VERSUS
It seems to be an irony of history that periods of intense warfare produce intense climates of mental thought. Not only in art, but philosophy and science too. A prime example is the Warring States Period of Ancient China (475-221 BCE), where 8 states of the old Zhou dynasty fought for supremacy. Before and during this period of incessant combat many philosophies sprung up trying to image the best way to resolve the war, bring peace to the people, create a stable government, and ensure future prosperity. The Chinese joked that a hundred schools of thought manifested during this time, and they weren’t that far off. Posterity has rewarded a lucky few, namely Confucianism and Daoism, but many fascinating and intelligent world-views have faded into time. One I’d like to resurrect today is Mohism, from the great Mozi (470-391 BCE), who was a popular radical in early China. He argued for the concept of universal love, to all human beings and all creatures. He was also an extreme pragmatist. This put him starkly at odds with the Confucists, who believed that some relationships were more significant than others (therefore you can’t love everyone equally) and paid strict observance to ritual (which Mozi said was unpractical and useless).
But I don’t want to clash Mozi with Confucius, rather instead another influential theorist who didn’t author a school of thought at all: Sun-Tzu. In my review of the Art of War I noted how 99% of the work was rather useless, excepting four poignant points that deserve attention: war as the greatest responsibility of the state, the general’s right to disobey the emperor, the emperor’s ethical imperative to avoid or quickly win any battle, and the advantage of the spy over infantry. I think it’ll be fruitful to compare these claims with Mozi who was fiercely anti-war. Let me first analyze them separately and then compare.
Mozi
What comparisons did Mo Tzu use to illustrate the immortality of war? Are these comparisons valid? Are they effective in presenting his argument?
Mozi uses simple allegories to illustrate how in everyday society we take offense at minor and major crimes, and enact punishment on the perpetrator. But when a country commits atrocities we not only turn a blind eye but sometimes celebrate them as ‘righteous’. For example, if a man steals an apple he is a thief, but if a country steals land for agriculture it is labeled as a strong conqueror. To ask whether this is a valid comparison is a good question, and depends on how you view morality. If it is something objective, or ideal, then I don’t think offensive war can be justified. But if morality is utilitarian, then it would depend on the ends. A poor man taking an apple to feed his family isn’t all that bad, just as a country waging war to feed its people is more forgivable. This gets real messy when a country starts waging battles for ancestral land or pre-emptive strikes, but Mozi doesn’t consider or care about these scenarios. His arguments are certainly persuasive given the limits he imposes on war’s aim, but unfortunately there is more nuance here.
The real surprise to me is the complete disregard for the Mandate of Heaven. I’m not sure how he felt about the concept, but my understanding is that any conquest must be approved by Heaven, no? So to call war evil is to ignore a very important theological belief in Chinese history.
What is the moral imperative at the heart of all the actions, including war, that Mo Tzu considers evil? Can his position be reduced to a “golden rule” of appropriate behavior?
It seems Mozi ultimately condemns actions that benefit yourself at the cost of others. This certainly seems like ‘golden rule’ material to me, but what about institutions that act as a middle man? Such as gambling? Or zero-sum economies? Maybe I’m over thinking it, but his rule seems against all competition. Mozi may in fact be an early advocate of socialist economies and equal education. But I run the risk of putting words in his mouth. I know from another piece he argues against entertainment on the grounds it distracts from constructive action, so it seems anything that depletes a moral imperative is degenerate to him.
What is the point of Mo Tzu’s discussion of black and white? What is he saying about human perceptions of scale?
I liked this part, as Mozi simultaneously refutes and
attacks dichotomies of judgment. He mentions how men can judge something when
it is local or easily digestible, but when it becomes abstract or mentally overwhelming,
their judgment becomes inconsistent and they cling to extremes instead of
recognizing nuance, or even simplicity. Microcosms don’t necessarily change
when enlarged. The conclusion is that a man cannot be said to have a strong
ethical stance if it is inconsistent or limited in scope. Mozi argues these
peoples’ opinions should be disregarded as a result.
What does Mo Tzu mean by “offensive warfare”? What do you think he would say about defensive warfare? What conditions does he suggest have to be present to make war immoral?
