Peace as a goal is an ideal which will not be contested by any government or nation, not even the most belligerent. Aung San Suu Kyi
Do you agree?
On the face of it it sounds like everyone will agree. But I don’t, at least not entirely. At present no government explicitly contests the principle. But society today is undergoing vast changes. Aung San Suu Kyi is a politician; and yet she is the heroine of our times. Whereas the ‘greats’ of history such as Alexander the Great would today be known as bloodthirsty tyrants. So although today there may be no government that contests the ideal of peace as a goal, people like Genghis Khan most certainly would have.
Genghis Khan viewed humanity as animalistic and predatory. He believed that people can be divided into either wolves or sheep. Being a sheep was being peaceful and civilised, and lacking in physical prowess. As you can guess Genghis didn’t much care for these kinds of people. But the wolf, which he saw himself as, was warlike, constantly moving around, never succumbing to the temptations of civilised luxuries, and never aiming for peace.
What are your thoughts on this matter? Is there an argument against peace? And could that argument be used still today? Or is it out-dated in a world where everyone cites a desire for peace?