War is a human institution in which human beings settle their differences - religious, political, or otherwise - by killing and/or inflicting harm on one another. Is it a necessary thing, or is it unnecessary? This is not to be a debate regarding a specific war, nor is it to be a debate about future wars. The purpose of this thread is to argue whether or not war is an inherent part of the nature of mankind. One side of the argument is that war is inevitable, while the other is that war is an unnecessary institution and that disagreements can be settled in other ways. This is not the place for blind patriotism, nationalism, pacifism, and the like. If you're going to make a point/pick a side, back it up. Admittedly, I am uncertain as to which side I am on. Personally, I would like to think that war is unnecessary, yet I also see how prevalent war is in the world we live in and that shakes my belief in the integrity of mankind. I have chosen not to make up my mind at the present because I know that there is much in this world that I have yet to learn, and I feel that making a decision now would be doing so prematurely. I'd like to start things off with a biting, sarcastic short story by none other than Mark Twain. This was published after his death, and shortly before the US's entry into World War I. It's an interesting read.
The question of war raises a question of the underlying staple of war-violence. I am personally of the mind that the majority of human beings are, at their core, inherently violent, primal creatures. We have a medium of entertainment completely and entirely centered around the concept of the "good" beating up the "bad". The recent emergence of the gaming industry has only further augmented this- a great majority of the popular titles out there center around some kind of war, some sort of violence. Of course, that's nothing compared to the gladiatorial battles of the Ancient Romans, or the bloody public executions in medieval Europe. When one considers the sad truth that, in spite of our accomplishments, the course of human history is stained a deep crimson with blood, it lends a great deal of credence to the idea that somewhere in our minds, there is still that animalistic aspect of us. Violence isn't simply so integral to us because it's in our nature- the fact is, it works. When you want something from someone, you can just punch them and take it-schoolyard bullies learn this from an early age. When you hate someone, the hatred may often boil over into rage. When you have a heated disagreement with someone, all it takes is for one of the parties to throw a single punch. So, we have something of a fascination with violence- that much we can say to be at least something of a truth. Lest you think I am painting mankind as an out of control beast, I will also note the fact that, ultimately, while a violent animal, man is also a social one- people need other people, and are certainly quite capable of caring for one another, given the correct circumstances. But I am going off on a tangent-the original question is whether or not war is a necessary thing. I have already argued that the concept of war is nothing new- that the idea of solving one's problems and sorting out one's differences through violent acts is as old as human civilization. Throughout history, war has been fought for many reasons, as noted by Debo- fear, religious fervor, political gain, economic gain, or even pure, unadultered hatred. Violence begets violence, and so in many cases the only way to stop a war is often to mobilize one's own army-once one side has been beaten into submission or both sides have become exhausted, this is when treaties are discusseed. If violence is an inherent aspect of humankind, does this mean that war, too, is also inherent? One would think that the answer to this is clearly yes. IF violence is inherent, and war is an extension of violence, then war, too, is inherent. And if war is something inherent to the human species, it therefore must be an inevitable, albeit tragic, result of the human condition. But inherent does not equate necessity. Simply because something is inherent and inevitable, that does not mean that it is necessary. So, although I could end here, I will further extend my position, with the question "Though war may be an inevitable aspect of human beings, is it a necessary evil?" Yes and no. Like most moral questions, ruminations on war will often come to a screeching halt smack dab in the center of the 'gray area'. Like most moral questions, the answer to this one is...."It's subjective." I compared war to violence, and I will again. While it may not be acceptable to resort to violence in obtaining what you want, it could be considered completely acceptable to use violence against someone with which negotiations have failed, someone who is threatening your loved ones with death- and whom you have the power to stop. In this same vein, war may not be necessary or acceptable if it is simply for political or monetary gain, but in the case of stopping some real, palpable, discernable threat- some "evil" if you will, one could make a strong case as to the necessity of war. Opponents of my argument might note famous figures of ages past who have solved problems through complete nonviolence. One popular retort will likely be Mahatma Ghandi. Here, my argument seems to fall apart. Or does it? I have stated that violence is an inherent and primal aspect of human nature. I never once implied that it was an indomitable one. Perhaps one day, in the distant future, humankind will be able to set aside their differences and live in a world without violent conflict-existing as a unified race. Until that day arrives, however, we will simply have to accept war for the sad inevitability that it is. ============= I likely rambled a bit. It's four in the morning, so I believe it's excusable.