INTERNATIONAL PEACE MOVE MENT, The. A world-wide movement aim ing at the abolition of war, more especially in ternational war. While fighting has always been one the chief occupations of mankind; while ideas 'of national greatness are largely associated with battles, campaigns and sieges; and while the heroes of poetry, history and monumental art are 'mostly famous soldiers; in modern times, nevertheless, the opinion has rapidly gained ground all over the world that war is a terrible evil which ought to be pre vented as far as possible, and sooner or later to be done away with altogether. Some writers, notably in' Germany, defend it as a biologic necessity, contending that it is a phase of the universal struggle• for existence and hence a part of natures plan for 'securing race hood and keeping the growth of population within bounds. (See Matrriustanism). Others, again mainly Germans (particularly Prussians); even glorify it' as the noblest of human ac tivities, a divinely ordered means of preventing the 'inhabitants of the world from' becoming effeminate, pleasure-loving and morally flaccid. To this argument, however,' the opponents of war reply that co-operation is just as much a part of nature's law as fighting, and that intert tribal slaughter is a httman specialty virtually unknown' to the animals, among 'whom individuals attack and kill one another only for food. As' for the moral benefits of ‘war, more over, 'it is urged that these come 'also from fire, flood, 'famine, and pestilence. which nobody thinks. of listing among the good things •of -life; -to a 'certain also; good by4products come from dueling and private which almost everybody admits it 'is well 'to have got rid of.
Aside' from ..the few extremists who exted war as a good thing, and those at the other pole who denounce it as the sum of all vilhan. ies and something to be avoided at any cost, the Feat mass 'of thoughtful men regard it as Indeed an .evil, but •as sometimes a necessary end praiseworthy alternative to still greater evils. They hold that slaughter and destruction on a large scale, with all of the attendant suffering and misery, constitute ethically the most -inhuman rationally the most absurd, and economically inhuman, most expensive mode of see ding international conflicts of opinion and in-: terest. Accordingly, they are working.to bring about a form of world-organization in which the nations shall co-operate to' abolish thit cient-scourge and at the same time find a moral equivalent for its valuable by-products. In the year 1910 the well-known philanthropist, - Mr. Andrew whoie generosity rendered possible the creation of the great institutions known as the Carnegie Endowment for Inter hational Peace, summed up the present-day attitude toward war by. calling 'it foulest blot upon our civilization"—a 'characterization amply warranted by the colossal struggle' of the :World • War, unless- that struggle shall eventually prove to 'have been indeed a war against war.
-This' new attitude of aversion toward war is a part of the great humanitarian movement which set in shortly before the French Revolu tion. . Violates the Rights tat Man— the right to life, liberty and the pursuit 'of happii: Its immediate effect is . destruction on a large scale of he itself, which, has come to seem more precious than it used to seem, and also of many of the values, both material and spiritual, which ennoble life and make it Worth living. It replaces the orderly construc
tive processes of society with an orgy of de Struction, treating the common man - as mere cannon-fodder, while its immediate benefits fall to only a few leaders who get their reward in !glory" or increased wealth and power, that is, in the gratification of their vanity.
. In spite of all that, however, it is generally recognized that a brief frenzy of successful War may avert. from a whole nation a long era of dependence, oppreSsion, humiliation and economic misery. Hence war, particularly de fensive war, sometimes justifies itself to the humane and philosophic mind as a preparation for a better time to come— it is a paroxysm in which the men and women of a particular nation and epoch sacrifice themselves for the sake of their descendants. Consequently sen sible and conscientious peace-workers have no sympathy with the doctrine of "peace at any price," but look upon peace rather as a by product of freedom and justice, a state of af fairs rendered desirable not merely by the ab sence of war, but by the presence of conditions that make for human welfare and happiness conditions oftentimes not to be established by any other means than war itself. In his book entitled (A World in Ferment> Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler expresses himself 'regarding peace as follows: "Peace is not an ideal at all; it is a state attendant upon the achieve ment of an ideal. The ideal itself is human liberty, justice, and the honorable conduct of an orderly and humane Society. Given this, a durable -peace follows naturally as a matter of course; without -this, there is no peace, but only a rule of force until liberty and justice revolt 'against it in search of peace." It is necessary to distinguish, therefore, between the practi cally minded workers for international peace, who. seek • remedies .for definite- dangers and evils, and the radical• pacifists; who con demn• and:denounce all war • under all -circum stances.. In 1918 the sentiment of the influential and 'farsighted-pc:see-workers. of -.the 'nations allied against Germany was •lmost unanimous in favor of a -vigorous prosecution•of the war to a victorious conclusion, that being considered the shortest and surest road wan enduring In view of the fact that war is only a means of- overcoming a difficulty that exists between two more or less powerful groups, its abolition of coarse presupposes the 'substitution of some other means to that end. For we have no rea son to expect that controversies between na tions- will ever entirely cease to arise, any more than we have reason to suppose that quarrels between individnals 'will ever come absolutely to an end. The fact of the matter is, indeed, that man is naturally a fighting animal; his instinct impels him .to attack any fellow-being Who provokes hiin or 'stands in the way of the realization of desires or the obtainment of What he considers his rights. History and ex perience prove, Moreover, that destructive wars. no lesi than private quarrels, sometimes origi nate in trivial causes which' might have been removed.