Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The importance of conflict in society
The importance of conflict in society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The essence of humanity is laid out in the words of Thomas Hobbes, “The state of humanity is war” (94). Although it is not a perfect theory, it is, by far, the strongest theory proposed. After all, from the beginning of humanity, we have been in a state of war. It is not necessarily a war where conflicting parties bear arms, but it is a war where conflicting parties struggle for survival.
Even before our infantile bodies exit the womb of our mothers, we are at war. As tiny embryos, we struggle to survive inside the confines of our mothers. We depend on the incoming nutrients from our mothers to grow. As a result, we feed on the life force of the person who gave birth to us. Already at an early stage, we were fighting for survival. From
…show more content…
Just because we are born in a state of war, it does not mean Hsun Tzu’s theory that we are all born inherently evil (84), or Mencius’s theory that we are all born inherently good (78) is justified. Our state of war is to ensure our survival. Even if one were to assume that Hsun Tzu’s or Mencius’s theories were true, their theories are impossible. If all men are born inherently good, then evil cannot appear. Men cannot make one another evil if they are all born good. Likewise, if all men are born inherently evil, then goodness could not exist. Men cannot make one another good if they are all born …show more content…
Their interests, specifically those vital for survival, propel them to oppose everyone else’s. When in nature and when resources are scarce, animals at the top of the food chain do not yield to one another. Instead, they compete for the scarce resources. This same situation also applies to man. In a “state of nature” without laws or social structure, men act as animals (94). They compete for resources such as food and water. After all, all men desire the same end. They wish their stomachs to be satiated, their mouths to be quenched, and their bodies to be
War is seen as a universal concept that often causes discomfort and conflict in relation to civilians. As they are a worrying universal event that has occurred for many decades now, they posed questions to society about human's nature and civilization. Questions such as is humanity sane or insane? and do humans have an obsession with destruction vs creation. These questions are posed from the two anti-war texts; Dr Strangelove by Stanley Kubrick and Slaughterhouse Five written by Kurt Vonnegut.
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
The lines that define good and evil are not written in black and white; these lines tend to blur into many shades of grey allowing good and evil to intermingle with each another in a single human being. Man is not inherently good or evil but they are born innocent without any values or sense of morality until people impart their philosophies of life to them. In the words of John Locke:
War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.
It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This is where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be.
In a Man 's Nature is Evil, men are depicted as evil since birth. Hsün Tzu declares that "Man 's nature is evil; goodness is the result of conscious activity" (Tzu 84). He speaks about how men are born with fondness for certain aspects of life such as profit, envy and beauty. Consequently, obtaining these aspects would lead to a life of violence, crime and recklessness. According to Tzu, men are born with a pleasure for profit. However, this need for riches will cause a man to have conflicts and altercations in his life. This is due to the fact that man will have such a great urge to obtain profit in life that he will go to all means necessary, including violence. Man is also born with envy and hate; it is not something he is taught. The internal struggle these two attributes have to offer will once
“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.” (Eleanor Roosevelt). This is just one of the infinite examples of how human nature has been explored by so many different people. Each and every human is born with the capability of making their own choices. The decisions that they will make in the future will determine how evil they are viewed by others. Although one’s nature and nurture do affect their life, it is their own free will that determines whether or not they are evil.
John F. Kennedy once famously said, “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.” It has been said a few decades ago but the theme of war is relevant at all times. One might share Kennedy’s point of view, when another one not. The most obvious example of different views and approaches on how to deal with conflicts are of the Western and Eastern civilizations. The Western is focused on physical aggressiveness and getting things done through power and coercion, while the Eastern approach is more philosophical, rational, and strategic. We see such method of approach in Sun Tzu’s military treatise, “The Art of War.” Even though he wrote a manual on how to defeat an enemy, Sun Tzu emphasized that a large portion of success is based on the army’s moral duty, which is cultivated by incentives, leaders’ examples, and the ability to listen to their soldiers.
