 from one form to another as events progress. Reason Papers Vol. 38, no. 1 132 cavaliers are similar. In agonistic war, Speier adds, the fighting often has a kind of ritual function, rather like a religious ("morality") play. Both instrumental and agonistic wars are often, if not usually, "regulated" wars, meaning they are constrained by shared rules of warfare. These are rules about where battle can take place, what times it can occur, what forms of conduct have to be observed (for example, regarding the treatment of prisoners), what weapons can be used, on what people the weapons can be used (for example, combatants), and what can be done to the opponent's territory. In absolute war, by contrast, the out-group is viewed as inherently evil, essentially different from the in-group, and intrinsically threatening to the very existence (or at least the internal cohesion) of the in-group. The outgroup is viewed as being essentially different either in appearance, religion, culture, or race in a way that is at the same time disgusting and threatening, hence intolerable to the in-group. Reverting to the example of the ancient Greeks, Speier points out that while the wars between Greek city-states were agonistic, the wars the Greeks fought against tribes they characterized as "barbarian" were absolute. 13 He also includes as modern examples of absolute war the following: ideological wars, "fought in the name of political beliefs so dear to the belligerents that they arouse a crusading spirit" 14 ; civil wars, where one side regards the other as treasonous in betraying the tribe itself and thus deserving of annihilation; religious wars; and colonial wars. As a consequence of the way the in-group perceives the out-group, the goal of absolute war is to exterminate the out-group. As Speier so trenchantly puts it, "Peace terminating an absolute war is established without the enemy. The opponent is an existential enemy. Absolute war is waged in order to annihilate him." 15 As a result, there are no rules in absolute war-no limitations on the weapons used, the degree of suffering inflicted, the amount of treachery utilized, or quantity of terror employed. Worse yet, there are no distinctions about which members of the out-group can be killed; they are all to be killed in this sort of war. Speier wrote his piece in 1941, so he
from one form to another as events progress. Reason Papers Vol. 38, no. 1 132 cavalier are exchangeable. In agonistic war, Speier adds, the fighting often have a kind of ritual function, rather like a religious (" ethical motive ") play. Both instrumental and agonistic wars are frequently, if not usually, " regulated " war, meaning they are constrained by partake rules of warfare. These are rules about where battle can take place, what fourth dimension it can occur, what forms of conduct consume to be observed (for example, regarding the treatment of prisoner), what weapons can be use, on what people the weapons can be used (for case, combatants), and what can be done to the opponent's territory. In absolute war, by contrast, the out - group is viewed as inherently evil, essentially different from the in - group, and intrinsically threatening to the very existence (or at least the internal cohesion) of the in - group. The outgroup is viewed as being essentially unlike either in appearance, religion, acculturation, or race in a room that is at the like prison term disgusting and threatening, hence intolerable to the indiana - group. Reverting to the example of the ancient Greeks, Speier points out that while the wars between Greek city - country were agonistic, the wars the Greeks fought against tribes they characterized as " barbarian " were absolute. 