We learn to hate that street-kid wearing filthy tattered clothes. We learn to hate that spoilt brat who refuses to study unlike us.
We learn to hate the teachers who grade us poorly. Growing up, we start hating people who don't share the same ideologies or even support the same football club. We learn to hate the system. We learn to hate everything. Hate begets hate. This is not just applicable for our country; rather the world as a whole. John Lennon urged us to imagine the world living peacefully and as one. Today we harmonize to his songs and put on his signature shades as one while we even forget to leave each other in peace.
The world is torn between war and diplomacy. Little had he known that every leap forward would turn to a plunge into the darkness. With the recent rise of global terrorism, the option seems highly unlikely. When the countries aren't at each other's throat, they are busy fending off terrorists conducting cold-blooded mass shootouts or bombings as spectated with horror lately in Dhaka, Munich, Paris, Istanbul etc.
The essence of world peace is truly realized in these circumstances. So the question stands, whether achieving world-peace is possible or not. Surprisingly, the answer is yes, it is! Therefore, mankind will never be completely satisfied. But it is imperative that this unquenchable want be harnessed for the greater good instead of declaring war on each other.
Sitting in the 21st century, we fortunately see infrequent incidents like these. The more threatening talking-point of the current tide is the influx of terrorism generated from conflict of interest and intolerance. However, just two mantras can solve all the problems:. Instilling these two values is of utmost significance. A man guided by these codes always has his conscience showing him the righteous path. Even all the superheroes that we obsess over try to preach us these values.
Hatred is the root cause for deviance.
Essay: Why I hated Dallas — and how I fell in love with it
Religious extremism, fascism, sexism et al. This is when one gets indulged in hate-crimes and terrorist activities. Only if the hate could be entirely erased, the world would be a far serene place. As citizens of the world it is the duty for each one of us to take up the mantle and find a solution to intolerance and violence. Unfortunately, more and more of this demography are getting derailed from the path of illumination. This deviation mostly results from isolation, lack of human attachment or worse, being bullied. So it is our responsibility to ensure that our siblings, friends or relatives don't suffer from mental depression.
No matter how different they are, they are one of us. We need to let them flourish and grow ourselves in the process by nurturing them with affection. This can be done by motivating each other to achieve goals and chasing noble causes. We need to approach those who don't know how to connect and let them know they are not alone. No matter how small an entity we are in the world, we can all make the world a better place together by doing everything in our part to enlighten our generation and the next.
We need to shed off our hate and reach out to those in need of salvation. We are told to stand together and unite; we are advised to forget our divides and live in harmony; but is it that easy to stop complaining about what others do which affects us in no way?
Essays on hating those who are different
More often than not, we end up finding the causes of conflicts; some arise for our social stigmas. Some arise when we are prejudiced and can't help our urges to make a baseless comment at particular people; others are much more elaborate cases such as resource deficits or deteriorating diplomatic relations between countries. Let's not get into that and stick to the social issues.
Germany developed V2 rockets to fire at Britain, but the Allies defeated Germany, and America captured the rockets, using them to develop its own missiles for its nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. This is not principally a vision of technological progress, however, but of moral evolution.
Charles Darwin outlined the logic in The Descent of Man :. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection.
At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase. The problem, of course, is that this is the bipolar morality modelled by the agents in the computer simulation: help those who are like yourself; harm the rest.
Later on, groupings arose within these states and their colonies that aspired to universality, as opposed to the divisions imposed by the political elites. Bowles is a politically minded economist, and the distinctly Marxian dynamic of his view of history recalls his left-wing back pages. On this issue, Bowles finds himself grouped with the biologist Edward O Wilson, whose interest in communism is confined to his celebrated studies of ant societies.
Was this the way in which people living in a modern, civilised state ought to behave? The theoretical basis for his image of war is the balance between two levels of natural selection. In the s, evolutionary biologists invigorated their discipline by rejecting the idea that natural selection worked for the good of groups. In recent years, however, group selection has made something of a comeback in certain quarters.
Its advocates, led by Wilson, argue that selection at the level of the group can sometimes outweigh selection at lower levels, particularly in our own species. And it would produce different results. These ideas have caught the attention of a wider audience, one that never felt comfortable with evolutionary perspectives based on selfish genes and sought alternatives that seemed to put altruism first.
M any people were unsettled by the outbreaks of public celebration in the US that followed the shooting of Osama bin Laden. To think otherwise was to confuse what was right for individuals with what was right for groups. The two were different, and the reason why lay in that distinction between levels that the new wave of group selection theorists had newly reaffirmed, defying all those biologists who supposedly spent the past 50 years telling us that evolution made us selfish.
Of course, it would be more accurate to say that those biologists had spent their time working out just why selfish genes were so abundantly co-operative, but this factional dispute is about moral associations as well as scientific authority. Like EO Wilson, Haidt suggested that human psychology embodies a contradiction between selfishness, evolved through competition between individuals, and co-operative instincts, evolved through competition between groups.
The enthusiasm that Wilson associates with group defence is a related emotion. But was this the way in which people living in a modern, post-tribal, civilised state ought to behave? They were patriots who loved their country, not nationalists who wanted it to dominate others. Nevertheless, the relationship between in-group love and out-group hate can be probed by experiments. The question of whether they are two sides of the same coin is now at the centre of research into the psychology of us and them.
Sumner had seen the one as the product of the other, believing that harmony within groups was established by conflict between them. The assumption that in-group harmony and out-group conflict were inseparable prevailed throughout the 20th century. One notable dissenter was the psychologist Gordon Allport, who argued in the mids that, while we need out-groups in order to recognise in-groups, we do not need to hate them in order to love our own.
In-groups emerge first in our minds, as we form attachments to those around us; out-groups are secondary.