Author: VidS

Winston Churchill once said, in the midst of World War II when British sentiment and morale was at its lowest, “success is not final, failure is not fatal, it is the courage to continue that counts.” Often, when difficult situations arise, and times are tough, the true character and calibre of a person are revealed and it is also through this period of struggling that many of life’s lessons are imparted. Adversity, difficulty and setbacks, on the surface, hinder growth and cut down dreams prematurely, but in the long run, it allows for the cultivation of adaptability and flexibility, strengthens one’s character and brings about community spirit, teaching people how to work together. As such, adversity is a good teacher to a vast majority of people, due to the merits it reaps, and the many valuable lessons it leaves behind.

People who view and believe adversity and trials to be situations which do not give rise to positive impacts posit that these difficult times, at the forefront, hinder any prospect of growth in terms of character. Adversity breeds pessimism and only serves to discourage those who face it, and are in tough situations. When faced with difficulties and challenges which sometimes prove too much to handle, people are stressed out, and they might begin to feel as though their problems would prevail and that they are worthless. By reducing self-worth and pressurising people who are going through a time of brutal confrontation and are struggling, adversity contributes to the build-up of negativity and as a result, a loss of self-worth and degradation of one’s well-being. For example, there are many cases of Singaporean students committing suicide due to a drop in their results and the crushingly negative feelings that come with failure, resulting in unhealthy emotional and mental states. A sobering example would be that of an 11-year-old boy committing suicide due to his subpar mid-year examination results. This acutely reflects how failures and setbacks serve their purpose of literally preventing people from achieving growth as a person, and from accomplishing future endeavours as they drive home the point to them that they are worthless and will always succumb to their weaknesses. Therefore, adversity is not a good teacher, far from one, according to people who believe so, since it does not grant those going through difficult situations any merits. It apparently only provides room for the breeding of negativity and the hindrance of growth, due to reduced self-worth which it inculcates.

Similarly, people who firmly believe that adversity is not a good teacher argue that it inhibits innovation and creativity. They believe that adversity and difficult situations serve as a deterrent against attempts to try out new things and pursue one’s dream. Challenges prove themselves to be stumbling blocks in the lives of many and are thus not situations which give rise to many positive outcomes. For example, many young millennials, Generation Z, are afraid to chase their dreams, out of fear that they would be met with the same rejection their predecessors have. By posing challenges and difficult roadblocks, adversity, unfortunately, prevents potential individuals from pursuing their hopes and aspirations out of fear that the same rejection and hardships would befall them. Adversity therefore hampers and deters passionate and inspired people from doing things they truly enjoy and from daring to take that leap of faith, due to the harsh realities of the difficulties those who went before them had faced being so severe. For example, there is a trend of School of the Arts (SOTA) students and other art students who give up on their dreams and forsake their talents out of fear that they would face the same fate as their predecessors, who have tried and ultimately failed to make a name of themselves due to the lukewarm responses, or lack of appreciation for their work locally. They eventually turn back to conventional desk jobs and ordinary lives. Theatre veteran Ong Keng Sen once remarked in an interview that ‘there is one person, one minister, one civil servant who says something – but in the long run, the other structures in society will actually ensure that these statements, “follow your passion”, really don’t work.’, and this distinctly drives the point that Singaporean society does not make space for artistic talent. Therefore, the fact that these art students are not following their dreams is due to the fact that they have seen the ill-fated nature of the careers their predecessors have faced, and the difficulties they have struggled with in the pursuit of their aspirations. Therefore, adversity and difficulties are not good teachers, as they serve as a blockade and a barrier between individuals and their dreams after they assess the hardships predecessors have faced.

