Download Document

Mini-Essay #4 – Honor, Patriotism, Vengeance, and “Just War”
Lauren Stemler
October 27th, 2011
In Meyer-Knapp’s text, Dangerous Peacemaking, multiple views of conflict, specifically
wars involving various nations, are discussed. While she focuses on the various ways that peace
can be helped or hindered, one intriguing viewpoint she discusses early on in the text is the idea
of ethical changes during times of war. On page 37, Meyer-Knapp states “combat ethics
authorize killing and destruction in the name of justice, loyalty, and resolve” which she further
notes were the exact words used by our then president after the war on terrorism started ten years
ago.
Now that we have observed these behaviors in our world, we need to decide if this is an
acceptable occurrence or if this is destructive to our own lives. Let us first understand how
Meyer-Knapp defines honor, patriotic love, and vengeance (43). Honor is described as the
decision to serve one’s country while gaining status and avoiding being described as weak
(Meyer-Knapp, 44-45). This clearly conflicts with the goal of achieving peace, which sometimes
is what a war hopes to accomplish, and we find with patriotism—defined as the deep, even
spiritual, loyalty to a country and the engagement of activities that help protect a country’s
democracy, citizens, and societal values—does little to help the goal of achieving peace as well
(Meyer-Knapp, 47-48). Vengeance, if not clear from its title, is the exact opposite of what
peace-makers and the theory of “just war” hopes to achieve. Vengeance is the highly emotional
and deeply angered response to “attacks” (Meyer-Knapp, 52) on one’s country’s honor or loyalty
(51-53). The key element for vengeance is the angered emotion, which creates a sense of
urgency in dealing with the attacks to simply restore the country’s pride (Meyer-Knapp, 51).
While I can see the temptation of these three values, I cannot see the reason to change our
ethical and moral standards during a time of war and using these three otherwise time-sensitive
values, meaning that in absence of war many individuals do not view these values as extremely
important, to change our moral compass. When we change our values based on situations—
whether as a society or as individuals—we show that we are not being congruent with ourselves
(Komives et. al., 336). Congruence means that an individual or a society is consistent and
genuine in behaviors and actions independent of the situation (Komives, et. al.,336). Clearly,
when nations are choosing to change their values based on a situation rather than sticking to their
beliefs they are not being congruent, and thus they are losing an essential cornerstone of their
ability to act as a leader according to the Social Change Model of Leadership.
Furthermore, not acting with congruence as both a person and as a part of a larger nation,
no one can ever enter into a just war for a very distinct reason. If an individual constantly
changes viewpoints or behaviors with the sway of the wind, no one would trust that person to
make many important decisions because no one could try to predict the individual’s decisions.
Why should a country’s lack of congruence be handled differently? The lack of consistency and
congruence in values and behavior would cause alarm in many of the principles for going into
war, but especially in the last “Jus ad Bellum” (Hug, 1) principle, proportionality. How can we
trust any country with changing, unstable, and highly emotionally-driven values to make a
decision regarding the “costs of war in damage and human suffering” (Hug, 1) in proportion to
the positive outcomes expected? If we cannot trust an individual in a similar situation to make
genuine decisions, we cannot allow a large group with more instability to do so. A just war may
be possible, but we will never get there by using honor, patriotism and vengeance to justify our
actions—we must work to be congruent in our decision-making and in our behaviors both as
individuals and as a country. Until then, peace by a just war is incomprehensible.
Hug, J. (2006). Just war principles. Retrieved from https://www.coc.org/node/1463.
Komives, S., et. al. (2009). Leadership for a better world: understanding the social change
model of leadership development. United States: Jossey-Bass Publishing.
Meyer-Knapp, H. (2003). Dangerous Peacemaking. Olympia, WA: Peace-Maker Press.