Let us further suppose that each of the contending nations had a
sufficient leaven of Christianity to have its grievances adjudged not by
the ethics of the cannon or the rifle, but by the eternal criterion of
justice.
What would be the judgment of that august tribunal?
Any discussion of the ethical merits of this great controversy must
start with the assumption that there is an international morality.
This fundamental axiom, upon which the entire basis of civilization
necessarily rests, is challenged by a small class of intellectual
perverts.
Some hold that moral considerations must be subordinated either to
military necessity or so-called manifest destiny. This is the Bernhardi
doctrine.
Others teach that war is a beneficent fatality and that all nations
engaged in it are therefore equally justified. On this theory all of the
now contending nations are but victims of an irresistible current of
events, and the highest duty of the State is to prepare itself for the
systematic extermination, when necessary or expedient, of its neighbors.
Notwithstanding the clever platitudes under which both these doctrines
are veiled, all morally sane minds are agreed that this war is a great
crime against civilization, and the only open question is, which of the
two contending groups of powers is morally responsible for that crime?
Was Austria justified in declaring war against Servia?
Was Germany justified in declaring war against Russia and France?
Was England justified in declaring war against Germany?
As the last of these questions is the most easily disposed of, it may be
considered first.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25