On the other hand, however, difficult situations and setbacks pave the way for people to become more flexible and adaptable, being more open to different ways and routes to doing things. When met with hurdles and walls which seemingly cannot be broken down, it is natural for people to find new ways to overcome them, giving rise to the cultivation of very important skills in the 21st century- flexibility and adaptability. A famous example of someone who did not give up in the face of challenges and instead sought out different ways to work around them, and prevent them from being a stumbling block and getting in his way, is Apple’s co-founder, Steve Jobs. It is remembered that Jobs was a college dropout, but this did not prevent him from becoming one of the world’s most renowned business magnates and from co-founding the Apple, arguably the world’s most influential technology company. By re-assessing his life as a person after dropping out, through a journey in India, and constantly raring to meet his challenges head-on, such as his eventual resignation from Apple in 1985, Jobs exemplified the tenacity and ability to bounce back and try different pathways and alternatives, and he eventually succeeded. His success came in the form of the current prestige and influence that Apple Inc. holds. Therefore, through Jobs’ example, it is clearly reflected how adversity and difficulty provide opportunities for one to be flexible and open to change and become willing to try out different approaches should one fail miserably, or repeatedly. Thus, adversity is a good teacher, in that it is a teacher who inculcates crucial characteristics, as it allows for people to build up adaptability and flexibility, allowing them to become people who can think on their feet, and gain spontaneity.

Furthermore, adversity is hailed as a good and very significant teacher that individuals should not have to go without as it strengthens one’s character and fills them with the strength to overcome any future challenges. It is also through a person’s life and overcoming of adversities when even more people around them are inspired to do the same and find the strength to be optimistic. Rather than purely viewing difficulties as challenges and hindrances, or stumbling blocks, people can instead treat them as learning experiences or hurdles to overcome in order to lead lives happier lives. For example, Jessica Cox and Nick Vujicic are real-life inspirations and are motivational speakers who have overcome their adversities, in the form of physical disabilities as a result of their birth defects. They both do not let their lack of limbs become a lack of fervour and tenacity, instead of pushing themselves to reach greater heights by overcoming their physical disabilities. For instance, Cox is a certified pilot, Taekwondo black belt holder, and Vujicic has done many things even the able-bodied dare not- he has gone shark-diving and embarked on many adrenaline-inducing adventures and activities. Furthermore, Singapore’s Jason Chee recently overcame the tragic loss of his limbs in a Navy accident and the recent loss of his right eye to cancer, to win the gold medal in table tennis at the ASEAN Paralympic Games. These individuals are living testimonies of adversity breeding strength which truly inspires millions of people around the world. As such, adversity is definitely a good teacher, as it inspires change in one’s character and a bounteous increase in tenacity and strength, which goes on to inspire and spur others on.

Similarly, adversity and tough times bring about community spirit and a sense of togetherness, as people begin to learn to put aside their differences and come together, in order to overcome these very challenges. It is through tough times and difficulties that countries have the opportunity to be exposed to standing together in solidarity and unity, which drives and improves cohesion as they teach people to love and care for their neighbours. Adversity and hardships therefore in an unconventional and somewhat ironic way, strengthens the bonds between countrymen and makes way for the overall improvement and building up of community spirit and national identity. For example, after the Manchester Attacks, the bombing which occurred this year, the entire nation and all the people of Britain came together to show their support for each other. They did so through crowdfunding to raise funds for victims and their families who were adversely affected by the attacks and were in need of serious financial aid to tide over following receiving medical help. Furthermore, there was even a concert held following the attack, the We Are Manchester, a charity concert to raise funds for a permanent memorial for the victims of the attack, to gather strength and comfort the entire nation still reeling from the attack. It is therefore through such adversity and difficult situations that community spirit is fostered and tight bonds are formed between communities that exist throughout an entire country. Therefore, adversity plays its part as a good and much-needed teacher, an advocate of community spirit and unity, given that it gives rise to the building up of strong ties and a sense of togetherness which bind people together.

As a whole, adversity and challenges shape multiple things- the emotional landscapes of individuals, and the subsequent hindrance of their growth, and their future aversion to innovation and creativity. However, adversity more significantly allows for flexibility and adaptability to be developed, strengthens one’s character by inculcating tenacity and strength and ultimately teaches people how to overcome their differences and work together for a brighter future. Therefore, adversity is a good teacher for most people, at least more so than it being a bad occurrence and one which does not bring about any positives with its presence. It reaps more benefits than the tiny seeds of negativity it may sow, undeniably. After all, as Churchill said, the “courage to continue” is something adversity gives rise to and provides opportunities for, in contributing to character development and fostering community spirit and cannot exist without hardships which one will definitely face in life.

