Human Psychology Concerning War
To the Editor:
I was struck by the quote by the co-founder of the iRobot Corporation, who compares the use of robots
in battle to providing body armor to infantry. He characterizes each as "a moral issue" and notes that
"cost comes in."
There is no doubt that it will be easier, cheaper and more efficient to kill other humans using robots
instead of our own people. History is pretty clear on this point. Whenever one group of people has
technology that makes it easier, cheaper and more efficient to kill and take whatever it desires from
another group, it will use that technology.
War should be expensive. It should cause pain and misery. And it should cost warring nations their
blood and their treasure. To go to war in the absence of an imperative sufficient to demand those costs
would be immoral. The ability to go to war without paying those costs cannot be considered a moral
good.
Tim McElgunn
Cherry Hill, N.J., Feb. 16, 2005
The implication is that if we allow people to die and suffer, eventually the survivors will “learn” to stop
going to war.
The assumption that Tim McElgunn makes is that people will learn from experience and when their
sons come home with PTSD or injuries, they will become anti-war. My experience with human
psychology tells me that the way most people react is to be “proud” of the “sacrifice” that their son or
daughter made “to defend their country’s honor”. Rather than making rational decisions, people often
use their “rational mind” to rationalize the decisions that they made in the past. If Tim McElgunn were
correct, then when you visit a veteran’s hospital, would find it full of anti-war soldiers. In actuality,
most soldiers who have lost a leg in war is even more convinced that his or her leg must have been lost
for a good reason.
In a similar manner, a mother is not likely to be found saying “I made a mistake by encouraging my son
to go to war”, they are more likely to say “My son made our country safe for democracy and I am
proud of him.” If their son or husband died, they often will be found visiting the grave and
remembering their beloved as being a wonderful person, probably more wonderful than they actually
were.
Consider how people reacted to the US Civil War. Who remembers it more, the victorious North or
the Southerners who lost the war? Obviously the war is much more remembered by the Southerners
even though they lost the war. In addition, their consciousness of war and how it “makes heroes” is
such that a disproportionate number of soldiers come from southern states today, many years after the
Civil War.
Next
To the Editor:
I was struck by the quote by the co-founder of the iRobot Corporation, who compares the use of robots
in battle to providing body armor to infantry. He characterizes each as "a moral issue" and notes that
"cost comes in."
There is no doubt that it will be easier, cheaper and more efficient to kill other humans using robots
instead of our own people. History is pretty clear on this point. Whenever one group of people has
technology that makes it easier, cheaper and more efficient to kill and take whatever it desires from
another group, it will use that technology.
War should be expensive. It should cause pain and misery. And it should cost warring nations their
blood and their treasure. To go to war in the absence of an imperative sufficient to demand those costs
would be immoral. The ability to go to war without paying those costs cannot be considered a moral
good.
Tim McElgunn
Cherry Hill, N.J., Feb. 16, 2005
The implication is that if we allow people to die and suffer, eventually the survivors will “learn” to stop
going to war.
The assumption that Tim McElgunn makes is that people will learn from experience and when their
sons come home with PTSD or injuries, they will become anti-war. My experience with human
psychology tells me that the way most people react is to be “proud” of the “sacrifice” that their son or
daughter made “to defend their country’s honor”. Rather than making rational decisions, people often
use their “rational mind” to rationalize the decisions that they made in the past. If Tim McElgunn were
correct, then when you visit a veteran’s hospital, would find it full of anti-war soldiers. In actuality,
most soldiers who have lost a leg in war is even more convinced that his or her leg must have been lost
for a good reason.
In a similar manner, a mother is not likely to be found saying “I made a mistake by encouraging my son
to go to war”, they are more likely to say “My son made our country safe for democracy and I am
proud of him.” If their son or husband died, they often will be found visiting the grave and
remembering their beloved as being a wonderful person, probably more wonderful than they actually
were.
Consider how people reacted to the US Civil War. Who remembers it more, the victorious North or
the Southerners who lost the war? Obviously the war is much more remembered by the Southerners
even though they lost the war. In addition, their consciousness of war and how it “makes heroes” is
such that a disproportionate number of soldiers come from southern states today, many years after the
Civil War.
Next
 | |  | |  | |  |