McMurtry, J. (1989). Understanding war. Science for Peace; Samuel Stevens.
Toronto (Canadian Papers in Peace Studies)
[Download Full Document (PDF)]
[Download Collated NotebookLM Reports (PDF)]
Deep Dive Audio Overview | Humans Are Not Natural Born Killers
Deep Dive Audio Overview | The Pathological Logic of the Military Paradigm
Critique | The Disabling Pattern of Military Coercion
Debate | Is The Military Paradigm Human Nature?
Video Explainer | Understanding War
Click on Infographic to enlarge
Executive Summary
The Problem with the Military Paradigm
The contemporary military system is increasingly recognized by the global public as a repugnant, obsolescent mechanism that threatens the survival of civilization. However, established political systems and ruling interests continue to rely on the capacity for mass homicide as the ultimate measure of national power. Conventional philosophical and strategic thought assumes a rigid definition of war: an organized engagement seeking to efficiently kill or mutilate large numbers of human beings. This “tribal a priori” blinds society to alternative, non-lethal forms of conflict resolution.
Re-evaluating the “Self,” the “Purpose,” and the “Enemy”
The military paradigm rests on deeply flawed metaphysical assumptions about national identity and purpose.
- National Purpose: Ruling groups routinely use the rhetoric of “national security” as a pretext to secure private advantages, such as immense profits from arms races, access to foreign resources, or domestic political control. Consequently, the interests of the non-combatant beneficiaries of war directly contradict the interests of the civilian populations who pay for and die in these conflicts.
- The National Enemy: Nations frequently project the label of “enemy” onto extra-territorial or domestic groups who resist ruling-class exploitation. By requiring a perpetual threat to justify escalating military budgets, the state effectively creates a closed loop of militarization. In reality, the most immediate physical and economic threat to civilian populations today is their own domestic military-industrial complex.
The Ethics of Combat and Modes of War
A fundamental flaw in traditional “just war” theory is its failure to distinguish between an evil pattern of behavior (such as fascism or the military program) and the persons coerced into executing it. Moral wars should aim to destroy destructive structures and institutions, not the human beings involuntarily constrained by them. Furthermore, war does not necessitate human slaughter. Humanity engages in highly successful, enabling “wars” against disease, pestilence, and environmental degradation. The mass-kill method is a historical choice, not an inescapable requirement of human nature.
The Political Economy of Militarization
The perpetuation of the arms race is driven by the unique profitability of military commodities, characterized by extraordinarily high per-unit prices, rapid engineered obsolescence, industry monopolies, and secure capital financing derived from coercive public taxation. This economic structure serves as a mechanism of control in both capitalist and state-socialist regimes, generating immense privilege for ruling blocs.
Conclusion and Non-Military Alternatives
True deterrence against warfare in the modern industrialized world does not stem from mutual nuclear threat, but from a shared socioeconomic foundation of life-welfare, domestic security, and global interdependence. Therefore, national defense should pivot away from homicidal weapons systems and toward non-military social war. Historically proven methods such as mass civil disobedience, economic boycotts, noncooperation, and the leveraging of global public shame offer durable, non-lethal means of dismantling aggressive power structures without sacrificing human life.
Theoretical Arguments and Concepts in the Philosophy of War
Please scroll right to see the right columns| "Author/Source" | "Key Theoretical Argument" | "Self-Concept/Identity Type" | "Conceptualization of the Enemy" | "Military Form or Alternative Action" | "Underlying Motives or Superstitions" |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| "John McMurtry" | "The established military paradigm is a pathological 'mass-kill' subtype of war that treats large-scale homicide as a rational necessity, ignoring species-defensive alternatives." | "Commercial self (market-place survivor), Genetic self (evolutionary vehicle), or Patriotic/National self (community functionary)." | "An extra-territorial or internal group perceived as a threat to state interests, often constructed as immoral to justify destruction." | "Military Form: Mechanized routines of social murder; Alternative Action: Social wars against pathogens, illiteracy, or corruption." | "The superstition that national security depends on military potential; the profit motive of the military-industrial complex." |
| "Anatol Rapoport" | "Stable peace can be achieved by deflecting human aggressiveness from other humans to common 'naturally given' enemies of humanity." | "We-they dichotomies (kin vs non-kin); roles of 'warrior' versus 'victim'." | "Naturally given enemies: pestilence, destitution, environmental degradation, and war itself." | "Alternative Action: A 'war against war' aimed at the atrophy of the global war machine by destroying the warrior role." | "Superstitions include the belief in 'deterrence' and the fear that dismantling military institutions leads to economic slump." |
| "G.W.F. Hegel" | "War is the 'spirit\'s ultimate instrument' for universalizing Right and Law; the master-slave dialectic requires risking death to achieve recognition." | "The National State as the realization of Right; the individual as a subject seeking transcendence through the death of the other." | "The 'Other' to be terrified into submission or destroyed to prove the superiority of the State\'s will." | "Military Form: Institutionalized nation-state wars to establish sovereignty and lordship." | "The belief that struggle and the threat of death are necessary for the development of self-consciousness." |
| "Karl von Clausewitz" | "War is an act of violence intended to compel an opponent to fulfill one's will; the principle of 'total war' seeks the destruction of the opposing force." | "The State/Command as the singular ruling will." | "An adversary whose autonomy must be liquidated or who must be physically destroyed." | "Military Form: Maximally efficient use of armed force to destroy the enemy's capacity to resist." | "Strategic necessity; the use of war as a continuation of policy by other means." |
| "Thomas Nagel / Elizabeth Anscombe" | "Moral limits in war require a distinction between combatants and non-combatants, condemning indiscriminate massacres and certain weaponry." | "Individual person as either a 'threat' (combatant) or 'innocent' (civilian)." | "The 'person' of the attacker, restricted only to the respects in which they are an active threat." | "Military Form: 'Lawful carnage' or restricted military engagement that avoids targeting innocents." | "Adherence to 'Just War' theory and moral constraints on homicidal methods." |
