Katy Shin
Mr. Jared Pangier
European Literature A2
5 April 2016
Human Nature Creates War
War in itself is a very dehumanizing event. It can never be a justifiable solution to disagreements, and it never leads to lasting peace. For a cause that is supposed to protect others from stealing one’s property and self, in a larger way actually strips the soldiers of themselves and who they were before the war changed them. When a war starts, who usually initiates it? Not the soldiers who fight, not the wives and children of those soldiers, not the casualties of the bombs, but the ones who live in palaces and fortresses, far above the frontline of the battles they created. It is easier to make decisions and kill a country when the only thing standing between you and the death of thousands, is a single red button. When you have to kill a man with your own hands, stabbing him to death, the guilt and weight of his death feels heavier. His death is your doing; his blood is on your hands, and no amount of water could ever wash away that guilt. No amount of water, propaganda or lies could make war justifiable.
When Paul killed a man in All Quiet on The Western Front, he saw the blood on his hands, he felt the guilt, then covered his hands with mud. So “the blood [couldn’t] be seen anymore” (Remarque 217), and the guilt would be forgotten. Thomas C. Foster says water represents rebirth, in New York Times bestseller: How To Read Literature Like A Professor. Since Paul could never completely wash off the guilt, he tried to forget by covering his bloody hands with the mud.
When you are a soldier on the frontline, “you learn that a bright button is weightier than four volumes of Schopenhauer” (Remarque 21); that the enemy aren’t mere “abstractions” (Remarque 223), but their eyes are just like any comrades, filled with fear and humanity. But war knows this. It knows the struggle of killing another man with no remorse. That is why the war system creates emotionless automatons to carry out the conflicting task of mass murder. They build soldiers like tanks, “they roll without feeling into the craters, and climb up again without stopping… Invulnerable steel beasts squashing the dead and the wounded” (Remarque 282). The ever looming threat of death transforms men into “unthinking animals” (Remarque 273), with the only thing that divides them from the darkness is the “frail walls against the storm of dissolution and madness” (Remarque 275).
So can war ever be justified? No. The act of killing another person over power and security is the easy way out. Getting rid of the problem by putting a gun to its head is not the only way to solve a problem. Instead of having a whole nation die, have the disputing countries pick their strongest men to fight gladiator style. It doesn’t even have to be till death; the less death the better. My point being, that war cannot ever be justified if there is another way of dealing with the problem. The only case in which I believe it is acceptable to fight, is in defence of an approaching army who do not listen to reason. In this case you must defend your property, because when an army is coming your way, you can either die or fight. The side that starts the war, however, can never justify their reason, and the participants of any war must bear the consequences.
War is inevitable, despite the point that it can never be truly justified. But all the suffering, deaths, and eradications of cultures are not worth it. The consequences outweigh the reward. War is a product of human nature to distrust everyone. That is why war is inevitable, and worldwide peace is impossible, based on the state of mind that humans have always been in: always wanting more, with the two forces of pain and pleasure as man’s main decision factors. As John Locke says, “The dread of evil is a much more forcible principle of human actions than the prospect of good” (1698). It’s an animal instinct to act first in preventing death over prolonging life. Humans, however, go against this instinct. Going to war and having men die now, in the hopes that it will save lives in the future. Except war is a ceaseless and vicious cycle, so the killings will never end.
War is often justified as a means of protection against other forces that threaten one’s self or property. The reason we go to war is because of the nature of man. Our lacking ability to cooperate peacefully and collaborate is degenerate to our race and the surrounding life in our world. The theory of social darwinism proposed by Herbert Spencer in the mid 19th century, suggested the idea of survival of the fittest. Karl Pearson, a British professor of mathematics, later elaborates on Spencer’s theory, saying that survival of the fittest is necessary for humans to evolve. When there is competition between individuals, classes, and nations, this is what leads people to grow and become better. Without the nature of competition, war, humans would be in a stagnant state of advancement (Pearson 1905). So it can be argued whether or not man’s nature to compete and go to war is helpful, or harmful, to humans growth. As Thomas Paine wisely says, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right” (Paine 1776). People have turned to war as the only option when people fall upon disagreement, convincing themselves that it is the right thing to do with propaganda and lies. How many people have to die before the people with power see that war is good for nothing. Even though sometimes war happens in the pursuit of freedom and happiness for a nation’s people, the outcomes are usually not what is advertised. All it does is divide the world, one war at a time, until it will eventually becomes every man for himself. I need to see a change in humanity, to live in a world among a race that I can be proud to call my own. Where worldwide peace is possible, and humans start learning from history, instead of repeating it. I asked myself if war could ever be justified, I said no. Now I ask you, do you believe war can ever be justified?
