Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The validity and significance of evolutionary theories
Explain the causes of war
Explain the causes of war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The issue of whether or not humans are natural born killers is discussed by Ehrenreich and Ferguson, but this is not a topic that is directly discussed in the Bodley texts. Bodley implies that war is the result of politically organized states rather than human nature, however nothing is said outright. Both Ferguson and Ehrenreich discuss this aspect of human nature in their works, and they come to similar conclusions using different reasoning. Ferguson states that she does not believe humans are biologically designed for war (Ferguson 1: 33). This author supports their theory by saying, “Maleness is one part of biology, one part of biology is aggressiveness, one part of aggressiveness is combat, one part of combat is war. The explanatory potential of biology thus seems fundamentally …show more content…
As aggressive behaviors are not characteristic of all human populations, Ferguson uses this to prove the point that humans are not aggressive by nature. Ferguson also points out the lack of evidence for major violent conflicts in early human history. According to Ferguson, if humans were naturally violent, there would be evidence of humans starting wars before they were technically “human” (Ferguson 1: 34). To contrast this, Ehrenreich’s view is that humans may be naturally aggressive, but that it is really irrelevant whether they are or not because human aggression is not the cause of war (Ehrenreich 1: 2). While Ehrenreich does believe that it is possible that humans are aggressive creatures, this author does not believe that this is the case. This author supports this belief by pointing out the rituals that humans practice before going to war and discusses development is weapons that contradict the idea that humans are naturally aggressive. Ehrenreich discusses the rituals that humans perform before they engage in violent
Sigmund Freud once argued that "our species has a volcanic potential to erupt in aggression . . . [and] that we harbour not only positive survival instincts but also a self-destructive 'death instinct', which we usually displace towards others in aggression" (Myers 666). Timothy Findley, born in 1930 in Toronto, Canada, explores our human predilection towards violence in his third novel, The Wars. It is human brutality that initiates the horrors of World War I, the war that takes place in this narrative. Findley dedicated this novel to the memory of his uncle, Thomas Irving Findley, who 'died at home of injuries inflicted in the First World War" (Cude 75) and may have propelled him to feel so strongly about "what people really do to one another" (Inside Memory 19). Findley feels a great fondness for animals, and this affection surfaces faithfully in many of his literary works. The Wars is a novel wrought with imagery, and the most often recurring pattern is that of animals. Throughout the novel, young Robert Ross' strong connection with animals is continually depicted in his encounters with the creatures. Findley uses Robert to reveal the many similarities between humans and animals. The only quality, which we humans do not appear to share with our animal counterparts, is our inexplicable predisposition to needless savagery.
According to Christopher and James Collier,”War turns men into beasts.” It is true because many people are willing to
Freud proposes that the primal instinct of humans is to act aggressively towards each other. In civilized society, we have restrained our inclination to aggression through law and authority. Repeatedly, in The Lake of the Woods, John Wade either acted aggressively
survival, as well as the survival of the wild. He explains that anger occurs when we defend
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.
“‘Instrumental’ violence, however, murder for a purpose, - political power, rape, sadistic pleasure, robbery, or some other base gratification – remains the domain of the male. After all, every male is a potential killer in the form of a warrior – and he only becomes a murderer when he misuses his innate physical and socialized capacity to kill for ignoble, immoral, and impolitic reason. While the male is built and programmed to destroy, the female nests, creates, and nurtures. Or so the story goes”.
deemed it alright to be violent towards others. Could it be possible that human evolution into a
“Modern man does not experience himself as a part of nature but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it. He even talks of a battle with nature, forgetting that if he won the battle he would find himself on the losing side” (E.F. Schumacher, 1974).
