Are Wars a Consequence of Human Nature, a Failure of Society or Justifications? Part 1 of 3
A Philosophical Essay on the Causes of War
The barbaric war atrocities that we are currently experiencing is quite disturbing for most of us. It causes me to contemplate whether or not violence and war is part of human nature. Throughout human history, significant theories of war about the causes war and how war should be conducted justly have been proposed and developed. If we are ever to stop the endless succession and destruction of wars, it’s worthwhile to comprehend some of the psychological, social, cultural and political motivations that drive men to violence rather than collaboration and diplomacy to solve conflicts.
In this philosophical essay, I focus on violence propagated by states rather than individual violence. But it must be kept in mind that in order for states to recruit soldiers, there also must be a collective human willingness for aggression and killing. War causation is a huge topic, so this is written in 3 parts. I begin by examining human nature, if it even exists as a biological construct outside of environmental, social and emotional learning experiences. I assume the foundational premise that all lives must matter in order to create a better reality and find peace on Earth.
Is Human Nature a Cause of War?
There is no simple answer to this question and multiple opinions and theories. Wars are generally begun by a state or elite group seeking to take territory or resources. War can be defined as armed conflict between nations or states or in broader terms, any active hostility or struggle between groups of people. Yet the psychological root of that may be individual yearning for power, wealth and glory by state leaders. Political regimes can either temper or intensify aggressive passions. Some theorists argue that conflict is an inherent part of human nature, and others believe it’s a consequence of social, economic, and political circumstances.
Human nature comprises the fundamental dispositions and characteristic ways of thinking, feeling and behaving that humans are said to have naturally as a species. The term is often used to denote the essence of mankind, or what it means to be human. There has never been a time when war didn’t exist somewhere on the planet, and there certainly are lots of people who live to fight. However, there is debate as to whether or not a warrior essence actually exists as part of human nature. Others claim human nature is not absolute; instead, it is dynamic and evolutionary with changing patterns. And there are cultural, ethnic and gender differences. Even among commonly found traits in social groups, not all elements of human nature are found in every individual.
Empire building and war have been dominant events throughout ancient and modern history with peaceful civilizations coexisting at the same time as the warring factions. The majority of the world population often in not engaged or supportive of violence and combat at any particular point in time. Generally, it is men who defend, fight, and join military forces. Combat ground troops who do most of the killing and dying have little voice compared to the high command elites who initiate war and uses them. These differences negate suggestions that violent armed conflict as a way of solving conflicts is due to human nature alone. However, human survival instinct is strong and integral to the causation of wars. Even peaceful people generally will fight to survive and defend themselves in existential circumstances.
Thomas Hobbes, a 17th century philosopher, was a pessimist about human nature. In the Leviathan, he wrote that if two men desire the same thing, but only one can have it, they become enemies and seek to destroy one another. Hobbes also observed a great distrust, uncertainty and wickedness among men. In contrast, 18th century political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote that humans naturally have traits of self-preservation and empathy towards the rest of one’s own species. Instead, it is significant economic inequalities and man-made laws in society that cause conflicts. In realist terms, security dilemmas develop with either the Hobbes or Rousseau view of human nature. It then becomes a state responsibility to procure and defend resources and not human nature itself that causes war.
Greed is considered a common, inherent part of human nature and at the root of all evil in religious teachings. Greed is different from biological self- preservation and reproduction because of its strong social basis in creating conflict. In situations of limited resources, or resource dilemmas, greedy people make choices to maximize their own personal gain rather than make cooperative choices to maximize benefit to all involved.
Greed is defined as an insatiable desire for getting more of want you want in excess of what you need at the expense of others, or “a selfish motivation to acquire an unfairly excessive amount of a resource, at the expense of others.” Research has shown that most people in multiple cultures studied can be greedy to some extent, although with wide individual differences (dispositional greed). See more here. Neither abundance or scarcity of desired goods or power cancels inherent greed. In fact, wealth commonly elicits the drive for more wealth. The motivation and will to do anything for more income, possessions, influence, status, power, sex, privileges, or more of anything eventually harms not only individuals but economies and states, once it rules over governing and business.