Works Cited
Foster, Thomas C. How to Read Literature Like a Professor: A Lively and Entertaining Guide
to Reading between the Lines. New York: Quill, 2003. Print.
Locke, John. Some Thoughts Concerning Education. London: A. and J. Churchill, 1693.
Print.
Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. Philadelphia: printed. And sold by W. and T. Bradford
[1776]; Bartleby.com, 1999. www.bartleby.com/133/. [Date of Printout].
Pearson, Karl. National Life from the Standpoint of Science. London: Adam and Charles
Black, 1905. Print.
Remarque, Erich M. All Quiet on the Western Front. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.
Print.
Mr. Jared Pangier
European Literature A2
5 April 2016
Human Nature Creates War
War in itself is a very dehumanizing event. It can never be a justifiable solution to disagreements, and it never leads to lasting peace. For a cause that is supposed to protect others from stealing one’s property and self, in a larger way actually strips the soldiers of themselves and who they were before the war changed them. When a war starts, who usually initiates it? Not the soldiers who fight, not the wives and children of those soldiers, not the casualties of the bombs, but the ones who live in palaces and fortresses, far above the frontline of the battles they created. It is easier to make decisions and kill a country when the only thing standing between you and the death of thousands, is a single red button. When you have to kill a man with your own hands, stabbing him to death, the guilt and weight of his death feels heavier. His death is your doing; his blood is on your hands, and no amount of water could ever wash away that guilt. No amount of water, propaganda or lies could make war justifiable.
When Paul killed a man in All Quiet on The Western Front, he saw the blood on his hands, he felt the guilt, then covered his hands with mud. So “the blood [couldn’t] be seen anymore” (Remarque 217), and the guilt would be forgotten. Thomas C. Foster says water represents rebirth, in New York Times bestseller: How To Read Literature Like A Professor. Since Paul could never completely wash off the guilt, he tried to forget by covering his bloody hands with the mud.
When you are a soldier on the frontline, “you learn that a bright button is weightier than four volumes of Schopenhauer” (Remarque 21); that the enemy aren’t mere “abstractions” (Remarque 223), but their eyes are just like any comrades, filled with fear and humanity. But war knows this. It knows the struggle of killing another man with no remorse. That is why the war system creates emotionless automatons to carry out the conflicting task of mass murder. They build soldiers like tanks, “they roll without feeling into the craters, and climb up again without stopping… Invulnerable steel beasts squashing the dead and the wounded” (Remarque 282). The ever looming threat of death transforms men into “unthinking animals” (Remarque 273), with the only thing that divides them from the darkness is the “frail walls against the storm of dissolution and madness” (Remarque 275).
So can war ever be justified? No. The act of killing another person over power and security is the easy way out. Getting rid of the problem by putting a gun to its head is not the only way to solve a problem. Instead of having a whole nation die, have the disputing countries pick their strongest men to fight gladiator style. It doesn’t even have to be till death; the less death the better. My point being, that war cannot ever be justified if there is another way of dealing with the problem. The only case in which I believe it is acceptable to fight, is in defence of an approaching army who do not listen to reason. In this case you must defend your property, because when an army is coming your way, you can either die or fight. The side that starts the war, however, can never justify their reason, and the participants of any war must bear the consequences.
War is inevitable, despite the point that it can never be truly justified. But all the suffering, deaths, and eradications of cultures are not worth it. The consequences outweigh the reward. War is a product of human nature to distrust everyone. That is why war is inevitable, and worldwide peace is impossible, based on the state of mind that humans have always been in: always wanting more, with the two forces of pain and pleasure as man’s main decision factors. As John Locke says, “The dread of evil is a much more forcible principle of human actions than the prospect of good” (1698). It’s an animal instinct to act first in preventing death over prolonging life. Humans, however, go against this instinct. Going to war and having men die now, in the hopes that it will save lives in the future. Except war is a ceaseless and vicious cycle, so the killings will never end.
