There’s this argument that you often see that essentially
argues that the pacifist’s quest for peace is futile. It essentially goes along
the lines of: humanity has been mostly at war, therefore it is our natural
state. However, I think that it is taking a simplistic view of the matter and
that the conclusion that war is our natural state doesn’t actual follow from
that observation.
Think about it: not everyone involved in a war is supporting
violence. In fact, most people are probably against it. They are just
supporting the cause. The people actually in favor of violence are those in
control, the leaders of the countries at war. They are the ones actually making
the decision to go to war. The people fighting would probably prefer peace, as
no one really enjoys killing and risking getting killed (there are some
psychological objections, but I’m going to ignore them since they are largely a
product of living in a society constantly at war, I don’t think that they are
born that way).
So it is the leaders of a country that are making the
decision to fight. So how do they end up in a position of power? Mostly by
being violent, aggressive, and rather Donald Trump-like. They push out quieter
candidates with their yelling and gain the support of the people.
So the fact that humanity has mostly been at war is because
of our tendency to have aggressive people in power, rather than a universal
inclination to violence. Which is an entirely different problem to be dealing
with.
No comments:
Post a Comment