Page:The Scientific Monthly vol. 3.djvu/579

 THE PSYCH0L007 OF WAR 573

only interpret everything through that influence. This is not peculiar to the warrior. It is the same with the minister^ with the millionaire who justifies his existence as such^ with the Russian who believes his government superior to all others. We blame no one for it. At the present hour the harsh and brutal accusations men are bringing against their brothers would largely cease if only we fully comprehended this principle and its power over human opinions. Is it probable that any ofiBcer can escape the conscious and unconscious influences of possible honor, promotion and victory that might result from war ? You may minimize it as much as you please; but, if our present type of ofiBcers is inmiune to these and other appeals which would cause them to lead us into war, we have suddenly developed a type of man not mentioned in history.

In how far may envy, jealousy, desire for personal gain, race hatred, vengeance, etc., creep into our interpretations of moral law, moral truth, justice, honor, the weak brother, etc.? In how far do they dictate what peace with honor is ? Of course, we are always asking such ques- tions about other people's idea of good and right, honor and justice; but rarely ever apply the same examination to our own. In all such cases, it is alarming to observe how absolutely certain we are that our interpretations are the correct ones. Do we not know that neither prejudice, hate, envy, vengeance nor personal interest of any kind enters into our judgments? I insist that the attitude neither of the mil- lionaire nor the socialist, of the saloon-keeper nor the minister, of the warriors nor the lovers of peace, of the English nor of the Germans^ must be interpreted as insincere or hypocritical.

What is defensive warfare ? Well, suppose we have a big army and navy. Suppose Japan allows some of our citizens to be murdered over the sea. It is defensive warfare to avenge the wrong? Is it simply active justice that duty compels us to perform, in which neither ven- geance, jealousy, nor race hatred takes any part? Or, suppose the people of India begin to groan under the burden of foreign rule, would it not be easy to decide that in the interest of humanity, justice, right and of the weak brother, we should wage a war in defense of their lib- erty? In such events would not every one of the war impulses and instincts demand a part in our interpretation and application of justice, moral right, benevolence, humanity, honor, weak brother and defensive warfare? The so-called man of practical business affairs may laugh at our psychology and refuse to recognize the power of these things; but that only proves the alarming danger to which we subject ourselves in entering upon the war policy.

To intimate, as Mr. Garrison and other war writers do, that we shall have self-control, that we shall not follow the rule of passing from defensive to offensive preparedness, is to betray our common conceit

�� �