Is man inherently violent?
The civilized man may claim that he is above committing acts of violence. I believe this claim to be derivative of his station in life and his relative comfort--morality viewed as an environmental outcome. If such a person were rendered starving, and the only thing standing between him and a meal was another man, would he--if not certainly--very probably resort to violence in order to reach his end?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Consider the following:
Man is inherently violent and inherently pro-social at the same time. Both are not mutually exclusive.
don't less than half of soldiers in most wars actually shoot the enemy or something?
Define violence. I see morality as a type of coercive violence. Cutting off the head of a law-making King brings peace!
Intentionally harming another human.
Is violence a characteristic or simply a means, a tool, for one to achieve an objective? Given the man in your example, he is simply using violence as a tool, you also supposed that he had no other option.
If you placed a man in a sealed room with no means of escape yet also a button to die painlessly, he would likely press it to avoid a painful death, is man inherently suicidal?
William Golding told me so.
no
Humans are not biologically programmed to want to harm other humans with harm as an end in itself. It that occurs in reality it is only as a socially conditioned phenomenon.
If the civilized man does not commit violence and violence as a characteristic is relative to man's station and comfort, does that not already contradict the idea that man is inherently violent? Would society not be violent had man a predisposition to violence?
I feel like that has nothing to do with violence. That is most likely due to non-combat positions as well as soldiers who actually see combat.
How about firing squads?
There was a study that was debunked, "On Killing" that has an oft cited statistic that only 1 out of 7 shots fired in WWII was actually at an enemy, perhaps was referencing that
No, I mean soldiers as in people who are actively firing guns outside of shooting ranges.
I was referencing something like that, I think is was 3/10 shots fired. I recall it being debunked but also that the real statistic was surprisingly low nonetheless.
Yes but it varies between people
I still think man has a natural inclination toward violence. One soldier said that the military doesn't make killers it just finishes school. Maybe inclination isn't the right word, but I believe most of us are capable of it.
Part of it was poor accuracy and training as well as doctrine. For example, in the ME, very few shots hit but it's because of US mixed arms doctrine: suppressing fire while a designated marksman finds a shot or air support/arty comes in
There is a huge difference between being capable of something and having inclination towards it. It is very obvious that humans are capable of violence, duh.
Look at our sporting events, our popular culture. Seems a lot like an inclination
more pepes like this pls
>Is man inherently violent?
Yes. But I also think he's inherently good.
> Is man inherently
no.
>there are no cases such that man is inherently X
what if X is "man", user?
Man isn't inherently man either, since man is a historically relative concept.
A miserable pile of secrets
Civilization itself is inherently violent.
Mammal?
So man can not be man? X can be unequal to X?
Yes. Now take your ahistorical abstractions back to the analytical playpen.
Quad-then-bi-then-tri-pedal
A real shame you don't understand what rigid designation is user.
>Humans are chimps
Skipped M'biology class and skimmed Darwin
>Humans are not chimps
Skipped the school and only read the bible.
A shame you don't understand how it's utterly meaningless.
You'll learn how to speak some day, user. Until then, have fun unconsciously running in linguistic circles while claiming everyone else is in the playpen.