top of page

The New Fallacy of Love and Peace

Assuming Love and Peace as a Rational Option Without Demonstration

In the modern discourse of human coexistence, love, and peace are often heralded as the panacea for all societal and interpersonal conflicts. This glorification, while seemingly noble in its pursuit, falls prey to a significant, new-age logical fallacy: the assumption of love and peace as rational options without demonstration.

The critical oversight lies in the unchallenged acceptance of these concepts as inherently good in some form or universally applicable. Love, in its various manifestations, is often posited as an unconditional positive force. Yet, is this an empirically verifiable claim? Historical and contemporary instances reveal that love, in its obsessive or misguided forms, can lead to irrational decisions, conflicts, and even atrocities. Similarly, peace, often painted as the ultimate state of societal existence, can sometimes be a veil for stagnation or suppression of necessary change. We need to look no further than Islamism and its mistreatment of women, based on my moral standards, as a contemporary example.

A rational approach demands that we scrutinize these concepts with the same rigor we apply to other ideologies. The presumption that love and peace are always desirable or beneficial is a cognitive bias rooted in cultural and emotional predispositions, rather than in empirical evidence or logical reasoning. Sometimes, evil must be destroyed, like in the case of Nazi Germany. To show up with peace and love on the shores of Normandy might not have done the trick.

Furthermore, the application of love and peace as solutions in complex socio-political contexts is oversimplified. It ignores the nuanced and often harsh realities of human nature and societal structures. To claim that love and peace are the answers to conflicts, without addressing underlying systemic issues, is akin to treating symptoms while ignoring the disease.

The most common and popular victim of this fallacy to catch my attention is Lex Fridman. He plays host to a chill, slow-paced podcast that interests intellectual science and tech buffs. I want to analyze the following post on X:

In this example, instead of making a moral judgment on the current global tragedies and their parts, Lex releases a platitudinous thought, pointing a finger at the military-industrial complex and warmongers. Well, who are they, Lex? And how is Israel, as an example, to achieve any diplomatic efforts with those that want to annihilate them? Have you tried to imagine how a conversation might go between a Jew and Hamas leadership? I worry that if Mr. Fridman found global political power, he might be too quick and willing to sit down and negotiate with terrorists. Maybe he wouldn’t, but generally his words tread too closely to “stop war at any cost” for my palate.

It’s important to realize that this fallacious way of thinking can permeate the mind in less obvious ways. On October 19th, 12 days after the Hamas massacre of Israeli civilians, Lex posted this on X and I later responded:

Lex did eventually delete the tweet, likely in a moment detached from his typical naive, amoral tendencies. For further demonstration of this characterization, go and read his X feed. You will be hard-pressed to find any negative moral condemnation, in a world full of actions worthy. Especially from a podcaster that explores many of these tragic worlds daily. I think it is good to make our own moral pronouncements known, even if we might consider ourselves wrong in the future, or lose our audience. Speaking true to how we feel, in a good faith and helpful way, is our best route for meaningful growth.

This is not to argue against the virtues of love and peace but to challenge the notion of their universal applicability and effectiveness. A more pragmatic approach would be to view these ideals as components of a broader strategy, one that also includes critical thinking, empirical analysis, and an understanding of the complexities of human behavior and societal dynamics. We should wear our moral responsibility to each other on our sleeves, and treat the details of global tragedies with the due seriousness they deserve. Lives depend on it.

While love and peace are noble pursuits, their uncritical acceptance and application as panaceas for all societal ills is a fallacy I wish to enshrine. The love and peace promoted by genocidal maniacs would likely be a brand too sour for Lex Fridman and most others. It is essential to adopt a more nuanced, critical, and empirical approach to these concepts, recognizing their limitations and contextual effectiveness. Only then can we genuinely aspire to a more rational and effective model of human coexistence.

By Travis Pangburn


bottom of page