Martin Luther King Explains That it Is

¶ … Martin Luther King explains that it is vital that mankind learn to put aside war-making in favor of active peace-making. His argument is in some respects firmly set in his historical era, as he is arguing against the Vietnam war. However, there are many ways in which his arguments are uncannily modern as well, and might be applied just as easily to the current world situation.

He suggests that nation-states, like individuals, should embrace the way of non-violence which is active in trying to make and build peace through consensus and service. King understands that the problem of modern war, which he describes as inherently futile and self-destructive, are more complicated then to be solved in a simple and instantaneous fashion. Personally, I think he is right in this, but that he fails to go far enough.

King believes that by making a "peace race" for the creative ability to improve life, science and cultural advancement can save the world; after all, he suggests, who would want war when their own society provided all they need.

As he allegorizes: "When Orpheus sang, who would bother to listen to the Sirens?" For myself, I think it quite possible that many people in this generation prefer the Sirens to Orpheus, and this makes the eventual goal unlikely; however, I do think that King is absolutely right in his analysis of the evils of modern war.

I do not agree with King in his belief that if humanity could just "see that peace represents a sweeter music, a cosmic melody that is far superior to the discords of war..." that they would therefore abandon war. The truth of the matter, in my humble opinion, is that the majority of people would not prefer the sound of peace, so long as they were not personally at risk. Martial music has often been preferred to pastoral.

One cannot help noticing how America flocked to get behind Bush once there was a war on, even though his approval ratings had been low before 9/11. War is exciting. It sells movies and books and politicians. Even apes make war. King himself admits that there was a time when it was necessary, and though he rightfully claims that times have changed and war is obsolete, our aggressive genes and our warlike culture have not changed. No one really wants peace.

King writes, "It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it..." Indeed, he is right here -- but finding a people who actually love peace even so much that they would sacrifice war for it is likely to be impossible. I do, unfortunately, agree with King's analysis that war is both obsolete and overly modernized. I say unfortunately, because considering the human penchant for war it would be very comforting to think that it is ever still a good idea.

As King writes, "There may have been a time when war served as a negative good..." I certainly believe that was true, to some degree. However, those were wars limited by their own technology. They could not include the entire ecosystem and entire world. In some ancient wars, nothing outside the warriors themselves were even affected. In the days when wars were fought hand-to-hand, one believes there may have been some justice in warfare.

Today, in the era of heat seeking and intelligent missiles or rapid fire tanks, one often cannot even see one's enemy. There is a sense to which modern warfare eliminates the human element. War is not the same thing it once was -- it is no longer glorious, if it ever was. Yet as science has changed the nature of war, it does not seem to have changed humanity.

As King points out, "We have ancient habits to deal with, vast structures of power, indescribably complicated problems to solve..." Wars obsoletism has not, unfortunately,.