13 He also include as modern examples of absolute war the following: ideological wars, " fight in the name of political beliefs thus dear to the belligerents that they arouse a crusading spirit " 14; civil wars, where one slope regards the other as treasonous in fail the tribe itself and thus deserving of annihilation; religious wars; and colonial war. As a consequence of the way the in - group perceive the out - group, the goal of absolute war is to exterminate the out - group. As Speier thus trenchantly puts it, " Peace end an absolute war is established without the foe. The opponent is an existential foe. Absolute war is waged in order to annihilate him. " 15 As a result, there are no rule in absolute war - no limitations on the weapons used, the degree of suffering inflicted, the amount of treachery use, or quantity of terror hire. Worse yet, there are no distinction about which members of the out - group can be killed; they are all to be killed in this kind of war. Speier wrote his piece in 1941, so he
 frlm one form to another ar events progress. Reasmn Papsrs Vol. 38, no. 1 132 cavaliers are similar. Mn atonisupc war, Speier adds, thd fightinh often yas e kind of ritual functiok, ratgcr linx a religious ("mprality") pldy. Both instrukevtcl and agonistic wars are often, if njt usuaklj, "regulated" wats, mesging nhty are constrained by shared rulea of wagfare. These are riles about where battle caj tane place, what timed it can ocxur, ryat forms of conduct have to be obaerved (for example, regarding thd trectment of ptnwonfts), what weapins cwn be used, ok what [eople yhe weapons cak be nsed (for example, combatanvs), and what can be djne to tha kpponent's territoey. In atsolgte dqr, cy doitrzst, thf ont-group is biewed as ibherently evil, essemtyqlly differenf from tre in-group, and intrinsically threateninc tk the very existence (or at least the internap cohesiog) of the in-group. The outgroup is viewed as being assenvixllv diffdeejt either in appearance, religion, culture, or rwde ik a way that is ct the same time dlsbosting and thrgateniny, hsnce intolerable tl the ig-group. Revertigg tp the example of the ancienr Greeks, Speper points out that whnle the wars beteeen Breek city-states were ayonistjc, the wars the Greeir fought against trpbes they characterized as "barfarian" wece abxolute. 13 He slso igcludes as modevt examples of absopute car tve followijg: ideological wars, "fought in tix name of polothcan belieff so cear to the bqlligerents thct they crouse a crusadihg spirmt" 14 ; civil wwrs, where one dide regards the othqr aw trwasonour in betraying yhe tribe itself ane thus deserving on annkgilation; religiius wars; and colonoal waws. Ax w consequence of ghe eay tfe in-group ierzeivrs the out-group, the coal of absolute war ix bo extermunate thq out-group. As Speier so trenchajtly 'uts iv, "Peacr tgrminating an absolute war is eatablishef wlthout the enqmy. Bhe jpponent ix an existential enemy. Absolute war is xaged in order to annihulate him." 15 As a resolt, there are io rulqs in absmlute war-no limitatiins on the weaponx used, the degree of aufferhng ijflicted, the amount of treachery utilized, or quantity of terror employed. Qorse bee, there are no cistitccious aboue whmci members of the put-group can be killed; they are all to te killed in this sort of war. Xpdier wrote hir piece in 1941, so he
from one form to another as events Papers 38, no. 132 cavaliers are adds, fighting often has kind of ritual rather like a religious ("morality") play. instrumental and agonistic wars are often, if not usually, "regulated" wars, meaning they constrained by shared rules of warfare. These are rules about where battle can place, times can what forms of conduct have to be observed (for example, regarding the treatment of prisoners), what can be used, on what people the weapons be used (for example, and what can be done the territory. In war, contrast, out-group is viewed inherently evil, essentially different from the in-group, and intrinsically threatening to the very existence (or at least internal cohesion) in-group. The is as essentially different either religion, culture, or race in a at the same time disgusting and threatening, hence to the Reverting to the example of the Greeks, Speier points out that while the wars Greek city-states were agonistic, the wars the Greeks fought against tribes they characterized as "barbarian" 13 He also includes modern examples of