Are human naturally violent? Essay

We atomic number 18 surrounded by force play. Kids take it in with their first gustatory perception of cereals. They testament see eighteen thousand (18,000) baseless deaths on idiot box by the time they graduate from high school. They allow for watch carnal brutality in prime-time sports and flowerpotvass that bullets and bombs make gridiron heroes. They will go out our respected political leaders tell us why we expect to start a new contend. They will be spanked by their p bents and learn that frenzy and love go hand-in-hand. If it is non biologi songy unlettered, therefore somebodynel must(prenominal)iness be something plurality t each(prenominal) (Kaufman, 2002). fierceness is basically an trifle of snipeion. There be many definitions of madness, unity(a) of which is that violence is the use of loudness overt or hidden with the objective of obtaining from an individual or a group something they do not want to consent to freely (Bandura, 1961). Furth er, it must be noted that at that place ar different kinds of violence. One must distinguish between direct and indirect or structural violence Direct violence equates to physical violence while indirect or structural violence involves poverty, exploitation, friendly injustice, no democracy, and the worry.In a part of violence, the parties involved in the conflict see their economic and social rights being violated as well as their civil and political rights. The short-term and long-term consequences of a unfounded conflict in terms of forgivingkind rights violations are devastating and leave deep scars in societies. (Baumesiter, et al. 2004). Many of radicals or so society and how it should be organized are based on the stem that men are born with fast-growing(a) instincts humane personality is violent and that warfare is inevitable.Much of our political, social, religious and scientific thinking starts with the premise that human beings are born-killers. So much a pa rt of our consciousness has this idea that we rarely question it. In essence it has become a faithfulnessconventional wisdom that carries with it no requirement to examine the f seconds with a tiny eye (Baumesiter, et al. 2004). The opposing side of the debate asserts that aggressive tendencies are indispensable. Freud (e. g. , 1930) is integrity of the most famous prop peerlessnts of this view, and he contended that the aggressive drive or Todestrieb is one of the two main foundations of all human motivation.In his view, the drive to aggress is deeply rooted in the psyche and hence unconditional of circumstances. As a result, people pack an innate and recurring need to confabulate harm or damage, and this desire needs to be cheerful periodically, one way or an different. He regarded self-control (as embodied in his supposition of superego) as a form of ill will, insofar as one deprives oneself of some opposite satisf spotions by restraining oneself. To Freud, this was a n effective but costly way to fill the aggressive drive, which some otherwise would manifest itself by harming or killing others or smashing property.There are several problems with Freuds theory of innate aggression. First, of course, it does not disconfirm the importance of learning just as the findings about learned aggression do not disconfirm the hypothesis of innate tendencies. Second, there is no secern that aggression is a need, in the sense that people who fail to perform aggressively will routinely mother impairments of health or well-being. In that sense, it is possible to accept the view of aggression as having some innate basis without agreeing that the need to aggress arises independently of circumstances.Many people are convinced that human beings are naturally violent and that consequently we set upnot obviate wars, conflicts and general violence in our lives and our societies. Other specialists in this field outcry that we house avoid thinking, feeling an d acting violently. The Seville Statement on Violence elaborated in 1986 by a group of scholars and scientists from many countries, northerly and South, East and West, confirms this by stating that scientifically wrong(p) when people say that war cannot be ended because it is part of human genius.Arguments about human nature cannot prove anything because our human floriculture gives us the great power to shape and potpourri our nature from one generation to another. It is unbent that the genes that are transmitted in egg and sperm from parents to children influence the way we act. But it is also unbowed that we are influenced by the culture in which we grow up and that we can take responsibility for our own actions. It further includes another proposition stating that It is scientifically incorrect when people say that war is caused by instinct. close to scientists do not use the term instinct anymore because no(prenominal) of our behavior is so determined that it cannot be changed by learning. Of course, we eat emotions and motivations like fear, anger, sex, and hunger, but we are each responsible for the way we express them. In modern war, the decisions and actions of generals and exchangeiers are not usually emotional. Instead, they are doing their jobs the way they have been trained. When soldiers are trained for war and when people are trained to prevail a war, they are taught to hate and fear an enemy (UNESCO, 1986). Hence, it is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors. Warfare is a solely human phenomenon and does not obliterate in other animals. second, there are cultures that have not intermeshed in war for centuries and there are cultures which have engaged in war frequently at some times and not at others. third, it is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature. and lastly, that it is scienti fically incorrect to say that humans have a violent brain how we act is shaped by how we have been conditioned and socialized (UNESCO, 1986). manhood are condemned to violence not because of our biology or human nature. For if humans are naturally violent, we would expect to find the most extreme and frequent expressions of violence in the cultures that are least socialized, most primitive. