Social Behaviour and Human Nature - Essay Example

Running head: Social Behaviour and Human Nature Social Behaviour and Human Nature [Writer’s Name] [Institution’s Name] Social Behaviour and Human Nature Humans have a tremendous capacity for compassion and hatred, peace and war, harmony and conflict. [To err is human, to forgive is divine] (Alexander Pope) Conflict and variability of ideas is the realm of this world. No two people are ever the same due to different opinions and experiences. Hence, no two persons can have the similar kind of minds. As self interest is unavoidable, along with scarcity of resources the conflict is somehow natural. Similarly the intense emotions like kindness, disgust, peace, war, agreement and conflict are in human instinct. Human beings have a natural push for move from the physical needs to psychological needs. As a community of human beings expand, the desire for security increases. As the need to survive is fulfilled, the need to communicate becomes apparent. Every human has some natural traits, a set of qualities in his self. Everyone possesses these set of traits with varying intensity. But the urge to rule and order, compassion and hatred, peace and war, harmony and conflict can be seen in all human beings, at individual as well as on community level. When a community becomes powerful, without any concern with the individual differences and mutual conflicts, it goes to conquer the so called enemy. It is evident from history that communities had been on wars for natural resources, conflicting ideologies and urge to show power and many other reasons. But in the present era the trend of wars has changed. The civilization and modernization has made people realize that wars are a source of destruction and loss of valuable human lives. The more a nation is develops, the more it values individual life. To protect humanity and peace in the world, after World War II, the United States along with developed nations, established United Nations organization which aimed at the protection of world from war in future. UNO is the well established institution on which the whole world nations trust. Since its establishment, it is providing valuable services to the world by maintaining peace and prosperity. The United States of America, today’s sole world power, has always emphasized the importance of human life and dignity. It has been supporting the developing nations since World War II for their betterment. After the breakup of USSR, a non state actor called Taliban emerged on the world politics. As this network of Taliban gained power, it became a threat to the peace for the world. After 9/11 incident, USA started taking serious action against Al Qaida or Taliban network. As its human nature that human being cannot forgive a loss of his life. Surely he has a tremendous capacity for sympathy and hatred, peace and war, harmony and conflict. USA has been very kind to the developing countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Gulf States. It has been helping the countries financially, socially and for scientific and educational development but the terrorists situated in Asian region targeted New York and turned USA infuriated. The attack on a developed nation will obviously result in defensive attacks on the suspected regions. When US was compassionate for the world, it left no stone unturned to help the poor nations but when it was offended by 9/11 attacks, the quest of security made president bush to act for the security of the united states. As Pope Alexander said beautifully that to make a mistake is human nature but to forgive is divine. This never happened after the offence of 9/11. The actual terrorists deserved severe punishment but in order to rebuke them, many innocents were killed perhaps unintentionally by USA. Unfortunately, terrorism has turn out to be a very sensitive issue of modern time. People of different regions have different ideologies about it. These opinions are formed by the social situation, geography and history of that particular nation. It is also a reality that whatever man does in his life, he always does it with an assumption that he is doing the right; he is on the right without any consideration for empathy. [Pity would be no more, If we did not make somebody Poor; And Mercy no more could be, If all were as happy as we; And mutual fear brings peace, Till the selfish loves increase; Then Cruelty knits a snare, And spreads his baits with care. He sits down with holy fears, And waters the ground with tears;] By: William Blake (Macarov, 2003, p.62) Many world nations were against US attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan, for this United States president Bush said to the world decisively: ‘Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists’ (CNN, 2001). This drew a clear line between alliance and opposition. The US forces are still struggling hard to eliminate the terrorists from the face of earth and resume the previous development of world. Behind this it is the concept of power, that for doing good of majority if a small group of people suffer damages and slaughter is done would be ethically correct. Ultimately this will be aimed at the good of the masses. Self interest is also the basic ingredient of foreign policy of modern countries. The tackling and overhauling of the conflicting party depends upon the power a country possesses. When it comes to the question of one’s own survival and security, it becomes necessary to intervene in the lives of others. This can be illustrated from the US situation after 9/11 destruction. Conflict is inevitable. Conflict is related to a clash of ideas, benefit, and culture. These clashes mostly give a boost to a conflict. In this world every nation has an urge to obtain power and acquire more resources. The Taliban or Al-Qaida network also aimed to get power and to do so they adopted the methods of suicide bombing and terrorist attacks on innocent people. This was their way to express conflict. When bush addressed the world saying that are you with us or with terrorists was his way to draw a conflicting line between the countries. Conflict can only be resolved if win-win situation is achieved between the conflicting parties which is not possible in the case of USA and terrorist organizations. Other than political conflict, conflict can be of many types but to manage and eliminate conflict, individual as well as groups, communities and nations adopt five ways to eliminate it. According to Thomas and Kilman (1974) conflict resolution is done in five ways or by adopting five strategies which are: accommodation, avoidance, collaboration, compromise and competition. This suggested model of approaches towards conflict resolution is widely accepted and is considered valid. According