Against Realism

Against "Realism"

• War has been discussed in terms of right and wrong for a long time. Some argue that war is beyond moral judgment, a world apart where self-interest and necessity prevail.

• Inter arma silent leges: In time of war, the law is silent, sometimes extended to other competitive activities like love.

• The language used to discuss love and war is rich with moral meaning, developed through centuries of argument, containing words of judgment such as:

  • Faithfulness

  • Devotion

  • Chastity

  • Shame

  • Adultery

  • Seduction

  • Betrayal

  • Aggression

  • Self-defense

  • Appeasement

  • Cruelty

  • Ruthlessness

  • Atrocity

  • Massacre

• Often, there is a lack of courage in judgments, especially in military conflict.

• Hesitancy and uncertainty exist when justifying or condemning attacks, as if unsure if judgments reach the reality of war.

The Moral Reality of War

• Realism: Defenders of silent leges claim inhumanity is simply humanity under pressure. War strips away civilized adornments, revealing nakedness characterized as:

  • Fearful

  • Self-concerned

  • Driven

  • Murderous

• This description is often used as an apology for atrocities committed by soldiers, claiming that's what war does to people.

• The proverb "all's fair" is invoked in defense of conduct that appears unfair.

• A general account of war exists as a realm of necessity and duress, making discourse about particular cases seem like idle chatter.

• This account is challenged at its source, particularly as put forward by:

  • The historian Thucydides

  • The philosopher Thomas Hobbes

• Hobbes translated Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War and generalized its argument in Leviathan.

• The judgment of war and wartime conduct is a serious enterprise.

The Melian Dialogue

• The dialogue between Athenian generals (Cleomedes and Tisias) and magistrates of Melos is a high point of Thucydides' History and the climax of his realism.

• Melos, a Spartan colony, refused to be subject to Athens and entered open war after Athenian aggression.

• Thucydides aims to show the inner meaning of war through this dialogue.

• The Athenian generals forgo fine words about justice, focusing on what is feasible and necessary, stating that:

  • "They that have odds of power exact as much as they can, and the weak yield to such conditions as they can get."

• The Athenians believe they must expand their empire or lose what they have. Melos's neutrality is seen as a sign of weakness, inspiring rebellion.

• Men will always reign over those they are too strong for, driven by desire for glory and the necessity of inter-state politics.

• Conquering when possible is a "necessity of nature".

• The Melians face a harsh necessity: yield or be destroyed, understanding that it is not a match of valor.

• They value freedom above safety, willing to undergo danger rather than suffer bondage.

• The Melians hope for assistance from the Spartans, who are obliged to defend them out of consanguinity and honor.

• However, the Athenian generals state that the gods also reign where they can, and that Spartans will only think of themselves, holding for honorable that which pleases and for just that which profits.

• The magistrates refused to surrender, and the Athenians laid siege to Melos, eventually betraying it, killing all men of military age, enslaving women and children, and inhabiting the place with a colony of 500 men.

• The dialogue is a literary and philosophical construction by Thucydides, with the magistrates' piety and heroism serving as a foil to the "depraved shrewdness" of the Athenian generals.

• The Athenian policies reflect a loss of ethical balance, restraint, and moderation, representing the imperial decadence of the city-state.

• Their "realistic" speeches ironically contrast with the Athenians' disastrous expedition to Sicily, making the History a tragedy with Athens as the tragic hero.

• The harshness of the Athenian generals is seen not as depravity but as impatience, tough-mindedness, and honesty.

• The "principle of force forms a realm of its own, with laws of its own," distinct from moral life.

• The slaughter of the Melians is explained by the circumstances of war and the necessities of nature.

• Thucydides has not explicitly provided insight into the Athenian decision-making process.

• In the Athenian assembly, the word necessity could mean indispensable or inevitable.

• The generals likely argued that destroying Melos was necessary (indispensable) for preserving the empire.

• This claim is rhetorical, evading the moral question of whether preserving the empire was itself necessary.

• The generals' arguments are based on probabilities and risks, which are always arguable.

• The outcome is determined by opinions held and decisions freely made, not by a "necessity of nature."

• Judgments of necessity are retrospective, made by historians, not historical actors.

• The moral point of view derives legitimacy from the perspective of the actor.

• The Athenian generals recognize the importance of such questions, believing others in their position would do the same.

• The "Melian decree" was sharply opposed in the Athenian assembly.

• Plutarch claims Alcibiades was the principal cause of the slaughter, advocating for the decree.

• Mytilene, an Athenian ally, rebelled and allied with the Spartans. After capture, the assembly initially determined to kill all men of age and enslave the women and children.

• The citizens then felt repentance, considering the cruelty of destroying the whole city.

• Cleon argued for collective guilt and retributive justice; Diodotus critiqued the deterrent effects of capital punishment.

• The assembly accepted Diodotus' position, believing the destruction of Mytilene would not uphold treaties or ensure stability.

• Moral anxiety, not political calculation, led them to worry about the effectiveness of their decree.

• In the debate over Melos, there was no retributivist argument to make, as the Melians had done Athens no injury.

• Alcibiades likely argued that the decree was needed to reduce the risks of rebellion.

• His opponents likely argued that the decree was dishonorable and unjust, exciting resentment rather than fear.

• The decision was not predetermined, as debate was effective.

• The realism of the Athenian generals denies the freedom that makes moral decision possible and the meaningfulness of moral argument.

• Talk about justice is merely talk, with no clear references, definitions, or logical entailments, expressing only appetites and fears.

• Everyone holds for honorable that which pleases them and for just that which profits.

• The names of virtues and vices have