Peace and Philosophy

By David Sztybel, Ph.D.

"Teach-in" talk for the Ontario Public Interest Research Group (Queen's University), delivered at Kingston Public Library, October 29, 2001

People are often dismissive of philosophy when it comes to matters political. The background assumption is that such thinking, the search for wisdom, can come to no true or even useful conclusion. This teach-in is specifically designed to show, in relatively simple terms, not only that our current crisis of terrorism is a direct result of philosophy gone mad, in a sense, in the minds of certain people, but also that philosophy can in fact help point the way towards a more peaceful life. Therefore, even though I am an academic, I hope that does not disqualify me from trying to offer some ideas that may be of some practical value in pursuing a meaningful ideal of peace. It is obvious enough, at least for our purposes, that there are some things we need to be rid of in order to have peace. The most obvious of these is violence, at least in the final analysis. Beyond that virtually self-evident conclusion, philosophy of peace holds that each of us, in a sense, is part of "the peace process," and that there can be no whole of peace on Earth which is not made up of deeply peaceful individuals just like you and me.

"Philosophy gone mad." I used this phrase earlier with some consideration. Make no mistake. The people who planned and executed the attack on the U.S. on Tuesday, September 11 of this year were "rational" at least in some limited sense, and even though we do not know a great deal about them, or their affiliation, nor all the details of their planning, we can be sure of one key component of their moral philosophy. These people were consequentialists. That is, they have tossed key moral principles of action out the window, such as "Do not kill," or the Golden Rule, one key version of which is "Do not unto another that which would be hurtful to you." But although they cast such principles aside, they did it for a greater payoff: killing Americans, their perceived "enemies," and also, it may seem, instigating an entire war with their hated foes. Consequentialists, in essence, will do anything so long as there is deemed to be a sufficient payoff to "justify" the action. These terrorist consequentialists, in their warlike aggressiveness and contempt for those different from themselves, are very far from that comparatively more noble version of consequentialism, utilitarianism, which impartially seeks to create as much net good as possible in the world. The aggressors chose a target that would, it seemed to them, yield much in the way of desired consequences, and in following their principle of action, the attack is not quite as "random" as commonly described, although there is no denying that one may justly say that some people suffered from unspeakably terrible misfortunes as a result. You know at least some of the details of that. Is this philosophy gone mad? If sane people are never supposed to toss aside the Golden Rule then it is. Criminally insane people put aside such principles without conscience. That, at least, has been a presupposition of the finer parts of our civilization, and far be it from me to dispute such a notion, especially on this occasion.

But shall we determinedly toss aside philosophy after all, in the name of economic "realities," or political "realism"? Let us, then, be "realistic." It is not just money that guides our expenditures and profiteering, but those with a conscience also choose according to values and principles. We are not blind machines, and can identify things that matter to others just as vividly as anything might matter to ourselves. We can also choose not to be so cynical as to discard anything that, it is deeply apparent, does or might matter to ourselves. Nihilism leads precisely nowhere.

It matters that many past philosophies support war, including some forms of consequentialism, many forms of religious zealotry, and indeed many stripes of "high ideals." It also matters that we can talk about a philosophical antidote to violent ideas which give rise to violent practices. However, if we oppose such bellicose ideologies with the pursuit of inner peace as a personal ideal, where all we seek is our inner bliss, this becomes part of the problem, not part of the solution.

In particular, history has shown that inaction,, and refusal to intervene in matters of aggression, results precisely in aggression running rampant. That said, not all refusals to resort to force are matters of inaction at all, although I have no doubt that many people would like nothing more than to live in "the land of the lotus eaters." Gandhi's willingness to be beaten to death without resisting takes fierce courage, commitment, and active restraint, as well as an active attempt to convert one's opponent's hatred through what he called "love." Still, it was one thing when Gandhi admirably and sensibly used the practice of non-violence to embarrass the British Empire out of India. The British officials had liberal or humanitarian ideals, and their colony of India was proving, increasingly, to be a millstone around the English neck. It is entirely another thing to imagine that complete absence of force is enough to stop an aggressor who is virtually without conscience. I am not afraid to speak out about peace that may involve the use of force, just as I am glad that freedom of expression has allowed absolute pacifists the liberty to express their own views without reproach or scorn. I personally honour the men and women who serve as peacekeepers in this world, and who may use force to that end, although only as a last resort. Moreover, if force is used to secure a situation, that can never be the whole answer. The problem remains of a disrespectful agent who needed to be subdued, who is probably feeling frightened, mistrustful, cynical, vindictive, or otherwise aggressive. That agent still needs to be transformed into one who respects others through empathy, sympathy, and reasonableness, and these things cannot be forced. It is no accident that Gandhi said, in his autobiography, that the only way he has known of changing people are through, in effect, personal example and also interpersonal dialogue.