Highly greedy people are dangerous to the well-being of society and the environment. A person dominated by greed will often ignore the harm their actions can cause others. A link between greed and corruption is often made. Greedier people are more dishonest, immoral or unethical, and find that behavior more acceptable and justifiable. In an incentivized laboratory study, greedier people were more likely to take bribes. The driving force of this unethical behavior was increased desire rather than decreased will-power.
Greed also causes bad outcomes on more macro levels. Management research found that the greediness of CEOs of a large number of companies had a negative impact on shareholder's return, and that greedy CEOs are less willing to invest in corporate social responsibility. Similarly, in the research on sustainability and reducing consumption greed, is put forward as a destructive force. It was found that dispositional greed was the strongest predictor of hoarding during the COVID-19 pandemic. reference here.
Economists tend to agree that greed can lead to economic development, but also have negative effects. The 2008 global financial crisis has been widely attributed to the greediness of traders, bank managers, and Wall Street moguls. Willingness to steal oil and other natural resources from other nations has been behind numerous wars in the Middle East and the formation of colonies by European nations in Africa. Ninety-nine percent of the wealth on Earth is owned by one percent of an elite oligarch gang of billionaires who run the world from the shadows. We refer to them as the Deep State or the Cabal. They fight among themselves for territory and power, instigating wars with zero care about how many people are killed and injured.
What are some of the other causal forces leading to war? There is a range of explanations.
1. Tribalism and Nationalism
2. Male War Hypothesis
3. Just War Theory
4. Competition for limited resources
5. Political, economic, social inequalities
6. Financial profit for military-industrial-banker complex
7. Religious wars and values
8. Good versus evil
9. Generational hatred
10. Karl Marx: Bourgeoisie versus the proletariat
Thomas Hobbs: Mans natural state is barbaric, selfish and warlike; Leviathan develops
12. Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Society is the corrupting force; failed social contract
13. Psychological impact of trauma, violence, fear, poverty. Willingness to kill and destroy
Tribalism
A tribe is an organized unit of families and extended kin or a solidarity group who share common interests for mutual survival and preservation of culture. Membership can be based on kinship clans and lineage, ethnicity, dwelling place, political beliefs, religious beliefs, oral tradition, or cultural practices. The tribe refers to itself as its people. Members of a tribe tend to possess a strong identity with it and their people and distinguish between those inside and outside the tribe.
Archeological studies of pre-state ancient tribes considered tribal structures as one type of adaptation to unpredictable resources. The tribal structures proved to be flexible enough to distribute food in times of both scarcity or surplus. Tribes were also formed to resist the violence and exploitation of early kingdoms and states.
Tribal structures typically began in the hunter- gatherer phases of human evolution, but once agriculture began to yield much greater substance than foraging, the population of tribes grew. At that point, there was a need to protect resources owned by the tribe or forcefully take resources controlled by an outside tribe for survival with frequent warfare. Pre-agricultural societies were largely nomadic, and grounded in kinship, cooperation and reciprocity. Post-agricultural became more war-like in the response to the accumulation of wealth and the need to protect it.
Initially, anthropologists agreed that the tribal structure was a respected category of human behavior analysis. Later different anthropologists noted more fluid boundaries of tribal membership, political leaders, and practices and a rapid development into more complex relationships. Few tribes within modern state systems remain isolated, having lost traditional functions that are replaced by taxation, law courts and military.
From the wider perspective of what may constitute a tribe in modern times, tribalism may be shaping our world more than many people realize. Nationalism, ideology, religions, and races do bind people together enough to fight for their survival. Killing other people can be tribal, even if not labeled as tribal conflict. Under nationalism, self-interest of the state in a us verses them mentality reigns.