war following: wars, in the of political beliefs so dear to the belligerents that they arouse crusading spirit" 14 ; civil wars, where one side regards as in betraying the itself and thus deserving annihilation; wars; and colonial wars. consequence the perceives out-group, goal of absolute war to exterminate the out-group. As so trenchantly puts it, is established without the enemy. The opponent is existential enemy. Absolute war is waged in to annihilate him." 15 As a result, there are no rules in war-no limitations weapons used, the degree of suffering inflicted, the of treachery utilized, or of terror employed. Worse yet, there are no distinctions which of the can be killed; are all to killed in this war. Speier his in
 from one form to another as eveNts progresS. ReasOn PApeRs vol. 38, nO. 1 132 cavAliers are similAR. In aGonistic war, Speier adds, tHe figHtINg ofTEn Has a kInd of riTUaL FUncTiOn, RatHeR LiKe a reLigIous ("morAlity") play. BOth InStrumental anD AgOnistic warS arE often, if not uSuaLly, "regUlAteD" Wars, mEanIng thEy are cONstraiNed by sharEd RUles of WArfare. THESe Are rUles about where batTLe CAn take place, whaT times It CAn OCCur, WhaT forms of coNdUct haVE to be obSErVED (For EXample, regardiNg the treatmENt oF prisoNeRs), wHAt weapOns caN bE UseD, on what peopLe thE weapons cAn be usED (for exaMPle, combAtants), And WhaT can BE dOnE to ThE OppONeNt's TErrItory. In aBsOlUte waR, by cONTRAst, tHe oUt-grOup is Viewed as inherEntLy evIL, esSentiAlly dIffeReNt froM the in-Group, AnD intrinsically tHreaTening to tHe vErY exIsTence (OR at leaSt tHe iNternal CohesioN) Of tHe IN-GRoUp. The outgroup is vieWeD AS bEing esseNtiallY DiFfERent eithEr In aPpeaRANce, reLigiON, cUlture, or Race in A WaY tHat is at ThE same tImE diSguSting ANd thReatenIng, hence IntolERable to the in-grOUp. Reverting to THe EXAmPLe of The Ancient GreeKs, SpEIer pOintS OuT thAT whilE the wArS BeTWeen Greek city-states WeRe agonIstic, The wars the GreEks fought aGAINst tribeS theY ChARacterized as "baRbariAn" were absoLUte. 13 He alsO inclUdes as moDern exampLES of absolUte War The FolLOWiNg: ideological WARs, "foUgHt in the NamE of poliTicAl bEliEfs So Dear to the BelligerEnTs ThAt TheY arouSE a crusadInG spIrIt" 14 ; cIvil wARs, wherE one sIde rEgArDS thE other aS TrEASonoUs In BetrAyiNg The trIbe iTSelF and thuS deservinG of ANnihIlAtIon; reliGious wars; and cOlOnial wars. AS a ConSequenCE Of the way The in-group perceives the oUT-group, tHe gOal of AbsoLute war is To eXtermiNatE The out-Group. AS SpeiEr So tRENchanTLY pUts It, "peace termiNATinG an abSoLute War is esTablished without thE EneMy. The opponent Is aN exiSTEnTiaL EnEMy. ABsOLutE WAr is waged in ordeR to annihilAtE HiM." 15 As a result, THerE aRe no rulEs in absOlute WAr-no limItations oN the weapoNs Used, THE deGree of suffEring infLicted, the AMount OF tReachEry UtilizEd, Or qUantiTy of teRRor EmploYed. WorSe Yet, theRe are No DistinctIons about which members of The out-Group Can Be killed; tHey ARe aLl to be kilLed iN this sort oF waR. SpEier wRotE His piEce iN 1941, So He
 from one form to anotheras eventsprogr ess . R ea sonPape rs Vol. 38, no .  1 1 32 cavaliers are simil ar. I na goni s ti c war , Speie r  a d d s,th efig ht i ng  ofte n h as a ki nd of ritu alfu nction, rath e rlike a rel igi ous ("morali ty" ) play .Bot h  inst rum ental  and a g onisti c wars ar eo ften,i f not u s u al ly,"regulated" wars, me a ning they areconstr ai n ed b y s har ed rules o fwarfa r e. Thes e  a r e rul e s about where  battle can tak e plac e,  wh a t time s itca n  oc cur, what f orms  of condu ct hav e  to beo bserved  (forexa mpl e, r e ga rd ing  t h e t r ea tme n t o f prison er s) , wha t we a p o n s ca n b e us ed, o n what people  th e we a pon s can  be u sed(f or ex ample,  comb at ants), and what  can  be donetoth e o pp onent ' s terr ito ry.  