The pseudonym "Philo Vaihinger" has been abandoned. All posts have been and are written by me, Joseph Auclair.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

War for the lesser evil


In Shakespeare’s play of the same name King John, his nobles, and his allies confront the French King Phillip, his nobles, and his allies in a struggle for control of certain of John’s French lands.

Both the lands and the people on them that are held by these nobles from the kings own down are clearly regarded by them as just so much property, and the lands and people held by others as just so much prey.

All of them, from the kings right down to the lowliest knights, are in the fight for such gain, though some also have more personal motives including revenge and enjoyment of slaughter.

If Phillip wins he will reward his nobles and allies with pieces of John’s French possessions and John’s supporters are with him in a like hope to seize possessions of the French king to be distributed among themselves.

In particular, the issue of the fighting in the play is control of the town of Angiers in Aquitaine.

As for the troops the nobles lead, drawn from the people who live on their lands and inhabit their towns, they are in not much better case than so many slaves forced to fight to help their overlords seize more slaves, or keep the slaves they have.

At the beginning of the play, each king in turn solicits the town’s leading citizens for military support in the fight and the people, offered nothing at all by either and no arguments but gas about who has the better claim to own them based on feudal family law, refuse them both.

The kings accept that and their forces slaughter one another for a while, leaving the town out of it.

But then they grow tired of that and demand the town choose sides or be jointly and simultaneously attacked by both forces.

The canny citizens suggest instead a peace-making marriage between the contending sides and that deal is luckily accepted.

Were they right to do their best to simply stay out of the fight?

Or should they have chosen and fought for a lesser evil?

Might not the difference between the evils have been too slight to cover the sacrifice?

A fool’s gamble, like our state lotteries, but worse?

Could not a draftee in any number of wars after the feudal era have felt, with much justice, exactly the same?

And fought only because the costs of draft evasion were even greater?

No comments:

Post a Comment