War is not an unfamiliar term for humanity; this phenomenon has existed since the dawn of human civilization on Earth and has evolved, taking on various forms. As time has progressed, war has become more modernized, with increasingly deadly and advanced weapons replacing bows and spears. Heraclitus, one of the pre-Socratic philosophers, described war as follows: “War is the father of all and king of all. He renders some gods, others men; he makes some slaves, others free.” War, as a historical process, has become deadlier, more equipped, more instrumental, and more desirable in modern historical developments. Perhaps in the past, war did not seem as abhorrent as it does today, but it was no less desirable. In the current era, where humanity is supposed to resolve conflicts through dialogue, it engages in war to amplify these conflicts and make war more desirable. The reality is that deadly, destructive, and inhumane battles have been as enduring as the lifespan of history itself and have been inevitable. However, the question for the observer has always been why wars occur. Why does humanity sacrifice so much destruction and slaughter? Why is peace for many like an unattainable dream? I’m sure you too are confronted with these questions and constantly engage with yourself to find answers.
Why war?
Aristotle says, “We make war that we may live in peace.” He regards war as a means to an end. Aristotle’s ultimate goal for war is peace, reaching a state of tranquility and peaceful coexistence. However, every war must result in peace and be aimed at achieving and maintaining peace; yet human history in many regions does not attest to such a phenomenon. Instead, in many cases, wars have not ended in peace, and the conclusion of one war has been the beginning of other futile and destructive wars. These days, we commemorated the 8th of Saur, the anniversary of victory against the Soviet Union. The 8th of Saur was, in fact, the conclusion of a war that lasted almost a decade against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, but contemporary Afghan history indicates that victory over the Soviet Union not only did not end the war but initiated other fruitless and destructive wars in this country that continue to this day. Perhaps wars have been over power, out of greed, or as acts of invasion and resistance… In any case, it is war, and the devastation it brings includes homelessness and displacement.
I mentioned this to point out that the end of any war is not necessarily peace, and sometimes the end of one war leads to the beginning of other wars. Perhaps this possibility is what led Aristotle, the famous Western philosopher, to use the word “may” in the aforementioned sentence. In wars, there has always been a common cause, and nothing other than interests can be the reason. These interests can be political, geographical, military, economic, group-based, religious, or any other. Nevertheless, alongside the many factors that can cause war, conflicting interests and the existence of prominent interests are the most prominent of these factors.
In essence, wars exist because there are interests involved, sometimes freedom and liberation from oppression. Where interests are at stake and achieving freedom, in the modern world, any action taken to achieve it is considered justifiable and legitimate. Whether that action is war, assassination, occupation, colonization, cultural invasion, or any other action that can achieve and preserve interests and freedom.
Why can’t humans always live in peace?
To answer this question, one must understand and comprehend human nature. Based on what exists regarding the understanding of humans, the bottom line of all seekers in this matter has been that humans are the most unknown beings; because this being, based on its behavior, is never predictable, and a complete understanding of it is impossible. Aristotle considers humans as political-social beings. He believes that humans are created to live in society, to interact with others, to govern, to be governed, and in fact, human existence finds meaning in society. Aristotle likens humans removed from society to beasts. On the other hand, Thomas Hobbes, one of the social contract theorists, considers humans inherently evil, lawless, rebellious, and even wolves to their own kind. However, he believes that beings with such qualities cannot peacefully coexist and that conflicting interests always lead to the use of force, voluntarily or involuntarily. Hence, he considers the existence of absolute government necessary and undeniable in such a situation. John Locke, another theorist of the social contract, has a different interpretation of humans than Hobbes. Locke, however, considers humans inherently good, intimate, law-abiding, and beings capable of living peacefully with their kind in society. He not only believes in the existence of government through a social contract in human society but also, contrary to Hobbes, gives the governed (citizens) the right to impeach and install their leaders, thus considering Locke also a believer in constitutional government.
From examining the beliefs of these philosophers about humans, it is concluded that there is no unanimous opinion in understanding humans. However, history shows that humans, whether willingly or unwillingly, have a strange inclination towards war, adventure, greed, and domination, and these qualities have turned humans into evil and warlike beings. In the modern era as well, most wars have no justification other than these traits, as humans, in the form of governments, have initiated conflicts, destruction, and massacres based on these very qualities to achieve their goals and establish their kingdom and rule over the ruins and casualties of their own kind resulting from war.
You can read the Persian version of this analysis here:
جنگ برای صلح؛ «جنگ میکنیم تا شاید بتوانیم در صلح زندهگی کنیم»