Violence is always a bad thing, but it is always wrong? What if, indeed, it is the lesser of two evils, or what if a judicious exertion of force results in less violence overall? This need not be consequentialist, by the way, insofar as it is based on an ethic of equal respect for all, and being willing to assert that ethic with one's whole being. In my experience, peace does not just fall into one's lap, and if it does, say, when one meditates, that is partly because someone else has died to preserve the freedom to meditate, as opposed to the freedom to toil under a repressive and intolerant totalitarian regime. If it is wrong to allow preventable evil as it is to commit it directly, then those who do not act to oppose violence may be as responsible for permitting it as if they committed it themselves. A personal commitment to not being forceful in one's own actions, and keeping oneself "pure" in that sense, is not the same as being opposed to force with the whole of one's being, or indeed the same as escaping all responsibility for effectively opposing the aggression of others.

Peace is not just an inner feeling, nor indeed a concrete state of affairs "out there" in the world. Ideally, I suppose that it results from behaviours of people committed to the ideal of equal respect for all. Still, are there more specific philosophical ideas that might promote, maintain, and protect peace? I think that there are, and please allow me to share with you now some of these ideas that are part of the tapestry of this world's philosophies. Some of this may seem obvious, but perhaps all of it is worth collecting together here. We need, I think, to remind ourselves and others of what we need, and indeed of what is too often missing in a world who oases of peace are often fragile ecosystems at best. There are fifteen broad, sometimes interconnecting ideas that I offer for your consideration:

