November 30, 1916 
LAND & WATER 
What We Are Fighting For 
By L. March Phillipps 
IS there any means, by way ol international treaty 
and arrangement, by which peace can be secured 
to the world ? Why should not a League or 
Federation of Nations strong enough to impose 
their will upon the rest of Europe be formed with the 
express object of insuring peace ? 
All wars are terrible ; this war is especially so : it is 
natural, therefore, that at the present time such seemingly 
obvious and easy solutions of the difficulty should be 
largely entertained and discussed. They have, it seems, 
definite ideas on this head in America. Dr. Ehot, 
President of Harvard, described in ope newspaper as 
" in many respects the most distinguished living 
American," is of opinion that a covenant between France, 
England and America would meet the case. The Man- 
chester Guardian has lately dealt at length with American 
ideas on the matter, and Lord Bryce describes in its 
columns the unanimity which prevails among leading 
American statesmen. There seems to be a general idea 
that " an organisation of the world against war," is a 
feasible project, that it is even, as the Daily News ex- 
presses it, " a splendid task," and in short, that the pre- 
v^eiition of war is really a comparatively simple matter 
which a deed upon parchment signed by . the repre- 
sentatives of the leading Powers could adequately secure. 
But though on the face of it the question may seem 
simple enough, it is not so simple as it seems. Wliat the 
peace politicians in fact demand, is that peace, should be 
recognised as an ideal in itself, as a supreme ideal, as an 
ideal to which all others are secondary, as an end to be 
striven for for its own sake. War is the evil above all 
evils, peace the good above all goods — that is the position 
which Dr. Ehot in America and Lord Bryce in England 
and all their many followers in both countries take up 
when they demand a world organisation with peace for 
its guiding motive. 
An Unsound Thesis 
What is there unsound in such a position ? There is 
this — that it places life before and above the very things 
which give it value. War is an evU, if it is an evil, because 
it destroys life ; to teach that war is the supreme evil is 
to teach that the destruction of life is the supreme evil. 
In the same way to hold that peace is the supreme good 
is to hold that life is the supreme good. Not faith, not 
Mberty, not any aspiration moral or spiritual, or intellec- 
tual, none of these but life itself, the preservation and 
maintenance of life, is to be life's goal and object. The 
doctrine recalls a sentence of Matthew Arnold's in which 
he speaks of the " almost bloodthirsty clinging to hfe " of 
the great English middle class : the bourgeois element in 
that attitude consisting in its concentration on a material 
issue. 
Such an estimate defeats itself. For life itself changes 
and alters with the point of view from which it is re- 
garded. It is most noble and beautiful when it is 
esteemed of no worth at all ; and it is most empty and 
despicable when conceived of the highest value. And 
this because it is only precious for the things it contains, 
things of altogether higher origin than itself, which are 
independent of it, wliich do not pass with its passing, 
which shine through and transfigure it, and which, pre- 
cisely because they are of higher origin, may rightly 
demand at any moment the sacrifice of Hfe on their 
behalf. It is these that count. I can quite well under- 
stand that the hves of cattle or pigs should be accounted 
precious, for these are supposed (though I beheve on 
very insufficient evidence) to carry nothing of greater 
value than themselves. Take from a pig his life and 
you take his all. But that such an argument should be 
applied to human beings only shows the depths of 
animalism or materialism into which the mind of man is 
apt to sink. 
But it is argued on the other side, why nof have both, 
both life and its contents ? The individual shall enrich 
his hfe spiritually and intellectually, and the State shall 
iMTint hi in security of tenure by means of an anti-war 
treaty with other States. One would have thought that 
the present war was itself a sufficient answer to any such 
contention. What is a State but an agglomeration of 
citizens, voicing and interpreting their aspirations and 
beUefs ? To invite a State or nation to place peace 
above all other considerations is to assume that such is the 
view of its collective units ; it is to demand a proof from 
a people that it has not and never hopes to have a faith or 
a cause worthy dying for. This indeed is the basis of 
Treitschke's saying that God will always see to it that 
there is war in the world. He meant that God will 
always see to it that there are ideals in the world worth 
dying for. 
Conflicts of Ideals 
But is there nothing to be added to this ? Because 
peace as an end in itself, as the guiding principle of an 
international federation, as the supreme good, is an 
immoral idea — immoral because it puts life above the 
things that ennoble life^ — does it, therefore, fohow that 
peace is an impossible dream, not to be wished or hoped 
for, for ever unattainable ? Not necessarily. War itself, 
the conflict of armies, is but the expression of an in\^'ard 
conflict of ideals, and it is this inward conflict of ideals 
that makes war possible and even inevitable. True, 
there have been wars enough in the past that have 
sprung from petty and superficial motives. But from 
these the future has little, and with the democratic 
awakening and more complete national self-consciousness 
now in progress, will have less and less to fear. War, the 
terrible modern war with all its dreadful equipment 
and resources, is an instrument only to be wielded by 
motives as formidable as itself. The change from 
ancient armies to modern, from the comparatively in- 
significant armies of individual rulers to the hosts which 
are commensurate with the strength of nations, marks 
the same transition. 
Kings made war with the armies of Icings for the 
ambition of kings. Nations will make war with the 
armies of nations for the ideals of nations. Thus in 
future the inward motives or causes of war will consist in a 
conflict of ideals such as are capable of enlisting a national 
devotion. Nations will not wage war, will not put their 
whole national strength into a quarrel, which docs not 
seem to them worthy of their collective self-sacrifice. 
That is what we have come to. It is not, or wiU not be in 
future, so much personal ambitions or jealousies that will 
evoke war as those fundamental principles and beliefs 
which are of racial scope, and range. Yet if the opposition 
of these will produce war, their reconcihation will equally 
produce peace, and peace the more lasting and durable 
as based on an assured identity of purpose. It is on 
this side that hope hes. 
I know not what law governs the caprices of princes, 
but whoever is a believer in the destiny of mankind must 
hold that there is an instinct in humanity which is guiding 
it towards the light. Racial dissensions are guesses at 
ultimate truth, and ever, through constant experiments 
and thought and intercommunication, tend towards a 
closer approximation to it, and a more perfect conformity 
with each other. To lay down a basis of agi'eement in the 
mind may be said to be the object of all disinterested 
thought. The day will come (the progress of truth assures 
it) when by this means the ground will be cut from under 
the very feet of war. Outward peace is the expression, 
the look on the face, of inward peace, and the abolition 
of war, the surface- friction, can come only with the aboli- 
tion of the inward friction of ideals in the minds of men. 
Every influence, therefore, every controversy, that 
has truth for its object, that works towards the light, 
is an instrument of peace. If the peace party would 
reaUy make headway let them fight against error and 
prejudice, against the discrepancies and darknesses of the 
mind. Is there an answer to the question how to live ? 
Does there exist a theory of onward and upward progress 
and development so universal in its application as to 
embrace civilisation and hold within itself, as the acorn 
