NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a pet theory, and I'm wondering if I could get some comment on it.

We, like other animals, have an inhibition against killing members of our own species. I take this to be true since otherwise, we would have gone extinct long ago. Wolves don't eat wolves. But we don't have major inhibitions about killing other species (chickens, unless you're a vegetarian), even if it's by accident (dolphins in drift nets).

So, in order to kill, we steel ourselves by giving justifications. These justifications largely come from ideological or religious systems. With few exceptions, most of these ideologies or religions give specific conditions under which it's ok or even admirable to kill.

I have the idea that within any population of humans, in any society, there are a number of people who are predisposed to killing. Some end up as killers in any case, so we have serial killers, etc. Even in these cases, the serial killers generally require a means of dehumanizing their victims, in order to accomplish their acts without undue stress.

Could it be that factions of people already know this - they know of this pool of predisposed people, and give them a psychological out? A permit, so to speak? So if these people end up killing, are they actually killing *because* it's a good idea, or are they *really* killing because they actually enjoy it?

I leave out people who kill in self-defense, because that's a plausible reason in my book (although not in others, so you may leave it in as yet another justification).

What are the moral obligations, therefore, of the people who spout the ideas that make the violence possible? Even if they themselves never, ever directly kill anyone? And in that sense, what ideologies or religions do not permit violence under any conditions, and what chance do they ultimately stand against those that do?

what about the slightly similar thought that people, indeed, do not have a pre-disposition for killing other humans; and laws of modern society, based on those maily of Chritianity (in the West), echoes this anit-disposition. Thus thats why those you described, people who do have this pre-dispositon, are incabable of conforming to societies' laws... thus they are 'outlaws' and locked up as criminals.
does this mean that all criminals simply cannot help themesleves? that they simply cannot integrate with the laws society and religion have thrown up?

How does capital punishment work then??
Are those people predisposed to commit public murders?

I have a pet theory, and I'm wondering if I could get some comment on it.

We, like other animals, have an inhibition against killing members of our own species. I take this to be true since otherwise, we would have gone extinct long ago. Wolves don't eat wolves. But we don't have major inhibitions about killing other species (chickens, unless you're a vegetarian), even if it's by accident (dolphins in drift nets).

some clarifications, and perhaps you will adjust your theory:

humans do not have any particular inhibition against killing our own kind, nor do other animals. we have a natural inhibition against EATING our own kind, because human meat is more likely to carry pathogens that will be able to infect and kill us, and this is also the reason most predators do not eat the meat of their own kind. we also have instincts toward social cooperation with our own kind, because humans (like most primates) function most effectively in social groups...this isn't so much an instinct prohibiting us from killing each other, as it is an instinct to group for our benefit and that of our offspring. killing our own kind will often interfere with such grouping, for obvious reasons, so we tend to choose behaviors that will improve our social abilities instead.

The inclination to kill is not a predisposition in any person. Humans have free will. If they choose to kill another person for some reason other than to eat them, which results after their society inducts them into this practice or when they are stuck on a frozen mountaintop and they choose to eat people rather than to starve to death, then the killer has made that choice.

As for the death penalty, there is a reason not to have it. Once the sentence is imposed, there is no turning back. Too many people have been falsely accused and wrongly convicted.

I don't think that they are incapable of helping themselves. No serial killer ever felt compelled to commit his crimes in front of the police station after attracting the attention of the police inside.

It's just that when they are given an "out" that involves dehumanization of the victims. And without that "out", there would be a lot less violence. Because of the inhibitions that naturally exist.

So I believe the ideologies and ranting are far, far more dangerous than the people themselves, or any weapons they may hold.

While you raise some interesting points, I tend to disagree with your central premise - that other animals lack the propensity to kill members of their own species.

Many animals are VERY territorial - either as individuals or in packs - and will attack members of their own species. And many animals involve forms of combat as part of the mating ritual to get the girl. The fight for herd dominance. Mountain goats ramming heads together etc.

And what do most killings in our species revolve around? wealth or romance.

In that respect our framework for violence is still very much aligned with that found in the rest of nature.

The primary diference is that in the animal world a clash will usually not go so far as to result in death. The looser may escape, or the winner might show mercy. Where our real "evolvement" is in this regard is in our technology. We can shoot and kill the other guy to get the girl. Few of us would probably go that far if we had to beat our opponent to death with our foreheads.

The fact that we seem willing to follow so many diferent pack leaders to give us reasons to kill is not a terribly nice thing about us. It means that we are giving oursleves more reasons to be violent than should probably be neccessary. But I think it is dificult to lay the blame entirely at the feet of the leaders. We are thinking beings who choose to follow them.

The fact that we have not evolved further so that more of us are prone to tell them to find better ways to solve problems is pretty sad.

I've been saying this for years, to no avail, but one of the things things that I think causes violence and murders is the failure of the public mental health system in this country.

