War, The Philosophy of | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
A setting to explore the relationship between human nature and war is provided by Thomas Hobbes, who. For instance, if you want to improve your relationships and stop the conflict in them, The Art Of War can help you, and we will talk about how. Buy Love, War, and Circuses: The Age-Old Relationship Between Elephants and Humans on cypenv.info ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders.
Prior to this trend, Elton Mayo already started an experiment in the Hawthorne plants in ; the Hawthorne experiment. There was a great deal of discontent among the 30, workers in the Hawthorne plants in Chicago in the early twenties of the last century.
This was somewhat peculiar, because this phone parts plant already acted extremely progressively towards its workers through pensions and sickness benefitssomething which was almost unthinkable in this period. Elton Mayo and his assistants, including Fritz Roetlishbergerconducted research into changing working conditions. They experimented with light, duration of breaks and working hours. A group of women were exposed to either more or less light.
Human relations movement - Wikipedia
It turned out that, regardless of the amount and duration of lighting, this had a positive effect on their performances. The same was true for rest periods; shorter or longer breaks both led to an increase in labour productivity. Personal Attention The conclusion drawn from the Hawthorne research was that giving attention to employees resulted in improved performances. The group of workers who were involved in the search felt their voices heard and experienced a feeling of greater personal freedom.
The workers were pleased that their assistance was requested, which they believed led to their higher job performances. Moreover, during the study, senior officials regularly visited the workplace, making the workers feel like they belonged to a certain elite group.
This personal attention stimulated the group to work even harder together and give their all for the organisation. Collaboration in an informal group is also one of the main aspects of the Human Relations Theory.
Elton Mayo concluded that the needs of workers were often based on sentiment belonging to a group and thus having a sense of value and that this could lead to conflicts with managers, who mainly focused on cost reduction and efficiency.
And thus he came to the following final conclusions: Individual employees must be seen as members of a group; Salary and good working conditions are less important for employees and a sense of belonging to a group; Informal groups in the workplace have a strong influence on the behaviour of employees in said group; Managers must take social needs, such as belonging to an informal group, seriously.
The fact that personal attention led to improved performances was a completely new perspective. The term workers is gradually replaced with employee, which more explicitly implies that these people are thinking people who can positively contribute to the organisation.
Characteristics Starting in the s, a definitive different approach to management emerges. Employee behaviour is placed centrally and the Human Relations theory places strong emphasis on the fact that organisations consist of groups of people. Human Relations supporters thus replace the mechanistic perspective on management with a people-oriented perspective. Every person is unique and therefore unpredictable. Their behaviour is complex and to fully understand them it is important to recognise their personal motivations.
Soft side The way employees think and act at work is not only influenced by rules, procedures and requirements imposed by management.
This soft side consists of emotional or irrational logic and can strengthen rational logic, but at the same time also weaken or eliminate it. Wherein lies its cause then becomes the intellectual quest: While the modern mind has increased the complexity of the nature of the university, many still refer to the universe's material nature or its laws for examining why war arises. Some seek more complicated versions of the astrological vision of the medieval mind e.
In a weaker form of determinism, theorists claim that man is a product of his environment-however that is defined-but he also possesses the power to change that environment.
Arguments from this perspective become quite intricate, for they often presume that 'mankind' as a whole is subject to inexorable forces that prompt him to wage war, but that some people's acts-those of the observers, philosophers, scientists-are not as determined, for they possess the intellectual ability to perceive what changes are required to alter man's martial predispositions. Again, the paradoxes and intricacies of opinions here are curiously intriguing, for it may be asked what permits some to stand outside the laws that everybody else is subject to?
Others, who emphasize man's freedom to choose, claim that war is a product of his choice and hence is completely his responsibility.
Human Relations Theory by Elton Mayo
But thinkers here spread out into various schools of thought on the nature of choice and responsibility. By its very collective nature, considerations of war's causation must encroach into political philosophy and into discussions on a citizen's and a government's responsibility for a war.
