The Moral of the Story: War and Individual Autonomy

In this class we have thus far studied two texts that dealt primarily with war: Hadji Murat and The Moon is Down. Both texts seem to take a similar stance on how war affects the individual: it hinders our ability to act on our own moral precepts and forces us to act (or not act) a certain way. Hadji Murat is unable to do anything because of the circumstances of the war; instead, he is kept in abeyance and, when he finally decides to rebel against the forces holding him back and act, he is killed. Thus, he was entirely unable to take his own course of action. This theme is developed even more strongly and explicitly in The Moon is Down. The most obvious example is Colonel Lanser, who, despite knowing that the military methods are ineffective, is nevertheless forced to conform to military protocol because his orders demand that of him. Even more disturbingly is the case of Captain Loft: he has so greatly internalized the psychology of war that he is unable to even conceive of actions other than those mandated by military protocol. This phenomenon is also not solely a problem for the invaders - Molly Morden also exemplifies it. When she is about to murder Lieutenant Tonder, she seems reluctant. Steinbeck describes the situation with phrases like "her burden was heavy on her", "her eyes were horrified", and "her voice was strained and sweet". She seems to not have a choice of what to do in this situation; she is forced to murder this young man by the circumstances of war, even though she is greatly opposed to it. Thus, in both works, the autonomy of the individual seems to be compromised by the state of war.

In light of this lack of individual autonomy, the very idea of the moral of the story is called into question. How much of morality is based on the existence of a Kantian subject - that is, an individual entirely in control of their own actions and whose will is given complete sovereignty over their actions? It seems meaningless to talk about moral imperatives when individuals don't have full control over their own actions. This notion arises in a modern setting in areas like the court, wherein an individual cannot be held responsible for a crime if it is deemed that they were acting under coercion, weren't in control of their actions for medical reasons, or were not aware of the consequences of their action. Thus, any form of moral judgment relies on the individual being in control of their own actions. If the actors in the war lack agency, then how can they be judged as right and wrong? And, more importantly, how can a story exhort someone to take a particular course of action when it seems that their actions are predetermined by their circumstances? Perhaps this is why many of us perceived Steinbeck as being overly sympathetic to the invaders: they aren't doing anything morally wrong because they lack the agency to do anything other than what they're doing.