Hobbes and Rohingya-Myanmar Conflict


This week we discussed Hobbes’ state of nature and whether or not morality exists in the state of self-preservation. Also mentioned was the Rohingya-Myanmar conflict. I am still not too familiar with the details of the ongoing events in Myanmar but now that I’ve had the opportunity to reflect on this week’s lecture I feel that I can better articulate my feelings and thoughts about the professor’s question: “Whether the conflict in Myanmar is immoral?”
Like Hobbes, I believe that the natural state of mankind is “nasty, brutish, and short” and that morals do not exists until society defines what is moral, or immoral, through some sort of social agreement (ie. contract). In my initial response, I believe I said that ethnic-cleansing is immoral. This is probably a narrow view and the modern Westerner in me talking. But, it’s difficult for me to understand why some people and societies resort to violence instead of reason when the world well knows that different people can co-exists and violence hardly solves the underlying issues of the problems we claim exist.

In this modern age, through globalization, we have books, people, and technology connecting people from all over the world, spreading ideas, cultures and beliefs. Yet, there are individuals and governments who refuse to reason and choose to exercise their most elementary characteristics, “where every man is Enemy to every man”, resorting to war. Perhaps the conflict in Myanmar arose because there is no formal contract between the Rohingyas and the Myanmar government (ie. Myanmar's government does not recognize the Muslim Rohingyas) which is what Hobbes said is necessary for peace to ensue.

I believe the ethnic cleansing is immoral. Even though Myanmar doesn't recognize the Rohingyas doesn't mean they don't exist and it certainly doesn't mean they should just be persecuted. I know that just because it’s 2018 doesn't necessarily everyone is going to think that everything can be talked about and reasoned, but it's truly difficult for me to comprehend the necessity or reason to harm another. Maybe the Myanmar government feels threatened so they are competing to be the dominant religion. Due to my upbringing, I have seen how people from different can co-exists and how wonderful it is when human beings get along and work together to make the world a better place.


References

Hobbes, Thomas, and C. B. Macpherson. Leviathan. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1968.

Comments

  1. EHMay 24, 2018 at 9:25 PM

    Now that we've covered the basics of ideas and interests, what do you think the implications are when we have human conflicts of interest, like we see with the Rohingya conflict at present?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anarchy in the USA

           While discussing realist motives and intentions, it seems that the United States is headed down a curious path worth looking at. Clearly a powerful nation, the United States should be in a unique position to latch onto globalization in order to secure a stable future. Calm, cool, collected domination is a much better look than ramping up rhetoric and perceived might, because your neighbor's interest to attack is seemingly when they are most threatened by show of force.             The United States has long taken advantage of its allies, while using economic bargaining to secure peaceful existence. The European Union is a clear ally in the spread of Democracy and Capitalism, two tenants central to the existence of the United States. It is this point that makes recent events troubling with regards to a peaceful future.             In an effort to bolster nationalism, our country has tur...
Read more

Waltz's Neorealism

The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other. Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war. The more important question then becomes what started th...
Read more

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more