In the essay “Can real men live in a peaceful society”, I thought that it was true after reading both essays when he said ‘bourgeois men were too soft to make good soldiers’ (p. 1) even though the war just ended. It’s interesting that people changed so much in such a short amount of time. It was like the war never happened. It was ‘a thing of the past’ (p. 1) and a new way of life was developed. I wasn’t that surprised that the essay stated that ‘it is better to die than to live in defeat’ (p. 5) only because of the time it was written, in the 19th century. If that was said today, I think I would be more surprised. This is because people back then seemed to be more noble than in today’s world. I think it’s a form of courage. They believe in what they are fighting for, therefore they are saying they will fight to the end for what they believe in. At the end where is wonders of war and violence will always remain with us as long as there are humans. I believe that this statement is true because it is in our nature to control and want more than we have. The constant battle for control over people or especially land will always remain with us because that’s just who humans are. In “The Moral Equivalent of War” essay by William James, he also believes that peace will not be permanent on earth (p. 3) and states that if war stopped, we would have to re-invent it. He believes that people are getting too soft and that ‘war has been the only force that can discipline a whole community’. I agree with James because after all the readings we’ve done in English class, the harsh reality of war shows that it disciplines people and there is no way of hiding from it.