Erasmus+study+questions

(Add, answer, and discuss study questions for this author and reading) Codified principles of just war such as those that Aquinas offers, don't necessarily lead to fewer wars being fought more fairly. Instead, it gives individuals the tools to rationalise their actions, both in deciding to go war and in the conduct of the war. A prince 'can buy their justification' from any number of sophistic lawyers and theologians. Even though there may in fact be just wars, attempting to elaborate what exactly constitutes one simply will allow any number of unjust wars to be perpetrated in apparent adherence to these principles.
 * **What does Erasmus think about just war reasoning as practiced by people like Aquinas?**

Erasmus' project is more rhetorical. By vehemently presenting the horrors and dehumanising effects of war, he hopes to prime our intuitions such that we instinctively have a revulsion to organised violence. If humanity adopts the view that war is bad by default, then this will be a more effective way to reduce the amount of warfare, if that is indeed our goal. According to Erasmus, //'Vice [violence] is like the sea, we have the power to shut it out altogether, but once we let it in, there are few of us that can impose a limit'.// Erasmus identifies the killing of animals as the initial factor giving rise to the temptation for men to begin killing other men. Slaughtering animals for meat gave men practice in killing and led them to discover that other men could be killed as easily. Furthermore, men were more likely to use deadly force when they became upset with another man if they have conditioned themselves to killing animals who offer no provocation. This leads to a slippery slope effect where the level of violence continues to escalate; men fashion arms to kill more effectively, band together to attack other bands, eventually leading to entire communities at 'war'.
 * **How does Erasmus' view of man compare with Augustine's?**
 * **Why does meat eating lead necessarily to war, according to Erasmus?**

One of the reasons Erasmus uses animals is as a metaphor for innocent civilians - creating links through using similar language - e.g. "committed no other crime than to be eatable" p223 (cf, "innocent people who have done no wrong") p227 ; domestic ox who "kept the ungrateful family for so long with its labours" p223 (cf. "peasants" - who carry out the same function in society p227). If it is wrong to kill innocent animals, it flows on that the same or similar arguments apply to innocent human beings. Moreover, Erasmus uses animals as the 'step' just below humans, showing the ease with which moral and ethical standards can change. If "habit" can make it "possible...not to see the savagery" of such treatment of innocent animals, where it was once considered to be an evil, the same can apply to human beings. "Little by little...evil... f[inds] acceptance with the heedless." p225 It is unlikely that Erasmus would accept the idea of a ‘holy war’ as a just war, particularly given that under his ethic, a good Christian people (and Prince) would choose to be ruled unjustly than to defend themselves. As a result, it is unlikely he would condone a war committed to defend the very principles a good Christian Prince would have to act against when going to war. While he does not specifically touch upon wars committed in the name of religion (though he was a devout Christian himself), it seems unlikely that he would agree to such a war as an exception to his rule.
 * **What is the point of the argument about animals in Erasmus' presentation?**
 * **What is the fundamental problem with war?**
 * **Is Erasmus' wrath directed only at aggressive war, or does he condemn too wars undertaken for the sake of defending one's country?**
 * **Does Erasmus' pacifism leave "appeasement" as the only option available to a "prince"? Is Erasmus naive?**
 * **Can "holy wars" exist for Erasmus? How does he compare to Aquinas on this point (see, e.g., Summa Theologica [|II-II.11.3], [|II-II.40.2])?**
 * //Erasmus//**

He certainly did not think of it as a given issue - in a letter to Thomas More, he talks of a man giving a //“zealous invitation to a holy war with the Turks… nothing is more childish than to handle a serious subject in a loose, wanton style.”// It seems that, at the very least, he seems to feel that holy war was certainly not an issue over which the morality was clearly in its favour. http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=551&chapter=104195&layout=html&Itemid=27

Under his general principles, thus, it seems unlikely that just holy wars could exist for Erasmus.

If we apply the rationale behind a holy war to Aquinas’ requirements for a war to be just, we can conclude as follows:
 * //Aquinas//**

//“First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged.“// This is not a contentious issue with regard to holy wars: it will depend on the circumstance.

“//Secondly, a just cause is required… when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."// The question here is whether to go to war over the point of religion would, to Aquinas, be considered a just cause. Here, it is useful to consider Aquinas’ view on heretics: //“…they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death… Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die.”// Here, we see that Aquinas certainly has no problems with the idea of executing those within his own state who threaten pure Christian beliefs. It is unclear, however, whether the logical extension of this is that a holy war in another state would be ‘just.’ Initiating a war on the basis of religion does not seem to fit comfortably within his suggestions for what might constitute a just reason for going to war. Defending against attacks based on religion, or retaliating against an act or sacrilege made by a ‘heretic’ religious group may well be a justification, but not necessarily on the basis of the heresy itself, so much as the wrongful acts against the state. Then again, the meaning of “refusing to make amends for wrongs” could be construed to mean refusing to accept the Christian God – and would fit with Aquinas’ idea that such a heretic ought be condemned “not at once, but after the first and second admonition." It may be that refusing to give in to the attempts of the church to convert to Christianity may in fact provide a basis for going to holy war in order to “look to the salvation of others.”