I'm not talking drug war related homicides. I'm talking about people who really really need to be under medical supervision for mental illnesses and either can't afford it because of a lack of insurance or just plain indigence. My best example of this is Kip Kinkle, the kid from Oregon who went and shot up his school. If you look at his case, and the many others like it, you'll find a common and disturbing thread. That thread is they were 'formerly' under the care of a psychiatrist and/or formerly on medication for mental illness. I think that the two Columbine kids were the same way. Mental illness is a serious problem, and severe mental illness can cause otherwise normal, sane and nice people to do some extraordinarily horrible things. I'll be willing to bet that the guy who shot Dimebag Darrell was formerly under the care of a doctor for some type of mental illness or had a history of mental disorders. And, (and please forgive me MGNY), I would be willing to bet that the guy who's been stalking your wife is in definite need of some serious psychological care.

I sincerely believe that most people want to live peaceful, happy lives, and don't have a desire to harm anyone. That said, if your brain is wired wrong, and you need help, you should get it. And I'm not advocating a whole socialized medicine scheme here, I'm just saying that in the interest of public safety, that people who are diagnosed with significant mental or emotional diseases should be cared for, and that the cost of such would easily be measured in the reduction of random violent crimes.

Unfortunately there is a negative stigma placed on mental illness and the treatment of mental illness in this country. Much of the funding for public services has been cut to 'save money' or 'trim the fat', out of government. Well, it didn't work, because now instead of paying for mental illness for the poor with our tax dollars, we're paying for it in lives, property and a large increase in the homeless population.

That's my little bit. Flame away.

I would agree that my wife's stalker is bent. But I'm not sure that the psych guys would agree on a classification in the DSM.

Besides, according to your theory, there should be something wrong with me, as I have killed in combat (following a "justification").

Been to a two-week psychological evaluation to evaluate my suitability for certain types of duty, and I was given a clean bill of health.

So perhaps the psychologists aren't looking for the right signs?

Well,

To be blunt, that's kind of apples and oranges. There is a difference between war and combat situations and a very mentally ill person (I almost used nutcase, but I'm not going to here because I'm serious about this) shooting people because their dog told them to. In combat, you're going out to kill or capture the enemy, because if you don't, he's going to try and kill and capture you. That could be classified as self defense or preservation.

The people who we'd otherwise never hear about if they stayed under medical supervision are the ones I'm referring to. I'm also sticking to this country, and not delving into why we have radical terrorists.

Finally, Buddhism generally forbids violence except in very very limited cases. Tibetan Budhism especially, as evidenced by this quote from the Dalai Lama:

"There is no path to peace, the path is peace."

Maybe I have a more cynical view of the human race, but I don't think we have ANY inborn predisposition to NOT kill.

I think we are conditioned by our societies, often specifically by our families, to be considerate, sympathetic, etc. and that has created a kind of buffer for human-on-human killing in our societies... and that those who are not exposed to that upbringing (or in whom the upbringing becomes distorted) revert to natural type.

At heart, I see the human as a fundamentally selfish beast - not really capable of social interaction until they 'learn to share'. By my reckoning, the "mentally ill" (I don't think they call them Psychopaths anymore, do they?) lack that ability... they can't 'share' - meaning they can't create an empathy with another - and understand how their actions will affect that OTHER person. To this 'killer', the victim is a 'thing'.

The fact that our histories are (almost universally) soaked in blood, implies that humans feel no real need to NOT kill, they are just socially averse to it - and, if you can remove that barrier - large numbers actively revert... as evidenced by the KKK, the Third Reich, etc.

I agree with Bottle, though - humans are social creatures. Also pragmatic, and, again, fundamentally self-serving. WITHIN a society, unless given incentive (i.e. race-hate pressure, for example) humans will generally rub shoulders tolerably, because it is more convenient.

That's my opinion... welcome to it.

Well, then by that theory, could it be said that instead of societies or patterns of social thought that "prevent" violence, there are some who take advantage of people and "create" violent people on purpose - with a political goal in mind?

If so, is that as much or more dangerous than any actual weapon?

Maybe I have a more cynical view of the human race, but I don't think we have ANY inborn predisposition to NOT kill.

I think we are conditioned by our societies, often specifically by our families, to be considerate, sympathetic, etc. and that has created a kind of buffer for human-on-human killing in our societies... and that those who are not exposed to that upbringing (or in whom the upbringing becomes distorted) revert to natural type.

At heart, I see the human as a fundamentally selfish beast - not really capable of social interaction until they 'learn to share'. By my reckoning, the "mentally ill" (I don't think they call them Psychopaths anymore, do they?) lack that ability... they can't 'share' - meaning they can't create an empathy with another - and understand how their actions will affect that OTHER person. To this 'killer', the victim is a 'thing'.

The fact that our histories are (almost universally) soaked in blood, implies that humans feel no real need to NOT kill, they are just socially averse to it - and, if you can remove that barrier - large numbers actively revert... as evidenced by the KKK, the Third Reich, etc.

I agree with Bottle, though - humans are social creatures. Also pragmatic, and, again, fundamentally self-serving. WITHIN a society, unless given incentive (i.e. race-hate pressure, for example) humans will generally rub shoulders tolerably, because it is more convenient.

