This quote refers to human nature, which is heavily discussed by John Locke. Locke is not the.
Violence take multiple forms, many of which are covered in the nightly news. Murder, rape, familial abuse, bullying, workplace hostility, armed robbery—all of these are societal problems with far-reaching repercussions. There have long debates and discussions regarding whether nature or nurture influences individual violent behavior.
People are concerned about what makes an individual to engage in violent behavior such murder or burglary among other types of crimes. They are also concerned about. Ultimately, the author presents a poem that comments on human nature without committing to a judgment of that nature through subject matter, structure, and narrative voice.
Epic of Gilgamesh, some aspects are quite similar in both societies. First this passage suggests that the human nature is violent. Second, it also shows that while the male gender possesses all the knowledge, the female gender cannot create anything on her own. In the first sentence of this passage, it is stipuled that Gilgamesh has in his blood two-third of divinity and one-third of human being.
The God of Wisdom also made him perfect. Yet, in Tablet I of the Epic, Gilgamesh is killing citizen. Nick Mykins Dr. Those who neglect this concern are not contributing to the sustainability of the species. Contemporary beliefs of materialism, and the practices of expansive capitalism unnaturally divorce humanity from nature. As a result of this forced isolation and the increasing toxicity of the environment, humanity is suffering mental, behavioral, and spiritual.
Leviathan, published in Hobbes argues that without absolutism, no man can live with a sense of security because all acts of human nature cannot be criticized but are instead a Right that can and will be practiced by individuals, for there are no injustices in a world of war. Hobbes first argues that men are driven by human nature.
It is this very human nature that brings up the three major causes of discord: Competition, Diffidence, and finally Glory. Competition as described by Hobbes is. Every day, when we browse through newspapers, social media outlets, and television channels, we are bombarded with stories and images of gory foreign civil war, violent extremists, and threats of terrorism. Yet, despite the current state of our world, studies from Steven Pinker, in The Better Nature of Our Angels, have shown that violence has been on the decline since the end of the last world war.
Are people violent by nature? Probably. - Los Angeles Times
Along with cited studies and my own research, I will be examining and discussing the human nature of violence, and by contrast, our natural tendencies towards sympathy, empathy and how the decline of violence will affect the human race in the decades to follow. His reflection on human behavior proposes a biological nature in humans that causes violence. He argues that this innate nature acts upon being triggered by perceptions of rivalry or threat. He contends that despite culture playing a huge role in human behavior, genes and biological stimuli ultimately determine aggressiveness and comparison of animals to man is appropriate.
He insists that throughout evolution human ancestors bequeath forthcoming generation species-specific instincts necessary for survival and evolutionary adaptation. In addition, he refutes proponents of cognition by stating that aggression and violence is not a reaction to external stimuli; it is an internal excitement that seeks expression and releases regardless of adequacy or inadequacy of external stimuli Lorenz, In conclusion, Lorenz terms human aggression as beneficial in pursuance of a superior social structure.
It ensures modification of genes towards strength, balanced distribution of creatures and species preservation.
In his book uncovering the underlying reasons for rape, homicides, terrorism and war, Ghiglieri clearly narrates an account of their pathologically potent violence. In the book, each chapter covers a specific violent tendency which he describes in details and later elaborates as the proof innate violence propensity in the human male. He refers to apes that exist in instinctive social rules of violence, xenophobia and sexism. The mountain gorillas, on the other hand, are born as natural killers; he adds that the gorillas and apes indicate a system where might is right and combat superiority is the only guarantee to reproductive success Ghiglieri, According to him, the behavioral motivators of apes and gorillas are no different from those of man; he quotes the high number of males in politics in comparison to females as proof of innate male drives in humans.
To Ghiglieri, male is just male and examples of psychopaths such as Idi Amin, Osama Bin Laden among others, point to the warlike nature of the male. He is emphatic that murder and violence is psychologically encoded in males. Aggression is written in humans as a DNA programme since war erupts wherever men are put together Ghiglieri, He therefore prescribes the defense as the only immunity to violence.
Studies by Goodall indicate that chimpanzees among the Gombe community showed a coalitional violence resembling human behavior. The chimpanzees were in two communities - Kasakela and Kahama; the majority chimpanzees of the Kasakela systematically attacked the males of Kahama and killed seven of them in a premeditated fashion. Despite his convincing argument, Ghiglieri faces criticism regarding apparent inconsistencies of his theory to others. The aspect of a male killer is refuted on the bases of human-ape family correlation.
Studies on the bonobos species show no tendencies of killing, forced sex or battery. Dave Grossman. He is a former Lt. Colonel and a psychologist at Killology Research Group who specializes in the study of why people kill. He is a key proponent of the theory that human beings are not innately violent and have an in-built inhibition to killing a fellow individual of the same kind. Grossman supports his argument by stating that given this aversion to violence, individuals require learning to kill Grossman and Christensen, He expresses his thoughts that violence is learnt and acquired through behaviors of our parents, movies on violence or images displaying aggression.
He argues that the modern child is growing up in vast exposure to violence; they interpret this as pleasurable and desirable, hence losing their innate aversion ability. Consequently, Grossman proposes that a remedy lies in letting the children as well as the parents understand that violence in media or real-life is neither a game nor fun.
