I defended the yes side in class, but honestly I favor the no side, so that's what I'll defend here. Unlike in class, I'm defining key terms to make this debate understandable so one side doesn't say war is killing and the other says war is barroom brawling.
War is defined as "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation" by dictionary.com.
Human nature is defined as "the psychological and social qualities that characterize humankind" by dictionary.com
First, let me point out that it is not enough to say that some humans want to war as proof that war is human nature. This is because of the definition of human nature that says it characterizes humankind, not a single human. Second, war is not brawling or fighting. War is a "conflict" through "force or arms". Basically an armed conflict. So here what the topic looks like now: "Is armed conflict a quality that characterizes humankind?"
I would argue that it is not. The answer seems much clearer now that terms have been defined, true, the terms can be counter-defined, but my definitions are the number 1 definitions in order, so they're likely the best ones, if not at least the most common ones. Most people would say they feel no need to involve themselves in armed conflict sometime during their life. It isn't like breathing (which is a necessity) nor is it like sex (as Sam suggested) in that most men (I can't speak for women) desire to have sex at some point in their life. Desire for pleasure may be human nature, as Sam suggests, but armed conflict isn't.
So as to not make this post incredibly long and people afraid to comment on it, I only have one other point. Just because war is so prevalent in human history it does not prove that war is human nature. Your freak human desires war: Hitler, Napoleon, etc. In order to stop said freak, other humans fight him whether they wanted a war or peace. What do you guys think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Ed, I think this is a good, thoughtful post. It seems to me that you are essentially arguing that war is not an inherent part of human nature rather than not taking any sides as you say in your opening. Right?
I agree with what you said. I don't think people have the same urge to rage war than they do to have sex or other parts of human nature. We are aggressive by nature, however as you say, "armed conflict" isn't part of our DNA. I'm impressed with your ability to argue for the opposing side, even though you believed in something different.
Like Michael, i'm impressed. Your arguments in class were good enough to completely throw me off your real opinion! Bravo.
Setting out definitions is always a good idea, too. You create a really well-thought-out argument here the way you rephrased the question makes it seem pretty clear. i'm sure that the majority of humans do not actually engage in armed conflict between nations or parties within a nation in their lifetimes (though i have no statistics to back that up whatsoever). (in addition to your point that they have no real urge to do so anyway.) That in itself seems to prove that it is not a characteristic of humankind.
Your last point is worth the extra paragraph for sure. it goes back to the "fighting for peace" thing, though, which is always ironic.
I agree with your analysis of human nature and war. I argued (or tried) what you said but in a different way. I think your right, "just because war is so prevalent in human history it does not prove that war is human nature." I think this makes total sense and we happen to think sometimes that - as your statement suggests- war is human nature because it is so prevalent. I argue in my post that it is so prevalent because we make it that way through media and culture- like we discussed in class. And, perhaps the best way to eliminate the image that we are inherently inclined to wage war, we must eliminate war as popularized in media and culture. I think you very effectively argue that war is not part of human nature.
In class I argued that war is an inherent part of human nature but in reality, I only half support that claim. I believe that violence and hostility, not necessarily warfare, are inherent in human beings. All humans have the capability to be violent and hostile. Most humans, as we agreed in class, would prefer not to resort to violence but far too often we as a species display are tendency to do exactly that. I say that I "half" support the claim that warfare is inherent in humans because violence and hostility, which are, is what leads to warfare. Basically I'm saying humans are inherently violent creatures that on occasion let that lead to war.
I like how you first pointed out that war "is a conflict carried on by force of arms". I agree with this point and it is completely valid because humans are not inherently "armed" with weapons and such. Although that seems a little wacky to say, I hope you understand what I'm trying to point out. I also like how you made the distinction of defending yourself and your country from people such as Hitler and Napoleon. This really clears up the situation we had in class and I am almost convinced that war is not inherent, but I haven't been completely won over yet. Your post really clarified the issue for me if not all of us regarding our debate in class.
I think it is somewhat scary to actually believe that war is a part of human nature. It would be an admission to the fact that humans are cruel and savage and have a passion for warfare. I don’t completely agree that war is a part of human nature, but one cannot ignore the fact that war has become a part of human life. Wars are mans oldest tradition for settling arguments or disputes and this same method is used today. Something can be said for the fact that war is so prevalent in human society and has existed for so many years. It may be disturbing and difficult to accept, but maybe humans need war and the subsequent death, warfare and disaster.
I really like how you defined everything first in your post. I do think that is really important (I talked about that in my first blog). I know you didn't want to write too much, but I wish you would have talked more about what you think war is. You state that it isn't human nature, but then don't really say what you think. I think it was a really good blog posting Ed, and I can't believe you would ditch the "yes team" so quickly after you passion in the in-class debate.
I believe (or want to believe) that war is not an inherent part of human nature but I also recognize that we have fallen into a habit of continuing to battle others because of opposing thoughts/ideas.
I believe that times have changed and the idea of representing ones country through the means of joining the military (using US as example) has significantly decreased. I do not mean that the number of signees has decreased because i do not know the numbers but as far as a nation our willingness to go to war for our country is much lower than it used to be. A few decades ago once teens were legally of age to enlist in the military they would do so immediately and that is hardly the case anymore.
After all the discussion that we've had I think that perhaps war isn't an inherent part of our nature. Perhaps it's just the result of the other parts of our nature. An extreme.
Ed, i agree with what you said, and also want to point out i dont think sam is the one who said that war is like sex, considering he was arguing with me that sex is something that is a necessity, the desire to use armed force isnt. Good post
I have to agree with Nick. It is in our nature to be violent. I think that the whole class gets wrapped up in war, and war only. We are aggressive and violent, but we as one person can not wage a war. When I think of war i envision hundred of thousands of people fighting each other. I don't think that anyone in our class with ever have the authority to wage an actually war, but we do have the ability to be violent and aggressive because it is apart of our nature.
Post a Comment