War is often justified as a means of protection against other forces that threaten one’s self or property. The reason we go to war is because of the nature of man. Our lacking ability to cooperate peacefully and collaborate is degenerate to our race and the surrounding life in our world. The theory of social darwinism proposed by Herbert Spencer in the mid 19th century, suggested the idea of survival of the fittest. Karl Pearson, a British professor of mathematics, later elaborates on Spencer’s theory, saying that survival of the fittest is necessary for humans to evolve. When there is competition between individuals, classes, and nations, this is what leads people to grow and become better. Without the nature of competition, war, humans would be in a stagnant state of advancement (Pearson 1905). So it can be argued whether or not man’s nature to compete and go to war is helpful, or harmful, to humans growth. As Thomas Paine wisely says, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right” (Paine 1776). People have turned to war as the only option when people fall upon disagreement, convincing themselves that it is the right thing to do with propaganda and lies. How many people have to die before the people with power see that war is good for nothing. Even though sometimes war happens in the pursuit of freedom and happiness for a nation’s people, the outcomes are usually not what is advertised. All it does is divide the world, one war at a time, until it will eventually becomes every man for himself. I need to see a change in humanity, to live in a world among a race that I can be proud to call my own. Where worldwide peace is possible, and humans start learning from history, instead of repeating it. I asked myself if war could ever be justified, I said no. Now I ask you, do you believe war can ever be justified?
Works Cited
Foster, Thomas C. How to Read Literature Like a Professor: A Lively and Entertaining Guide
to Reading between the Lines. New York: Quill, 2003. Print.
Locke, John. Some Thoughts Concerning Education. London: A. and J. Churchill, 1693.
Print.
Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. Philadelphia: printed. And sold by W. and T. Bradford
[1776]; Bartleby.com, 1999. www.bartleby.com/133/. [Date of Printout].
Pearson, Karl. National Life from the Standpoint of Science. London: Adam and Charles
Black, 1905. Print.
Remarque, Erich M. All Quiet on the Western Front. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.
Print.
draft 1
Just War Theory
Honors: 600-850 words
There are many different beliefs on what humans are in their natural state. Are the good or are they bad? War is a product of human nature to distrust everyone, sometimes even themselves. That is why war is inevitable based on the state that humans are have always and are currently in. War (1) could be justified as a means of protection against other forces that threaten one’s self or property. That being either protection by defence or attack. My argument is, that the reason we go to war is because of the nature of man. Our lacking ability to cooperate peacefully and collaborate is degenerate to our race and the surrounding life in our world. However, If this is the case, then how come humans have progressed far from the beginning of man and lived long enough to tell the tale? Well the theory of social darwinism proposed by Herbert Spencer in the mid 19th century, suggested the idea of survival of the fittest. Karl Pearson, a British professor of mathematics, later elaborates on Spencer’s theory. He expressed his beliefs on Social Darwinists in a lecture given in 1900 and titled "National Life from the Standpoint of Science: survival of the fittest is necessary for humans to evolve. When there is competition between individuals, classes, and nations, this is what leads people to grow and become better. Without the nature of competition, humans would be in a stagnant state of advancement (Pearson). So it can be argued whether or not man’s nature to compete is helpful or harmful to humans growth.
War in itself is a very dehumanizing event. For a cause that is supposed to protect others from stealing one’s property and self, in a larger way it actually strips it’s men of the person they once were before the war changed them. (2) When a war is started, who are the ones who usually initiate the war? Not the soldiers who fight the war, not the wives and children of the war, not the casualties of the bombs, but the ones who live in palaces and fortresses, far above the actual frontline of the battles they created. It is easier to make decisions and kill a country when the only thing that stands between you and the death of thousands is a single red button. When you are a soldier on the frontline, “you learn that a bright button is weightier than four volumes of Schopenhauer” (Remarque, 21), that the enemy aren’t mere abstractions, but their eyes are just like his comrades, filled with fear and humanity (Remarque, 219-223). But war knows this, it knows of the struggle to kill another man with no remorse. That is why (3) the system creates emotionless automatons to carry out the conflicting task of mass murder. They build soldiers like tanks, “they roll without feeling into the craters, and climb up again without stopping… Invulnerable steel beasts squashing the dead and the wounded” (Remarque, 282). The ever looming threat of death transforms men into “unthinking animals” (Remarque, 273), with the only thing that divides them from the darkness is the “frail walls against the storm of dissolution and madness” (Remarque, 275).
