WA 3 draft 2

Peace and war are usually considered opposites. However, I believe that warfare is a much simpler side of human nature than peace. I am not criticizing peace; on the contrary, I think humans should practice it more often. But I am also saying that it takes a great deal more thought and self-restraint to practice peace than it does to wage war. People don't have to do any thinking to pick up a rock and throw it at someone who makes them angry. But they have to think in order to not pick up that rock and just walk away. Therein lies the problem.

Animals are often at war with each other for different reasons - leadership of a group, mates, territory boundaries, ect. This is natural behavior for them. Fighting is a basic instinct, a way to defend or prove themselves. The one who wins the fight wins the prize. Animals are much more simple-minded than humans in their pursuit of basic needs. If someone has what they want, they fight for it. They don't negotiate or offer to share. However, most animals (sea mammals and primates excluded) lack a developed neocortex. This is the part of the brain that can reason and rationalize. This is the logical portion of the brain. Because most animals don't have it, they can't predict the outcomes of their disputes beyond the very obvious - their most basic goals. But animals who do have neocortexes are capable of reasoning and developing language and rules. Humans have the largest neocortexes. We can not only predict the basic, physical outcomes of our disputes, we can predict the moral outcomes as well. We can deduce whether or not performing a certain action on a living being will hurt it. Most other creatures do not perceive the moral outcomes of their actions, and so do not see their behavior as cruel. They can not conceptualize "cruel."

So when a person chooses to leave someone alone rather than hurt them, are they using their higher brain? I think so. Humans are governed by a certain set of morals and values; we perceive certain actions, such as torture and murder, to be "wrong." Why? Because our morals tell us that intentionally hurting another person is a bad thing to do. Intentionally caused physical pain is disturbing to most humans, partly because we live in a complex, structured society and we are no longer doing whatever we can to survive in the wilderness. 

Which brings me back to the original problem: Peace is harder to enact than war because people have to think and exercise self-control rather than lash out based on their instincts and feelings. If one is threatened or challenged, inaction is frustrating because their instincts tell them to fight back. But acting on what their rationalizing, complex brains are telling them rather than what their instincts are telling them sets humans apart from other animals. We can enact a peace. We can stop a war. We just have to will ourselves to do it. We are not ruled by are baser minds; all that we are, all that we have created, is based on our the complex signals from our highly developed neocortexes.