I think he obviously means war that is meant to take from others for one’s own benefit, similar to his standards for the individual. I assume he would approve a defensive war, as long as it doesn’t grow to be something more. I feel uncomfortable answering the last question as it denies Mozi the right to clarify, but seeing as he’s dead let me have a go: a war is immoral if a country acts based off ‘wants’ and not ‘needs’, like an individual. I can’t say I agree, but I don’t entirely disagree either. This holds the same standards for people as it does states, which is admirable and possibly correct, but doesn’t reflect reality in the least.
Sun Tzu
Why does Sun Tzu structure his advice on war as a series of short epigrams with no expansion or development? What is the rhetorical effect of this structure? Is it more or less effective than a traditional essay format?
What a great question. My guess is that epigrams are frankly more authoritative; instead of proving something you simply state facts with the weight of your experience behind them. I also think they’re more thought provoking, as instead of expending effort being persuaded you spend your time thinking about the statements themselves, which lack more context than a well-reasoned essay. This can also be a con though as it’s less clear, but Sun Tzu may want to encourage creative thinking over placid acceptance.
What does “subdue the enemy without fighting” mean? How is it possible to achieve victory without conflict? Why would a peaceful victory be considered superior to winning an armed conflict?
A beautiful line by Sun Tzu; the statement calls for winning an objective without resorting to violence. The fact is war is simply a means to an end (whether that end is more land, more money, etc.), and it’s more humane to first try and achieve that end without killing people, which should always be avoided if possible. You’re certainly able to achieve victory without conflict through diplomacy, trade, or bribes. The reason peaceful victory is preferable is that it saves human lives, which is self-explanatory. The only advantage to armed conflict is that it’s sometimes easier/quicker, but even that’s debatable.
Why did Sun Tzu hold that “the worst policy is to attack cities”?
Frankly, because the ancient Chinese didn’t have good siege weapons. In Sun Tzu’s time sieging was a huge waste of time, lives, and resources, and it was more effective attacking other objectives. Again the general is concerned with efficient action and saving lives.
Why does Sun Tzu place such great importance on a commander’s self-knowledge? How is self-knowledge important beyond the scope of military conflict? What kinds of mistakes can be made by people who do not really understand themselves?
It’s because a commander should know what they’re strong and what they’re weak at. If a general goes with a strategy he has little experience or affinity for, it can be a disaster, but it would be much wiser to take the option that best fits his abilities. This is good advice outside of warfare too, as we should always know our strengths and weakness to better navigate life.
Can Sun Tzu’s philosophy of war be applied beyond the scope of military affairs? Do any of his aphorisms seem relevant to other kinds of human conflict? Why has The Art of War become a best seller among American business professionals?
The general philosophy and some of his aphorisms, sure. A lot of the AoW is specific only to ancient Chinese warfare, but some of it, particularly his principals and modes of attack, are timeless and good advice for many of life’s conflicts. This is specifically why American businesses, especially in the 1980s, clung to the work. I would say the most useful advice is to understand that a.) Objectives, even when blocked by conflict, need not be unethical. It’s just as important to be humane as it is efficient. And b.) War, as with anything in life, deserves serious study and reflection.
Who Wins?
Compare Sun Tzu’s view of war with that of his contemporary Mo Tzu. Why do you think Mo Tzu writes exclusively about the morality of war while Sun Tzu refuses even to address the question?
I would say the difference is that Sun Tzu accepts the reality of war while Mozi believes it need not be a given. Mozi feels that if people, who honestly try to be good, held their country under the same moral standards they live by, there would be less war and more peace. Sun Tzu perhaps isn’t as optimistic, or rather feels given the inevitability of conflict, it would be more useful to instruct commanders on appropriate action during warfare. This though is also optimistic, as it assumes people will consider these options and not just carelessly spend lives with what’s most convenient.
I can’t easily say who I agree with more. Sun Tzu appears sexier, as he attempts to channel an evil into something more ethical. But Mozi grapples the issue and doesn’t let go: a country and citizenry must all be equally held accountable for their actions. For criticisms, Sun Tzu still dodges the question, and Mozi doesn’t articulate his definition of a just war. That said, the two provide an important debate about conflict that doesn’t exist anywhere else on a world ripe with strife.
What does Mo Tzu mean by “offensive warfare”? What do you think he would say about defensive warfare? What conditions does he suggest have to be present to make war immoral?