Instead of tribal thinking, people are told to think of nation states as being our natural and most appropriate context for structuring, organizing and managing our future. Politicians clearly say, with great regularity, that the people in each conflicted setting and situation should transfer their loyalty to their local nation instead of to their tribe. Still tribal though.
The war between the Israeli Jews and the Palestinians in Gaza clearly is clearly tribal with generational hatred. They see each other as different people (animal beasts). In Ukraine, both Russian and Ukrainians are of Slavic lineage and speak the same language (Russian) but identify with different political leaders for survival, economic and ideology reasons. The Ukrainians no longer consider Russians their people and call them orcs. Russians are proud to defend their motherland, culture, values and see themselves as warriors.
Other examples of tribal identities and war in the Middle East and Asia can be found in an article here. The current conflicts in Syria, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Sudan, Yemen, Gaza, Tibet, Pakistan, and in several settings in both the Russian Confederation and India have tribes killing people from other tribes. The Rohingya, Uighurs, and Kurds are all being killed as tribes. There is absolutely no other reason for those conflicts and deaths other than the fact that the majority tribe near each of those groups wants them purged or dead. Tribes are important.
Male War Hypothesis
Social science literature contains numerous examples of human tribalism and parochialism-the tendency to categorize individuals on the basis of their group membership, and treat ingroup members benevolently and outgroup members malevolently. This tribal inclination is an adaptive response to the threat of coalitional aggression and intergroup conflict perpetrated by 'warrior males' in both ancestral and modern human environments. Anthropological studies of tribal societies in the 20th and 21st centuries have shed light on the ancestral benefits of inter-group conflict for male warrior evolution.
Human beings are adapted to living in social groups. This social pattern has shaped the evolution of human psychology, favoring behavioral strategies that benefit group formation and cohesion through cooperation with non-genetically related individuals. Living in groups provides enormous benefits, but also creates inter-group conflict and hostility towards outsiders.
The Male Warrior Hypothesis (MWH) establishes that men's psychology has been shaped by inter-group aggressive competition to acquire and protect limited resources and access to women inside and outside the tribe. In this context, sex-specific selective pressures favor eventual cooperation with the members of one's group in combination with hostility towards outsiders. Hormonal testosterone has been hypothesized to play an important role in cooperative and aggressive behaviors, but so far remains unconfirmed by research.
Aggression and cooperation are multifactorial phenomena prevalent in human societies. Although aggression and cooperation seem to be opposite behaviors, they have several aspects in common. Both are generally employed to resolve conflicts over access to limited resources and social status. When the definition of physical aggression is expanded to include verbal and indirect aggression, females score equal to men or higher in intergroup conflict.
Aggression and cooperation are important pathways for success in mating as well when considered as a mechanism of sexual competition through peer domination. As an example, there are known relationships between aggressiveness with dating and sexual activity in adolescents. In contrast, cooperation is a sign of an individual’s ability to obtain a great amount of resources, which allows him to share them with his peers for the benefit of the group and enhancing his prestige and status, in turn maximizing his mating opportunities.
Components of the Male Warrior Hypothesis:
· Both cooperation and aggression evolve out of a long history of intergroup competition and rivalry between groups
· Within a same-sex human peer group, conflict between individuals is equally prevalent for both sexes, with overt physical conflict more common among males
· Males are more likely to reduce conflict within their group if they find themselves competing against an outgroup
Women do participate in intergroup conflicts, but their strategies generally vary from men because of physical and reproductive differences. Female strategies with intergroup conflict include forming partnerships with men or using a third party to cause harm to another party. Women exhibit higher rates of cooperation in mixed-sex interactions compared to men.
Female warriors abound in folklore, mythology and in modern warfare. The ancient world was filled with female fighters and warrior queen leaders.
Women in many militaries around the world can now be recruited into infantry. In the US, the number of women joining the military and killed in combat has been growing since the 1991-1992 Gulf War. In community and key leader engagement, cyber warfare, intelligence and many other military arenas, the presence of women has thus redefined the label of ‘warrior’.