Such concerns obviously trip into moral issues to what extent is the citizen morally responsible for war? Descriptive and normative problems arise here, for one may inquire who is the legal authority to declare war, then move to issues of whether that authority has or should have legitimacy. For example, one may consider whether that authority reflects what 'the people' want or should wantor whether the authority informs them of what they want or should want.
Here, some blame aristocracies for war e. Vico, New Science, sect. Those who thus emphasize war as a product of man's choices bring to the fore his political and ethical nature, but once the broad philosophical territory of metaphysics has been addressed other particular causes of war can be noted. These may be divided into three main groupings: Some claim war to be a product of man's inherited biology, with disagreements raging on the ensuing determinist implications.
Example theories include those that claim man to be naturally aggressive or naturally territorial, more complex analyses incorporate game theory and genetic evolution to explain the occurrence of violence and war cf. Richard Dawkins for interesting comments on this area.
Within this broad school of thought, some accept that man's belligerent drives can be channeled into more peaceful pursuits William Jamessome worry about man's lack of inherited inhibitions to fight with increasingly dangerous weapons Konrad Lorenzand others claim the natural process of evolution will sustain peaceful modes of behavior over violent Richard Dawkins.
Rejecting biological determinism, culturalists seek to explain war's causation in terms of particular cultural institutions. Again determinism is implied when proponents claim that war is solely a product of man's culture or society, with different opinions arising as to the nature or possibility of cultural change.
For example, can the 'soft morality' of trade that engages increasing numbers in peaceful intercourse counteract and even abolish bellicose cultural tendencies as Kant believesor are cultures subject to an inertia, in which the imposition of external penalties or a supra-national state may be the only means to peace?
The problem leads to questions of an empirical and a normative nature on the manner in which some societies have foregone war and on the extent to which similar programs may be deployed in other communities.
For example, what generated peace between the warring tribes of England and what denies the people of Northern Ireland or Yugoslavia that same peace? Rationalists are those who emphasize the efficacy of man's reason in human affairs, and accordingly proclaim war to be a product of reason or lack of. To some this is a lament-if man did not possess reason, he might not seek the advantages he does in war and he would be a more peaceful beast.
To others reason is the means to transcend culturally relative differences and concomitant sources of friction, and its abandonment is the primary cause of war cf. John Locke, Second Treatise, sect. Proponents of the mutual benefits of universal reason have a long and distinguished lineage reaching back to the Stoics and echoing throughout the Natural Law philosophies of the medieval and later scholars and jurists. It finds its best advocate in Immanuel Kant and his famous pamphlet on Perpetual Peace.
Many who explain war's origins in man's abandonment of reason also derive their thoughts from Plato, who argues that "wars and revolutions and battles are due simply and solely to the body and its desires. Echoes of Plato's theories abound in Western thought, resurfacing for example, in Freud's cogitation on war "Why War" in which he sees war's origins in the death instinct, or in Dostoyevsky's comments on man's inherent barbarity: In every man, of course, a beast lies hidden-the beast of rage, the beast of lustful heat at the screams of the tortured victim, the beast of lawlessness let off the chain, the beast of diseases that follow on vice, gout, kidney disease, and so on.
For example, an emphasis on man's reason as the cause of war is apt to ignore deep cultural structures that may perpetuate war in the face of the universal appeal to peace, and similarly may ignore inherited pugnacity in some individuals or even in some groups.
Similarly, an emphasis on the biological etiology of war can ignore man's intellectual capacity to control, or his will to go against, his predispositions. In other words, human biology can affect thinking what is thought, how, for what duration and intensityand can accordingly affect cultural developments, and in turn cultural institutions can affect biological and rational developments e.
The examination of war's causation triggers the need for elaboration on many sub-topics, regardless of the internal logical validity of a proposed explanation. Students of war thus need to explore beyond proffered definitions and explanations to consider the broader philosophical problems that they often conceal. Human Nature and War A setting to explore the relationship between human nature and war is provided by Thomas Hobbes, who presents a state of nature in which the 'true' or 'underlying' nature of man is likely to come to the fore of our attention.
