Reference no: EM13158195
my researched position paper has to be an additional 3 papers, pertaining to any 3 outside legit educational sources. my professor said i could look and search in the psychology (do u think sociology would work too?) section of academic files in my school library database. unfortunately, i did not find any. please can you help me add extra sources to my paper to make additional 3 papers to my current paper? here is my paper as follows (it has to have ethos, logos and pathos as well as convincing to the readers/audiences too because i will have to present my topic "war - inevitable and integral" as a presentation in class next thursday)
Growing up playing video games that were often centered on war, I developed an early interest in the concept of physical conflict. Slowly, my obsession with virtual war grew into a passion for reading war novels and watching war movies. War started to play an even bigger, more realistic role in my life when friends of mine began to join the military in the hopes of fighting to protect what they believe in. Now, as a college student, war continues to intrigue me and I remain just as interested in researching the motivations that fuel the human violence and conflict behind war, as well as its societal impact.
War is as old as civilization itself. Over the course of human history, countless wars and battles have been waged and are still persisting to this day. Whether large-scale or relatively small, the aftermath of war is enormous and often catastrophic. There are no rigid rules that govern war—they may include everyone: adults and children, men and women, soldiers and civilians. It seems like war is all around us, resolute and unavoidable. The persistent existence of war within civilization often raises the question: Is war inevitable? People have claimed that war is an integral part of society, but is there really no way for humans to coexist peacefully? In the following essay, I will lay out an argument that centers on three positions. First, I argue that war is fueled by a human desire for control and power. Next, I show that war has grown to encompass a romantic, idealized and virtuous image that makes society unwilling to let it go. Using the previous positions, I will then aim to present the argument that war is an integral and inevitable part of human society.
Humans naturally feel the desire for dominance. The entire concept of a capitalist market functions on the knowledge that humans are naturally and inherently motivated to move toward the top—they want to be the best. Governments, because they are run by mere humans, are subject to the same flaws of human nature. War provides a way for countries to prove and assert their dominance. Despite being a pacifist, James William believes that war is an integral part of human society. In his article, “The Moral Equivalent of War,” William asserts his belief that young men have a need for warfare due to their naturally aggressive natures. With this view, he says that the only way to curb war is to transfer their aggression to more productive outlets. He therefore believes that unless the peace party can propagate some peaceful measures (i.e. some moral equivalent) that would take war’s place in providing an outlet for male aggressive dominance, their utopian goal would not be possible. However, no such equivalent has yet been developed; in the thousands of years during which countless wars have been fought, nothing has yet been able to replace its particular appeal to men’s aggressive natures. William notes that the driving force behind this aggression is a desire for control: "The powerful exact what they can and the weak grant what they must" (William James, 710) With this statement, he defines war in terms of power and dominance. Almost all wars are fought in the effort to gain control and dominance. Whether by conquering and colonizing a smaller country, or by trying to force a single religion on thousands of people (such as during the Crusades), war has historically been used as a tool for displaying power. A current example would be the controversy about Iran creating nuclear weapons; in the current global arms race, they too desire the power that comes with weapons that they can wield in the face of stronger countries. War feeds the natural human instinct toward aggressive dominance, and is unlikely to be replaced by any sort of moral equivalent.
Whenever a young man, or even woman, thinks of war, one of the first impressions that comes to mind is glory. Countless movies and books have portrayed war as a romantic and rugged venture in which men bravely fight for honor, glory, and freedom. Even Presidents have reinforced this romantic image of war, such as when George W. Bush spoke to troops in Afghanistan and said: “I’m a little envious… I think it would be a fantastic opportunity to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. It must be exciting for you… in some ways, romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger.” War has consistently been associated with positive adjectives that emphasize courage, bravery, honor, and virtue. In his essay, “War is a Force that gives us meaning,” Hedges writes about the addictive qualities of war and how and why many people are drawn to it. For example, Hedges states “Elected officials, celebrities and news anchors lined up to be counted. On Friday, September 14, three days after the attacks, Congress granted President the right to ‘use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks’” (Chris Hedges, 718). War has a certain attractive appeal to it that cannot be denied. Looking back at my last encounter with an old friend who served in the military, I learned that war was not simply an experience for him—it defined him. He spoke of his years in combat with a great deal of nostalgia. He told me that no matter how terrible war was, it brought people together because they shared the same purpose and were fighting for the same cause. This concept of comradery further reinforces war’s romantic, glorious image, and shows how it has grown to encompass many virtues that society holds as extremely valuable.
War is an integral and inevitable part of society. It feeds human nature; it allows humans to exercise their need for dominance and aggression. Furthermore, war holds an elevated position in the eyes of society; it is something brave and honorable, which are values that people would not want to part with. In her article, Mead defines war as an invention. She states, "warfare, by which I mean organized conflict between two groups… warfare of this sort is an invention like any other of the inventions in the terms of which we order our lives, such as writing, marriage, cooking our food instead of eating it raw, trial by jury, or burial of the dead, and so on” (Margaret Mead, 713). Mead’s persuasive viewpoint that war is nothing more than a human construct and invention certainly rings true; however, like other inventions, it was created with a purpose of fulfilling a human need. She then says, “warfare is a form of behavior that becomes obsolete only when something else takes its place, and in order to invent forms of behavior which will make war obsolete, it is a first requirement to believe that an invention is possible.” Though I agree that the only way to truly abolish war is to “invent” another behavior that could take its place, I feel the need to emphasize her final claim that says we must first believe that an invention like this is even possible. The doubt that interlaces this statement serves to underscore the entire argument of my paper: such a behavior that could replace war is not possible. It is too integral to society; it feeds so many inherent facets of human nature and has grown to such an elevated position in society that it will continue to have an inevitable role in mankind’s course through time.
expert help needed please. will rate lifesaver if you save my life =P