Brutal wars, torturous executions, and violent revolutions have always been justified on moral grounds. In order to break out of endless cycles of violence, Hans-Georg Moeller, expert in European and ancient Chinese philosophy, argues that we need to suspend morality and become amoral. Drawing on wisdom from Wittgenstein to Zhuangzi, Moeller argues that trying to be moral often only does more harm than good.

When the First World War started in summer 1914, all sides expected it to be a short-term affair. By Christmas, everybody would be back home, people hoped. This was not to be the case. In February 2022, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was announced as a “special military operation,” suggesting it would soon be over. It is in its fifth year now, and, having already outlasted the First World War, there is still no end in sight. Other wars seem altogether endless, like the conflict in Israel/Palestine.

Wars happen for complex reasons: socioeconomic, political, ethnic, and religious or ideological factors can all play a role. Typically, however, wars are initiated, fueled and perpetuated by moral rhetoric. Drastic friend-enemy distinctions convince people to go into combat. Unless you are a psychopath, you want to believe you are fighting evil when systematically killing and mutilating one another on a mass scale. A major reason why wars are difficult to keep in check once they have been started is the moral engagement they are built on. If you think your opponents represent wickedness, you want to see their total defeat, humiliation, or, at minimum, their conversion. A key difficulty in conflict resolution is the dissolution of the moral anger at play.

In early March 2022, shortly after the war in Ukraine had begun, CNN published an opinion piece titled “What could stop the war.” It turned out to be a futile appeal. The authors argued that, in order to prevent major suffering on both sides, a peace deal was needed, and that such a deal could only be reached through a suspension of morality: “The morality is black and white here, but diplomacy seldom is. The concessions that come with negotiations are often painful. But our experience has taught us they are infinitely preferable to the indefinite continuation of hostilities.”

___

What may seem from a traditional philosophical perspective as a lack of personal virtue is better explained and dealt with as a combination of psychological, physiological, or social issues.

___

On the one hand, the CNN article embraces the moral paradigm of war: it is a conflict between “black” and “white,” it says—and for the authors, the white side is Ukraine. They could reasonably assume that most of their readers on CNN would probably share this judgment. And yet, while assuring readers of their moral “whiteness,” they are nudged towards accepting not merely the pain of unwelcome aspects of a potential peace deal, but, what is more, the pain of a negotiation process that disregards the moral divide. The authors point to the specific conundrum of diplomacy: an effective conflict mediator copes with the difficult task of allowing all sides to uphold their self-esteem while minimizing their utter contempt for one another. To achieve peace, the enemies must be enticed to find some common ground in the amoral grey area between them where reconciliation can begin. The alternative is a Vernichtungskrieg, a “war of annihilation.”

Morality is a type of communication