to Thomas and Kilman (1974) the accommodation means that one gives priority to others need on its own needs and gets ready to accommodate with the situation. Whereas avoidance is prevention of the conflict by not reacting. On individual level it can be done by not interacting with the individual and by ignoring or changing the subject on occasions where conflict can arise etc. Avoidance may be functional for a limited period of time and for dealing with individual problems only but at international level it may not help out. Avoidance may be used in the cases where the conflict is timely or occur just one time and is not likely to occur next time. But in rigorous cases avoidance may end in the termination of relationship which is unaffordable at international level because on international stage countries make contacts for trade, business and mutual gains. If avoidance is adopted by one country, the other may end its diplomatic relations with the former. The third approach is to collaborate with the conflicting party in such a way that both work together. In collaboration the both parties seeks a solution acceptable and beneficial for the both. Thomas and Kilman (1974) tell it is a win to win situation where collaboration is done. This definitely reduces and eliminates the conflict. Collaboration can also be unsuitable if parties lack mutual trust. Where the both parties are powerful and are ready to resolve disparities. International level has many collaboration examples like Sony Ericson business collaboration. Compromise is to find a middle ground in which each party is partially satisfied. It has lower satisfaction level of parties as compare to collaboration. The example for this can be of water distribution deals between India and Pakistan. Competition is to state one's perspective at the possible price paid by the other. According to Thomas and Kilman (1974), this can turn out to be valuable in the case of attaining some aims outweigh the concerns that one has for the relationship. Conflict is inescapable, than on international level in modern era, in conflicting situations that are harmful for the majority of world’s population, it becomes necessary to interfere in a country’s domestic issues. As it was a threat to the whole world that terrorists continue suicide bombings and terrorist attacks while occupying south Asian territory, it became necessary for USA to get involved into the domestic matters of those particular countries. Although, it is widely debated but again for the betterment of majority, personal lives of small group is not important no matter they want interference or not. “Most of the large-scale violence in the world will continue to occur within societies rather than between or among states. Yet the international community still has not developed the ethical-legal consensus or the institutions required to manage this terrible problem” (Menon, 2009). Ethical standards vary from society to society but some fundamental principles are their which are accepted by the whole world as if true. Like telling the truth is ethical, is widely believed. Deciding between evil and good is difficult as evil concept is different in different societies of the world. Evil fundamentally is considered as something irrational and that is harmful for others but this irrationality will be different for various cultures. Whereas, good is something related to utility. Now the term utility will have definitional issues. It can be taken as if utility is the usefulness of anything. Bush point of view of killing terrorist can be regarded as ethical on the grounds that Ex. President of USA perhaps thought it ethical to eliminate terrorists as it will be useful for his country and for the rest of the world. “The basis for universal morality, however, must be the avoidance of death and suffering, not just the general pursuit of good--"Being good is not good enough to be moral” (Kirkus, 2005). Furthermore, the standards of morality would be entirely different in individualistic and communist cultures. The ethical standards like right to property would be void for communist culture. Hence the communists will define it evil to have individual property rights where as the individualists will consider collective property or state property rights unethical and maddening. Similarly these ethical standards are connected with the minds of human beings. The deeds which give satisfaction to the mind and heart will be virtuous where as the sin is something that disturbs the soul after behaviour. So with such facts it is not possible to identify universal evil and good concepts but to define ethical standards one needs to see the society with the perspective of that particular culture. Realistic international relations ethics vary from that of liberal ethical standards. Realism was produced by multiple believers one of which is Niccolò Machiavelli, a political philosopher, who wrote Il Principe (The Prince). In The prince he gave golden advices to the future prince about how he should be in his behaviours. He apprehended that the only aim of a prince should be seeking power despite of the religious or ethical considerations. The current United States policy seems to be realistic that advocates for the use of power and force for defence of the country. Shortly, the changing social situations lead to the change in the human capacity for love and hatred, war and intimacy etc. These are the attributes of human personality. And a change in them is natural and is hence unavoidable but can be managed. “Are right and wrong convertible terms, dependant upon popular opinion?” - William Lloyd Garrison (Inc Icon Group International, 2008, p.2) References Berumen, M. E. (2003). Do No Evil: Ethics with Applications to Economic Theory and Business. CNN. (2001). Transcript of President Bush's address. [Online] Available at: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/ [Accessed 14 September 2009] Inc Icon Group International. (2008). Opining: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. San Diego, CA: ICON Group International, Inc. Kirkus Reviews. (2005). Kirkus Discoveries. [Online] Available at: http://www.kirkusreviews.com/kirkusreviews/discoveries/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002076263 [Accessed 14 September 2009] Macarov, D. (2003). What the market does to people: privatization, globalization and poverty. London: Zed Books. Machiavelli, N. (1637). The Prince. KayDreams. Menon, R. (2009). Pious Words, Puny Deeds: The International Community and Mass Atrocities. Ethics & International Affairs, 23(3). [Online] Available at: http://www.cceia.org/resources/journal/23_3/essays/002 [Accessed 14 September 2009] Thomas, K.W., & Kilman, R.H. (1974). Conflict Mode Instrument. Tuxedo, New York. Read More