CHANGES MADE:
Amy's advice- (1) - Change 'could be' to 'is often', (2) Replace sentence with, 'When a war is started, who are the ones who usually initiate it? Not the soldiers who fight, not the wives and children of those soldiers...", (3) Elaborate on the system: 'the system' to 'the war system'.
Me- Moved second paragraph up to the into, answered question if war could ever be justified in middle paragraph, and added MLA format.
Honors: 600-850 words
There are many different beliefs on what humans are in their natural state. Are the good or are they bad? War is a product of human nature to distrust everyone, sometimes even themselves. That is why war is inevitable based on the state that humans are have always and are currently in. War (1) could be justified as a means of protection against other forces that threaten one’s self or property. That being either protection by defence or attack. My argument is, that the reason we go to war is because of the nature of man. Our lacking ability to cooperate peacefully and collaborate is degenerate to our race and the surrounding life in our world. However, If this is the case, then how come humans have progressed far from the beginning of man and lived long enough to tell the tale? Well the theory of social darwinism proposed by Herbert Spencer in the mid 19th century, suggested the idea of survival of the fittest. Karl Pearson, a British professor of mathematics, later elaborates on Spencer’s theory. He expressed his beliefs on Social Darwinists in a lecture given in 1900 and titled "National Life from the Standpoint of Science: survival of the fittest is necessary for humans to evolve. When there is competition between individuals, classes, and nations, this is what leads people to grow and become better. Without the nature of competition, humans would be in a stagnant state of advancement (Pearson). So it can be argued whether or not man’s nature to compete is helpful or harmful to humans growth.
War in itself is a very dehumanizing event. For a cause that is supposed to protect others from stealing one’s property and self, in a larger way it actually strips it’s men of the person they once were before the war changed them. (2) When a war is started, who are the ones who usually initiate the war? Not the soldiers who fight the war, not the wives and children of the war, not the casualties of the bombs, but the ones who live in palaces and fortresses, far above the actual frontline of the battles they created. It is easier to make decisions and kill a country when the only thing that stands between you and the death of thousands is a single red button. When you are a soldier on the frontline, “you learn that a bright button is weightier than four volumes of Schopenhauer” (Remarque, 21), that the enemy aren’t mere abstractions, but their eyes are just like his comrades, filled with fear and humanity (Remarque, 219-223). But war knows this, it knows of the struggle to kill another man with no remorse. That is why (3) the system creates emotionless automatons to carry out the conflicting task of mass murder. They build soldiers like tanks, “they roll without feeling into the craters, and climb up again without stopping… Invulnerable steel beasts squashing the dead and the wounded” (Remarque, 282). The ever looming threat of death transforms men into “unthinking animals” (Remarque, 273), with the only thing that divides them from the darkness is the “frail walls against the storm of dissolution and madness” (Remarque, 275).
CHANGES MADE:
Amy's advice- (1) - Change 'could be' to 'is often', (2) Replace sentence with, 'When a war is started, who are the ones who usually initiate it? Not the soldiers who fight, not the wives and children of those soldiers...", (3) Elaborate on the system: 'the system' to 'the war system'.
