A few days ago the room was split into two and a debate was held about whether war is inherent in human nature or it is not. I was on the side that was attempted to argue that war is not inherent in human nature. The best argument my side could come up with was that human nature, at its root, is uninfluenced. By uninfluenced I mean that the origin of our nature, human nature at its beginning, is unaffected by fear, hunger, ego, and pride. These are just four driving forces that lead to war. We argued that because true human nature exists without the influence of these feelings, the idea and need to go to war simply does not exist.
Now for my real argument. I believe that human nature is not as simple as a state of being without the influence of outer situations. If the redundant but true phrase goes something like "we are defined by the way we respond to adversity" then I believe that our response to an influence is where our true human nature exists. And under this mantra, if a human being becomes hungry, he will try to find food. Or if a human being feels threatened, he has a self-righteous duty to defend himself.
I also believe that war is inevitable. Last year in nature in uses we studied people and the inner workings of thought and intuition. I learned that we are defined by our unique experiences and that these experiences give each one of us a different point of view. Because we can simply only see the world through our own eyes and with our own experiences, we will inevitably have different views on certain subjects. It is simply impossible to agree with everyone on everything. Even further, we hold some experiences closer to our hearts because they have had an even greater impact on our makeup. For example: religion, family, friendship, and one's country are four incredibly important subjects to most people's hearts and minds. Each person has had his or her own experience to define what those subjects mean to him or her. When someone's experiences differ to someone else, seeing eye to eye is simply impossible. Unless other experiences allow these two people to find a common ground. Look at the "War on Terror." We are fighting against people who believe that their one God does not believe in our existence. They believe that what they are doing is absolutely necessary for the goodness of their own people. We believe that what we are doing is necessary for the goodness of our people. While we have to in order to win the war, these two conflicting thoughts are the reasons war is inevitable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This is a good response to the "lack of influence" point. i still think that the whole idea of war comes from need, not human nature, though. We ARE influenced greatly by our culture and our society.
Another thought along these lines... Can "inherent human nature" change? Or is human nature the same as it was in prehistoric times? it's hard to say because our world is so different, but i think it's possible.
i can't agree with your "war is inevitable" statement. i do see what your saying, and i understand it, but i don't agree with you. i think conflicts CAN be worked out peacefully, even if we aren't usually taking the time to bother. Again--society's influence, perhaps? it's more acceptable to declare war and be forceful than to sit down at peace talks, i guess.
I agree with you that "our response to an influence is where our true human nature exists." And because of this point, I think it is important to recognize that we don't really understand our human nature all that well. Most of us have not had to respond to extreme influences and test our nature. I know we all have thought about human nature and what we would do if we were tested. To Tess's question, "can inherent human nature change?," I don't think human nature is a heritable trait, it is something inborn and involves instinct on some form or another. By literal thinking of the terms human nature, I don't think it can change even though the world around us is constantly changing. I believe that everyone has the same human nature, but what can change is our influences that cause to act in certain manners.
I think most people don't want to accept it, but I agree that war is inevitable. People will always have different perspectives and beliefs that they are willing to fight to defend. Countries will always be paranoid about their safety and wage war to avoid being struck first. People have a need to be superior, in order to ensure their security and feed their ego. Some argue that was is not an inherent part of human nature, but war is in fact a part of human life and existence. People have and always will find a problem that calls for military force. War is a part of humans that we need. War carries with it entitlement and
I also agree that war is inevitable only because of the fact that there will always be disagreements on different matters. While there is always a better solution to war it seems to me that we have just come so accustom to fighting and as a result it has become regarded as the social norm of resolving the conflict.
As for the question brought up by Tess, I agree with Scott. If something is regarded as human nature it shouldn’t change, but that is just my opinion on the subject.
I believe that war can not be avoided. Neither can aggression and violence. Like you said if we are hungry we will look for food. If we are threatened we will defend. Also it is apart of us to disagree. Like you also said we will always disagree unless we have been in "their shoes". Since the beginning of time humans have always had the capability to do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted. To wage war is not in our human nature. It is a fire that is waiting to be lite. And for that fire to be lighted certain events must happen and how we react will determine if that fire with ever be lite.
Post a Comment