War as a losing account
Who actually gains when civilised nations go to war? Bentham runs the ledger and finds that war is almost always a net loss even for the victor, and its usual causes removable.
War between civilised states, Bentham argues, is almost always a net loss even for the side that wins, once its costs in lives, wealth, and trade are honestly counted. And most of its causes are not fixed features of the world but removable arrangements: secret treaties, standing armies, the scramble for colonies, foreign policy kept in the closed hands of cabinets. He wanted colonies given up, armies cut, and diplomacy opened to public view. In an age of dynastic war the reckoning read as utopian; its afterlife, in the League of Nations and the United Nations, came only long after his death.
- justice
- public policy
- political economy
- international law
- jurisdiction
Enter a dialogue
- Someone is told a coming war will make their country richer and greater; how would you have them read that promise?
- You say war is almost always a loss even for the victor, but haven't conquerors often grown rich and powerful on it? Where is the loss?
- How do you separate the true causes of war from the removable arrangements, the treaties and armies, that only look like necessities?
- To give up colonies and cut the armies you blame for war, what strength and pride must a nation be willing to surrender?
- A patriot feels their nation's glory is bound up with its conquests; what does your ledger say to that feeling?