War Games [antikvár]

Of all the objections which have been raised by opponents of this scheme, there are three in particular which have 'crystallised out' into slogans to be wielded by the unthinking as if they were lances mounted with coloured pennants. Each slogan represents a different mode of argument, and they may be categorized as the ontological argument, the teleological argimient a:nd the pragmatic argument. We live, of course, in an age of enlightened pragmatism, and it could be claimed that the pragmatic argument is the only one which we need to refute in order to justify the scheme. However, it is easy enough to show that all three arguments are equally insubstantial.The ontological argiunent usually takes the form of the cant phrase: 'Men who cannot fear caimot love.' The basic claim advanced here is that by training our children not to feel fear we are also training them not to feel a wide spectrum of emotions. Some people claim that we are actually training them not to feel at all, and that we are destroying the emotional basis of their being. The graduates of our present training-schools, however, give ample evidence in their behaviour that they are perfectly capable of feeling not only such emotions as rage and detestation but also loyalty, devotion and sexual passion. Adherents of this line of argument, when confronted with this testimony, may follow one of two contrasting lines of defence. Some will argue that none of these qualities is actually the kind of 'love' which they mean, and that what they mean is not compounded out of any combination of these qualities. This is a familiar argumentative ploy used by those determined to evade any possible evidence which threatens to disprove their case, and is quite illegitimate. Others who wish to defend the case despite the evidence will go on to claim that the men who have already undergone this kind of training only appear to feel these emotions, and are in fact compensating behaviourally for their loss. In view of the fact that appearances are all that we have to build upon in claiming to know anything about the world whatsoever, this kind of argument ultimately extends scepdcism into solipsism. If we were to be as sceptical as this of claims made by others about their feelings, then it is not merely the graduates of our training-schools who would be suspect but the entire human race.The teleological argument against training is usually containedh