In abs olute w a r,by c o nt rast, the out-grou pi s  v iewed as  inher e nt ly evil, es se nti ally d iffer entf ro m the in -group ,  a nd  intrin si callyth rea ten ing t o  the  veryexistenc e (or at least the i n ternal cohesi o n) o ft he i n-g roup. The o utgr o up i s vi e we d a s  bein g ess en t ia l ly different either  i n appe aranc e, religion,culture, o r r ace in a  way th a t is at the sa me ti me disgust i ng and t hreat ening, h ence into l e rable to  th e i n-g rou p .  R everting to t h e  exa mp le of t heancient  Gr eek s,Spe ie r pointsout that  w hi le  t hewarsb etween G re ekci ty- state s  wereagoni stic ,th e  wa rs theG re e k s fo ug ht  aga ins ttribe s th e y c haracte rized as"ba r bari an "were ab solute. 13 He  a lso includ es  as  moder n examples  of absolute war the fo l lowing:  id eolog ical  wars, "f oug ht inthe name o f poli tical  b eli e f s sod e ar  to  t he bellige r e nts  that  t heyarousea crusading spirit "  14  ; civil wars , w here o ne  si d er ega rd s  th e other as treaso nous in be tr a yi ng the tri b e i ts elf and  thus d eserv i ng of a nnihilati on; relig io us w a r s;and coloni al wars.  As a con s equen c eof th e w ay the  i n-g rouppercei v esthe o ut-gro up , thegoalof  absolut e war is to exterminate  the o ut-gr oup . As Spei ers o t renchantl y pu ts it, "Pe ace  te rmina tin g  an a bsol u te  wa r  is e stab l ished wit h ou t t h e  e nemy. The o p p o nen t isane xisten tial  enemy. Absolutew ar is waged in  ord e r  to  an n ihil at e him." 15 Asa r es u l t, there  a re no rules  in abso lu t e war -no li mitati ons ont h ew eapons  use d,the degre e o fs ufferin gin f licted , th eamount  of tr e ache r y  utilized, or qu antit y of te r ror  empl oy ed. Wor s e ye t, there a re no disti nction s ab out w hich me mb ers of  th eout-groupc an be kil led;they ar ealltobe kil ledi n  this  sor tofwar. Spei e r  w r ot eh ispiec e in19 41,so he
 from_one form_to another as events_progress. Reason_Papers_Vol. 38,_no._1 132 cavaliers_are similar. In_agonistic war, Speier adds,_the fighting often_has_a kind of ritual function, rather like a religious ("morality") play. Both instrumental and_agonistic_wars are_often,_if_not usually, "regulated" wars, meaning_they are constrained by shared_rules of_warfare. These are rules about where battle can_take_place, what times_it can occur, what forms of conduct have to_be observed (for example, regarding the_treatment of prisoners),_what_weapons_can be used, on_what people the weapons can be_used (for example, combatants), and what_can be done to the opponent's territory._In absolute war, by contrast, the_out-group is viewed as inherently_evil, essentially_different from the in-group, and_intrinsically threatening to_the very_existence (or at_least the internal cohesion) of the_in-group. The outgroup_is viewed as being essentially different_either_in appearance, religion,_culture,_or_race in_a way that_is_at the_same_time disgusting and threatening, hence intolerable_to_the in-group. Reverting to the example of_the ancient Greeks, Speier_points_out that while the_wars between Greek city-states were_agonistic, the wars the Greeks fought_against tribes_they characterized_as "barbarian" were absolute. 13 He also includes as modern examples_of absolute war the following: ideological_wars, "fought in the_name of_political_beliefs so dear_to_the belligerents_that they arouse a crusading spirit" 14_; civil_wars, where one side regards the_other as treasonous in_betraying_the tribe itself and thus deserving_of annihilation; religious wars; and colonial_wars. As a consequence of_the_way_the in-group perceives the out-group,_the goal of absolute war is_to exterminate the_out-group. As Speier so trenchantly puts it,_"Peace_terminating an absolute war is established_without_the enemy. The opponent is an_existential_enemy._Absolute war is waged in_order to annihilate him." 15 As_a result, there are no rules in absolute war-no_limitations on the_weapons used, the degree of_suffering_inflicted,_the amount of treachery utilized, or quantity of terror employed._Worse yet,_there are no_distinctions about which members of the out-group can be killed;_they are all to be killed in_this sort of war. Speier wrote his piece in 1941, so_he