Violence In Hannah Arendt's On Violence By Hannah Arendt

In her book, On Violence, Hannah Arendt studies violence as it relates to war, science, power, aggression, and the like. In this paper, I will speak on the topic of violence as it pertains to aggression. I argue that we, as human beings, possess at least a basic level of aggression that is explainable through animalistic research and characteristics. This argument is one that contradicts the overarching ideas of Arendt’s thoughts on the topic. Through an explicative and then disputatious discourse, I hope to bring validity to my viewpoint.

First, I will look at Arendt’s criticism of violence. She believes that violence is not an idle concept. It needs to be justified by ethics and philosophy and often cannot be referred to without regard to

My argument is that animal behavior can explain a very basic level of human behavior. “Evolution can explain why humans exhibit aggression because it is a primal emotion like any other, experts say” (Whipps). If we can accept and support the idea that children possess the basic need of love when they are being raised, then we must realize that this concept was first witnessed and tested in animals. The presence of compassion and love in the early life of an offspring raises his/her potential for success and increases his/her quality of life for a longer length of time. As biologist David Carrier agrees, he states that “[j]ust as compassion for your offspring increases your genes' chance of survival, violent tendencies may have been similarly useful for some species”

However, I do believe that violence through the means of aggression is rational in nature. If Arendt can argue that violence is rational if it is effective in reaching a short term ends that justify it, then I can only think that the continuation of this idea is evolution. Animals have evolved and mutated for billions of years in reaction to their environment and competition. Their aggression is an obvious attribute of survival and protection of their offspring. We apply their other traits and characteristics to our explanations of human behavior, so why leave out aggression? We, as a human species, have had short term goals, often relating to survival, since the beginning of our time. If animals survive because of their aggression, and humans are related to the animal as a species, then animal aggression is related to human aggression. As Carrier puts it, “[w]hile a gang member's desire for more things, money or partners causes problems now, it may have been the key to their survival 100,000 years ago” (Whipps). With this logic, I feel it is unreasonable to believe that rudimentary human aggression, even in terms of violence, cannot be explained by animal