In his work "The Moral Equivalent of War", William James enumerates the reasons why war is destructive to society, as well as what an alternative to the way of life might be martial that the current culture so idolizes and venerates. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayJames begins his paper by stating that the people of the United States would gladly vote for war rather than a peaceful alternative to civil war. James believes that “hardly a handful of eccentrics” would vote for the “wiping of the Civil War from history, and for the substitution of the record of a peaceful transition to the present time by that of all its marches and battles” (James, 3). This is an opinion about which I have many doubts, since I am of the opinion that the vast majority (and not just a “handful of eccentrics”) of the population would jump at the opportunity to avoid death, bloodshed and savagery. mass that was evident not only in the Civil War, but in all wars in history (James, 3). I simply cannot understand how James considers humanity so bloodthirsty and barbaric that he would wish us war in favor of a peaceful and immortal alternative. James adds: “Only when we are forced,…when the injustice of an enemy leaves us no alternative is it war.” now deemed permissible,” another statement I disagree with (James, 3). Having been published in 1910, James's article was at an interesting point in history. 45 years after the Civil War, the United States was still in what some call the glow of Reconstruction, a country that felt, for the first time in years, united and patriotic. We have been involved in conflicts all over the world, for example the Spanish-American War just 12 years before this article, or even the Mexican Border War 4 years later. Taking this into account, one wonders whether James allowed his views as a self-proclaimed pacifist to alter his view of the rest of humanity (if not exclusively the people of the United States) to one of barbarism and combativeness. modern and ancient men and their respective wars, James lays out one of the main assertions on which this essay is based, namely that “Showing the irrationality and horror of war has no effect on him. It is the horrors that create the fascination” (James, 4.) Although I could resign myself to the fact that yes, humanity undoubtedly has a morbid fascination with violence and yes, the story can be considered “a bloodbath”, James is painting a picture of humanity that is needlessly brutal (James, 4). Some might view this type of writing as an appeal to the emotions, but I find it to be, at best, gross exaggeration for effect, and at worst the type of hyperbolic writing found in tabloid newspapers. Regardless of my feelings towards his writing, his entire piece hinges on the man's fascination with war. I believe that, rather than seeing it as an intrinsic thirst for destruction, the continued evidence of war throughout human history is rather a manifestation of the fight-or-flight response evident in every human being. Humans have one of two responses to threats, either showing aggression towards the threat, or showing fear and withdrawing. As we form larger, more entrenched societies like nation-states or kingdoms, we lose the ability to flee in the face of a threat, and so we resort to an adrenaline-fueled violent response. This is why I believe history is full of violence, and not because “our ancestors., 17)