutionarily speaking, both beliefs and behavior evolve, devolve, or remain stable over time. And culture is often reshaped by legality and illegality. John Stuart Mill, the founding father of libertarianism argued that laws that dictate illegality must be employed only to the extent that they prevent involuntary "harm to others." Here's a few examples.
When I was growing up, we often ate fish on Fridays, call it a family tradition that was inspired by pre-Vatican 2 Roman Catholicism. My mother and father were non-attending Roman Catholic and Episcopalian, respectively. My mother was a full-time mother and housewife, and my dad worked in the air conditioning and refrigeration repair business, He had several customers that sold fried fish, which they gave him for free on Fridays. Other customers offered him free draft beer, cheese, ice cream, steaks, and lobsters. One of our neighborhood cultural traditions was for several neighborhood men to sit on our patio and drink beer and tell jokes with dad after dinner. Of course, mom hated that tradition. But dad had other cultural traditions that limited his drinking. He always went to bed at 10 PM and never drank before noon. Of course, one might argue that dad was an alcoholic, and that those other cultural traditions evolved out of his genetic predisposition toward alcohol consumption. My sisters and I became moderate consumers of alcohol. When I attended Eastern Kentucky University in the early 1970s, the sale of alcohol was prohibited within the Richmond city limits, but legal in the county, which inspired the rise of bootleggers. Eventually, the law was changed to illegal only on Sundays, and later it was changed again to allow Sunday sales, after 2 PM. Of course, back then there were no Roman Catholic Churches in Richmond, which would eventually present interesting re-interpretations of the law. Recently, I developed a habit of drinking scotch whisky between 7 and 9 PM. Here in Cincinnati, until very recently, it was illegal for drug stores and grocery stores to sell "hard liquor." You would have to buy it in a state-licensed liquor store. Today, many grocery stores legally sell "hard liquor." Note that I surreptitiously introduced the notions of and legality and licensure into our discussion. Local, state, and federal governments paternalistically legalize and/or illegalize various cultural traditions, others outlaw harmless traditions that are offensive to other groups, often dictated by some acknowledged authority. Some legal and/or moral traditions are positive; "you must do A." Some are negative; "you must not do A." And all traditions also evolve, devolve, and/or remain stable over time. Paternalistic laws are intended to promote individual well-being and prevent "harm to self." Governments often employ licensure as a mean of controlling the sale of some products and services. Recently, the FDA illegalized the sale of menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars, which will be challenged in local and state courts; and ultimately, decided by the Supreme Court. The reason for the ban is that many young children illegally obtain these products, and eventually become "addicted" to tobacco via these products. In the absence of legal sanctions, many addictive products get locked into cultural traditions. But highly desired products and services that are rendered illegal, creates black markets, which generate underground illegal behavior that becomes locked into tradition. Historically, the most prolific black markets involved buying and selling of drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, and weapons (especially guns). Black market formation is limited by geographical legal jurisdictions marked by borders. Hence, black markets are often geographically located adjacent to "free markets" which makes it easier to illegally purchase outlawed products and services and "smuggle" them across borders. Sometimes even law enforcement officers surreptitiously participate in lucrative black-market activity. Libertarians, embrace free market activity and restrict illegality to behaviors that involuntarily harm others. It is often argued that addictive products and services are, necessarily, subject to legal intervention. But we libertarians argue that governments must be limited to providing users with objective information about potentially harmful addictive products and or services. "Don't smoke because you'll get cancer." "Don't visit prostitutes or you will catch a disease." Once adults are duly warned about dangerous products and services, any ill-effects become their own personal responsibility. Hence, drinking is legal but driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal. So, to what degree is cultural influence shaped by legality and free choice? How does cultural influence affect harm to others and personal and/or collective responsibility? And how does the philosophy of human warfare explain the universality and long-term persistence of male violence and human warfare, and the fragility of peace?
First of all, let's acknowledge that human warfare is a collective behavior overwhelmingly promulgated by human males. Second, warfare involves leader-follower hierarchical relationships. Old men tend to be the leaders and young men tend to be the followers. Third, the warfare instinct is evident in others forms of rule-based male behavior, especially child's play, and violent sports, including football, hockey, boxing, wrestling, and even baseball. Street gangs and various police organizations also resemble the structure of organized national armies, including territorial control, rule-based leader-follower relationships, financial gain, and the use of military-style weapons. (AK 47s). The puzzle for evolutionary philosophers is how to explain (via genes and/or culture) the longstanding, worldwide, participation of males and the rules and technologies that tend to shape warlike behavior.
The title of this excellent, well-organized, and well-written book clearly describes its content. It raises important questions concerning the nature of social hierarchies worldwide, but especially in China and Eastern philosophical traditions including Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism; with occasional reference to Western philosophers and contexts. Taken together, the five chapters cover the most important contexts where social hierarchies shape human feelings, thoughts, and behavior. Chapters are as follows: Ch. 1. Just Hierarchy Between Intimates (e.g. friends, lovers, family); Ch. 2. Just Hierarchy Between Citizens (democracy v. meritocracy), Ch. 3. Just Hierarchy Between States (global order); Ch. 4.) Just Hierarchy Between Humans and Animals (food); and, Ch. 5. Just Hierarchy Between Humans and Machines (artificial intelligence). Despite this obvious breadth of analysis, some philosophers will question its depth within the five contexts. Others will its rather cursory discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of the concept of “justice” (merit, need, equality, and utility). Other critics will point out that it neglects recent research on evolutionary psychology and evolutionary leadership. Others will bemoan the relatively sparse reference to Western religious hierarchies especially the Roman Catholic Church, and divisive, unjust Western political leaders like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. In short, there is plenty of room for future research. Moreover, this is highly recommended as a college textbook in both disciplinary and interdisciplinary courses and an important acquisition for most academic libraries. Public libraries with well-developed collections in the social sciences, philosophy, and/or religious studies will also find this to be a worthy acquisition.
Forthcoming Review for Choice Magazine by:
Ronald F. White, Professor Emeritus Mount St. Joseph University