A perineal question that has haunted civilisation for several millennia is one that concerns the justification of war. Aristotle’s quotation, though contentious, gives any reader good food for thought. By claiming that “we make war so that we may live in peace”, Aristotle implies that war, and thus violence, is justifiable due to its noble cause of sustaining a period of relative stability and harmony. It is commonplace in today’s modern society that violence is frequently abhorred; violence itself refers to extreme physical or mental harm inflicted upon another group, consequently leading to anguish or the fear of death. Aristotle implies that there is a possibility in which violence can lead to peace. However, is this implied message by such a revered philosopher begs the question of can violence ever be justified? In my opinion, violence is indeed justifiable under certain circumstances. In fact, it is more justifiable than ever as we consider the state of our modern paradigm; nevertheless, such borders for the justification of violence are limited.

In order for violence to be justified, its overt and aggressive disposition has to be administered within pre-determined guidelines. Laws regulate the borders of violence and ensure that every action has a reason for it to have taken place. For instance, murder is allowed as a form of defence; manslaughter itself administers a lighter punishment when compared to first-degree murder. Such situations are due to the fact that certain forms of violence are considered more justifiable than others. The United Nations (UN) itself has regulations concerning the practices of war. For instances, non-combatants should not be attacked; if they were attacked without any specific reason, the war would not have been justified.

However, there are certain circumstances in which violence may be justified despite it being against pre-determined guidelines. Such situations are typical in Orwellian societies in which individualism is ‘prohibited’ and conformists are moulded. In the former USSR, Stalin did not allow any form of opposition against his government. Under his authoritative, repressive rule, millions of Russians were slaughtered. They were not even allowed to defend their own rights; they were being watched very carefully. The cult of Stalin was extremely dominant such that any form of violence against his leaders or soldiers was unjustifiable. However, any form of violence by his army was justified. Such a point proves the fact that certain forms of violence, despite being permitted, may be unjustified based on their intentions; similarly, certain forms of violence, despite being illegal, may be justified. In the former USSR, the violence depicted by civilians as a form of defence was considered opposition and was not tolerated; sudden death was ensured- purgery thrived. Thus, the law is only limited in justifying the boundaries of violence to ensure its justification.

Besides legislation and jurisdiction, ethics also plays a crucial role in explaining the justification of war. More often than not, the enemy is dehumanised. He is looked upon as inferior and undeserving of life. However, people with such mindsets have failed to consider the fact that everyone is made equal. We have no mutual right to claim superiority over others. We live in an interconnected, globalised world in which we are heavily interdependent on other countries in ensuring the standards of our quality of life. Dehumanisation has been a huge problem that our human race has experienced. In the 1940s, leading up to World War 2, Hitler gave the orders for racial and religious cleansing, especially through his quiet, yet overt, the policy of anti-Semitism in which he wanted to build his Third Reich only consisting of the Aryan race. The Aryans were apparently superior; other races were dehumanised both physically and mentally. Such violence depicted by the Germans was uncivilised, inhumane and unjustified.

Ethics and law tend to work hand in hand. If laws were pre-determined conscientiously, they would have been created based on ethics, values beliefs and rights. Laws are pre-determined for the betterment and success of the country. When we discuss ethics, we should not merely consider the well-being of victims. We should consider the well-being of those who participate in the violence as well as observers of the violence. It was noted that only 15 per cent of American soldiers actually fired during World War 2, according to a survey carried out by S.A. Marshall. Such astonishing figures were due to ethics and trauma. The soldiers realised that they had the power to take away the life of others. However, they also realised that the triggering of their weapons went against their moral values. Ethics and moral values clearly played a major role in determining the success of the Americans in the war. Nevertheless, it could be concluded that violence carried out by such individuals would be justified since they possessed a moral compass that helped them differentiate right from wrong.

