THREAD:
I am glad that Kruptos brings up war in particular, because I had that exact question in mind when I wrote what I did.
War certainly is an art, and so is politics. They have certain rules according to their domain. However…
I am glad that Kruptos brings up war in particular, because I had that exact question in mind when I wrote what I did.
War certainly is an art, and so is politics. They have certain rules according to their domain. However…
2. …contra the notion that war or lethal coercive force are necessary evils that one must be permitted to perform, I would affirm that war and lethal coercive force (I avoid the generic term “killing,” since it is either just or unjust, never neutral) are virtuous in se.
3. How is this possible, if war is the result of sin? It is possible because it is retributive, and since all political authority comes from God, the sovereign ruler and those he delegates, either explicitly or implicitly, are exercising God’s justice over criminals.
4. The entire corpus of just war theory depends precisely on this affirmation. Since there is no such thing as a “necessary evil,” therefore war is either just - in which case it is virtuous - or it is unjust - in which case it is murderous and criminal.
5. From here, we need to cite the law of nations, for how can one nation hold another to be criminal if it is from an alien jurisdiction? Well, via the natural law, which is the basis for the positive law of particular polities (and the foundation of those polities).
6. If my polity injures the citizens of another, or greatly insults that polity’s dignity by, for example, attacking its ambassador, then I have committed an injustice that exists regardless of any sort of positive political determination. Same with defrauders, rapists, etc.
7. Prior to or outside the properly political, the act was still unjust, and restitution is due. Now, here is where the political comes in. If a lawful polity judges that some particular restitution is due, & is reasonable in its demands, the process is an act of true justice.
8. Here, we see true natural virtues at play in the basis and constitution of lawful polities. Already, politics is serving the common good.
This all comes from a metaphysical system that is also pre-modern, but it is Aristotelian rather than strictly Platonistic.
This all comes from a metaphysical system that is also pre-modern, but it is Aristotelian rather than strictly Platonistic.
9. The virtue of this system, I believe, is that it is true.
Besides that, for the nostalgists reading this who may not be convinced of things via philosophical reasoning, this form of reasoning is also the basis of Roman law, the English common law, and Christendom.
Besides that, for the nostalgists reading this who may not be convinced of things via philosophical reasoning, this form of reasoning is also the basis of Roman law, the English common law, and Christendom.
10. The tradition of the natural virtues & the natural law as the basis for ethics and politics does not require some sort of Christian holy war or a theocratic state wherein everything is religious. It simply requires men to pursue the common good within their domain of action.
11. Most Machiavellian accounts of why politics are amoral (including raison d’état) seem to be shaped by a situation wherein warring states & ambition are the norm. But I do not believe they hold true for such figures as St Louis or Charlemagne, who I mentioned earlier.
12. Why is this? How could St Louis be both prudent & effective while also not taking moral shortcuts for some short-term gain? It’s because ultimately politics is a human endeavor, and a just man like this great saint can move his opponents to a deal by appealing to nobility.
13. But it has to be convincing, this appeal, not formulaic. To the cynical, everything is cynical. To the lustful, everything is filthy. Machiavelli’s politics (&, I would say, Protestantism generally, but that’s another conversation) seem to come from a mentality of despair.
14. Ultimately, I think that men are truly moved by the example of wisdom combined with power. But the proponent of such a political program has to speak to them as men. Civic friendship must be cultivated.
15. But civic friendship can only be cultivated among those who are already virtuous and therefore fit to be citizens. Machiavelli’s target audience of his time was perhaps already too corrupted by greed & vainglory.
16. One of the tragedies of the Enlightenment and bureaucratization is the notion that politics is not something that happens among men as such, but only according to inhuman “rational processes.” The right process will get the right outcome. But this is naive.
17. Men simply aren’t equal in their fitness for political participation, and those who might be fit can be corrupted if not kept honest by bonds of fellowship. There is no alternative to risking one’s trust. But, in this courageous act, good politics is possible among men.
CONCLUSION:
Politics is the art of governing men toward virtue, prosperity, & contemplation of the good. Since men have a natural end that is good in itself (virtue), they can be steered to this. But it requires being willing to own the consequences of extending one’s trust.
Politics is the art of governing men toward virtue, prosperity, & contemplation of the good. Since men have a natural end that is good in itself (virtue), they can be steered to this. But it requires being willing to own the consequences of extending one’s trust.
Loading suggestions...