Violence... - Natural or Unatural,ur views.

[pastradamus]

I've been thinking about this for some time now,and I have come to the conclusion that violence is part of human nature and not sumthing you pick up.Some people are more violent than others,and some have better ways of controling it amongst themselves.
So im gonna agree with marx on this one.
In saying that violence flows through the veins of all humans.
what about your view?

[Corvus Corax]

Violence is in us from the start. Our bodies are born with the base instincts to survive, and dominate, and we have violent instincts to all that is in our way.

Violence is something that is 'unlearnt' rather than learnt. The need for violence in our society has been going down over the last few hundred years however.

C.C

[pastradamus]

Im in total agreement

[Dhul Fiqar]

Man, I just spent the last few days with my head buried in books trying to write an essay on this very topic for a University course on police psychology.

I dunno where to begin really, the Freudian school of thought holds that the Thanatos is responsible for violent and self-destructive tendancies, and as such it's inbuilt in all human beings and must be vented and controlled to avoid some really nasty incidents. This is also born out by one of my favorite experiements, the infamous Milgram study where people were given the option of electrocuting their fellow man.

Yet there is a large body of evidence that suggests very different levels of aggressive tendancies for different people, and situational and social learning theories have yet further insights into why violence happens where and when it does. So, basically, it also needs some sort of trigger or catalyst.

In the end the answer is the same as to all questions in the social sciences: "Yes and No" ;)

--- G.

[Blasphemy]

i am a very strict pacifist, but i do belive that violence is something natural in humans. i believe, and some may find it a bit extreme, that violence is a result of ignorance. because ignorance is something intrinsict, so is violence. a completley intellignet person will never use violence to get what he wants, because he understands that it will eventually hurt him. a lot of people understand it, but only a few practice it successfully.

[Anonymous]

Violence is, has been and always will be Mans first way of getting what he wants. Look around us, in nature animals dont play chess to decide who gets the females and the land, they fight. Its instict and we are controled to an unbelievable extent by our instincts.

[Conghaileach]

from Dhul Fiqar
This is also born out by one of my favorite experiements, the infamous Milgram study where people were given the option of electrocuting their fellow man.

I think you've misinterpreted Milgrams' work. His work was about obeying authority. His parents were Jews and he was interested in finding out what it was that made the Germans follow the Nazis, and he rejected the ideas of the time that Germans were more sadistic and more authoritarian than other nationalities.

It wasn't about people venting frustration or violent tendencies.

[Conghaileach]

I personally think that people are (usually) only violent when they need to be.

Like all other animals, we live in social communities. You don't see people walking up to each other and punching the face off one another, unless there's a reason (or perceived reason). We only turn violent if we feel it necessary.

[Anonymous]

Do you ever feel a strong urge to hit some guy when he is chatting up a girl you were after? Men seem to compete and often culmiate in violence.

[Conghaileach]

But would you want to hit that guy if he wasn't chatting up the girl and gave you no reason to do so?

[Anonymous]

I dont know, i have strange feeling that just being in my immediate area could bring me to hit a guy. It really depends on how im feeling. and how drunk i am. Drink really reduces us to our animal instincts

[Conghaileach]

You wouldn't just punch a guy. You'd have to find a reason, even a really thin one, in order to be able to hit him. It allows us to justify our actions. That was why I referred to perceived reasons - there's really no reason but we're able to find one.

[Eastside Revolt]

To defend yourself violently is natural. So I guess violence is natural.

[Anonymous]

Sometimes i think it is a subconcious reason. Im not talking about actually punching someone, just feeling like you should be in some way attacking him. You cant justify it, it just seems any of his actions really enrage you.

[Rebelde para Siempre]

It's natural.

Look at nature, violence is the way of the world.

[bombeverything]

Quote: from Blasphemy on 6:31 pm on Jan. 10, 2003
i am a very strict pacifist, but i do belive that violence is something natural in humans. i believe, and some may find it a bit extreme, that violence is a result of ignorance. because ignorance is something intrinsict, so is violence. a completley intellignet person will never use violence to get what he wants, because he understands that it will eventually hurt him. a lot of people understand it, but only a few practice it successfully.


