Most Helpful Opinions
Arguably greed fueled violence wherein old rich men send poor young men out to protect their property, then promptly abandon them once their property is no longer in danger. They will give a few medals (but not to everyone who did something, or it would cheapen the effext) to keep the dumber ones inspired, or lie to them all about ptriotism and freedom or that "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori", but the politicians or factoty owners never seem to experience that sweetness for some reason...0
If you do a wiki search on say wars between France and England you get a very long list going back a long way with only short breaks between them. Plus all the periods of internal conflict. So it seems peace is the oddity.0
What Girls & Guys Said
“Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called War; and such a war as is of every man against every man. In such condition there is no place for Industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual Fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” -Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 16510
Might makes right trope and pacifism backfire trope, I believe that the new left is suicidal.
The two put together form the natural state.
"Peace is the waiting period between two wars"
Humans have created this illusion that we are so different from the animals and hence can live outside of the laws of the jungle but we can't escape our animalistic instinct.
Fight or flight.
The need to reproduce.
All these combined make war an inevitable outcome no matter how "civilized" we become0
It’s both. Most people are peaceful, but there are enough people who can’t or won’t manage their violent impulses AND manage to put themselves in positions of influence, that war is all but inevitable. Add to that the profitability of war, and it becomes absolutely inevitable. Capitalism is king. People will justify literally anything in the name of profits.0
I would say there has always been cycles of war.
Sometimes there is a long period where a generation or two doesn’t see war.
Like the period between the Napoleonic war in 1815 and the unification wars of Italy and Germany in the 1860s/1870s.0
Societies, nations or cultures usually do wants in their best interest with the intent of preserving, promoting or protecting their own society. So that's its natural state, war and peace is just the means in which they do it.0
This depends on the resources and economic systems and the corruption of each nation. For instance, in the US, there are a moderate amount of recoverable resources and a predatory Capitalist economic system paired with a relatively high level of corruption, leading to a chronic cycle of resource exploitation, manufacturing, war-making, recovery, and back-to-resource exploitation.1
I think most societies are at war with nobody currently. However, it seems always the big countries that are fighting, like Russia attacked Ukraine; Yankeeland attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, Dixie, etc; etc.0
It is war. It is baked into our DNA. If we did not fight over nationality we would find something else to fight about.0
The natural state would be peace if greedy and envious and selfish people did not exist.0
As long as we have people who flip tables over after they lost a board game fair and square, there will always be war.1
No such thing as a natural state of societies. Different societies have different cultural norms.0
War and selfishness. That’s base human nature.10
If you want peace prepare for war1
War peace in between0
"Only the dead have seen the end of war".0
I say both.0
Could not pass this one up. The question hinges on the definition of "natural."
To oversimplify for sake of space, the "ancients" - think Socrates, Aristotle, Plato - defined the "natural" as the perfection toward which a thing trends. There is no perfection, but every person wants to be the perfection of him or herself. In inanimate objects, the chair you are sitting on is the perfect chair. It is - to borrow an odd formulation - a chair, chairing.
Then along came the "moderns" who split into two camps. The original "moderns," see also Thomas Hobbes, believed that the natural was wild and uncontrolled. Hence his famous phrase, "Life in the state of nature is nasty, brutish and short." Thus the need for law to impose order and, if possible, to perfect it insofar as imperfect being can perfect something.
Later came Rousseau, and to a lesser extent Locke. These men argued, again to oversimplify somewhat, that man in the state of nature was perfect but in the interaction of human society the impact of society was to corrupt human nature. Thus the need for an agreed upon social contract which moderates the corrupting influence of society. Locke arguing that this was an accommodation, Rousseau, that with proper engineering, man could be brought back to his essential good nature and be perfected.
Put me down for Hobbes, (with a touch of the "ancients") recognizing the limiting principle that his solution, in effect, put imperfect beings in charge of running an imperfect state. Thus limits must be put on the power of the - to borrow Hobbes' phrase - "leviathan."
Man, absent the restraints of laws - both formal (legal) and informal (moral) - is a beast. As can be seen in those places where the rule of law has collapsed. (It being added that the moral is often more important - and prior to - the legal.) In such places there is mayhem, exploitation, and bloodshed.
In the international arena, the thing that maintains peace is not common morals, but a balance of power. Those seeking to exercise power, though often not without some set of moral principles animating their actions, are restrained in the use of force only by a balance of power.
International law does exist, but it is not law as it exists within societies where there is general agreement on moral principle. Instead it is law based on a grand quid pro quo - "You don't do it to us, we won't do it to you." Rather, as the American President Theodore Roosevelt put it, "World peace comes not from human kindness or moral restraint, but from balanced power; equilibriums of force restraining the selfish aims of nation-states."
Thus, a qualified difference. Within societies there is an element of common morals that conduces to a relative stability approximating peace. In the international arena it is war restrained by "equilibriums of force restraining the selfish aims of nation-states."