Are humans predisposed towards conflict and violence?

Random broadly based question what is is the core of being human?

Could be a simple answer or a complex one, nether are correct or incorrect. Being human is a paradox or is it a set path set in stone in our dna?

Before anybody thinks I have had one too many eye of newt snifters. A debate I was in elsewhere suddenly produced something that my mind, being what it is active and curious latched its teeth on and reused to let go.

The debate was about religion, one of my fave subjects and pet hates. During the heated debate, this alternative path appeared to me. Humans by nature are led by emotions, one being anger which also holds are key to unleashing our primal urge to conquer all and anything in our way.

Religion is often used to justify wars, be it the cause of one or apart of it. Some would argue that religion encourages violence as the old testment have bloodied pages. BAsing on Hital#rs war, was that religious led or as he was an atheists(alleged) how loose a vaiil can religon be hung on his reign of terror? Or is it humans look or seek to find any source so its violence can be unleashed?


You can blame my mind it is off choming on data to explore this new opening its found. I am nothing but a slave to my mind.

Gris Gris wrote:

BAsing on Hital#rs war, was that religious led or as he was an atheists(alleged) how loose a vaiil can religon be hung on his reign of terror?

Even if he was an atheist, part of his plan was still to eradicate Jews and what they believed in, so in a sense religion still played a part in his reign of terror.

As for humans, i think we are instinctively an aggressive species. Maybe something that is a survival instinct bred into us from the days of cavemen (or earlier). I think the difference now is, is that we have developed and become more intelligent and therefore have an awareness of what is right and wrong, yet still choose to to be aggressive therefore making us violent by choice.........

Quote :

Are humans predisposed towards conflict and violence?

Hmm ... determinism?

Quote :

Religion is often used to justify wars, be it the cause of one or apart of it. Some would argue that religion encourages violence as the old testment have bloodied pages. BAsing on Hital#rs war, was that religious led or as he was an atheists(alleged) how loose a vaiil can religon be hung on his reign of terror?

I think "Hitler's war" was based on eugenics and nationalism ( just like the 'white pride' movement today ); at the same time I don't think it can be denied that religion ( at the very least in religious figures, such as Martin Luther ) had influence but, as far as I know ( which is admittedly little ), only in reinforcing ( not introducing ) these two philosophies. As such, I feel, that Hitler's own religious beliefs are at best an aside in the context of war. Having said that he referenced the "almighty creator"/"lord"/etc. and specifically working in accordance with it's will several times in Mein Kampf . Even so ( maybe arbitrarily ) I think that it was a case of "I'm doing this and God would agree with me" rather than "God wants this and so I must". Which is how I believe religion has and does come into conflict - as a justification after the fact. In this sense I don't think that cause can be attributed to religion.

Quote :

Even if he was an atheist, part of his plan was still to eradicate Jews and what they believed in, so in a sense religion still played a part in his reign of terror.

Wasn't the plan to eradicate the "racially Jewish" rather than the religious? Not that they are entirely separate just different.

Quote :

Or is it humans look or seek to find any source so its violence can be unleashed?

Just as an easy example, I think that the many ( myself included ) who would resolutely refuse to worship the Christian God ( just to pick one ) even if it does exist in no small part due to the justification for conflict and violence in the Bible support the idea that religion may encourage these but only in those already with a mind to be as such.

So, if religion doesn't cause conflict and violence what does? Good question, but I don't think we can jump to humans being violent for it's own sake.

I am a pacifist and have been for as long as I can remember. In the past I have been pushed into fighting and figuratively kicked the shit out of my opponent(s) but I'm happy to admit that I hated the act and afterwards myself for committing it. So, assuming that I'm human ( and I'm pretty sure I am ) there is at least one exception to that rule. Exactly how many it takes to go from anomalous to rule breaking I'm not sure but that one is enough for me.

Quote :

As for humans, i think we are instinctively an aggressive species

Instinct based on preservation makes sense, but I can only see aggression being useful in an already violent world ( and even then it's not the best option ). In which case where and/or why did it originate?

Quote :

... is that we have developed and become more intelligent and therefore have an awareness of what is right and wrong ...

I'm just interested ... So you believe in objective morality? What is right and wrong?

Quote :

Are humans predisposed towards conflict and violence?

No idea, sorry.

.tUrniP wrote:

Quote :

As for humans, i think we are instinctively an aggressive species

Instinct based on preservation makes sense, but I can only see aggression being useful in an already violent world ( and even then it's not the best option ). In which case where and/or why did it originate?

But it is and has always been a violent world in one way or another. By which i mean, even before a civilized society (i.e cavemen and before) it was survival of the fittest, there would have been a time when man was hunted as prey, hence the inbuilt instinct of flight or fight. I think it is that which has never left us. But just because we are now civilized (in theory) those instincts are still there. Except now i think we have learnt that the fight side of things can be used to get what we want, or that it is a way of sorting things out. So i suppose it has now become a learnt type of behavior.

Yes, but instinct based on preservation would apply to all species and so pre-date Ardi or Lucy, let alone the "modern human". The very predators that would have hunted our ancestors were ( it's fair to assume ) acting just as much in the interest of preservation. So, rather than disagreeing with you, I was asking more about the origin of violence itself.

Another aspect is our socio-economic structure, which I believe lends itself to conflict. Do we live this way because we are violent or are we violent because we live this way?

.tUrniP wrote:

So, rather than disagreeing with you, I was asking more about the origin of violence itself.

Thats what i am saying, the violence originates from an inbred instinct to survive, thats were it originated from. It's just that now we abuse that inbred instinct as a means to an end, for something it was never intended for. Or maybe i'm just not understanding you

.tUrniP wrote:

Another aspect is our socio-economic structure, which I believe lends itself to conflict. Do we live this way because we are violent or are we violent because we live this way?

