Philosophy of war

It combines observations on strategy with questions about human nature and the purpose of war.

Writing in 1869, Genrikh Leer [ru] emphasized the favorable effects of war on nations: "[...] war emerges as a powerful tool in the matter of improving the internal, moral and material life of peoples [...].

In it, one of five ruling brothers (Pandavas) asks if the suffering caused by war can ever be justified.

Right intention criterion requires the determination of whether or not a war response is a measurable way to the conflict being acted upon.

However, discernible traditions of thought on war have developed over time, so that some writers have been able to distinguish broad categories (if somewhat loosely).

For example, war has at times been viewed as a pastime or an adventure, as the only proper occupation for a nobleman, as an affair of honor (for example, the days of chivalry), as a ceremony (e.g. among the Aztecs), as an outlet of aggressive instincts or a manifestation of a "death wish", as nature's way of ensuring the survival of the fittest, as an absurdity (e.g. among Eskimos), as a tenacious custom, destined to die out like slavery, and as a crime.

The three words "rational", "instrument" and "national" are the key concepts of his paradigm.

Finally, war "ought" to be national, in the sense that its objective should be to advance the interests of a national state and that the entire effort of the nation ought to be mobilized in the service of the military objective.Another possible system for categorizing different schools of thought on war can be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (see external links, below), based on ethics.