War, Peace and the State of Nature

[The.Menace]

I think the natral state is war, but I know there are exceptions, for example all symbiosis. Besides that, in nature, animals usually don't kill eachother except in a predator-prey relationship - and that's a huge if you think about it. we as humans act differently, suppress eachother for the kick of it etc, that doesn't really happen in nature. Except in a predator-prey relationship, animals let eachother live and know to let go. You won the fight, aiight, there u go then. NO hard feelings it was a contest and someone won - humans go home and think about a dirty way of revenge.

Deep in my heart, I do believe that people are generally good, but I don't believe that we will ever achieve peace and justice. Our human characteristics prevent us from doing so.

Didn't you just contradict yourself?

 

[S O F I]

Didn't you just contradict yourself?

After I posted it, I thought of it, and then I realized I didn't. What I was getting at is, one can be a good person at heart, but not be just, or peaceful. You know?

 

[Rukas]

Now, Ruk, Are you saying that because we haven't run wild and killed each other years ago, we can achieve world peace and global justice? That's a bit over the top. There's middle ground.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Because we have not killed each other in the thousands of years we have been on this planet; because in small groups people can live in peace and justice; because there is good within humanity; I believe we can achieve world peace and global justice.

That doesnt mean we will, but we can, it is possible.

 

[S O F I]

^Fair enough, if you believe so. On the other hand, do you think we will achieve such things? Also, I'm hoping your reply isn't along the lines of, "Well, if there weren't people like you thinking we can't".

 

[Rukas]

^Fair enough, if you believe so. On the other hand, do you think we will achieve such things? Also, I'm hoping your reply isn't along the lines of, "Well, if there weren't people like you thinking we can't".

No my reply wasnt along those lines.

I dont think we will with our current way of thinking, no. But I do believe a global change is possible, probably brought on by one big huge last fuck up that kills most of us off.

However, each generation is more tolerant, and politics are about 60 years behind the average person, so if we all now think war is stupid, maybe in 60 years we'll be able to do something about it. Tolerance does progress, and with it I believe good and justice.

 

[ARon]

Like Rukas was saying we all want to have sex, but we have to battle each other to see who gets more mates. I don't want to say war but survival is a part of nature and that in turn can lead to war. There can be no peace I'd say, I'm not trying to say just with war or between humans but in Nature. Everything battles or has competition to survive, that isn't peace to me.

 

[7 Syns]

Human nature; I believe that after world war II, we as humans or atleast the main powers of the world took a turn for the worse. Before WWII I always hear my pops and grandma or older peoples talk about how people used to help one another, how neighbours would leave their houses pretty much open without the threat of robbers etc..

But after one century of pretty much non-stop war, one ends another starts and the progression of techknowledgy we have become so less humble as a race. So therefore our natural state is one of war.

Natural state is peace, we were born into a beautiful peaceful world even though some regard it as survival of the fittest.

peace.

 

[Glockmatic]

Human nature; I believe that after world war II, we as humans or atleast the main powers of the world took a turn for the worse. Before WWII I always hear my pops and grandma or older peoples talk about how people used to help one another, how neighbours would leave their houses pretty much open without the threat of robbers etc..

But after one century of pretty much non-stop war, one ends another starts and the progression of techknowledgy we have become so less humble as a race. So therefore our natural state is one of war.

Natural state is peace, we were born into a beautiful peaceful world even though some regard it as survival of the fittest.

peace.

Actually we are living in a state where there are less wars than ever.

Also like my earlier post stated, nature MAY look like its in peace, but it is not. Plants fight each other to get more sunlight, animals fight for territory and mates, virus' multiply, its all war. To not think that is to cover your eyes and live in a dream world.

 

[HitEmUp21]

So, if we were left to our own devices with no laws or institutional authority etc. what would happen?

I think that socialisation plays a major part in how we would act in such a situation (for instance the situation we are in now encourages greed, so people may kill and steal initially) and then the survival mechanism would take over, we would see what damage this dog-eat-dog mentality is doing and the communitarian attitude will overtake. One of cooperation will reign probably until greed takes over once again. Like Rukas, I believe in that dialiectical change thing, we are in a certain place right now, that will change and eventually we will find ourselves back here again.

But my underlying feeling is certainly somewhere between the Liberal and constructivist labels on the spectrum.

 

[LL COOL PAC]

Realist international theorists say the state of nature is a state of war, or at least, the preparedness for it. Human nature is inherently bad, competitive and distrustful. There exists no peace... what we might deem 'peace' is simply the time between wars. It is through a process of socialisation that we overcome these conflictual tendencies and subdue war. The anarchic system renders behaviour between states competitive and survival the ultimate goal.

Liberal international theorists on the other hand take the state of nature as naturally being peaceful. Human nature is essentially good and altruistic. Therefore war results not out of our natural tendency to engage in it, but rather as the inability to effectively overcome anarchic conditions. War is not inevitable - cooperation, diplomacy and dialogue between nations lessen the effects of anarchy and can prevent any possibility of war.

In the middle ground are the Constructivist theorists... neither state of being is natural - a condition of war or peace is determined having regard to the situation at hand. We construct either condition. The interests and goals of a state are not fixed - they are changeable.

Most people aren't aware of constructivism, although realism and liberalism have been discussed and studied for a long time. Each have their merits. Realism has had the most lasting and observable impact on international relations and the discipline of international relations theory on account of its ability to better explain the behaviour of states than any other...yet it is not without criticism either (notably as the theory works retrospectively and cannot predict state behaviour, rather it merely reflects upon it after the fact). In addition, it is questionable that liberalism has ever actually been practiced, we have institutions such as the United Nations and those of the past such as the League of Nations - neither of which reached their potential or have been (or were not able) to implement the liberal principles upon which they were based.


