Human And Human Violence

My operational definition of violence is any kind of physical action where the intention is to hurt, damage or kill someone or something. There is the question of whether violence is a part of human nature or simply some people way of interacting with the world around us, were we always violent or is it a more pronounced feature of the modern era? I believe that violence is a key part of human nature and has contributed to our survival and evolution on many occasions, however it can also a major drawback and has led to some of humanities most devastating mortality rates, wars and atrocities. It is widely accepted that violence is present in at least some humans, and so where does this violence originate from? The nature vs nurture debate explores whether people are born with this violent gene or are raised by their parents or guardians to act in a violent way but are not born with it. The nature vs nurture debate is a key part of violences origins in humanity and so will be explored in this essay.

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 human beings are a part of nature, it can be assumed that they too have violent tendencies; in that respect, violence is a natural and innate response. Though we pride ourselves on being able to control these urges, they are always lurking somewhere beneath the surface of our most serene and civilized moments.

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?

What has America come to? Although the articles, “We’re No.1(1)!” written by Thomas Friedman, and the article “Violence is Who We Are,” by Steven Crichley, have different overall subjects, they have a similar arguments. The world isn’t as great as it used to be, we are lacking good leadership, and we happily invite wrong doings into our lives.

amount of the violence. My children at times were abused for defending me. I knew

Violence does not just come out in a person; it has always been there inside them, waiting to be awoken. Violent Act factors that are going to be discussed are upbringing/environment, gender, and media through the three essays titled “The Ghetto Made Me Do It”, “Gender, Class, and Terrorism”, and “Columbine: Whose Fault is It?” Being motivated by emotional factors, we spend plenty of time speaking about violence and its influence on our brain. A reaction of violence might be the effect. Thankfully for civilization, we've adapted through genetics, and experiences the ability leave violence as a last resort. Beyond simply learning how to temper emotional reaction, we have more options for dealing with conflict. Some explanations as to why people

On the other side of the controversy is that human are not naturally violent, but the environment and the way a person is raised causes the person to become violent. It is not just the biological aspects that makes a person violent, but it could be that the chimpanzees are close to becoming humans than what we thought they were.

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

In 2012, 16259 people in the United States were murdered and another 1.8 million people were sent to the hospital due to assault. Humans resorting to violence and harming others is a daily occurrence, but why? Is it in our nature, are we instinctively violent, and why is it that these acts are not only happening in the United States but worldwide. Although the average person does not leave their home planning on harming somebody that day, under the right circumstances almost every single person in this world will commit an act of violence. Sometimes these acts are justified, such as when we are trying to protect ourselves or a loved one, but what about the smaller acts that we all do every day.

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

In the article by Jones, the research presented demonstrates that humans are not genetically programmed to be destructive--instead, our goals, culture, and society create motivations that cause violence to manifest. Two evolutionary

Why are we drawn to the many different facets of violence that we experience in our lives? Is violence a learned behavior or has it become a part of our evolutionary progression. As hunters and gatherers, we used violence for survival. Now, it seems that humans react with violence to resolve multiple types of conflict. Is it just primal instinct? Does our subconscious ‘fight or flight’ control the way

Aggression is verbal or physical behavior intended to cause harm. Although we may not like to admit it, we all participate in aggressive behavior at some level and at some time in our lives. Do evolutionary factors play a large role in aggression? What was Freud 's theory about violence? What does more recent research say about a likely evolutionary role for violence? What does Hawley 's research say about this?

I do agree that there can be an overgeneralization when it comes to this topic.Not every cop is the violent, brutal, no holds barred person that we often are fed images and videos of by the media. I do think that the media tends to swing toward the negative, in a lot of cases, not just when it comes to police and violence. That said, I do think that the current focus on police who are involved in brutality and violence can be a good thing because it is bringing visibility to what is clearly a problem, even if that isn't the case for every law enforcement officer out there. I certainly know cops who are great people and who would probably never hurt someone, unless the situation were dire and it was the only choice. That said, I don't