However, under such a circumstance, the law did not work hand in hand with ethics. The military, catching wind of such astounding statistics, changed its laws; they realised that the moral compass of soldiers was too detrimental to the success of the United States of America (USA) in its military pursuits. The military began dehumanising the enemy and implementing laws such that non-firers would be punished. There was also a change in the form of combat. Long-distance combat was preferred over mid-range combat; psychologically, this assisted in the dehumanisation of the enemy. Such alterations to the laws and strategies were deemed successful. In the Korean War, 55% of the soldiers fired. In the Vietnam War, that statistics became 85%. However, were these alterations ethical? Soldiers were made to fire by making them go against their personal beliefs and values. In the long term, such implementations resulted in increased psychiatric disorders as well as trauma illnesses further proving the absence of the ability to justify violence through the penetration of ethics.  

According to Hobson, a respectable psychologist, the man was made to be aggressive. He would fight selfishly to ensure what he got. It was the innate characteristic of man to become violent once he did not satisfy his selfish demands. However, Jean Rousseau states that man is mature and civilised such that violence and aggressiveness are only provoked under certain conditions and is atypical of the character and behaviour of man. Indeed, both school of thoughts conflict and contradict each other. However, as man has evolved, we have tended to move towards Rousseau’s perception of the innate behaviour of man. We have become mature enough to understand and appreciate the implications of our aggressive nature and have attempted to reduce all levels of violence. However, claiming that man is mature enough to understand violence, Rousseau intricately implies that violence is justifiable based on the fact that man appreciates the implications of his actions.

Many times, violence is justified based on its intentions. As Aristotle implied, war is present for peace in the future. This may not be the only noble cause for violence. Ernesto Che Guevara, a famous Argentinean medical student, participated in violence for a noble cause. Touring South America alongside his friend, Alberto, he appreciated the sufferings of those around him having been exposed to live outside his elitist comfort zone. Consequently, he pledged to fight for the rights of such people as revolutionaries; his intentions were noble- to unite the people of the divided Americas. Indeed, such violence is justifiable. Abraham Lincoln’s involvement in the American civil war was justifiable as well; his intention was to abolish slavery in America. In today’s modern paradigm, as Rousseau clearly stated, man is mature enough to understand his actions. Today, many acts of violence have positive intentions thus making them justifiable.

However, just like any other theories, Rousseau’s claim has its incontrovertible anomalies and limitations. It clearly cannot explain everyday crimes from bullying all the way to murder. Within families, spouse violence is ever increasing consequently leading to exponentially growing divorce rates. Has Hobson been proven right? Whatever the case is, the number of unjustified acts of violence continues to increase alongside the number of justified acts of violence. We are experiencing a new problem. Violence, although abhorred, is increasing uncontrollably. The root cause of such an insatiable trend is the ubiquitous presence of the media that penetrates through the lives of many individuals. Such omnipresence has resulted in a homogenous culture and a loss of traditional, local culture. Consequently, the moral compasses of many youths have been eroded. They find it a challenge to differentiate the right from the wrong. Action-packed scenes from various movies have inculcated into them undesirable traits. Both the erosion of moral compasses and the inculcation of undesirable traits have resulted in the media playing a pivotal role in the disapproval of violence.

In conclusion, I believe that there have been instances in which violence ranging from the societal all the way to the international perspective has been justified. However, the problem is not whether violence is justifiable or not. We are facing a larger problem- the increasing trend of violent activity and behaviour. Thus, the aim of society should not be to attempt to justify violence. It should be to reduce violence. Only then can we focus on the justification of violence. It is obvious that laws have not been stringent enough to discourage violence; the presence of jurisdiction is merely to justify violence. Hence, we should move away from our conventional thinking concerning the justification of war and think about attempting to reduce violence for the betterment of our societies which are so innately interlinked. Only then can we claim that we are mature enough to move on to controlling our animal instincts of ‘random violence’.