I am a pacifist as well so I agree with alot of what you said. I don't believe that violence is inbred; I think it is a learnt response [as in a learnt way to deal with a situation]. It never truly works.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Quote: from CiaranB on 9:00 am on Jan. 12, 2003
from Dhul Fiqar
This is also born out by one of my favorite experiements, the infamous Milgram study where people were given the option of electrocuting their fellow man.

I think you've misinterpreted Milgrams' work. His work was about obeying authority. His parents were Jews and he was interested in finding out what it was that made the Germans follow the Nazis, and he rejected the ideas of the time that Germans were more sadistic and more authoritarian than other nationalities.

It wasn't about people venting frustration or violent tendencies.


Many many books have been written about the aggression perspective of his research, and he also made some intregueing comments about this. You're right that the main focus of his particular research was authority, but many others did the same experiement with slight variations PURELY for the purpose of making notes on aggression, most notably a man named Arnold Buss.

So, while you're right that it wasn't the main focus of the original study, about half of the subsequent work that built on the study has focused on aggression.

--- G.

[synthesis]

Look around us, in nature animals dont play chess to decide who gets the females and the land, they fight.

For some reason, I found this hilarious :)

[Dhul Fiqar]

LOL, yes, it gives me the mental image of angry lions in heat sitting around a chess table ;)

--- G.

[Anonymous]

Is there a link between violence and competition?

[Conghaileach]

from Dhul Fiqar:

Many many books have been written about the aggression perspective of his research, and he also made some intregueing comments about this. You're right that the main focus of his particular research was authority, but many others did the same experiement with slight variations PURELY for the purpose of making notes on aggression, most notably a man named Arnold Buss.

So, while you're right that it wasn't the main focus of the original study, about half of the subsequent work that built on the study has focused on aggression.

Ah, I see. I wasn't aware of thos studies. I only knew of Milgram's initial study and his later studies revolving on ways of reducing authority. I studied his research as part of my social influence course in Psychology.

[peaccenicked]

Violence is generally social or to be more precise anti social. In most societies its general form is unacceptable or criminal. It is regarded not only as harmful to society
but as a product of spiritual poverty or poor communication skills.

Violence, to me is a product of poverty. In this its modern form is Capitalism which means poverty for the majority. It brings spiritual poverty to the wealthy.Institutionalised poverty is violence.
Socialism aims to end poverty therefore violence.

What is natural? human choices.
What is unnatural? capitalist choices.
What is natural? Getting confused and lost in these apocalyptic times.
Capitalism continually reifies its violence ideologically.
While socialists only have, the evolutionary tendency in species development, our own history and each other to bring confidence to the struggle for human liberation.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 8:20 am on Jan. 13, 2003)

[El Che]

Violence lives in you. As do a couple of other things.

Consider a man under torture. When he brakes, he loses his dignity. The pain supersedes all else. Now consider the man inflicting the pain. He has no mercy, no pitty.

We all have the capacity to be cruel and the lack of courage to stand up to cruelty.

Depends on the people & circumstances. Most are cruel if they can be. Childern are a good example of the naturality of cruelty in order to establish superiority. It is not an aint social thing, per se. Rather it is a primitive social thing, i.e a primitive way of establishing social hierarchy. Something you unlearn, though you never unlearn it completely if u even do so at all...

Your life makes you who are, defines your character. Kids who live on the street are more violent than rich spoiled ones. Because the one who lives on the street gets his ass kiked everyday-- untill the day he snaps and fights back. Either that or he gives up and lets everyone run over him... If you take a dog and beat him the same will happen.

Violence is and is not, at the same time, a product of poverty. Violence is a product of nature but poverty-- or abuse of any nature -- is what brings it out.

Peace.

[ravengod]

violence breeds violence
it s in our nature allright
we can only repress it by means of self control
however government violence must be eradicated
i mean power should not be a way of expressing one s frustrations

[Blibblob]

But there is no self control for long periods of time, you can control youself for a short time, untill you get out of the area, but it returns. Same thing with war, there are the times of peace, but they are short, and we go back to war.