Grossman uses his vast experience of over 20 years as a soldier and a psychologist; he draws conclusions from his personal experience at a job that involves killing and defending. He insists that human beings are good at killing, however, this is not natural but it is taught. He draws likeness by stating that just like armed training teaches soldiers to kill, the society is teaching our children the same unawares. He refers to the Jonesboro killing incidence in which four youths and a teacher lost their lives in a shooting incidence.
To him, this is a typical case of the media and parents conditioning young people to violence Grossman and Christensen, Grossman analyzes history of various wars and indicates the existence of posturing, loud noises and trials. At war, fleeing and submission were prevalent, he adds that killing only occur when one side ran off and the other followed in pursuit. The killings also indicate that the stabbing was from the back, additionally, studies by Brig.
Many soldiers are indeed willing and ready to sacrifice for their nation and people, but they are not ready to kill. He recounts that a new recruit is verbally and physically abused so as to lose the moral norms and the violence inhibitors. As a result of desensitization and brutalization, as a normal routine, coupled with endless hours of physical exercise, nakedness and shouting, individuality is lost and soldiers embrace violence, death and destruction as a survival necessity Grossman and Christensen, From this, Grossman actually proves that human violence and brutality are taught, not innate.
Brutality, violence, war tendencies and aggressiveness are learnt through training. In the same manner, the society through violent parenthood and exposure to violent media content desensitizes children as early as when they are 18 months old. Grossman argues that at this age children can discern the happenings on television. Later at years, the brain understands the source of information; the danger of desensitization and violence results from their inability to distinguish fantasy and reality Grossman and Lev, He emphasizes that when children watch murders, brutalization, and rape or stabbing, they start to bring that to an actual occurrence.
Thus, horror movies which children are exposed to countless times, equal to letting your child butcher a friend; this is because children relate to media content and modify behavior. As a proponent of the cognitive theory, Grossman uses information from an unexpected quarter; dominant theory assumes that in a shoot or be shot combat situation, a soldier will prefer to kill first.
Grossman argues that despite this inability to kill naturally or with ease, soldiers require post war rituals; this aims at making the soldier accept what they did at the battle field, especially killing. It is therefore apparent that soldiers are tormented and disturbed by killing. Had killing been natural, then there would be no such feelings or need for counseling. But, Grossman notes that the society is conditioning people in a military nature without necessary safeguards Grossman and Lev, This, he notes, is likely to result in an increase in violence.
We thus conclude from Grossman, that man needs to be taught to kill and even when he does, he requires sought of purification against blood guilt despite the training. This indicates that he is therefore not an innate killer but one who posses strong aversion to war and violence. Shaped by his background and experience on the war, he is a proponent that the majority of wars are avoidable.
In his book, he states that man is not innately violent; rather, war is like a foreign disease. He argues that aggression may be innate to man, but people learn and acquire war tendencies Stoessinger, Thus, human beings can unlearn this acquisition to fight and emerge as a peaceful society. He refers to cultural practices of cannibalism and incest, which are currently taboo in almost all nations; these practices seemed ineradicable. He emphasizes that people learn violence through analysis of major wars.
As Machines Wage War, Human Nature Endures
According to him, almost all nations that started wars in the 20th century lost, indicating that nature or ideology does not matter. Thus, people have the mental ability to abandon war for other nonviolent solutions Stoessinger, Joseph Fahey. Fahey is a peace specialist and a professor of religious studies at Manhattan College, New York. His studies and review of peace as the flip side of war and violence considers individuals as religious beings who are peace-loving.
He also argues that war or peace is not an issue limited to an individual but also the state through its structures.
What Is Human Nature?
For instance, he quotes the Romans as willing to pay taxes or offer their prayers when the emperor and the army went to war, but they would rather not be in the battle field. He, thus, sees human nature as one governed by some rules such as love, to which individuals take as absolute; with this command they would not wish to cause anyone harm.
Fahey argues that in history periods of peace have outstripped periods of war. He actually states that war is a recent phenomenon which evolved with the advent of agriculture and land possession. He states that there are numerous ways to sustain peace, but the major one is where the peace makers outnumber war advocates Fahey, He does not denounce the existence of individuals who propose war, but he views the general human race as peaceful and peace-seeking.
Studies by Talbot conclude that despite this, the wars exist because aspects of culture, history, sex among others, shape our conscience on war and mostly we let others do our thinking for us.
Therefore, he concludes that we are not innately violent, but peace must be sought, taught, modeled into state systems and sustained with efforts and cooperation. This author marshals a compelling argument that human beings are not innately violent but rather that war is a cultural influence impacting on various human adaptations. He introduces the aspect of a vicious circle by stating that the view of human beings as war like and blood thirsty propagates war and violence, but if we replace that view with a peacemaking one, then man is the ultimate peacemaking primate.
He proves that throughout evolution, peace has been the norm and war the exemption among animals and humans as well. He compares aggression avoidance and physical aggression and argues that the pressure does not favor killing, rather contests emerge Fry, Like Fahey, Fry observes that military set ups, weapons of destruction are a recent occurrence in human pre-history. The ancient hunters and gatherers had a routine lifestyle resulting into minimal conflict or need for war.
This evidence indicates that cultures are not universally violent and that by the natural history of peace, human nature displays latency of a peaceful existence. Additionally, he terms certain isolated events such as homicides and murder as different from war.