Tuesday, December 11, 2007

The True Cost of War

At any given time throughout history, a war is going on somewhere on this planet. Supposedly, humans are kind, compassionate, and sympathetic, unlike the primitive creatures they evolved from. Human's constant state of war is casting doubt on their ancestral divergence. I have always wondered how such heartless thoughts can be conjured up in the minds of murderous soldiers. How intelligent beings can be so unhesitant to mercilessly kill their fellow man. How sane people can achieve insane tasks.

There have been studies regarding this phenomenon, like the Milgram experiment: A subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. Another interpretation of the experiment’s results is that a person no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions. Both are sound theories, but they fall short of identifying what is explicitly happening – the destruction of empathy.

Soldiers of war are not psychopaths; they are victims of robbery, the robbery of a human quality called empathy. There are many social and political consequences that deter us from committing crimes. Unlawful crime and violence still persists in all societies, therefore, there must be other deterring consequences for those who are still innocent i.e. the reason most of us aren’t murders. The reason, simply put, is that people will feel bad doing onto others what they wouldn’t want onto themselves. Manipulative authorities have the ability to rob people of this basic emotion.

Humans have evolved the emotion of empathy for a very good reason. In the past it allowed people within a society to create interpersonal relationships where both sides benefit without making the other worse off. Societies couldn’t succeed for generations on end if humans weren’t empathetic. Clearly, this is no longer the case; birth rates are higher than death rates and a few wars here and there are no threat to mankind. This fact should not obscure the benefits of empathy.

The interpersonal cost of violence is always greater than any benefits it may bring. Using a negative force may initially get you what you want from someone, but in doing so you have destroyed the positive relationship. The cost of destroying this relationship is always greater than the initial benefit received from using violence.

The use of violence as a force has always been a lucrative one because of instant gratification. The Bush administration believed it could use violence to create a democracy. It is intuitive for them to think that killing Saddam and occupying Iraq will be the most efficient way to get what they want. They didn’t consider one major externality - they dehumanized Americans for Iraqis and vice versa. In order for American soldiers to use violence against another fellow human, there is no room for empathy. Without empathy in the equation, mass murdering may relentlessly ensue. Eventually we are left with a torn human relationship.

Let’s scrutinize a more controversial war, the Israel vs. Palestine conflict. Which side is the right one? Who is the victim and who is the aggressor? If you choose Palestine as the victim, you are wrong. Similarly, you would be wrong if you choose Israel as the victim! This war was lost the moment the positive relationship between the two human populations has been broken. Violence and hatred is used on both sides and both are constantly distancing themselves from a positive relationship. The war would be over once Palestinians cared for Israelis like they did for their own people, the same is true for Israelis. Some would argue that a negative force for self-defense is sometimes necessary. In the short-run, this is true and instant gratification would kick in. In the long run, a deep wound would emerge in the relationship and the negative force would be reciprocated back.

With the wars that are going on in present day, it’s difficult to come to a resolution. Should we continue to reach short-term goals with violence, or settle the problem in the long run with non-violence? If non-violence is used, there might be a short-term jump in the death tolls, but that would be the cost of fixing the problem in the long run. A non-violence movement is the only way to bring empathy back and restore a broken human relationship.


No comments: