Inherently Violent?

Edan wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote: By saying that because violence has been around for a very long time that it must also be natural is not logically sound.

It doesn't mean that it isn't true, however.

Yes, a fallacy fallacy (a fallacy in which the belief is that because an argument is fallacious that it is not true) is possible but highly unlikely. I think that if violence were inherent, we would have many more instances of uncontrollable violence: more CEOs being thrown out of the window of a tall building, more spouses killing each other, etc. I think the temporary insanity plea would be a well respected plea in the court rooms if violence were inherent.

I am not saying we're all just a bunch of cute and fluffy talking apes, because I believe that aggression is a huge factor in violence, but even gasoline is harmless when properly contained. I would argue that violence is like the vapors of gasoline being lit: there was something else added to the already present mixture which caused the combustion.

Violence is, and violent we are.

Perhaps instead of focusing on why we are violent, we can focus on how to become not so.... :blink:

I don't think it's certainly known if our tendency for violence is nature or nurture. It could very well be a bit of both for certain reasons. Some suspect that human violent behavior may partially spring from our closest common neighbor, the chimpanzee, as a feature developed for and through hunting for survival. It very well may be that the state of this tendency was in a very basic form at an early stage of evolutionary development, yet through time and evolution of culture, advanced its state into what we tend to experience today.

To be fair I don't "know for a fact" that violence is a natural point of human existence. What I do "know for a fact" is that humans have, are, and will most likely continue to commit violence. SO where as I may not be able to establish the minutia of its natural occurrence(which I suppose at this point is not logical per se) I CAN call it an undeniable reality.


And as far as "natural" or not, I would REALLY like a solid definition for that word for discussions like this, because I really thought just about everything commits violent acts everyday, even unconscious ones like rock slides. I always took violence as "that which causes harm".

The question 'Is it natural' is silly really... what would be 'unnatural'? What is outside the realms of nature?

*Two gay men are kissing on a plane during flight.*
"That's disgusting, you shouldn't do that! It isn't natural!" Decrees one disgusted passenger.
"Not natural?!" One of the men kissing says "You're flying."

What do you mean by 'violence' killing something else? Then it is the most natural thing in the world. Life has been violent since the first microbial bacteria fed upon each other.
We are violent against animals, violent against plants. Radiation is violent against cells, weather is violent against animals.

The question asked is the wrong one I think.

Maybe I would ask "Is society best served by killing and causing harm to each other."

I don't really understand what you mean by 'Is violence a natural feature of human nature?'

Maybe we are inherently hungry!!!

Serious discussions between spouses shouldn’t take place on an empty stomach, a study suggests.

Husbands and wives reported being most unhappy with their spouses when their blood-sugar levels were lowest, usually at night, according to research released today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Missing a meal, dieting or just being hungry may be the reason, researchers said.

Sugar, or glucose, is used by the brain as fuel to help regulate self-control. Without the fuel, it is more difficult for people to control emotions like anger and aggression, researchers said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-14/hungry-spouses-lash-out-as-low-blood-sugar-spurs-anger.html

This reminds me of when I was reading and listening to some material by Krishnamurti:

Jiddu Krishnamurti wrote: "Violence is not merely killing another. It is violence when we use a sharp word, when we make a gesture to brush away a person, when we obey because there is fear. So violence isn't merely organized butchery in the name of God, in the name of society or country. Violence is much more subtle, much deeper, and we are inquiring into the very depths of violence."

-and-

“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”

So, when we aim to separate ourselves from the whole, to gain by forcing difference apart from others, we are being violent. It doesn't necessarily imply physical harm, but is deeper than that.

Desolous wrote:

V-Tog wrote: Is violence a natural feature of human nature? Would it be possible or even desirable to ever live in a world/society with no violence?

I'll answer this with a paraphrase from starship troopers by Robert Heinlein. He said something like the day humanity grows up and decides 'it ain't gonna study war no more' is the day some bigger, harder species with a huge chip on their shoulders moves in and cleans all of us peaceniks off our own planet.

Violence, however abhorrent it may be to some, serves a purpose. Like a condom, or a gun, its better to have and not need it than need and not have it. As a lifelong student of war, its tactics, its strategies, its history and tools, and as a former professional soldier, I am more than a little biased.

But I know of what I speak.

For some reason this made me think of the Family Guy episode that takes place in an apocalypse and the people destroy all their guns only to be attacked by Stewie's squid babies.
I'll try to find a video for reference on the chance no one knows what I am talking about

I think the larger question behind the question is "what is natural?"

To me, it's a moot question. There's nothing that exists in nature that is "unnatural". Everything comes from nature, no matter how unnatural it seems. The origin always goes back to nature if you look into it deeply enough.

So violence is natural. So is peace. Hate is natural. So is Love.

There is only one source.

I agree, Streen. I have often thought that if anything we consider "supernatural" is real... then it's not supernatural, it's just natural.

So, the question is: "is violence real?" Yes, it is. So, is it part of the Force? Yes, it is.

I tend to not try and think morally when it comes to topics like this. It is far too easy to get on the hype train and circlejerk about "Peace, love, happiness!! Hippies!!" For a more sensible way to examine this, it will take a gentle desire to look within and examine when violence has been useful.

I have never used violence and had it result in something good for me in the long run.
Every time I have hurt somebody with words or by my hand, I have hated it. I have never seen health benefits,
I have never seen business benefits, or anything of that sort!

So, for me, violence is not a useful part of my behavioral vocabulary.

So, I try to avoid it. Simple as that for me.

If I were to offer advice, it would be: don't try and generalize. Examine each use of violence you can think of, and try and imagine a scenario when it worked out for you in the long run.

Can you?