//“Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil…”// It can be assumed for the purposes here that Aquinas would believe a holy war to be committed with the utmost good intention.

It is therefore possible, and likely that Aquinas would justify some holy wars – particularly where the foe committed the first acts of hostility, and possibly even where they did not.

Incorporation of texts like Aristotle as theological to the point they become sacred: '//For if Christ has said anything that is not easily fitted to our way of life. it is permitted to interpret it differently; but anyone who dares oppose the oracular pronouncements of Aristotle is immediately hooted off the stage//' (p225). Erasmus' particular contempt can be seen in the way he refers to Aristotle as 'oracular', people treat his writings as Christian despite the fact they were written in an 'unenlightened' time more than three centuries prior to Christ. Erasmus compares this to //'mixing water and fire' (p226),// Christian writings are interpreted in order to fit them to old Roman institutions that while useful, allow the prosecution of war, usury, and other things clearly prohibited. On top of this, the writings produced to justify law often come from later times when the strength of the gospels was already 'weakening', the cases against war and prohibiting war in the bible are to Erasmus, 'innumerable'. Erasmus believes that people are often schooled in the classics as a precursor to the bible itself, leading to an immediate corruption of the values contained therein. In war each side is prosecuting the other; and everyone is punished, predominantly those who have done no wrong - "peasants, old people, wives, orphans, young girls." The only profits of war tend to be enjoyed by those who perhaps do not deserve them - mercenaries, and selfish princes who create wars for unjust reasons. Even where genuine wrongdoing has occurred, it is better to let the few who have done wrong go than to punish innocent people. On the other hand, a felon is punished for his actual wrong doing, such that society may be safer - war creates insecurity for society rather than safety. The ideal prince has been given his authority by God, such that he, as a true Christian, has piety and ethical superiority over all other men. As such, he ought not be restrained by governmental checks such as statutes or parliamentary bodies, as he will understand the best course of action. (Education of a Christian Prince) A prince therefore may be able to know when a war is just, as his ethical superiority, as directed by God, will ensure that it is not undergone lightly, and only where it is perfectly just, rather than other less desirable reasons. The question is really whether a good Christian prince would consider undertaking war. Erasmus argues that the conclusion that ought be reached is that an unjust peace is better than a just war, as all war will result in the grievous crimes against the innocent. As a result it is better to allow some evil people to go unpunished than to punish innocent citizens. (Against War)
 * **What is the main reason for the acceptance of war among Christians, according to Erasmus?**
 * **Is Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle, compatible with Christianity, for Erasmus? How does his attitude to Greek philosophy compare to Aquinas's and Augustine's?**
 * **How is war different from "civil" violence, like legal punishment?**
 * **Where do princes get their right to rule? How is this relevant to understanding whether or not princes can go to war?**

However, the ideal Christian prince does not often exist - Erasmus lambasts the "selfish princes" who "gravely imperil their whole realm" "for the sake of asserting their right of dominion over one small town." (Dulce Bellum Inexpertis) In //Dulce,// Erasmus refuses to concede that war is ever justifiable - the only right and just conclusion that a prince ought reach is that it is better not to retaliate in war and live with an unjust peace than to even protect one's own state - as in the long run, for citizens, it results in less horror. In //Education of a Christian Prince//, however, Erasmus does admit that circumstances may exist which leave a Prince with no alternative but to wage war. A prince who wages war, is therefore not always a bad prince. What is important is that the gravity of war cannot be underestimated, and the calamities weighed up in the conscience of a prince before such a decision is made. He places the moral weight of war directly on the prince who makes the decision. If he does decide to go to war, "the prince's main care should be to wage the war with as little calamity to his own people and as little shedding of Christian blood as may be, and to conclude the struggle as soon as possible." Erasmus, however does not describe what circumstances may result in such a situation - leaving the reader in no doubt that this concession is limited indeed. He ends with a plea for princes not to take advantage of his concessions: "I will only urge princes of Christian faith to put aside all feigned excuses and all false pretexts and with wholehearted seriousness to work for the ending of that madness for war which has persisted so long and disgracefully among Christians, that among those whom so many ties unite there may arise a peace and concord." It is therefore not clear whether self defence can ever, for Erasmus, be a just reason to retaliate. Erasmus does argue that an unjust peace preferable to a just war, but where lack of self defence may result in annihilation (rather than peace), he may have agreed that a war in this circumstance may be just. However, because he never gives examples of a moral war, it is difficult to be sure - and indeed, to instill unease may well have been his intention in doing so. > //'Better leave the wound alone if no surgery can be done without grave harm to the whole body.'// This quote ties into Erasmus' principle that it is better to allow those who have offended (the wound) to go unpunished if to punish means harming the wider, innocent society (the whole body.) > As a result, it is better to have an unjust peace than a just war - as even in war waged for just reasons, unjustified crimes occur against innocent society that outweigh the benefits of punishing the few. > //'Who except a lunatic would fish with a golden hook?//'
 * **Are there any circumstances in which war would be justified for Erasmus? Should one go to war for the sake of protecting one's country from destruction, for example?**
 * **Explain the following key quotes by Erasmus, focusing on how they link to his argument against war as a whole.**