Women have earned the right to be called warriors. They have played a vital combat role in world wars and operating as spies. These might be directly related to conflicts, but women, in modern day militaries, engage in ‘warfare’ every day. Sometimes the best man for the job is a woman.
The battlefield is no longer just about physical strength and combat. Courage, valor, commitment, leadership, diplomacy, and technological skill translates into warrior status on different terms than in the past.
Just War Theory
The Just War Theory deals with how and why wars are fought over a long historical tradition, its origins dating back to ancient Egypt, China, India, Greece and Rome regarding justifications and ethics of war. The two main categories of the doctrine are the moral right to go to war, jus ad bellum, and the right conduct in war, jus in bello. A third category for post war settlement, and reconstruction has also been considered.
The Christian theory of Just War began around the time of Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD). It has been studied and taught by Western military leaders and academies, theologians, ethicists, politicians, and universities since Saint Thomas Aquinas writings in the 13th century through the present time. Theoretical war conventions continue to be debated, developed and published. On the ground, soldiers are taught and extolled to adhere to military rules of engagement based on the doctrine.
According to Aquinas, a just war must meet these requirements:
1. War must be waged upon the command of a rightful sovereign.
2. War must be waged on account of some wrong the attacked have committed. It is not always a sin to wage an offensive war.
3. Warriors must have the right intent to promote good and to avoid evil. It is only in the pursuit of justice that a good intention of a moral act could justify negative consequences, including the killing of the innocent during a war.
4. Violence must only be used as a last resort and only to the extent necessary on the battlefield. Soldiers need to avoid cruelty.
Historical quotes:
Aristotle in Politics, Book 7: The proper object of practicing military training is not in order that men may enslave those who do not deserve slavery, but in order that first they may themselves avoid becoming enslaved to others.
Saint Augustine of Hippo in The City of God: No War is undertaken by a good state except on behalf of God faith or for safety.
The Just War Tradition, well established by the 19th century, is an international body of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct that have been applied between two culturally similar enemies in various wars across the ages. For example, international agreements such as the Geneva and Hague conventions are historical rules aimed at limiting certain kinds of warfare which lawyers may refer to in prosecuting transgressors after the war.
Yet despite the emphasis on abiding by war’s conventions, war crimes continue – genocidal campaigns have been waged by mutually hating peoples, leaders have waged total war on ethnic groups within or without their borders, and individual soldiers or guerilla bands have committed atrocious, murderous, or humiliating acts on their enemy. Such acts remain atrocities by virtue of the just war conventions that some things in war are deemed to be inexcusable, regardless of the righteousness of the cause or the noise and fog of battle.
When an array of values is shared between two warring peoples, they implicitly or explicitly agree upon limits to their warfare. But when enemies differ greatly because of different religious beliefs, race, or language, and as such they see each other as “less than human”, war conventions are rarely applied.
In the current Gaza War, the Israelis describe the Palestinians as animals who need to be killed, including women and children, because none of them are innocent. Israelis claim of justification for restricting food, water, fuel, and medical aid for civilians with barbaric bombing of hospitals, churches, and shelters is a genocide that most nations around the world are calling international war crimes.
The continued brutality of war in the face of conventions and courts of international law leads some to maintain that the application of morality to war is a nonstarter. In other words, state interest or military strategies would always overwhelm moral concerns as ‘military necessity’ to end the war as quickly as possible and punish the enemy.
In an attempt to provide a plausible moral framework for war, the just war theory offers a series of principles and criteria. Examples of modern just war violations are added.
· Just cause, such a self-defense. The reason for going to war cannot be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong. Innocent life must be in imminent danger with intervention to protect life. Force should only be used to correct a grave, public evil or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations. False flag operations have often been contrived as a pretext perception for meeting these criteria; WWI and II and Gaza began this way.