Agustin Fuentes says, in his article Bad to the Bone: Are Humans Naturally Aggressive?, “Increased social inequality and more complex political and economic systems seem to correlate with more types of aggression and violence in human societies.” Ironically, those issues with using barbaric and violent ways to oppress groups of people, were fought with more violence. However, there was beginning to be this idea of rising above the primal instinct. People like Muhammad and, later, Martin Luther King Jr arose as peacefully protesters to prove violence wasn’t the only answer to conflict. Violence, while still very much ingrained in nature, had begun to evolve into something of more looked down upon, barbaric action. Although without any change in DNA or the nature of humans, suddenly violence was no longer natural. Society decided it was now the unnatural or diseased state. Robin Fox, in a speech at an international conference, said “We can predict fairly accurately when, in the escalation process, violence will occur. It is a natural, expectable, predictable, inevitable part of the process (Fox pg. 2 para. 2).” The idea that violence is unnatural needs to dissipate. Fox states simply that violence is very natural. As stated before, it was used in earlier ancestors to keep their race alive. Having the urge to punch someone or stab something is completely natural. Should those actions always be acted upon? Not necessarily. All Fox is stating is that the feeling or urge of aggression is one as natural as happiness or sadness (para. 4). Fox later stated “Whether we like violence or not is not the question here (Fox pg. 2 para. 2).” It is more about understanding the feeling. Violence is not benedictional, but it is part of human
From the daily conflict in Iraq to extreme incidents like the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, dehumanization of the "enemy" and the influence of the environment in which they are encountered can explain how and why soldiers on both sides aggress. Social learning theory is at the root of the dehumanizing process, for as seen in "Faces of the Enemy," such behavior is consistently supported & rewarded by the media and by armed forces (Jersey & Friedman, 1987). Equally important is the role of cognitive neoassociation analysis by Berkowitz, which acknowledges the environment and situational influences that can lead to feelings of aggression. Through the intersections of these two theories emerges a more comprehensive analysis than would be possible from one alone.
Violence, impulsiveness, anger. These are the three traits that all humans share, and that ultimately lead to their downfall. Throughout history, humans have evolved from animals into civilized humans, yet we still possess the primitive instinct solve problems through violence. William Shakespeare, a playwright, portrays civil humans in animalistic ways, as he uses violence to point out the evil within humans. In William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, the use of violence highlights the fact that humans are inherently evil, as the characters impulsively use violence to vent anger, exact revenge, and defend honour.
Over the course of history, violence amongst men has shaped the world in which we live through wars, political protests, or social conflicts. Sadly, enough, this is a factor of human nature which resides in all individuals and cannot be controlled or avoided. Not only have these events of man’s inhumanity been documented, but they have also become the underlying theme for many well known works of literature. Both Golding and Wiesel shed light on the immorality of mankind’s actions by putting it under close scrutiny, leaving the reader left to wonder how human beings are capable of so callously hurting and killing one another.
Whether it be a sponge with human characteristic or a dysfunctional family named the Kardashians they are inconsistencies in the idea that television could represent anything close to “real life”. In Ehrenreich's view of reality I believe real life to be the full human experience. The human experience comprises of the smallest most boring actions of our day. This may include going to the restroom, using the toilet, or a reflection of the ailments of the day to day. Ehrenreich is correct that television doesn’t reflect however television doesn't need to as its main purpose is to entertain the viewer.
Sell, Hone, and Pound (2012) examined the importance of physical strength in shaping male psychology. Aggression and violence are fairly effective ways of winning conflict in the competition for resources between males, but can impose large costs on the loser of the conflict (Sell et al., 2012). The consequences of conflict would have put high pressure for the male brain to evolve ways of interpreting the odds of success, to determine when to avoid conflict or engage in aggressive and violent actions (Sell et al., 2012). The authors outline evolved mechanisms for aggression and their effect on the decisions of modern-day human males.
Morals are deeply embedded in the nature of humanity creating courage, bravery and a tenacity to stand up for humankind. Morality is what holds society together for without Morality people are but men and women doing as they please when it pleases them. Morals reflect the light side of humanity, the light that everybody has the power to possess, to use at their disposal. Morals have the ability to change how a person behaves consciously and unconsciously, for the light side of humanity holds much sway over the way in which people view the world and wish to be viewed them self’s. In his account, Wiesel conveys the enduring power of hope through the storey of his morals which helped him to stay by his father even when his father had begun to