Are Humans Naturally Violent?

“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.

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

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.

Advances in technology within the fields of medicine and biology have allowed researchers to investigate deepen into why humans behave the way they do. The issue that is of interest these days is the study of the “Warrior Gene.” There is debate on whether or not the Warrior Gene has an influence on an individual’s behavior and if it can be used to determine if someone will commit criminal acts. On one side you have those that claim the warrior gene can be related to aggressive and violent behavior. “In fact, humans with a low-activity form of the MAOA (Monoamine Oxidase A, or the warrior gene) gene are much more prevalent in groups with a history of warfare” (Hickey 49). The opposition claims “nature and nurture are inexplicably linked and that there is always an environmental component to human behavior” (Hickey 49). The question is, does a warrior gene make people more prone to violence? I will summarize the yes and no sides of the argument while also providing my own opinion on the

Violence is one of the most exaggerated forms of physical aggression and it can exist for a series of reasons. It involves a person or a group of persons acting against another person or groups of persons with the purpose to achieve one or several diverse goals. In many cases violence results from individuals perceiving the acts of other people as hostile and thus wanting to act against these people before it is too late. Depending on the situation, more or less individuals might get involved in an act of violence, especially when they consider that it would be essential for them to do so.

On the other hand, the same scientists who discovered the “warrior gene” say that just having this gene is not enough to say that the person will be violent (Brown University). Nonetheless, if it is linked to a history of childhood trauma and abuse, then the person will have a high chance of violence within. To answer the question, “Is it nature or nurture that makes a person violent?” these scientists would say both. It is a combination of genetics and how one is raised that could make a person violent. This leads to the question of Grendel’s childhood.

Is aggression an innate and deterministic quality from birth, or is it something that one that all can control, as a matter of free will and choice, to be used when we need it in a calculated manner? At birth all people are born with aggression as a survival trait. As we educate ourselves as we have seen in the video “The Truth About Violence” even in an educated culture such as the United States we still have violence. Violent people and we are drawn to violent sports such as cage fighting and football. Even the most mild manner people who don’t like violence in movies, sports or anywhere else can find enjoyment from participating in violence. When a person results to violence I don’t believe they can control the amount of aggression

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

You must also take a look at the reasons for violent acts and what constitutes as such. In the “Meanings of Violence” by Dov Cohen and Joe Vandello, they examine the difference in the meaning of insults between the Southerners and Northerners in the United States. They talk about the importance in social status and the concept that anthropologist have called “Culture of Honor”. With the concept individual is based on their social position and how tough they are or what courage they carry. There is also the idea that if a persons social standing in reduced for whatever reason that there is belief that violence could be used to restore their position. The idea of culture-of-honor is that an incident may occur over something as “trivial” as being glanced at wrongly, or showing a threatening insult. The individuals may not see it as being a trivial circumstance but a threat to stand their ground and prove their

Violence is one of the most necessary elements to life. It can be as vital as water, and as regenerating as a long deserved sleep. It is the ultimate balance to the human life. Violence is possibly one of the most perverted and tainted virtues that exists today. Like all values, there is a time and place for them. The hardest part of any virtue is its proper administration.

Cormac McCarthy’s “Blood Meridian” does a marvelous job of highlighting the violent nature of mankind. The underlying cause of this violent nature can be analyzed from three perspectives, the first being where the occurrence of violence takes place, the second man’s need to be led and the way their leader leads them, and lastly whether violence is truly an innate and inherent characteristic in man.

The history of human nature has been bloody, painful, and even destructive. Nonetheless, before understanding their environments humans used to kill each other based on their own mindset on the ideal of violence, and what it actually meant. Pinker describes narratives of violent acts from the past, that today are foreign to us. He gives us a tour of the historical human violence and how the violence in human nature has changed throughout time. The main idea from Pinker’s book,“The Better Angels of Our Nature ', is “for all the dangers we face today, the dangers of yesterday were even worse.” He provides its readers with explicit violent stories beginning from 8000 BCE to now, and describes how violence has evolved from a blood lost to more of a peaceful existence.

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.

There are clearly no simple genetic or hormonal factors that can explain the variation in aggressive in males and females. Studies of human males suggest that there is at most a small genetic component to aggression, but a greater one for personality traits associated with such behavior. The biological mechanisms translating the message in the genes into antisocial or criminal behavior are not known. Therefore, there is clearly no simple aggressive gene effect. Many genes are likely to be involved, and each may have a weak effect on aggressive behavior. A direct genetic effect on aggression, for example, may determine how quickly an individual responds to aggravation. Aggression may also be influenced indirectly; for example, a man's size and strength may affect the way he behaves and how others react to him. (Turner, 253)

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.