While we were making our own Geneva Conventions during class (yes I wrote this after class) my group and I were talking about the real Geneva Convention. It surprised me that most of the comments about it had to do with how "no one actually follows it" or how "war is kill or be killed, so people are not inclined to follow its rules" Perhaps it is our survival mechanisms that break the agreement, but one can avoid death without using mustard gas. The answer that I came up with was that we don't abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention because there are hardly ever repercussions for those who do disobey it. So do humans have to be watched to avoid gruesome acts of violence? We talked a bit in class about how humans can be either humane or animalistic as is clearly demonstrated in The Iliad.
What I am proposing is that humans are innately trouble makers and that the polite, more subdued side of our duality is created by the regulations of the state. As an evolutionary tool, no species needs to follow rules and regulations so maybe we have always had the "eat or be eaten attitude" imbedded in our DNA and it only surfaces in war. Perhaps without guidelines,we would be doomed to self-destruction.
Think about it, would you steal if there were no police?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Well, would it be stealing if there were no police? i don't think humans could exist the way we do if there were no police; we'd have to get used to the idea of communal property. it goes back to the possessiveness thing i wrote about on somebody else's blog (i can't even remember who now).
i was surprised, too, about how many comments i heard about the worthlessness of the Geneva Convention. And it's true; in the middle of a war, my first thought would not be, "Oh, wait, i have to be humane while killing this guy who's trying to kill me, i can't torture him to figure out what their next move is, even if that might mean my death or my buddy's death...." The Geneva Convention is all well and good in theory, and i think we need it, but that doesn't mean it's perfect.
Maybe there needs to be stricter punishments on those who disobey the Geneva Convention. If there were stronger repercussions, perhaps there would be less offenses.
When you say humans are innately trouble makers, I would say humans are innately hypocrites. We like the rules to apply to others but when we disobey them, we feel justified. For example, nuclear weapons. The US continuously speaks out against other nations (Iraq, Iran, etc.) who want to get nuclear weapons, however, we are the leader in this technology. The war rules are similar. We said one of our reasons to go to war in Iraq was a product of the nation not following UN Sanctions. However, we went to war after the UN voted against it. The hypocrisy behind democracy, a term coined by Chris Rock, is imbedded in western civilization.
Your post raises many questions as to the instincts and morals of the human race. It is somewhat scary to think that humans would act like wild animals if their were no rules. I sadly agree with your claims that humans are innately trouble makers. Humans are responsible for wars, deaths, nuclear weapons and many other dangerous inventions. Maybe humans truly are evil and war just brings out the lawlessness instincts that presides in humans.
I agree with you that people do take advantage of things if they know there are no consequences. However, you say that there are no repercussions for someone who breaks the Geneva Convention, but I think there are. People are subject to trial and conviction for war crimes but yes, it is most likely incredibly hard to do so. Also, I agree when you say people are innately bad and selfish. People, at their most basic roots, are animals that have a "kill or be killed" mentality. Not necessarily in a literal sense, but most humans are more concerned with their own well being than anything else.
I believe that it is because of the rules established in the societies we live in that lead to the breaking of the rules. Many times if you are told not to do something all you want to do is exactly that.
I completely agree with Tess, while the Geneva Convention is theoretically a great idea it is not the most logical method. This is because the rules established are not always upheld and many times there are no reprecautions for breaking the rules.
I think you are completely right. If someone violates the Geneva Convention, there should be strict punishment. However, can you violate the Geneva Convention to punish someone for breaking the Geneva Convention? Think about that...
I agree there needs to be some sort of strict punishment for those who break the rules of the Geneva convention.
On your last sentence... I don't know. Morally and religiously I don't think I would. Also I think each individual store would make their own security I wouldn't want to mess with.
To an extent, I agree with what you said; however, like Tess pointed out there are inherent loopholes in the statement we are innately trouble makers. After all, the one innate quality we do uphold, is the act of reproduction. Without being cynical, one cannot really claim that to be troublesome.
Frankly, I think most democratic nations do largely follow the Geneva Convention. And there are repercussions, the US is the worlds only superpower so the repercussions we feel aren't that big, but for other smaller nations there can be larger repercussions. I don't think I'd steal if there were no police, but I bet other people would.
Of course people would cause they want things. Notice how I said want instead of need. The may sound the same, but they are completely different. Necessity is what drives us as humans. We need food, we need clothes, we need money, we need shelter. We want the big house, we want the nice car. In war it is necessary to kill if you have to. So it is in our survival mode to kill when have to if there is no other solutions. Have three men not eat for 5 days, then throw a piece of steak in the room they are in and see what happens. Necessity not wanting.
Post a Comment