Are Humans Inherently Violent?

There are two sides to many things, one could argue that there are two sides to everything. Violence is not excluded from this argument. The two possible sides, or viewpoints, that are a result of violence can easily be seen as extremes of either side. One side could argue that violence is something that is necessary and the other argue that violence is only a tool for destruction. People who insist that violence is necessary in order to move forward view it as a way to sway the outcome to their benefit. For those who see violence as a cowardly tactic to control people, violence is a useless display of power and dominance. Yet violence has also been a way to defend oneself from people who pose a threat. This can lead people who have good

What has our society come to these days? Everywhere we look, violence is present, at the streets, at work, at school, and even at home. Every day in the news we see reports about shootings, wars, thefts, drugs, rapes, and deaths. The worse part of seen this in the news is that all way do it’s complain about it and sit back. We do not even attempt an explanation or a resolution. Violence is among one of the most malignant act that has been increasing day by day. And why is it that we complain about other people being violent, but when we are asked if we are violent or if we have ever responded with violence, everyone says they are not violent. But if among ourselves we are not violent then who is it that makes our society a violent society?

During our lifetime every one of us feels anger and aggression occasionally, some more than others, maybe as a child in the play ground or later as an adult when somebody cuts you up when you are driving along. But what causes anger and aggression and why do we all suffer from it? Well there are lots of different theories to what causes aggression and where aggressive behaviour comes from. So throughout this essay I will examine the different concepts and theories from different psychologist and develop and show an understanding of Aggression

Humans are drawn to acts of a primal nature. Raw, passionate, and vastly entertaining; primal instincts have always been at the root of human behavior. Archeologists say that the first humans were found with spearheads embedded in their ribcage. Mankind’s curiosity will always be sparked by the thought of bloodshed. Just look at the entertainment we as a species hold most dear; violent action films, movies about war, videogames based solely on the concept of killing the opponent, the list in never-ending. The fascination around violent acts is understandable. Since the invention of society, the act of killing another human has been frowned upon by the rest of society. The contrast of the acts of violence to the norms of everyday life are hard

After viewing Origins of Human Aggression (The Nature of Things), I learned a lot about origins of human aggression. In the first part of the video, it focused on 2 year old children and how aggression is derived. The video states a study shows that signs of aggression start within the first couple months of a newborn’s life (Maher, Origins of Human Aggression (The Nature of Things). This study within the video I believe is accurate. I was told by my parents that as I grew I began to be more aggressive. The older I got, I began to do things such as: throw objects, hit people, and throw a tantrum if I could not get my way. One time I cried for an hour just so my mother would buy me a pair of shoes. Throwing that tantrum got me my way, but

Violence is an issue in human nature. Everyone has their own definition and their own interpretations of violence. The big question is if the world is still growing in its violent nature, or is it finally reaching its solemn, peaceful generation. The evolution of violence has grown in many different paths from survival of the fittest, genocide, slavery, etc. According to Steven Pinker’s article “Violence Vanquished,” he explains how the world is entering an era of peace because we do not deal with the same violence our ancestors did in the past. That is true. We abolished slavery, stopped brutal wars, and revolutionized with strategies such as commerce. Pinker analyzes his arguments very well, but negates common issues of violence that we still

Violence is the first thing that comes to mind when a person talks about DID, but why is this so? According to research and information gathered by Stanford University, it was assessed that these people had experienced some form of violence in their childhood or teenage years and as they grew up with this disorder, a violent personality was created (Stanford University). These violent personalities are controlled based on their emotions and cannot be stopped from doing what they set their minds to. People with DID are convicted and put behind bars more that many others because of their violent personalities (The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law). Bradford and Smith from Stanford University conducted a case study on thirty consecutive homicide cases that was referred to a forensic psychiatry department for evaluation. From the results, sixty percent of their subjects claimed to be in a dissociative state out of that, thirty seven percent claimed dissociation during the act and twenty three percent claimed dissociation thirty minutes to twenty four hours surrounding the crime (Stanford University Forensic Psychiatry). From this data and statistics, it can be proved that many people with DID are put behind bars for actions of their alternate personality’s violent behavior. The creation of these personalities is not their fault; they didn’t choose to have a traumatic childhood, neither did they choose to end up the way they are. For this reason, the

Since the beginning of the human race, domestic violence has been present. However, it was not until recent centuries that people began to look at it as a crime. To many people, in many cultures, domestic violence was seen as not only acceptable, but necessary in some situations.