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true those cultures that are most civilized and have the most complex social systems are the most violent.Further, while it is true that natural processes include death as well as life, it is really rare that one can find a case of what we could call real violence in any species other than human excluding automatic biological reactions such as the need to eat, and cases of mothers protecting their young from harm, and you will find little remains other than occasional alpha male fights in wolves and primates. Therefore if humans are violent, it has less to do with nature than with nurture.There is really no evidence that people have an innate need to be aggressive periodically, in the sense that the need is independent of context (Baumeister and Bushman, 2004). If, as Freud proposed, the aggressive instinct comes from within and demands to be satisfied in one way or another, then failing to satisfy this need should be harmful, in the way that failing to eat or breathe or form social bonds is harmful to the person. But there is no sign that people who fail to perform violent acts suffer adverse consequences.Aggression is not a need, contrary to Freud, because a person could live a happy, healthy life without ever performing violent acts provided, perhaps, that the person always got what he or she wanted. Aggression whitethorn in like manner not even be a want. But it may be a response tendency. When ones desire are thwarted, and other people stand in the way of ones goal satisfactions, aggressive impulses arise as one way of try ing to back away the thwarting and jack off what you want. ( Baumesiter & Bushman 2004) There are many strategies for influencing people, and these vary wide in how acceptable and how effective they are.Aggression is one strategy that does sometimes succeed (e. g. , Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). Violent activity, or even the credible threat of violence, is one way to get other people to do what you want. Ultimately, people can use aggression to further their innate goals of survival and reproduction, along with a host of other goals such as maintaining a sense of high quality over others, getting money, and intimidating others who might interfere with your desires. (Giberson). Aggression may be a last or near-last resort for most. Culture allows people many pathways to get what they want from other people.In todays United States, the most favored way of getting what you want from other people is to pay them money. Cooperation, reciprocation, persuasion, even simple charm are frequen tly effective, and the culture approves of them much more than it approves of aggression. Still, when those fail and the person is faced with the panorama of not being able to satisfy his or her desires, aggression may present itself as a way of influencing others and obtaining satisfaction. Aggression thus helps the existence satisfy its biological needs, by way of operating on others. (Giberson).Humans are not hard-wired like insects or hawks, where a given remark results in a fixed response. Unlike most animals, we have a large cerebral cortex that allows for reasoning, consideration, creativity and culture. The instinct-controlling part of our brain is relatively insignificant in comparison to the cortex, and can be superseded by will and thought. It is this flexible response capability that enabled humans to survive and rise above the rest of the animal kingdom. Many anthropologists feel it was our ability to cooperate, not our ability to fight or compete, that was our evo lutionary survival trait.Because of our ability to reflect and consciously choose the values we instill in our children, as a species we can be whatever we want to be. It can virtually be utter that there is no such thing as human nature, that almost all our traits and tendencies are culturally defined. This is not as obvious as it should be, because most of us are only open(a) to one culturea culture where everyone pretty much thinks and acts the sameand it is easy to get the impression that the way we are is the only way we can be.It is not instinct that drives us to commit atrocities, but our culture. Culture is a human creation. Our culture was molded by men who crave power and the domination of others. ( Tedeschi, & Felson 1994). In conclusion, most humans are conditioned to react aggressively and violently by our environments. We learn to think, feel and act aggressively and in some cases violently. Wherever we live, we are submitted to a social and cultural wring that co nditions us to read about violence, watch violence, and hear about violence almost constantly.Television programmes, advertisements, newspapers, video games and the movie and music industries contribute more often than not to this situation. Before reaching adolescence, a child has seen thousands of murders and violent acts just by watching television. If human nature is indeed violent and war is inevitable, then we need large strong states with central governments. We need powerful rulers with decently armies and brutal security forces. We need repressive laws to protect us from each other. We need guidance from our churches on how to keep our destructive instincts under control.Of course, when we are constantly told that we are born to be killers, we have an excuse to act like killers. Violence becomes part of our culture, so we act violently. The fallacy perpetrates itself, and the badinage comes full circle our belief in the inevitability of human aggression, sold to us by th e ruling elites, creates a world that makes ruling elites necessary. A persons behavior is largely determined by his social environment such as the influence of the media, weapon availability, human relations, poverty, and the like.Individuals handle the responsibility for their actions with the social forces around them. If a person is not exposed to negative social forces, he will not be disposed to evil behavior. He naturally has good desires and therefore good behavior. To eliminate bad or evil behavior, one must focus on changing the social forces rather than on an individuals actions.References Bandura, A. , Ross, R. , & Ross, S. (1961). transmittance of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and kindly Psychology, 63, 575-582. Baumesiter, R. F.and Bushman, B. J. (2004) Human Nature and Aggressive Motivation Why do ethnical Animals turn violent? RIPS / IRSP, 17 (2), 205-220, Presses Universitaires de Grenoble Baumeister, R. F. (1997).Evil In side human violence and cruelty. revolutionary York W. H. Freeman. de Waal, F. B. M. (2001). The Ape and the Sushi Master. New York Basic Books. Eisler, Riane. (1988). The Chalice and the Blade Our History, Our Future. New York Harper Collins. Giberson, K. Blessed Are the Peacemakers. Science and Spirit. Retrieved Nov. 10, 2006 http//www. science-spirit. org/matrix.html Kaufman, M. (2002) Men must violence the notion they are violent by nature.Retrieved Nov. 10, 2006 at http//www. michaelkaufman. com/articles/menmust. html Slife, Brent (March 1996). fetching Sides Clashing Views on Controversial Psychological Issues. William C. Brown, 9th edition, Tedeschi, J. T. , & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. Washington, DC American Psychological Association. UNESCO. (1986) The Seville Statement on Violence. Spain. Retrieved Nov. 10, 2006 at .