Diplomacy or violence? - A critical look at rationalism in dealing with aggression

Diplomacy or violence? - A critical look at rationalism in dealing with aggression

Many people who understand themselves as rational and enlightened tend to become pacifist attitudes. Diplomacy, de -escalation and non -violence are considered civilizational achievements - and in many situations they solve conflicts more sustainable than raw violence. However, this perspective harbors a dangerous blind point: there are actors who do not react to peaceful signals, but rather understand them as an invitation to exploit.

The illusion of universal diplomacy

Rationally thinking people often rely on arguments and understanding. The problem: Those who act exclusively diplomatically and categorically exclude violence reveals a weakness. For unscrupulous violent perpetrators or brutal rackets is not a value, but a weak point. They test borders and continue as long as no consistent resistance takes place.

Clever criminals

Perpetrators who cleverly hide their ruthlessness behind a facade are even more problematic. They give themselves friendly, talk about cooperation - and only pursue their own interests. Anyone who gives them to you that violence is not an option has already lost: the opposite side knows that even in an emergency there is no effective defense.

Intelligence as a prerequisite for diplomacy

Diplomacy requires a minimum size of cognitive and emotional maturity. It requires empathy to get the ability to put itself in the situation of the counterpart and an understanding of long -term consequences. But not everyone has these skills.

A religiously motivated knife, for example, acts in an ideological delusion in which arguments have no effect. Such perpetrators often come from social and cultural milieus, in which education, critical thinking and cognitive skills are hardly promoted. Their intellectual horizon does not allow complex chains of arguments or empathy-based action to be processed at all. However, diplomacy requires exactly these skills - where they are missing, every appeal fizzles out of reason.

Quite different from the sophisticated business fraudsters: he very well understands the language of diplomacy and exploits it in a targeted manner. He listens, gives approving words, keeps the appearance of the cooperation - while he pursues his goals undisturbed in the background. For him, diplomacy is not a means of communication, but a tool of deception.

Violence as Ultima Ratio

The central thesis: violence is rarely the best solution, but sometimes the only functioning. Against unscrupulous perpetrator who recognize neither morality nor reason, she remains the last instance to avert damage. Diplomacy only works where there is a minimum level of bilateral rationality and good will.

A rational handling of conflicts does not mean glorify violence. However, it means recognizing reality: peaceful signals can express strength - or weakness. Anyone who robs themselves of all options by categorically excluding violence runs the risk of becoming a game ball of unscrupulous actors. Real rationality also requires unthinkable thinking: diplomacy where it works - and hardness where it is inevitable.