I think he obviously means war that is meant to take from others for one’s own benefit, similar to his standards for the individual. I assume he would approve a defensive war, as long as it doesn’t grow to be something more. I feel uncomfortable answering the last question as it denies Mozi the right to clarify, but seeing as he’s dead let me have a go: a war is immoral if a country acts based off ‘wants’ and not ‘needs’, like an individual. I can’t say I agree, but I don’t entirely disagree either. This holds the same standards for people as it does states, which is admirable and possibly correct, but doesn’t reflect reality in the least.
Sun Tzu
Why does Sun Tzu structure his advice on war as a series of short epigrams with no expansion or development? What is the rhetorical effect of this structure? Is it more or less effective than a traditional essay format?
What a great question. My guess is that epigrams are frankly more authoritative; instead of proving something you simply state facts with the weight of your experience behind them. I also think they’re more thought provoking, as instead of expending effort being persuaded you spend your time thinking about the statements themselves, which lack more context than a well-reasoned essay. This can also be a con though as it’s less clear, but Sun Tzu may want to encourage creative thinking over placid acceptance.
What does “subdue the enemy without fighting” mean? How is it possible to achieve victory without conflict? Why would a peaceful victory be considered superior to winning an armed conflict?
A beautiful line by Sun Tzu; the statement calls for winning an objective without resorting to violence. The fact is war is simply a means to an end (whether that end is more land, more money, etc.), and it’s more humane to first try and achieve that end without killing people, which should always be avoided if possible. You’re certainly able to achieve victory without conflict through diplomacy, trade, or bribes. The reason peaceful victory is preferable is that it saves human lives, which is self-explanatory. The only advantage to armed conflict is that it’s sometimes easier/quicker, but even that’s debatable.
Why did Sun Tzu hold that “the worst policy is to attack cities”?
Frankly, because the ancient Chinese didn’t have good siege weapons. In Sun Tzu’s time sieging was a huge waste of time, lives, and resources, and it was more effective attacking other objectives. Again the general is concerned with efficient action and saving lives.
Why does Sun Tzu place such great importance on a commander’s self-knowledge? How is self-knowledge important beyond the scope of military conflict? What kinds of mistakes can be made by people who do not really understand themselves?
It’s because a commander should know what they’re strong and what they’re weak at. If a general goes with a strategy he has little experience or affinity for, it can be a disaster, but it would be much wiser to take the option that best fits his abilities. This is good advice outside of warfare too, as we should always know our strengths and weakness to better navigate life.
Can Sun Tzu’s philosophy of war be applied beyond the scope of military affairs? Do any of his aphorisms seem relevant to other kinds of human conflict? Why has The Art of War become a best seller among American business professionals?
The general philosophy and some of his aphorisms, sure. A lot of the AoW is specific only to ancient Chinese warfare, but some of it, particularly his principals and modes of attack, are timeless and good advice for many of life’s conflicts. This is specifically why American businesses, especially in the 1980s, clung to the work. I would say the most useful advice is to understand that a.) Objectives, even when blocked by conflict, need not be unethical. It’s just as important to be humane as it is efficient. And b.) War, as with anything in life, deserves serious study and reflection.
Who Wins?
Compare Sun Tzu’s view of war with that of his contemporary Mo Tzu. Why do you think Mo Tzu writes exclusively about the morality of war while Sun Tzu refuses even to address the question?
I would say the difference is that Sun Tzu accepts the reality of war while Mozi believes it need not be a given. Mozi feels that if people, who honestly try to be good, held their country under the same moral standards they live by, there would be less war and more peace. Sun Tzu perhaps isn’t as optimistic, or rather feels given the inevitability of conflict, it would be more useful to instruct commanders on appropriate action during warfare. This though is also optimistic, as it assumes people will consider these options and not just carelessly spend lives with what’s most convenient.
I can’t easily say who I agree with more. Sun Tzu appears sexier, as he attempts to channel an evil into something more ethical. But Mozi grapples the issue and doesn’t let go: a country and citizenry must all be equally held accountable for their actions. For criticisms, Sun Tzu still dodges the question, and Mozi doesn’t articulate his definition of a just war. That said, the two provide an important debate about conflict that doesn’t exist anywhere else on a world ripe with strife.
No comments:
Post a Comment