Philo
Sophos
·com

philosophy is for everyone
and not just philosophers

philosophers should know lots
of things besides philosophy


PhiloSophos knowledge base

Pathways to Philosophy programs

Pathways web sites

Philosophy lovers gallery

Science, arts and humanities

PhiloSophos home

home first back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 forward

Chris asked:

Human nature and World Peace.

Can world peace truly be attained?

============

In an answer to Marcela on this page, I suggested that it is human nature to form strong beliefs and
alliances and to be territorial. This is not necessarily incompatible with world peace as long as wars
and terrorism are made impossible. Wars and terrorism will only be impossible if there is a worldwide
ban on the production — or a total control of — weapons and arms. However, even if all national
governments agreed to give up arms to some central control, or there was a global government with
the power to command this, man still has the intelligence and ability to make weapons. There may be
no wars if nations were to abide by international peace charters — or if they were all committed to
one global government — but this would not rule out terrorism and terrorism tends to lead to war.

As I answered to Marcela, a global aspiration or commitment is difficult to envisage. Ideally, we could
all commit to environmental conservation at this time, but man is too selfish. This selfishness is,
though, part and parcel of our ability to form close connections in a beneficial sense, since it gives
rise to commitments to communities. We care most for those with whom we live in close contact.
Since mankind doesn't have a universal attitude which can bring unity between persons, war and
terrorism seem inevitable.

Religious commitment is one cause for strife, and although atheism is now an option, it doesn't follow
that religious zeal, where it exists, is lessened. Indeed, it is probably strengthened. Even if there were
no territorial claims based upon geographical and religious alliances, there would still be individuals
who strive for power and wealth who will make claims against which others rebel.

So, really, there is no hope for peace for mankind. It might be wondered whether mankind might
change. If we were inclined to be peaceful we would be a strange passive, tolerant sort of being with
no strong beliefs and no religious attachments.

Rachel Browne