There are two main arguments supporting the idea that aggression and violence are biological and therefore inevitable in our world. In their essay Genetic Seeds of Warfare: Evolution, Nationalism and Patriotism, Paul Shaw and Wong Yuwa, in a darwinistic approach to human nature , argue that aggression is natural in the animal

If violence can never be legitimized, then why does it exist with such prominence? Thomas Hobbs believed that humans live in a perpetual state of war, ?a Bellum ominium contra omnes, a ?war of all against all? (Candelaria 907).? Humans are naturally violent. Freud agreed with Hobbes, believing that aggression is a natural human instinct. Fear and desire motivate mankind to violence. Freud also believed that violence would naturally beget violence. Because all humans fear death, when threatened they will turn to aggression to protect themselves. These dim views of the human condition show violence to be intrinsic in our

Physical assault and aggression is the second leading cause of death among 14 to 17 year olds, next to vehicular accidents (Loeber). But why are humans so aggressive in the first place? There are two sides of the debate: Nature, and Nurture. Some say that it’s human nature, genetics that cause most behaviors, while others say that we act as we learned during childhood. This argument applies to aggression as well. Aggression is mainly caused by things during childhood and adolescence where people learn from various sources about aggression, although, human psychology plays a slight factor.

Violence take multiple forms, many of which are covered in the nightly news. Murder, rape, familial abuse, bullying, workplace hostility, armed robbery—all of these are societal problems with far-reaching repercussions. There have long debates and discussions regarding whether nature or nurture influences individual violent behavior. People are concerned about what makes an individual to engage in violent behavior such murder or burglary among other types of crimes. They are also concerned about what makes people stop such behavior. However, there is no precise conception whether nature, nurture or both influence violence. Some people assume that, violent behavior results from individual’s life experiences or upbringing also known as nurture. Others feel that violent behavior is more complex and results from individual’s genetic character or nature. In other words, it is not clear whether violent behavior is inborn or occurs at some point in persons’ lives, but even it’s hard, emphasizing one and ignoring other influences is always an unwise way to go.

The nature versus nurture debate is an ongoing debate among social scientists relating to whether ones personality/personal characteristics are the result of his/her inherited genetic traits or the result of environmental factors such as upbringing, social status, financial stability, and more. One of the topics that are discussed among psychologists is the study of violent behavior among people as a whole, and in particular, individuals. Social scientists try to explain why people commit acts of violence through explanation of either side of the nature or nurture schools of thought. However, the overwhelming amount of research done into the relation of violent behavior and the nature versus nurture debate indicated that nurture is the primary explanation to explaining violent behavior because violent traits are learned from adults, someone’s social upbringing is a major factor to why some people are more violent than others, and finally influences from news media, movies, and video games enhance the chance for someone to exhibit violent behavior. In conclusion, violent behavior is a complex issue without a clear explanation that is overwhelmingly supported by the nurture side of the debate.

A range of studies assert that causes of violent behavior are complex at the level of environmental influence and compare other learning, modelling and disinhibiting factors. This is an area where opposition to the hypothesis is more common. Two longitudinal studies assessing levels of violence pre-and post the introduction of television found a positive correlation, however

2. There are different theories that seek to explain why humans still fight in war. Some of the individual, state and global level theories of conflict are based on: Human Nature or Individual Leaders, States’ Internal characteristics, and Global Level System (Turetzky lec 11). Human Nature arguments for the causes of war are based in Sigmund Freud idea that “aggression is simply part of human nature that stems from humans’ genetic programming and psychological makeup.” Realists also “argue that violence is a product of bad human nature” and that there is not anything to eliminate this bad human habit. I believe that it is true that humans’ nature is composed with an instinct of violence (War). However, society has a lot to do with the expansion of this bad habit. Today aggression is embedded in everything, which enforces our acceptance and practice of violence. Obviously, as realists argue, it is almost impossible to eliminate this bad habit from human nature. In contrast, the individual Leader arguments blame the state leaders for wars. However, we can’t blame a country’s leader for war. The author Stoessinger, stated in his book that a state head’s perceptions are decisive in war (Stoessinger 65). I believe that a leader’s