So having regard to these theories, what is the state of nature: one of war or one of peace? Is it that neither exist naturally - are they simply a result of our goals and pursuits at any given time, one which we chose, one which we construct?


I think like a liberal, but is this really a result of socialisation which makes me overcome the natural state of conflict and act in good ways? Is it the system that makes one behave good or bad or in-built mechanisms in human nature?

could you please define "natural".

 

[Minardi]

Actually we are living in a state where there are less wars than ever.
.

Ahhh just waited for that one to be pointed out...
The last 30 years there has been less wars then ever.

And what is peace? a world without wars? it seems that people only wage peace as something achievable without wars.

What about killings and other criminal acts? True peace is a world without violence and curruption, and that is not achievable, there will always be people with sick minds.

To get such a "heavenly" world we would have to trash all the things that makes us dissagree with eachothers (Culture Religions, etc.) and thats impossible.

 

[Amara]

could you please define "natural".

What is natural, or rather what is the state of nature is actually the question in this thread. Is it one of war or peace? I gave the theoretical underpinning of both sides... plus that of the constructivists which sit somewhere in between. So it's up to you to determine which, if either, if any at all is 'natural'.

 

[S O F I]

Ahhh just waited for that one to be pointed out...
The last 30 years there has been less wars then ever.

And what is peace? a world without wars? it seems that people only wage peace as something achievable without wars.

What about killings and other criminal acts? True peace is a world without violence and curruption, and that is not achievable, there will always be people with sick minds.

To get such a "heavenly" world we would have to trash all the things that makes us dissagree with eachothers (Culture Religions, etc.) and thats impossible.

In the words of T.H. White, the biggest and most occuring reason for war is the claim for boundaries. In my words, religion is the scapegoat for that.

 

[Florida123]

i feel as though instinctually, humans are a selfish breed, but emotionally and through our upbringing (most) we learn to counter that with compassion for our fellow man.

i feel genuine thoughts of peace and love for others, but at the same time, it would be difficult to compromise my own interests, when looking at my life as whole, for the good of the community.

i think through constant reminders that peaceful thoughts and actions lead to greater happiness, that would help to curb ideas that war may bring about happiness.

i just feel that satisfaction is the most important motivating factor in our thought process and subsequent actions. and so far throughout history, war has been used as a viable tool to achieve satisfaction in some form or another.

 

[Amara]

^ nice input cardella.

 

[Elmira]

could you please define "natural".

I don't think there is such a thing. You could say everything that is occuring in nature, but everything that exists today is some byproduct of nature. Everything we have or do must exist because we were made that way or it already existed.


In a sense, the answer to your question lies in the very questions you quoted. In Amara's post it is written "neither state of being is natural - a condition of war or peace is determined having regard to the situation at hand. We construct either condition. The interests and goals of a state are not fixed - they are changeable."

Being human is natural. We shouldn't say neither state of being (referring to war or peace) is natural, because in a way, it is these two things that make us natural. Our humanity is what defines us; what is natural. In a sense natural can actually be defined by our wars, our peace times, our mistakes in life, our ability to love, to hate, to learn, to do right, to do wrong...in short all the things that make us human. War and peace are parts of our lives, our existence. That is natural.

 

[Valeoz]

Natural is a fix state rendered by an intelligent agent. Simply said.

 

[XIAN]

I honestly believe that peace is our true nature. The thing that prevents this from being reality are illusions that make society look like we are different and separated from one another. If there were ten people (living together) on the earth, those ten people will not have war. They will have conflict, but they will not have an argument that cannot be resolved by understanding, and the reason is that they are that close to each other that they have discovered a love for each other.

The reason I beleive this is because we are happy in peace and unhappy in war. If we were naturally inclined to war and conflict I think that nature would show them as being desirable and making us happy. If we recognized the love we are capable of having for even our greatest enemy, then greed and war would not be issues, because we would have this feeling of compassion for everyone, and not want to suffer. That's clear thinking, but it's so hard to do! Since our birth we've been taught that there is an "us" and a "them." I think that psychologically we will eventually evolve into beings who respect and cooperate with each other.

~peace~

EDIT: I just wanted to add that the way that we acheive our true nature is to recognize love inside ourselves, which we have for others that are like us. The segregation in the world prevents us from this realization. When those barriers are broken, and society has a great feeling of love for each other, there will still be conflict but it will be rarer and rarer. By this time, many diseases will be cured and that goes for mental diseases too, which can include anti-social behavior. It's not as if capitalism will fall and this will happen all of a sudden, but if the world created a cooperative socialist system it will be a giant leap forward.

If you look at it in an evolutionary way, just look at the way parents raise their children today. Generally speaking, it is a much more humanistic approach than even 15 years ago (no more beatings, a stronger-than-ever appreciation of children as emotional and intelligent beings). These people who were given love as children will be more likely to be able to give love as adults to other adults, and therefore they will reproduce and raise their offspring to an even more compassionate way. Humanity will grow smarter through natural selection because love is more "fit" than hostility.

I have no doubt that we CAN acheive this. The only thing I'm afraid of is that we destroy ourselves before we ever get there.

 

[hizzle?]

everything the creator of this thread wrote is the same thing John Locke said

 

[Amara]

everything the creator of this thread wrote is the same thing John Locke said

John Locke is a drop in the ocean as far as this topic is concerned. It's not the same as what he said but it's an almagamation of what many theorists have said... Locke, Morgenthau, Waltz, Bull, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Carr...

But well done on the meaningless post that contributed absolutely nothing, pat yourself on the back.