ABSTRACT
Looking back over the differing traditions of the ordering of war and the way in which aspects of each tradition are draw upon generally and ambiguously by contemporary warring actors, it seems that each is set against its others. Each tradition orders the relationship between war and right in a differing way, each stakes out a claim over the rightness of war. Yet, each tradition is also limited and cannot claim to represent the whole of the relationship between war and right. In this respect, the conflicts between the differing traditions of war’s ordering represent a certain chaos – a chaotic conflict between words and deeds that lies at the centre of the modern problem of war. Perhaps, though, the realm of war is not completely chaotic. In the sense that it involves at least these influential forms of war’s ordering, then there resides a certain degree of order amidst the chaos. From this perspective the account of the ordering of war given so far provides
something of a template or map that allows contemporary thinking to navigate through many of the competing claims of right that accompany acts of violence in the present. Yet, the picture presented here does not pretend to be complete and questions remain over the role of human thinking, or human reason, in the ordering of violence and over whether thinking can adequately order the use of violence to realize future ends such a peace, freedom and human dignity. By drawing upon the resources given by these modern traditions of war’s ordering and in particular, upon the emphasis on the activity of thinking developed within the tradition of German Idealism, this chapter looks more closely at the relationship between thinking, action and violence. In an attempt to come to terms with some of the remaining questions related to reason’s ordering of war, this chapter develops a contemporary theory of war as positing.