Me- Moved second paragraph up to the into, answered question if war could ever be justified in middle paragraph, and added MLA format.
draft 2
Katy Shin
Mr. Jared Pangier
European Literature A2
4 April 2016
War in itself is a very dehumanizing event. For a cause that is supposed to protect others from stealing one’s property and self, in a larger way actually strips it’s men of themselves (1), who they were before the war changed them. When a war starts, who are the ones who usually initiate it? Not the soldiers who fight, not the wives and children of those soldiers, not the casualties of the bombs, but the ones who live in palaces and fortresses, far above the (3) actual frontline of the battles they created. It is easier to make decisions and kill a country when the only thing standing between you and the death of thousands, is a single red button. (2) When you are a soldier on the frontline, “you learn that a bright button is weightier than four volumes of Schopenhauer” (Remarque, 21), that the enemy aren’t mere abstractions, but their eyes are just like any comrades, filled with fear and humanity (Remarque, 219-223). But war knows this. It knows of the struggle to kill another man with no remorse. That is why the war system creates emotionless automatons to carry out the conflicting task of mass murder. They build soldiers like tanks, “they roll without feeling into the craters, and climb up again without stopping… Invulnerable steel beasts squashing the dead and the wounded” (Remarque, 282). The ever looming threat of death transforms men into “unthinking animals” (Remarque, 273), with the only thing that divides them from the darkness is the “frail walls against the storm of dissolution and madness” (Remarque, 275).
So can war ever be justified? No. The act of killing another person over power and security is the easy way out. Getting rid of the problem by putting a gun to its head is not the only way to solve a problem. Instead of having a whole nation die, have the disputing countries pick their strongest men to fight, gladiator style. Doesn’t even have to be till death, the less death the better. My point being, that war cannot ever be justified if there is another way of dealing with the problem. The only case in which I believe it is acceptable to fight, is in defence of an approaching army who do not listen to reason. In this case you must defend your property, because when an army is coming your way, you can either die or fight. . The side that starts the war, however, can never justify their reason, and the participants of any war must bear the consequences..
Is war helpful or harmful to human growth? (3) True war is inevitable, despite the point that it can never be truly justified. But all the suffering, deaths, and eradications of cultures are not worth it. The consequences outweigh the reward. War is a product of human nature to distrust everyone. That is why war is inevitable based on the state of mind that humans have always been in: always wanting more, with the two forces of pain and pleasure as man’s main decision factors. . War is often justified as a means of protection against other forces that threaten one’s self or property. That being either protection by defence or attack. The reason we go to war is because of the nature of man. Our lacking ability to cooperate peacefully and collaborate is degenerate to our race and the surrounding life in our world. The theory of social darwinism proposed by Herbert Spencer in the mid 19th century, suggested the idea of survival of the fittest. Karl Pearson, a British professor of mathematics, later elaborates on Spencer’s theory, saying that survival of the fittest is necessary for humans to evolve. When there is competition between individuals, classes, and nations, this is what leads people to grow and become better. Without the nature of competition, war, humans would be in a stagnant state of advancement (Pearson). So it can be argued whether or not man’s nature to compete and go to war is helpful, or harmful, to humans growth. As Thomas Paine wisely says, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right” (Paine, 1776). People have turned to war as the only option when people fall upon disagreement, convincing themselves that it is the right thing to do with propaganda and lies. How many people have to die before the people with power see that war is good for nothing. Even though sometimes war happens in the pursuit of freedom and happiness (5) for it’s people, the outcomes are usually not what is advertised. All it does is divide the world, one war at a time, until it will eventually becomes every man for himself. I need to see a change in humanity, to live in a world among a race that I can be proud to call my own. Where humans start learning from history, instead of repeating it. I asked myself if war could ever be justified, I said no. Now I ask you, do you believe war can ever be justified?
CHANGES MADE:
Leon's advice- (1) - Replace "," with "and", (2) start new paragraph at "When", (3) Remove "true".
Me- Added evidence from How to read literature like a professor, Elaborated on why it is easy for the people in control to kill when they only push a button, added final historical source of a quote by john locke.
draft 3
Katy Shin
Mr. Jared Pangier
European Literature A2
4 April 2016
War in itself is a very dehumanizing event. For a cause that is supposed to protect others from stealing one’s property and self, in a larger way actually strips (1) its men of themselves and who they were before the war changed them. When a war starts, (2) who are the ones who usually initiate it? Not the soldiers who fight, not the wives and children of those soldiers, not the casualties of the bombs, but the ones who live in palaces and fortresses, far above the (3) actual frontline of the battles they created. It is easier to make decisions and kill a country when the only thing standing between you and the death of thousands, is a single red button. When you have to kill a man with your own hands, stabbing him to death, the guilt and weight of his death feels heavier. His death is your doing; his blood is on your hands, and no amount of water could ever wash away that guilt.
