Humans Tremendous Capacity for Compassion and Hatred, Peace and War, Harmony and Conflict

The elasticity of humans is endless and like a mystery. Humans are
usually filled with compassion at times while at times they take things
with hatred. Although some individuals fire to each other, they usually
declare to be believers of peace. In most cases, humans are likely to
seek conflict rather than harmony. Humans are different and depending on
their actions, they can be categorized as evil or good. In this
assignment, issues of human conflict and harmony, war and peace,
compassion and hatred will be discussed through the use of relevant
examples.
Human conflict is usually seen as inevitable as long as humans are
participating in various instances of nation building, there will always
be a reason or a cause to conflict. Hence, conflict is inevitable to
humans. The history of the world has depicted that humans must at one
point or another conflict over issues that affect them. Take, for
instance, there has been various conflicts, in the world, emanating from
various social and religious issues affecting humans. For example,
religion has been an issue of human conflict, where the Muslims have
been engaged in constant conflicts with the Christians. A religious
conflict has been experienced in various parts of the world, not because
the Muslims and Christians do not have a humane nature to fellow
brothers, whom they engage in conflicts with but because of the human
nature to coerce with each other (Churchman, 2013. Pg 116). From the
nature of societies and human essence, conflict is viewed as intrinsic
to humans and is also a social necessity.
Sometimes, humans are coerced to engage in conflicts, whenever force is
used to them, in instances of deprivations and threats. When there are
such coercions, it is exceedingly difficult to take conflict as
evitable. Such conflicts have been witnessed all over the world. For
example, whenever citizens of a given country become discontented with
their political leaders, they engage the political leaders in conflict,
in an attempt to oust them from power. This has been experienced in most
countries for example, Egypt and Libya, where presidents have been
removed from power due to the intrinsic nature of human beings of
feeling discontented. In other cases, humans have been coerced to engage
in conflict emanating from discontentment from work whenever workers
feel discontented with the pay that they receive, they usually engage in
strikes, which are sometimes inevitable because it is as a result of the
employer not fulfilling his promise (Churchman, 2013. Pg 142). In other
instances, threats also make humans engage in conflicts. For example,
terrorism is usually viewed as an act that shows inhumanity to many
individuals. Therefore, most terrorists are viewed as enemies of the
people this makes people engage in constant conflicts with the
terrorists whenever they are mentioned. For example, the 9/11 terrorist
attack created a conflict amid humans since the terrorists are viewed as
enemies to the other individuals. Therefore, there is no way that
conflict can become evitable in society with the existence of coercion.
According to Simon Laurence, human conflict is inevitable when they come
together in a social manner by any forms. Besides, conflict becomes
engendered by the need to obtain the necessary resources. Therefore,
conflicts are omnipresent among humans wherever they exist on the planet
(Simon, 1998. Pg 136). For example, a couple may engage in conflict
because of an argument over the place they wish to travel while a kid
may engage in conflict with his parents because a kid may want to
purchase a skating board, but the parents dismiss the point on the
argument that the skating board may cause harm to the kid. This depicts
that conflicts among humans is inevitable because of the different ways
of thinking of humans. On the other hand, humans also engage in conflict
because of their difference in faith and beliefs. For example, the
Israeli and Arabs have engaged in conflicts because of their religious
differences. Besides, the teachings of Buddhism and that of Christianity
differ, which make Buddhists and Christians to engage in conflicts.
Although individuals may coexist together in peace and understanding
each other, there comes a time, when their different needs and outlooks
emerge in such circumstances, conflict is inevitable because of their
conflicting ideas. It may become impossible creating a world that is
conflict free however, conflict is not usually the problem but it seems
natural that conflict emanates from the friction that comes amid
individuals living together, sharing aspirations, resources and
obstacles. Human differences can be considered a creative process, which
leads to the exploration of other points of view, adjustment of
expectations, and becoming exceedingly sensitive to the needs of others.
In case differences amid individuals are not resolved, they inevitably
flair up and turn into conflicts (Kurtz & Turpin, 1999. Pg 42). For
instance, racial discrimination results because humans feel that they
are different if racial discrimination persists, then human conflict
will result. It is due to the human nature that conflict is inevitable.
It is not every human that sees the need of being assisted from a
situation as wanting this is because of the difference in how
individuals view themselves. Some individuals may be in need of help but
they do not realize that they need any assistance until they see the
benefit of the situation. Therefore, it is sometimes, necessary to
intervene in the lives of others even if they do not want it it is
after the intervention that they may come to realize that they really
needed the intervention. An intervention may be necessary to the lives
of people if the intervention is going to be beneficial to the lives,
but they cannot see it. One such example entails conflict resolution.
Some people may not want to resolve a conflict because they are the
automatic beneficiaries of the conflict. In such a case, an intervention
to resolve the conflict is necessary in order to help end the conflict
and promote peaceful coexistence (Fry, 2007. Pg 92). For example, a
workers’ strike may result from the employer reaching an agreement
already discussed amid the employer and employees. However, the employer
may avoid parties such as unions intervening in the employer-employees
conflict, but the intervention is deemed necessary for conflict
resolution and beneficial coexistence.
