Many people argue that war is inevitable for humans, but I disagree with this. It is not a necessity but, as Margret Mead put it, an “invention”. Mead, an anthropologist and expert on human culture, writing during World War II, gives examples of cultures who do not engage in warfare. There are the Lepchas of Sikkim who are a peaceful people, and the Eskimos, who are passionate, aggressive people. They engage in one-on-one fights to assert dominance. This demonstrates that the absence of war can not only be accounted for on the basis of a lack of reason to fight. (Mead 502).
Humans often go to war over things that are not vital to their survival, making these wars unnecessary. They fight for glory, honor, more land, more resources, or for a woman. In some instances the nation going to war may vitally need the resources they are attempting to acquire, but there are other ways to acquire these things than war. People even go to war over disputes between the heads of nations. These leaders are individuals, who just happen to have control of an army. Why do they not just fight it …show more content…
Even St. Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic philosopher, says that a “just cause” for war could include deserving it “on account of some fault” (485). Now this makes sense for a reason for one person to fight another, but not in the context of masses of men fighting, and killing one another. This is wasteful of human life and resources, unless it is in the defense of other human life. Aquinas also says just war must always “intend the advancement of good and the avoidance of evil” (485). This should be true of all just war, but can also be true of unjust war. One man’s definition of good does not always match another’s. Hitler for example believed he was doing a good thing ridding the world of the Jews. He also came to power in completely legal ways. So does this make what he did morally justifiable? I sure hope
Humans often go to war over things that are not vital to their survival, making these wars unnecessary. They fight for glory, honor, more land, more resources, or for a woman. In some instances the nation going to war may vitally need the resources they are attempting to acquire, but there are other ways to acquire these things than war. People even go to war over disputes between the heads of nations. These leaders are individuals, who just happen to have control of an army. Why do they not just fight it …show more content…
Even St. Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic philosopher, says that a “just cause” for war could include deserving it “on account of some fault” (485). Now this makes sense for a reason for one person to fight another, but not in the context of masses of men fighting, and killing one another. This is wasteful of human life and resources, unless it is in the defense of other human life. Aquinas also says just war must always “intend the advancement of good and the avoidance of evil” (485). This should be true of all just war, but can also be true of unjust war. One man’s definition of good does not always match another’s. Hitler for example believed he was doing a good thing ridding the world of the Jews. He also came to power in completely legal ways. So does this make what he did morally justifiable? I sure hope