Producing a Machine Without War

It is no secret that the novel Slaughterhouse Five has anti-war rhetoric. Much of the novel is filled with imagery of machine like armies occupying the landscape. This imagery is meant to show the absence of humanity in a congregation of a humans assembled to do battle. From these descriptions we can gather that the author, Kurt Vonnegut, is conceiving the idea that war drains the humanity from people and thus the machine like existence of the army is explained.

The first question that comes to mind from such a conclusion is: what is its implication on a peaceful society? Since, in many ways, war presents itself as an opportunity for governments to control the masses when conflicts arise, that then begs the question what is done in a peaceful society to control the masses. There has to be some way that governments try  to produce machine like societies without war.

I came to the conclusion that fear is what is used in today's society to produce the machine like control that governments once had over their people by mode of war. If one looks around us the large majority of the United States is mobilized against the "threat" of terror. I am not implying that the dangers of terrorism do not exist, but terrorism has come to control many aspects f our society. As the grip of fear increases on our society people are more willing to sacrifice their privacy, which leads to a loss of individuality, and ultimately some aspects of our humanity.

Most countries do not produce hostile situations so that their populations can be controlled. but many leaders have taken advantage of fear in the public. For example, Bush passed the Patriot Act, Obama expanded the NSA and more recently the ascension of Donald Trump into our political system as he feeds off of the fear of the nation.

Fear does manifest itself in war. I think that this is the main reason why our nation is having a machine like response to the threats  posed by another "quasi" nation. Since the enemy is so elusive war is almost impossible so the machinery of war shows up in other aspects.

In conclusion what i am trying to describe is the Locust effect. Humans without fear are happy grasshoppers that chirp all night, but with enough toxic ingredients such as fear grasshoppers become cannibalistic and ravines.  

Cultural Relativity and Absolute Truths

With human civilization's age and fragmentation it is no surprise that so  many unique cultures exist. Many other cultures seem exotic to us and appalling. Similarly, other cultures look upon our own culture in the same fashion. So the question of who's opinion is most valid is brought up. This question brings about a lot of baggage because of its nature. Declaring one system of living correct would negotiate the system of another culture. Also such a proclamation would be disputed and would just cause a ruckus.

So the best thing to do in this situation is not declare any culture superior to another but simple juxtapose the different cultural aspects that each culture posses. Even though there are many subjective cultural aspects that do not really have any weight such as the eating of crickets there are other aspects such as human rights which can be objectively looked at.

How could I say that human rights can be seen from an objective way. Well, when it comes down to these things one must remember that a civilization should strive to become more productive but above else be more happy. So under such guidelines slavery would be a problem since a large portion of the society would not be happy. Another cultural aspect that would not be allowed under such guidelines is censorship. Even though it could make the majority more happy (e.g. trigger warnings, blocking debates, censoring entertainment, safe spaces, propaganda,) it cuts upon productivity in a way that it destroys its production of new ideas that can move civilizations forward.

When looking for those two factors accessing other cultures becomes far more easy. From this we can derive that human rights violations is unexceptionable, violence is unexceptionable ( expect combat sports), corruption and other things. Though, things such as food and holiday customs cannot be determined by this two factor model.

In conclusion, many aspects of different cultures can be compared, but some aspects are just conditioning. Other than that cultural reflection is definitely needed since it gives us a lens to view our own culture and the cultures of others so we can keep progressing as humans

Does Evil Exist?

During our discussion of Grendel I brought up this question. I think that there is no such thing as evil. For example, a murderer does not act without his own justifications. All of us have a threshold where we would begin to commit terrible crimes if we were pushed to that limit. These murderers simple posses a different threshold than we do. This simple means that they have a different values set than we do. This means that every action taken by the murderers is justified in their own mind, even if they acted to hurt someone else they feel justified in their action. They did not do it simple for the fun of it, but instead found a reason to commit the crime. Since they have personal justification I think that it stripes them of being evil. It just means that they hold different values than we do and different thresholds for when they use violence.

Another scenario that is brought up in a discussion like this is the killer that kills for the hunt. These kinds of people do not respect life. In their own twisted minds the life of a human is not worth preserving. In many ways a lot of us have a similar problem, when most of us see a cockroach our first instinct is to kill it. In other words, we do not respect the insect's right to life. In the same manner the unemotional serial killer kills humans. Since he has no empathy he does not understand the pain he puts people through and thus is unable to understand the extent of his crimes , thus he is not evil. The serial killer just holds different views on the value of life.

So if this is the case why would we call people who behave like this evil. Well, we do it because they committed one crime, they deviated from the values that a human must posses in their society, for example I think that the definition of evil was different 10,000 years ago, mass slavery was socially acceptable but try that today.The word evil is defined by each society and is then used to produce a judicial code. In other words laws are meant to encapsulate the values of the majority and exclude the values of the people on the extremes. Those that are on the margins is what we like to call "evil".


P.S.

I am not justifying acts of violence, I am simply defining evil. Since I live in this society I would have to define the killers described above as evil but only in the context of their society because only their society can label them as evil, In other words evil is another way of saying outlier in a society.