Hobbes is adamant that without an external power to impose laws, the state of nature would be one of immanent warfare. That is, "during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. Locke rejects Hobbes's complete anarchic and total warlike state but accepts that there will always be people who will take advantage of the lack of legislation and enforcement.
Rousseau inverts Hobbes's image to argue that in the state of nature man is naturally peaceful and not belligerent, however when Rousseau elaborates on international politics he is of a similar mind, arguing that states must be active aggressive otherwise they decline and founder; war is inevitable and any attempts at peaceful federations are futile.
Kant's position is that the innate conflict between men and later between states prompts humanity to seek peace and federation. It is not that man's reason alone teaches him the benefits of a pacifistic concord, but that war, which is inevitable when overarching structures are absent, induces men to consider and realize more peaceful arrangements of their affairs, yet even Kant retained a pessimistic conception of mankind: Communitarians of various hues reject the notion of an isolated individual pitted against others and prompted to seek a contract between themselves for peace.
Some critics prefer an organic conception of the community in which the individual's ability to negotiate for peace through a social contract or to wage war is embedded in the social structures that form him. Reverting to John Donne's "no man is an island" and to Aristotle's "man is a political animal", proponents seek to emphasize the social connections that are endemic to human affairs, and hence any theoretical construction of human nature, and thus of war, requires an examination of the relevant society man lives in.
Since the governing elements of man's nature are thereby relative to time and place, so too is war's nature and ethic, although proponents of this viewpoint can accept the persistence of cultural forms over time.
For instance, the communitarian view of war implies that Homeric war is different from war in the Sixteenth Century, but historians might draw upon evidence that the study of Greek warfare in the Iliad may influence later generations in how they conceive themselves and warfare.
Others reject any theorizing on human nature. Kenneth Waltz, for example argues: This danger here is that this absolves any need to search for commonalties in warriors of different periods and areas, which could be of great benefit both to military historians and peace activists.
War and Political and Moral Philosophy The first port of call for investigating war's morality is the just war theorywhich is well discussed and explained in many text books and dictionaries and can also be viewed on the IEP. However, once the student has considered, or is at least aware of the broader philosophical theories that may relate to war, an analysis of its ethics begins with the question: Again, due notice must be given to conceptions of justice and morality that involve both individuals and groups.
War as a collective endeavor engages a co-ordinated activity in which not only the ethical questions of agent responsibility, obedience and delegation are ever present but so too are questions concerning the nature of agency. Can nations be morally responsible for the war's they are involved in, or should only those with the power to declare war be held responsible?
Similarly, should individual Field Marshalls be considered the appropriate moral agent or the army as a corporate body? What guilt, if any, should the Private bear for his army's aggression, and likewise what guilt, if any, should a citizen, or even a descendant, bear for his country's war crimes?
And is there such a thing as a 'war crime'? Just war theory begins with an assessment of the moral and political criteria for justifying the initiation of war defensive or aggressivebut critics note that the justice of warfare is already presumed in just war theory: Thus the initial justice of war requires reflection.
Pacifists deny that war, or even any kind of violence, can be morally permissible, but, as with the other positions noted above, a variety of opinions exists here, some admitting the use of war only in defense and as a last resort defencists whereas others absolutely do not admit violence or war of any sort absolutist pacifists.
Moving from the pacifist position, other moralists admit the use of war as a means to support, defend, or secure peace, but such positions may permit wars of defense, deterrence, aggression, and intervention for that goal. Beyond what has been called the pacificistic morality in which peace is the end goal as distinct from pacifism and its rejection of war as a meansare those theories that establish an ethical value in war.
Few consider war should be fought for war's sake, but many writers have supported war as a means to various ends other than peace.
For example, as a vehicle to forge national identity, to pursue territorial aggrandizement, or to uphold and strive for a variety of virtues such as glory and honor.