That Religious Studies Website


Violence, War and Conflict

Applied ethics

Recently added to the site

Some thoughts on the matter of violence, war and conflict (Part 1): Introduction, the nature of humanity, religious attitudes

Information: This article discusses some issues related to the matter of violence, war and conflict. In Part 1 we consider the nature of humans, whether they are inclined towards an aggressive or non-aggressive disposition (and why), and also some religious perspectives. In Part 2 we consider the issue of weaponry, how modern weapons have led us to de-humanise the 'enemy', and nuclear weapons. In Part 3 we look at the cost of war and pacifism. A version of this article was originally published on the website www.faithnet.org.uk.

Introduction

Violence, war and conflict have been a prominent feature in human history. Even today, in our so-called 'advanced' and politically-correct world, daily news reports show us that people are still willing to inflict tremendous suffering and harm to others in the name of a political or religious cause. On a personal level, humans seem to be unable to stop themselves committing aggressive and violent acts against others. For instance, pupils fight with other pupils, drivers shake their fists and yell at those who get in their way, and insects are quickly swatted dead when found around the home.

Of course, all this begs the question as to whether humans are naturally violent and aggressive creatures or not. In other words, are we by nature peaceful beings who are somehow manipulated into committing acts of violence, or is living peacefully contrary to our basic nature?

Drawing of an angry man

Our natural state? (Image source: www.photobucket.com)

'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.' (Isaac Asimov)

'The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on.' (Ulysses S. Grant)

On the nature of humanity: Hobbes v Rousseau

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) believed that without any form of government, life would be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short' for the majority of people. In other words, without some form of governing authority setting out and enforcing rules for how we should all live and deal with those around us, people would simply do whatever they wanted and as such a state of insecurity would ensue. For example, people would not know whether their neighbour would suddenly harm or kill them, or steal some or all of their possessions, or even rip them off when conducting business with them. Of course, in order to avoid this situation occurring people must give up some of their personal freedom to do as they please, in order to live a somewhat peaceful, fulfilled and happy existence.

Hobbes' description of the way society works is popularly known as the Social Contract Theory.

In contrast to this, philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) argued that we are actually 'corrupted' by government-rule (and rules), as they force us to live a more selfish existence than we normally would. Rousseau believed that in our natural state, humans are actually self-sufficient, and although at times they might seem to act in aggressive ways according to our moral standards, this would merely be for their personal survival (say when out hunting animals for food - thus leading to the idea of a 'noble savage'). However, with government-rule comes a (false) emphasis on personal gain, and this (wrongly) arouses feelings of jealousy and suspicion of others. Thus rather than provide a state of security (as Hobbes argued), governments actually promote and provoke disharmony amongst people; particularly by introducing false values as to what is considered successful in terms of personal and social achievement.

The father of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) also questioned the role governments play in ordering our lives. Like Hobbes, Freud believed humans were naturally disposed towards aggressive behaviour, yet following Rousseau he felt that governments (in the name of promoting 'civil' behaviour) actually made things worse. This is because governments force people to live in harmony with each other in the name of 'civility'. Of course, if people are not naturally inclined towards doing this, then forcing them to live this way will simply create antagonism and tension between people, which is exactly what we often see happening around us.

'If more is demanded of a man, a revolt will be produced in him or a neurosis, or he will be made unhappy.' (Sigmund Freud)

Advertisement

Religious attitudes to violence, war and conflict

It is hard to deny that religion has created significant tensions amongst people, and that this has often led to conflict and acts of violence between them. Yet despite this, a fundamental message in all religions is that people can and should live in peace. Of course, the problem with this is that most of the time religions teach that achieving peace amongst people is possible, so long as they follow the true religion. Now it does not take much refection to see how the idea of a 'true religion' can led to conflict amongst people, especially when those who believe they have The Truth feel threatened by those they deem not to.

A common religious teaching is that violence and conflict is a result of people living contrary to the way God wants them to (E.g. 'What causes wars, and what causes fights amongst you? Is it not your passions that are at war in your members? You desire and do not have; so you kill. And you covet and cannot obtain; so you fight and wage war.' (James 4:1-2, The Holy Bible)).

In saying all that, violence, war and conflict are things we find God using or allowing to be utilised, for various divinely-ordained purposes in the world religions. For instance:

  • In The Bhagavad-Gita, Hindus learn about the notion of duty (dharma) by reading how Krishna (God) wanted the sons of Pandu to fight a battle each other, because it was their duty to do this.
  • In the Old Testament, G-d told the Jews to fight the Canaanites and take possession of the 'Promised Land' (Israel), as this had been given to them as a sign that they were G-d's Chosen People. We also read many times that G-d gave the Israelites victory in battle as a sign that G-d was with them, and blessing their 'cause'.
  • Although it was the most violent and painful form of capital punishment devised by the Romans, Christians believe God allowed Jesus to be tortured and crucified on a cross for the sake of the sins of the world. Many Christians display crosses or crucifixes in their homes or places of worship, because they believe this symbol is an expression of God's love for them.
  • In a revelation given to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), we read how God permits armed combat and the right to self-defence when people are being persecuted; especially for their religious beliefs (Qur'an 22:39-40). What is interesting about this verse is that it applies equally to both Jews, Christians and Muslims.
  • One of the five symbols (or five Ks) Sikhs wear to show their commitment to their faith is a dagger (Kirpan), which was not just something originally carried for self-defence, but also permitted to be used to prevent further acts of violence occurring (ahimsa).

The Buddhist tradition contains no teaching which promotes or justifies the use of violence to solve disputes or conflicts amongst people. In fact, the first moral precept says that one should always seek to avoid taking or harming life. The essence of the Buddha's message was universal compassion (or love) for all living beings.

Some people argue that despite what has happened in the past, religions do not justify the use of violence today. They also say that often the reason why religions are a source of tension and conflict amongst people, is simply due to the manner in which people have interpreted the teachings found in their holy books (most often literally, when they should be read in a more symbolic manner).

In her interview for this website, Islamic scholar Asma Afsaruddin argues that extremist Muslims often justify their use of violence against other and non-Muslims, by taking verses from the Qur'an out of their historical context. For example, the Hadith (saying of Muhammad), 'I was ordered to fight all men, until they say "There is no God but God"' relates first and foremost to the Arabs living in the Arabian peninsula at the time of the Prophet, and justifies their use of force against certain people living in Mecca who had displayed relentless hostility towards Islam. As such, in order to protect Muslim lives and property these Meccans had to be fought against. What this Hadith does not justify is the forced conversion of non-Muslims to Islam, which is also something forbidden in the Qur'an (2:256).

Some thoughts on the matter of violence, war and conflict (Part 2): Weaponry and nuclear bombs

Back to top