In another instance, communities may be engaged in a warfare, but the
communities may be unwilling to withdraw from the warfare because
neither of them desire to be seen as inferior to the other. This may
prompt a continuity of the conflict between the communities forever.
However, an intervention is necessary even if the communities desire to
continue with the conflict in order to show superiority. The
intervention is crucial to the communities since they will at one time
need each other in order to fulfill their needs since the resources in
the world are limited in nature. Peaceful coexistence amid the
communities will ensure sharing of resources and aspirations (Kurtz &
Turpin, 1999. Pg 85). In addition, it is necessary to intervene in the
lives of people, where they need democracy. The political environment,
where there is no democracy, favors some individuals while it fails to
work well with others. The beneficiaries of such political leaderships
will always hinder an intervention seeking democracy however, an
intervention is deemed necessary in order to enhance democracy even if
some political leaders may not be willing to support the intervention
since they consider it beneficial without democracy. Therefore, any
intervention that is beneficial to the people and seeks to enhance
peaceful coexistence should be emphasized even though some individuals
may not support the intervention.
The nature of human beings is that they can be good or evil. Although it
is exceedingly difficult to tell an evil and a good person upon looking
at each other, it is remarkably easy to distinguish between an evil and
a good person through their actions. Individuals act differently
depending on whether they are evil or good. An evil person will always
tend to control other individuals while a good person tends to empower
others. A good person will usually empower others with wisdom, skills,
knowledge, and tools. An empowerment action represents good since it
permits the multiplication of skills, knowledge, and abundance from one
individual to another. Besides, an empowering action recognizes the
value of a person and honors free will and consciousness (Kamler, 1994.
Pg 98). A good person will not be forced to empower others, but does so
on the basis of free will of an individual. A good person will always
honor the endeavors of other people and respect their individual
opinions without planning evil to any person. On the other hand, an evil
person controls others since he does not have the free will to do good
to others. Such an individual will control others since he extracts
resources from others, limits their freedom, and demands their obedience
through the use of threats to command their compliance. Therefore, an
evil person dishonors others and bar them from liberty. Control is
viewed as evil as it diminishes the power of a vast number of
individuals and accumulates power to a few people.
An example of a good person is an individual that teaches others on how
to protect themselves in instances of crimes involving violence through
the intelligent, utilization of weapons in order to know how to self
defense themselves however, an individual seeking to strip away
everyone their right to self defense places others in danger since they
become defenseless such an individual practices control and is thus
evil (Kamler, 1994. Pg 120). Besides, a good person will tend to teach
others on how make their garden and produce their own food since he
seeks to empower them, but an evil person will place others on
government food stamps making them rely on the government for food. This
is evil since it represents control of such individuals. In addition, a
good person will always tend to promote harmonious and peaceful
coexistence since he does not have an ill motive towards others. On the
other hand, an evil person will tend to have an ill motive and will thus
not be interested in the peaceful coexistence of others. Since he is not
concerned about the people’s welfare, he will always tend to cause
collisions amid individuals. Societies led by an evil person will
therefore be filled with negativity in approaching things since the
people have limited liberty and democracy in doing things, and wars will
result due to competition and human differences. However, societies
under the leadership of good persons will tend to have people living in
harmony and at peace since conflict resolution mechanisms will usually
be put in place.
Conclusion
Individuals are usually filled with compassion and can show it as long
as they coexist in harmony. However, the human nature can also change
making humans develop hatred towards each other, which may cause
conflicts amid humans. All this is because of the human differences that
exist amid individuals (Rosen, 2005. Pg 82). Because of their
differences, humans have varied wants and desires that lead to
conflicts. Besides, individuals may be coerced to engage in conflicts by
their various differences for example, human differences in religion or
beliefs. This makes it difficult to view conflict as evitable in society
since, in one way or another, humans will always have differences which
when unresolved will spark into conflict. Intervening in the lives of
others is sometimes necessary if the intervention benefits individuals
and enhances peaceful coexistence. Prevalence of peace is viewed as the
chief focus for the intervention. In addition, it is feasible to
distinguish an evil person and a good person based on their actions.
Reference List
Churchman, D. (2013). Why we fight the origins, nature, and management
of human conflict. Lanham, University Press of America.
Fry, D. P. (2007). Beyond war the human potential for peace. Oxford,
Oxford Pub.
Kamler, H. (1994). Identification and character: a book on psychological
development. Albany, NY, State University of New York Press.
Kurtz, L. R., & Turpin, J. E. (1999). Encyclopedia of violence, peace &
conflict. San Diego, Academic Press.
Rosen, S. P. (2005). War and human nature. Princeton, N.J., Princeton
University Press.
Simon, L. (1998). Psychology, education, gods, and humanity. Westport,
Conn, Praeger.
PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 2

Close Menu