Now you just getting to deep for me LOL

Damn, Opera crashed and I lost my post ... Oh well, it was probably way too long anyway.

Quote :

Or maybe i'm just not understanding you

No, it's probably me trying to find reason where it doesn't necessarily apply.

Think of the whale and the petunias.

The survival instinct, in the general sense, must surely be a reaction to death; without at least a concept of death how can one "decide" to avoid it and without experience how can one form the concept? Even before that there are prerequisites, like the concept of existence/reality and within that the concept of self, others, space, etc.

Regardless of how I guess we have to just assume some logical progression led up to violence, in which case it seems likely that violent consumption, or violence for the sake of consumption, came first but what series of events can lead to it. Perhaps organism A discovers that organism B contains nutrients that it can use and that it is possible to extract them, but if organism A is alive it can clearly already obtain nutrients elsewhere ( the air, soil, sunlight, etc. ) so why change? Or maybe organism A finds a source ( good soil for example ), organism B encroaches, organism A attacks to secure the source for itself but this only seems likely in an already saturated ecosystem. Having said that even now it's difficult to form a proper concept of self and others - as far as I know "cogito ergo sum" is still considered the best logical proof of the self and I don't think there are any for others, not really - so it seems possible, if not likely, that selfishness and greed would develop before cooperation in which case it's quite easy to see how violence would develop but then not how cooperation would after the fact.

Since there is already a slightly religious tint to this thread I think it's fair to mention that this would be a lot easier if the Christian God did exist; it's his fault. LOL

In any case it seems likely that, as you said, violence in humans is instinctual and memetic. Regardless of man's capacity to be violent I think we have to look towards culture, economics and politics for why though.

Of course proper synthetic food on any real scale is a way off and so a certain amount of violence can still be attributed to survival ( far more than seems necessary if you ask me ) but anything beyond that seems inexplicable ( bear in mind that self defence requires that you are attacked ).

I cant think of an example in which violence has genuinely worked ( might just be my personal bias ), surely we learn from history that violence doesn't work, is it possible to knowingly believe a lie?

Would we be as violent if we were communists?

The condensed version reads terribly and seems a bit nonsensical, sorry.

.tUrniP wrote:

Regardless of how I guess we have to just assume some logical progression led up to violence,

..... Or maybe there is no lgical reason for it!


Since there is already a slightly religious tint to this thread I think it's fair to mention that this would be a lot easier if the Christian God did exist; it's his fault. LOL

.tUrniP wrote:

In any case it seems likely that, as you said, violence in humans is instinctual and memetic. Regardless of man's capacity to be violent I think we have to look towards culture, economics and politics for why though.

Or maybe it's more simpler and answer. Maybe it's not down to them things you mention, but rather just because we can.....

.tUrniP wrote:

I can't think of an example in which violence has genuinely worked ( might just be my personal bias ), surely we learn from history that violence doesn't work, is it possible to knowingly believe a lie?

Could it be that it does work, at least at first, in the short term. It's just a quick fix for some to get what they want there and then. Those people don't see beyond the here and now, don't see the bigger picture, so for them violence does work.

Quote :

..... Or maybe there is no lgical reason for it!

Quote :

Or maybe it's more simpler and answer. Maybe it's not down to them things you mention, but rather just because we can.....

Well, as deeply unsatisfying as that would be, yes but that's what I meant by "it's probably me trying to find reason where it doesn't necessarily apply"; it kind of kills the discussion though...

Also, I meant "logical progression" in the sense that a concept of self, etc. had to be formed first rather than there has to be a conceivable reason. Is violence still violence in the absence of intent?

Quote :

Could it be that it does work, at least at first, in the short term. It's just a quick fix for some to get what they want there and then. Those people don't see beyond the here and now, don't see the bigger picture, so for them violence does work.

I did suggest that my opinion of working may not be the same as others ( "might just be my personal bias" ) but at some point haven't we got to come to some objective ( or at least universally applicable ) definitions. It's like saying that God(s) exist for those that believe in them, which is all well and good in the subjective reality sense but absolute truth is objective isn't it?

how can any definton be universally acceptable. If no one person is the same then how can any defintion tick everybodies boxes?

Depends if you come from Stoke or not...

The short answer is that it probably can't. However, in the context, we could have a good go at it. I mean, short of socio/psychopaths, surely everyone would agree that less suffering is better?

Therefore success would be the outcome with the least suffering. This, I believe, works on several levels and isn't just a question of morality.

Another aspect is the psychology of those involved; generally speaking people do not like being manipulated through force and as such violent actions tend to breed resentment, anger, hate, et al. These, quite obviously, are not harmonious feelings and often destroy any chance of compliance, conformity, harmony, etc; in fact, they often encourage retaliatory violence, and the cycle continues. We can see this evidenced specifically throughout the history of our species ... the act of war is dependant upon it in many cases.

etc, etc...

Regardless, failure to see the 'bigger picture' is just that, failure; as such to describe it as a success is exactly wrong.

The aggregate effect is essentially a form of barbaric individualism and, no matter what certain objectivists / laissez faire capitalists would say, it cannot be the most efficient way. For example, in 'Brave new world' violence is overcome essentially by creating abundance ( and pretty heavy conditioning lol ). In a world in which nobody ever wanted for anything would violence persist?

I believe that, in a lot of cases, scarcity is a purposefully maintained mechanism of the bourgeoisie ( in the Marx sense of the word ) - a position often gained and maintained through either direct or indirect threats of violence/force ( terrorism ) - but ( or because ) abundance would destroy their position of power.

Surely such a society is bound to provoke bad feeling and preserve the apparent validity of violence?