· A last resort. All non-violent options must first be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. Once unleashed, the forces of war become hard to stop with damage to both sides. Examples: In Ukraine, the Minsk Agreements for a peaceful solution were never intended to be implemented by the West. In Israel and Gaza, the peaceful solution of two states was never implemented.
· Declared by a proper, competent authority. The war must be initiated by a legitimate political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. A tyrannical, occupying authority might not be considered a just state. An inept, corrupt, and unaccountable regime may be seen as possessing no sovereignty. A war is unjust when a people impose domination on another people or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them. Example: The occupation and domination of the Palestine people by the Jews applies here, discounting the Israeli claim of self-defense against an imprisoned people with few rights. Since first inception as a nation in 1991 followed by the 2014 Maiden Coup orchestrated by the US, corrupt Ukraine could be considered as non-sovereign.
· Right intention. A war cannot be considered to be just if reasons of national interest are paramount or overwhelm the pretext of fighting aggression. Self-interest should be separate from right intention for sake of morality. Example: In the Gaza war, there is Arab world right intentions to defend the oppressed Palestinians, but it is very difficult to wage war without incurring damage to its own self-interests.
· Reasonable chance of success. There must be good grounds that the aims of the war are achievable. This avoids mass violence and invasion if there is no chance of winning, but should weigh both moral and practical aspects. Should one not go to the aid of a people or declare war if there is no conceivable chance of success? Is it right to comply with aggression because the costs of not complying are too prohibitive? Would it be right to crush a weak enemy because it would be marginally costless? Historically, many nations have overcome the probability of defeat: the fight may seem hopeless, but a charismatic leader or rousing speech can sometimes be enough to stir a people into fighting with all their will.
Example: It is highly improbable that Ukraine, NATO and the US can completely destroy Russia, nor is it moral to seek to dominate other nations and people for economic self-interest.
· Proportionality of the means to the end used. While this principle entails the minimizing of war’s destruction, it can also invoke general balance of power considerations. If nation A invades a land belonging to the people of nation B, then B has just cause to take the land back. According to the principle of proportionality, B’s counter-attack must not invoke a disproportionate response: it should aim to retrieve its land and not exact further retribution or invade the aggressor’s lands.
· Proportionality and discrimination. This principle also invokes who is targeted and how much force is morally appropriate. Combatants must ensure that harm caused to civilians and civilian property is not excessive and anticipated by military objectives. The acts of war must be directed toward enemy combatants and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. Prohibited acts include bombing residential areas, hospitals, ambulances, aid centers, use of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological), torturing of POWs and mass rape. Only legitimate military targets may be attacked. At a deeper collective level, it may be fair to consider how much responsibility a civilian population that supports the war holds. And being a civilian does not guarantee that individual is not a threat.
Examples: In both Ukraine and Gaza, combatants claim the enemy occupies public hospitals, schools, and churches, which then are bombed. The IDF in Israel has targeted health workers and hospitals in particular, restricted food and water to the Palestinian population and leveled residences with people inside them in Gaza. Shock and awe destruction of Iraq infrastructure by the US.
Justice After War (Jus Post Bellum): Suggested Topics
· Status quo. Restoration of rights, property and borders
· Punishment for war crimes. Serious offences on both sides need to be brought to justice and system for governance re-established.
· Compensation of innocent victims for their losses. Assisting civilians to rebuild their property, occupation and lives. Re-establish an economy and trade.
· Peace treaties. On going governance and relationships between nations.
Summary
In Part 1, I reviewed philosophical theories and greed aspects of human nature, Tribalism, and the Just War Theory, still important today. I have provided examples of how they play in current wars. With the collective punishment and displacement of the Palestinians, Israel has broken every international law on the conduct of war. Their intention is to occupy Gaza and the West Bank and emigrate all the Palestinians to other countries. Based on my list of other causal factors of war, there is a lot more to go over on this topic.
Stay tuned for Part 2. Please like, subscribe, and share my work as it helps me on Substack and keeps me motivated.