The 3 World Peace Philosophies

When driving my kids to school the other morning, my daughter asked me why some people think that slapping a peace symbol on their car will do anything to stop war.  The car she pointed to had four or five anti-war bumper stickers on it as well as three that demanded world peace.  I explained that some people want everyone to know how strongly they feel about things - and peace is certainly something good to be wished for.

In pondering this conversation later, I realized something interesting beyond this.  The person who drives that car has a totally different philosophy about peace than I do.  After thinking about it a bit more, I realized that there are actually three different philosophies about how to achieve world peace:

1. Wishful Thinking
2. Destroying Others
3. Tit for Tat

These three ideas, either alone or as a combination of any two of them, can explain any statement or policy of seeking peace.  What's ironic is that if you had three people in a room, each subscribing to one of these different ideas, they would fight like cats and dogs as they argued how to bring about world peace!

Wishful Thinking
This philosophy is based 90-100% on emotion.  The arguments supporting it's usefulness are usually a logical fallacy of one kind or another.  It is commonly held by idealists and dreamers with little real-world experience or an understanding of history.  I personally do not have much respect for this one - I don't think it's a realistic position to hold, nor do I think it can be effective.  Ever.

Destroying Others
This philosophy holds that if all competing ideas/people/religions/etc. are removed, then there will be no further reason for conflict and peace will result.  One can't question the logic, but certainly the morality leaves a lot to be desired.  This perspective on bringing peace to the planet is commonly held by totalitarians, despots, and zealots of all stripes and spots.  It has resulted in more and bloodier genocides and wars than the other two philosophies.  I personally believe that this is a case of attempting to use evil to get a good result - I'm against this principle.

Tit for Tat
This philosophy can best be summed up by Theodore Roosevelt's line to, "Speak softly and carry a big stick."  Leave people alone unless they attack you, then have both the means and the will to lash out in kind.  Once aggressors realize they can't successfully fight you, attacks will stop (either due to logical choice on their part or because of a total destruction of their ability to attack).  There are more elements required for this philosophy to work (powerful response potential, will to fight, ability to stop fighting when it's no longer needed, consistency in reactions, etc).  Any lack will result in a less than perfect peace-solution.  Because it's complex it isn't usually ascribed to others - it's much easier to call someone out as believing in one of the other two.  This is my personal philosophy about how peace can be achieved.