1. Accepting reality as it is. This principle is vital to peace. Those who do not accept reality may in turn fail to find what is ideal. They may experience inner contradictions, turmoil, frustration, sorrows, anger, rage, and even terror. Accepting reality as it is means not hoping for impossible dreams to be realized in an instant, not expecting people to conform to ill-considered ideals, nor indeed measuring the worth of individuals by something they are not. But accepting reality as it is also means, more positively, realizing our inestimable potential for betterment as a species, which history shows does exist, as well as our potential for retrogression. It means accepting the practical reality that each of us enjoys a conscious point of view, central to our existence, our contact with the physical world, and our very quality of life. And who has the right to accept their own conscious life and to discard or degrade that of any other?
2. Maintaining a balance and not going to extremes. This idea is as ancient as the Yin and Yang of the Taoists, which involves balancing apparent contraries, such as being active and being passive, and the Golden Mean of Aristotle, which involves avoiding both excess and deficiency, in the way that foolhardiness is an excess of the virtue of bravery, and cowardice is a deficiency. If we insist on either extremes or deficiencies, peace is not promoted, and someone will inevitably pay the price.
3. Not giving in to the nihilism of "anything goes." Even if we are skeptical as much as possible in philosophy, it remains constant that there are certain "practical realities" such as chairs, tables, people, choices, and also the repugnance of harm to all those who refuse, in all cynicism, dogmatically to discard what is apparently good, for all that we find in our experiences.
4. Keeping hope alive, especially in times of difficulty. In realistically reckoning possibilities, we must not jump to negative conclusions that discount hope. If we do that, it is a self-fulfilling prophesy that eliminates the very possibility, since it is up to those who endure and persist to realize hopeful possibilities.
5. Being humble. Those who are arrogant again dismiss the equal reality of others, and are apt to impose their arrogance in the form of neglecting or exploiting those whom they dismiss as "inferiors." What room has a peaceful world for such hubris? Humble people also cannot be knocked down as easily, since they never have quite as far to fall as those who are pompous.
6. Empathy and sympathy. If we have fellow feeling, and again strive for some limited sense of what it is like to be another (for we can only have a limited sense, at any time, even of what it is like to be ourselves!), we will in some sense identify with others and their good, and as a direct result, not strive with them. We will be at peace with them to the extent that this is possible, avoiding imposing upon them, or being in an adversarial relationship that treats them more like instruments to exploit, or petty items to neglect, rather than fully conscious beings to whom things matter as much as anything matters to oneself. If empathy and sympathy are too "soft" as capacities for the thoroughly rational "hard realist," who would therefore wish to discard them, let me remind everyone that someone truly lacking sympathy and empathy is nothing more or less than a psychopath. Is that "hard" enough a reality for the hard realist to deal with? Empathy and sympathy are largely neglected in Western ethics, with the exception of feminist thinkers, and although Eastern traditions stress compassion, or benevolence, these concepts, in my experience, still need to be articulated in a way that is philosophically rigorous (as a general statement about world philosophy). Gesturing towards fellow-feeling is never enough, and while more than this has already been accomplished, much more need be done.
7. An ideal of anti-oppression. Just the fact that someone belongs to a different group in no way gives anyone else a license to harm them. I do not care if the "different" one is black, gay, female, old, young, differently abled, nonhuman, or whatever, the error in reasoning, and blocked empathy and sympathy, have the same essential form. The peace that follows when beings are uplifted and liberated from such irrational prejudices also may have much the same form, for all we might know.
8. A practical concern for social justice. If you do not uphold this, then you uphold the illogic of oppression, even if you reject its fallacious licensing of harming those who are merely different in your intellect alone.
9. Rejecting revenge. We have all heard the idea of two wrongs not making a right, yet not all of us feel that revenge is wrong. Perhaps this is because we lose our empathetic and sympathetic acknowledgement of others and their good if we dislike them. But it need not be so. And it may be that respect for others is inalienable, or someone's due, even if they do not always accord this due to others.
10. Learning to focus or to concentrate. It is no accident that great Eastern traditions such as Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Jainism and others have emphasized the art of meditation, which is the contemplative art of focussing. We are not at peace if we are fragmented in many directions at once. We also do not promote peace (balancing considerations here after the manner of Yin and Yang) if we go to the other extreme and adopt "tunnel vision." It is easy to neglect one thing while focussing on another, and yet we may not be able to neglect the cost for very long.
11. Using a system of values, based in deep respect as non-negotiable, to sort out one's priorities. Life is full of possibilities for wonderful activity. Peace need not be passive. But in our travels through this world, let us not forget the ideal which most guarantees peace for all: deep respect for all whom we might come to affect.
12. Being assertive, as opposed to merely passively surrendering the peace, or else aggressively sundering it. Peace cannot be protected unless it is asserted. If it is not asserted, it is as much as denied.
13. Choosing your battles. This is part of being assertive, or choosing when and how one will assert oneself. Obsessive criticism (negative criticism, psychologists have shown, is what people consider to be most stresful in life) or battling does not conduce to growth through peaceful dialogue and consideration of others' potential, but only leads to more strife, entrenchment of opposing camps, stagnation, and even retrogression. This is so however "progressive" one's intentions in joining the "battle" for social change. One cannot force others to be sympathetic, rational, or empathetic. If we try, we merely add to the violent forces and counter-forces already at work in this troubled world.
14. Think big. Realize that we all depend on a common natural environment, and that little things affect it, and its ability to nurture us in peace. We are not at peace if we soil our nests, or use up all the materials for nest-building. We may also need the political will to address big problems that transcend national boundaries, such as nuclear proliferation, transnational corporate greed and irresponsibility, again pollution and resource depletion, poverty, racism, rights violations, and injustice. Concern for injustice knows no boundaries, for nationalistic or racist myopia are themselves patently oppressive forms of injustice.
15. Think small. Even those whose power is small compared to humans, from the humble mouse to the greatest nonhuman ape, deserves our respectful consideration. Empathy and sympathy that are needed for deep respect do not magically halt at the species-boundary of human beings. Indeed, rationality demands self-consistency, and we would never, I hope, treat human beings who are severely mentally challenged, or who do not look like a so-called "normal" humans, with disrespect. Why disrespect other conscious, suffering beings, then, who do not look like us and are not as powerful in all of their varied capacities? I don't know about most of you, but I personally stand with veganism, and value peace with all our fellow creatures. I contend that peace towards animals is not just because this makes us more likely to be peaceful towards human beings (although I think it does, or at least it might). You might reject animal rights, although I hope not without all due consideration, but if anyone supports intensive farming, as most people do in their food choices, then you must question whether or not you are even really humane.

But let me come back to thinking big. Philosophy is thinking big, truly expansive of mind and open of heart, at least when it does not go wrong, as we saw it go so very wrong on September 11. Peace is bigger than war, really, but it is not yet big enough. It is up to us.

click on your home

to go to home page