When Paul killed a man in All Quiet on The Western Front, he saw the blood on his hands, he felt the guilt, then covered his hands with mud. So “the blood [couldn’t] be seen anymore” (Remarque, 217), and the guilt would be forgotten. Thomas C. Foster says water represents rebirth, in New York Times bestseller How To Read Literature Like A Professor. Since Paul could never completely wash off the guilt, he tried to forget by covering his bloody hands with the mud.
When you are a soldier on the frontline, “you learn that a bright button is weightier than four volumes of Schopenhauer” (Remarque, 21); (4) that the enemy aren’t mere abstractions, but their eyes are just like any comrades, filled with fear and humanity (Remarque, 219-223). But war knows this. It knows the struggle of killing another man with no remorse. That is why the war system creates emotionless automatons to carry out the conflicting task of mass murder. They build soldiers like tanks, “they roll without feeling into the craters, and climb up again without stopping… Invulnerable steel beasts squashing the dead and the wounded” (Remarque, 282). The ever looming threat of death transforms men into “unthinking animals” (Remarque, 273), with the only thing that divides them from the darkness is the “frail walls against the storm of dissolution and madness” (Remarque, 275).
So can war ever be justified? No. The act of killing another person over power and security is the easy way out. Getting rid of the problem by putting a gun to its head is not the only way to solve a problem. Instead of having a whole nation die, have the disputing countries pick their strongest men to fight gladiator style. It doesn’t even have to be till death; the less death the better. My point being, that war cannot ever be justified if there is another way of dealing with the problem. The only case in which I believe it is acceptable to fight, is in defence of an approaching army who do not listen to reason. In this case you must defend your property, because when an army is coming your way, you can either die or fight. The side that starts the war, however, can never justify their reason, and the participants of any war must bear the consequences.
True war is inevitable, despite the point that it can never be truly justified. But all the suffering, deaths, and eradications of cultures are not worth it. The consequences outweigh the reward. War is a product of human nature to distrust everyone. That is why war is inevitable based on the state of mind that humans have always been in: always wanting more, with the two forces of pain and pleasure as man’s main decision factors. War is often justified as a means of protection against other forces that threaten one’s self or property. The reason we go to war is because of the nature of man. Our lacking ability to cooperate peacefully and collaborate is degenerate to our race and the surrounding life in our world. The theory of social darwinism proposed by Herbert Spencer in the mid 19th century, suggested the idea of survival of the fittest. Karl Pearson, a British professor of mathematics, later elaborates on Spencer’s theory, saying that survival of the fittest is necessary for humans to evolve. When there is competition between individuals, classes, and nations, this is what leads people to grow and become better. Without the nature of competition, war, humans would be in a stagnant state of advancement (Pearson). So it can be argued whether or not man’s nature to compete and go to war is helpful, or harmful, to humans growth. As Thomas Paine wisely says, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right” (Paine, 1776). People have turned to war as the only option when people fall upon disagreement, convincing themselves that it is the right thing to do with propaganda and lies. How many people have to die before the people with power see that war is good for nothing. Even though sometimes war happens in the pursuit of freedom and happiness for its people, the outcomes are usually not what is advertised. All it does is divide the world, one war at a time, until it will eventually becomes every man for himself. I need to see a change in humanity, to live in a world among a race that I can be proud to call my own. Where humans start learning from history, instead of repeating it. I asked myself if war could ever be justified, I said no. Now I ask you, do you believe war can ever be justified?
CHANGES MADE:
Tanita's advice- (1) - Change "It's men" to "the soldiers" (2) Redundant (3) Redundant (4) If this is also a quote, you should end with another quotation mark, (5) Missing clear thesis and answer to " Is worldwide peace possible?".
Me- Finished works cited, edited mistake in citations, added title, fixed minor grammatical and formatting errors.
