Is It Right Or Wrong?

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

“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.

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

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?

Mahatma Gandhi, a renowned political and spiritual leader, once said that, “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary, the evil it does is permanent.” Presume you see two men in a heated argument and one of them is about to attack the other, you take a rock and throw it at him and knock him out. On one hand it is a good thing that you prevented the attack but on the other hand you used violence yourself, and there is no doubt that you would not hesitate to use it again. The good that came from the violence that you used lasted for a short time, but the punishment that you get for doing this lasts for a long time. Imperialism of rivalries and nationalism were two of the main reasons that most

Mankind has long accepted violence as a fair means to achieve equality. In human history, the most thorough changes are brought in by the most radical overthrow of the old structure, knocking down the walls that separated the silent majority from the minority, sweeping aside the commands of the oppressors, tearing down the chains of oppression that once trapped them away from their inherent rights of freedom, in an effort to achieve justice for themselves and their countries. Revolutions in particular illustrated that the groups that desire reform but are willing to compromise for stability, take longer to implement changes, while the groups that are more devoted to revolutionary change and are often unafraid to use violence, could implement

Simultaneously, Uving (1998) mentions “violent tendencies exist in all people, and they ‘break through’ when the social norms that keep group hostility in check break down… the problem with these explanations is that they are very general and do not explain why genocide occurs at a specific time” (p. 213). This section from Uvin’s writing explains that aggressive tendencies exist in everyone, often used by psychologist, is general and does not explain why genocides occured. Subsequently, Uving (1998) writes “ Another important physiological explanation of people’s participation in violence states that, with the right justification, nearly all people would be willing to obey orders to severely harm other people… it is said that monarchist, unquestioning, obedience, or conformist nature of the Rwandan traditional mentality made Rwandans inclined to follow orders” (p. 213,214). This illustrates how psychologist believe that people are obedient and will kill if there is justification, but Uvin argues that they are not obedient but instated they have a tradition of monarchy which influenced them to follow orders to kill.

But if these people were considered as “seemingly normal”, then what motived them to kill? And what causes a transformation for the normalisation in brutality?

Violence and survival are the laws of nature and although humans have found a way to manipulate their surroundings those basic instincts exist in all humans on a fundamental level. It makes the most sense to live peacefully in society, which is why people generally obey laws, but that does not mean that humans are inherently good. In the end, people are naturally disposed to do wrong and no amount of laws of punishments will prevent it. "In a word it is impossible…for human nature, when once seriously set upon a certain course, to be prevented from following that course by the force of law or by any other means of intimidation." (p.

Degrees of violence has been condoned and justified by society against all people, men and women

In order to discuss the modes of violence inherent in any symbolic order, a discussion of violence must precede its effects. It is easy to observe what I will call ‘subjective’ violence; however, doing so taints an ‘objective’ assessment. By subjective violence, I mean acts that we can describe as breaking the status quo or utterly unacceptable; spewing a spit ball, punching a friend, engaging in armed conflict, and so on. Objective violence is the status quo, or systemic acts maintaining the existing order; profit schemes enabling the last recession, government institutions that motivate resistance, etc. For the sake of brevity, I only wish to note that I am conceptualizing the notion of violence in an operative sense, as, I believe, it is the only way to provide an effective critique of

There are many factors we can identify and others we cannot that contribute to violence. Some of these factors are unequal power distribution, support of societal norms that reinforce and glorify violence, disregard of human rights, race and class, and the notion of a man's "right" to "control" his wife.

Power, over people and objects alike, became very important for people. Individuals with more power were seen as superior to everyone around them. This gave them leeway to push people around and commit crimes that they would get away with. There are only a few that “deserved” respect, and before someone has a chance to do something bad to you, you should do something bad to them.

In the article “Why The World Is More Peaceful”, the author, Steven Pinker (2012), argues that, over hundreds of years, violence has declined around the world. He claims that government, commerce, and literacy have encouraged people to restrain their violent impulses, empathize with others, and use reason to solve problems. This article was first published in the journal Current History. It is a continuation of an argument Pinker made in his book The Better Angels Of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (2011). The article is directed toward a general but educated audience. Although Pinker’s article is relevant and logical, many of the author’s arguments are not supported with adequate

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