Right, Law and War

Man possesses a sense of what is right, he formulates it as law and then his law is tested by war, assuming that there is a common sense of right in most men and that the appeal of a law that agrees well with it grants victory in war.

The argument is simple and history supports it. However, due to technological progress war has become impractical, though further technological progress is going to make it practical again while severing it from mass support.

But before we give up on the subject or succumb to short sighted ideas, let us consider at least one glimmer of hope, namely that men, who can be organised so as to manufacture modern weapons, can also be organised so as to assure that their law respects the right.

It is true that no law can cover all cases, but if the law covers enough, charity can make amends. If we were willing, this problem would be solved.

However, in our philosophy we value efficiency higher than right, for efficiency is the cornerstone of power. Efficiency comes first, law follows, then legalism and finally comes decrying war, but without war there is no need for efficiency and without ensuring efficiency there is no (just) cause for war.

There are those who say they want to disregard efficiency altogether, but that can only be done by suppression, so you should either regard them as liars or as monstrous oppressors. Being efficient comes with many advantages to which the efficient entity is entitled. But isn't the ability to avoid (just) causes for war a major advantage? And if it requires of us to not take from the inefficient what is rightfully theirs, not for fear of them, but for the fear of what will be our lot, once we become inefficient, isn't that a price worth paying? Wouldn't a sufficiently efficient group choose that for itself?

There is of course the prospect of unjust and possibly even insane wars, once a sufficiently small group of people can confidently declare war on the rest of humanity, but that I'm accepting as God's responsibility for His creation.

Sadly, though, we're dealing with inferior policies today. Our ability to have meaningful consultations is seriously impaired. And the idea that public opinion battles are a suitable substitute for war in terms of keeping the law in line with the right is mistaken, precisely because of the apparent advantage of such battles, i.e. that they cost very little, for hence they're engaged in for all kinds of reasons and not just in order to defend the right, the highest good most deserving of the ultimate sacrifice. Because of this, force cannot be ruled out as the appropriate means to solve the current situation, though I hope that warfare remains limited.

I predicted this situation, that irresponsibility would lead to despotism. It is here, the despots being the responsible ones. Yet the right has gained standing amongst the people and it is an open question whether a future sermon will be an instrument to elevate the right or to veil the force.