To Kill, or Not to Kill
Michael Graham
Many are
quick to say that world peace is an unreachable and intangible task for this
day and age. Others defend the
possibility of world peace with allegations that those who do not believe world
peace is attainable, are only adding to the problem. There are two separable questions connected
to this argument. First, is world peace
possible given the collective violently oriented direction of the world? Second, do we as individual human beings hold
in us the potential to influence a positive end: world peace. The
answers to both of these questions provide one answer: Human potential to be “peace natured” exists,
but calls for a serious re-evaluation of our socialization process and a fundamental
reconstruction of the way we implement the solution to a problem.
Martin Luther
King Jr. said, “Men hate each other because they fear each other, and they fear
each other because they don’t know each other, and they don’t know each other
because they are often separated from each other.” Too, often, we place an emphasis on our
immediate surrounding community and its needs, rather than the needs of the
human race as a whole. A selfishly generated
hierarchy of worth places ourselves at the top. Mental boundaries are drawn by religion,
race, ethnicity, or even geographic location because of underlying insecurities
and an overwhelming need to belong. We
fail to understand the societies and cultures we aren’t directly affected by.
Misunderstanding leads to hatred, and hatred leads to violence. Robert M. Hutchins said, “We are here as
citizens of the world and friends of mankind.
Each of us is proud of his own country. But the man who said ’above all nations is
humanity’ may have had a more practical grasp of the future than he whose
slogan was, ’My country, right or wrong (Reed xvii).’
Often our motives in themselves are harmless
and natural, but the end results are contrary to worldly welfare. As naturally
vulnerable creatures
one way in which we deal with
our insecurities is to consume those we feel threatened by. Threatening atmospheres are sometimes
derived from confusion or misinterpretation.
The result is a feeling of hopeless paranoia.
An example of
this paranoia was shown in the aftermath of September 11th.
The initial feeling most Americans experienced was
fear. In watching television and reading
the newspaper, we soon learned of the culture that delighted in the destruction
and killing of many Americans. The
inadequate information released by the media, helped to stir up American hearts
in anger. Thus we see that fear led to
anger. In reply to millions of
vulnerable Americans, the government fought back at its supposed target, the
Taliban and Al Qaeda forces stationed in
The cold war
is an example of the endless cycle that nations are hindered by when fear is
behind the motive. After the tragic
events of
In regards to
human nature, J. William Fulbright says, “In his natural state he is not
particularly menacing to his fellow-man, but technology has equipped him with
artificial teeth and claws that have become ever more deadly with the advance
of civilization (Reed 129).”
American
problem solving technique is an internal reflection of ourselves
and our society. In order to change the
traditional socialization process,
we need to pay close attention
to the family structure and the interactions within it. In the family setting,
we can work to solve problems through careful, well thought out planning, and
sensitivity. Immediately diffusing feelings
of anger can lead to clear communication and less misunderstanding.
Peace mindedness
starts in the family institution where children are most affected in their
day-to-day interactions.
By separating
nations, societies, governments, cultures, subcultures, and ethnic groups and
by creating a false sense of national camaraderie to further divide us, we
enhance the demotion of international relations and secure notions of
misunderstanding between peoples. It is
by looking at our past and learning from it, that we can evaluate our future
direction.
Mahatma
Gandhi’s peaceful philosophies are highly relevant to these latter days. In
order to alter circumstances of oppression, inequality, and violence, Gandhi
believed that people could unite in peaceful protest. He believed that by setting
an example through your actions, the people around you would learn to treat you
the way you want to be treated. Gandhi
said, “We may no longer believe in the doctrine of
’tit for tat’; we may not meet hatred with hatred, violence with violence, evil
with evil. . . Return good for evil (Fischer 64).”
To those who
do not have faith in the peace movement, the question is raised: what other
choice do we have but to orient ourselves peacefully? It is only a matter of time before we
permanently ruin international relations through violently bullying each other
rather than understanding each other.
The ultimate
experiment would involve disposing of past notions, traditional problem solving
processes, and weapons of war, and applying an attitude of egalitarian
treatment to all humankind. It is urgent
that we commit to practicing a new way of life in which we honor the lives of
every human.
War is not only physically and emotionally damaging to
those directly involved, it mutilates our souls and corrodes our minds,
desensitizing us to violence in our homes and neighborhoods. The eternally negative affect of war has no
boundaries.
Works Cited
Fischer,
Deborah. Gandhi: His Life and Message
for the World. Middlesex,
Reed, Edward, ed. Beyond
Coexistence: The Requirements of
Peace. New
Vardell, Mark, ed. Counseling
and Psychotherapy. 1998.
http://www.markvardell.com/quotes