Philosophers since the beginning of time have debated over the source and cause of violent tendencies in humans that in turn produce global conflicts, to solve the age old question, man or beast? Global conflict can with out a doubt be completely accredited to the human race, but what are the particular reasons for humans to cause such conflicts? There are many topics that have been argued by philosophers and historians over the connection between the reasons the human race and global conflict. One such topic is the gender based theories and sexual differences of men and women. Others believe that religion, with particular emphasis on monotheistic beliefs, is the major basis of conflict among the human race up to this day. Another important fact to take into consideration when attempting to understand why there is global conflict in the human race; is the significance of individual cultures amongst opposing or simply separated tribes, groups, states, and nations. Lastly, one must consider the physical evidence, for example, figuring out what can be learned about previous prehistoric societies from anthropology and paleontology. The basis of the debate is the nature of mankind; is it in our nature to be like wild animals with a lust to kill with the only difference between us and animals being intelligence, or is it that mankind over the time of existence have developed such things as material goods, religious belief systems, and all different ways of life that are responsible for violence and conflict throughout the history of the world. There is no clear cut answer to why mankind acts in such a way, but one can develop a very strong argument or theory which includes and relat...
I see how peoples are set against one another, and in silence, unknowingly, foolishly, obediently, innocently slay one another… And all men of my age, here and over there, throughout the whole world see these things; all my generation is experiencing these things with me… What do they expect of us if a time ever comes when the war is over? Through the years our business has been killing;—it was our first calling in life. Our knowledge of life is limited to death. What will happen afterwards? And what shall come out of us?” (194)
The constant state of war is what Hobbes believes to be man’s original state of nature. According to Hobbes, man cannot be trusted in the state of nature. War among men is consequent and nothing can be unjust. Notions of justice and injustice or right and wrong will not hav...
Human beings, through warfare, negotiate between complete identity and complete ambiguity. Depending on the capabilities of the individual and their strength in battle, war can serve to emphasize either their vulnerability or their power. We see through the many battles, interventions of gods, and gruesome destruction of men in the Aeneid, that warfare allows for a physical expression of our need for unique identity and provides a means of externalization of internal conflicts which help us to discover exactly who we are and what it means to be human
Hobbes contends that states are a coalition of individuals in trust to work marginally together with peace and security rather than wholly to oneself in constant peril and competition. This proto-nihilistic view saying within the ‘war of every man against every man…nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have no place.’ is such that man’s natural state is amoral chaos and we coalesce into societies, and with society morality, only to better serve our
... best political system has caused dispute between mankind in which the pursuit of the answer turned our very own kind against one another. The search for the answer could not have pushed us further away from the initial question. The question being what is the best way to treat one another on the largest known scale? It seems that although we are able to pursue such important questions, our animalistic instincts get in the way of the answers. We find ourselves defensive and skeptical of each other’s actions and thought. There must be a push in better understanding of happiness, comfort, and virtue, in alignment with every human. Once humans can understand one another as equals of the same wants and needs, self-reflection of one’s intentions, and the pondering of others intentions will draw parallel, without doubt, and create once again innovation of thought.
Are human beings born to be good? Or are we naturally born to be evil? A person’s nature or essence is a trait that is inherent and lasting in an individual. To be a good person is someone who thinks of others before themselves, shows kindness to one another, and makes good choices in life that can lead to a path of becoming a good moral person. To be a bad person rebels against something or someone thinking only of them and not caring about the consequences of their actions. Rousseau assumed, “that man is good by nature (as it is bequeathed to him), but good in a negative way: that is, he is not evil of his own accord and on purpose, but only in danger of being contaminated and corrupted by evil or inept guides and examples (Immanuel Kant 123).” In other words, the human is exposed to the depraved society by incompetent guardians or influences that is not of one’s free will in the view of the fact that it is passed on. My position is humans are not by nature evil. Instead, they are good but influenced by the environment and societies to act in evil ways to either harm others or themself.