Mr. Jared Pangier
European Literature A2
4 April 2016
War in itself is a very dehumanizing event. For a cause that is supposed to protect others from stealing one’s property and self, in a larger way actually strips (1) its men of themselves and who they were before the war changed them. When a war starts, (2) who are the ones who usually initiate it? Not the soldiers who fight, not the wives and children of those soldiers, not the casualties of the bombs, but the ones who live in palaces and fortresses, far above the (3) actual frontline of the battles they created. It is easier to make decisions and kill a country when the only thing standing between you and the death of thousands, is a single red button. When you have to kill a man with your own hands, stabbing him to death, the guilt and weight of his death feels heavier. His death is your doing; his blood is on your hands, and no amount of water could ever wash away that guilt.
When Paul killed a man in All Quiet on The Western Front, he saw the blood on his hands, he felt the guilt, then covered his hands with mud. So “the blood [couldn’t] be seen anymore” (Remarque, 217), and the guilt would be forgotten. Thomas C. Foster says water represents rebirth, in New York Times bestseller How To Read Literature Like A Professor. Since Paul could never completely wash off the guilt, he tried to forget by covering his bloody hands with the mud.
When you are a soldier on the frontline, “you learn that a bright button is weightier than four volumes of Schopenhauer” (Remarque, 21); (4) that the enemy aren’t mere abstractions, but their eyes are just like any comrades, filled with fear and humanity (Remarque, 219-223). But war knows this. It knows the struggle of killing another man with no remorse. That is why the war system creates emotionless automatons to carry out the conflicting task of mass murder. They build soldiers like tanks, “they roll without feeling into the craters, and climb up again without stopping… Invulnerable steel beasts squashing the dead and the wounded” (Remarque, 282). The ever looming threat of death transforms men into “unthinking animals” (Remarque, 273), with the only thing that divides them from the darkness is the “frail walls against the storm of dissolution and madness” (Remarque, 275).
So can war ever be justified? No. The act of killing another person over power and security is the easy way out. Getting rid of the problem by putting a gun to its head is not the only way to solve a problem. Instead of having a whole nation die, have the disputing countries pick their strongest men to fight gladiator style. It doesn’t even have to be till death; the less death the better. My point being, that war cannot ever be justified if there is another way of dealing with the problem. The only case in which I believe it is acceptable to fight, is in defence of an approaching army who do not listen to reason. In this case you must defend your property, because when an army is coming your way, you can either die or fight. The side that starts the war, however, can never justify their reason, and the participants of any war must bear the consequences.
True war is inevitable, despite the point that it can never be truly justified. But all the suffering, deaths, and eradications of cultures are not worth it. The consequences outweigh the reward. War is a product of human nature to distrust everyone. That is why war is inevitable based on the state of mind that humans have always been in: always wanting more, with the two forces of pain and pleasure as man’s main decision factors. War is often justified as a means of protection against other forces that threaten one’s self or property. The reason we go to war is because of the nature of man. Our lacking ability to cooperate peacefully and collaborate is degenerate to our race and the surrounding life in our world. The theory of social darwinism proposed by Herbert Spencer in the mid 19th century, suggested the idea of survival of the fittest. Karl Pearson, a British professor of mathematics, later elaborates on Spencer’s theory, saying that survival of the fittest is necessary for humans to evolve. When there is competition between individuals, classes, and nations, this is what leads people to grow and become better. Without the nature of competition, war, humans would be in a stagnant state of advancement (Pearson). So it can be argued whether or not man’s nature to compete and go to war is helpful, or harmful, to humans growth. As Thomas Paine wisely says, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right” (Paine, 1776). People have turned to war as the only option when people fall upon disagreement, convincing themselves that it is the right thing to do with propaganda and lies. How many people have to die before the people with power see that war is good for nothing. Even though sometimes war happens in the pursuit of freedom and happiness for its people, the outcomes are usually not what is advertised. All it does is divide the world, one war at a time, until it will eventually becomes every man for himself. I need to see a change in humanity, to live in a world among a race that I can be proud to call my own. Where humans start learning from history, instead of repeating it. I asked myself if war could ever be justified, I said no. Now I ask you, do you believe war can ever be justified?
CHANGES MADE:
Tanita's advice- (1) - Change "It's men" to "the soldiers" (2) Redundant (3) Redundant (4) If this is also a quote, you should end with another quotation mark, (5) Missing clear thesis and answer to " Is worldwide peace possible?".
Me- Finished works cited, edited mistake in citations, added title, fixed minor grammatical and formatting errors.