That's my opinion... welcome to it.
you, sir, are seemingly a classic Hobbesian.
what the fuck is that? (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7658430&postcount=195)

Well, then by that theory, could it be said that instead of societies or patterns of social thought that "prevent" violence, there are some who take advantage of people and "create" violent people on purpose - with a political goal in mind?

If so, is that as much or more dangerous than any actual weapon?

It's an open secret... all the 'civilised cultures' DO take people and 'create' "violent people on purpose" - we just give it other names... like "Army".

Not that I have anything against armed forces, but they are an institution for helping to remove those 'social patterns' that prevent killing.

There are suggestions that Kennedy was the victim of just the sort of 'created' violence that you describe.

It's an open secret... all the 'civilised cultures' DO take people and 'create' "violent people on purpose" - we just give it other names... like "Army".

Not that I have anything against armed forces, but they are an institution for helping to remove those 'social patterns' that prevent killing.

There are suggestions that Kennedy was the victim of just the sort of 'created' violence that you describe.

So in what way is "Army" different from "Wahabbi madrassa"?

Or am I missing something?

there are some who take advantage of people and "create" violent people on purpose - with a political goal in mind?

If so, is that as much or more dangerous than any actual weapon?

Isn't that a little different from your original post?

People commiting violence to attract attention to a cause (i.e. 9/11, or abortion clinic bombers or earth firsters, whatever) are doing so out of a religious conviction, and most of the time consider themselves 'soldiers' in a 'war'. (i.e. 9/11, or abortion clinic bombers or earth firsters, whatever) So, they are operating under generally the same priciples that you were in the Gulf. Whether you think they were right or wrong is only indicative of whether or not you side with them on their political cause. Here's an example: (because everyone is tired of the middle east examples) abortion clinic bombers. These people blow up abortion clinics. If you're anti-abortion, you might quietly be glad that a few fewer abortions were performed that day, the pro-choice people would be outraged at the violence. The person who actually did the bombing may not like the violence of blowing up the building, but does it because they feel obligated to do so by beliefs or indoctination. We have long known that training and conditioning can replace the inate common sense and self preservation one has, and we have also seen where otherwise good kids can really cause a lot of damage when fighting for a cause they believe in, whether you agree with the cause or not (mehdi army or Earth First! etc.) I would submit that no one enjoys the violence, and that if peacable solutions could be found they would take them. If you're convinced you're in a war, then actions taken in conducting that war are legitimate.

Maybe? Thoughts?

you, sir, are seemingly a classic Hobbesian.
what the fuck is that? (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7658430&postcount=195)

So it would appear... although I always got the impression that Hobbes merely believed people are merely incapable of governing themselves - whereas, I'm suggesting that they are intrinsically incapable of social interactions, without 'conditioning'... (such social interactions as not killing each other just because they annoy you...)

I think my original point is that some people have that undercurrent of violence, but it's suppressed.

Over time, they look for a way to rationalize doing it. Some can't help themselves, and become serial killers. But even then, they rationalize it.

For those who fall short of serial killer, they are attracted to ideologies and religions that promote killing of "others".

And these groups are taking advantage of that undercurrent. And psychologists don't view that undercurrent as a problem, unless it comes out as serial killing (i.e., killing where the individual makes up the reason as opposed to killing where a large group makes up the reason).

In this view, I see all major movements that espouse killing and villify their enemies as inhuman as being identical in method.

I'm just wondering why I find that it was exhilarating to kill, and yet I'm not (by repeated examination) found to be mentally deranged. I'm considered to be a great guy by my former comrades, and a fine father and community figure. Good shot in wartime. Did the Army use that undercurrent in me?

Do various imams use that undercurrent in their madrassa students?

I would submit that no one enjoys the violence, and that if peacable solutions could be found they would take them. If you're convinced you're in a war, then actions taken in conducting that war are legitimate.

Maybe? Thoughts?

My older brother served in the Army for several years - and recounted many tales of people who really DO enjoy the violence. And the killing... and those people would prefer violence over a non-violent solution.

Do you live in a cave? Not really trying to be insulting - but I have lived in several large cities - and I have personal experience that there are SOME people who will go out of their way to engage in some senseless brutality.

I think my original point is that some people have that undercurrent of violence, but it's suppressed.

Over time, they look for a way to rationalize doing it. Some can't help themselves, and become serial killers. But even then, they rationalize it.

For those who fall short of serial killer, they are attracted to ideologies and religions that promote killing of "others".

And these groups are taking advantage of that undercurrent. And psychologists don't view that undercurrent as a problem, unless it comes out as serial killing (i.e., killing where the individual makes up the reason as opposed to killing where a large group makes up the reason).

In this view, I see all major movements that espouse killing and villify their enemies as inhuman as being identical in method.

I'm just wondering why I find that it was exhilarating to kill, and yet I'm not (by repeated examination) found to be mentally deranged. I'm considered to be a great guy by my former comrades, and a fine father and community figure. Good shot in wartime. Did the Army use that undercurrent in me?

Do various imams use that undercurrent in their madrassa students?

I suspect that you found it exhillarating to kill, because that is in all of us.

Now, for me - I oppose the idea of killing (as a concept) because I empathise with my fellow humans... if I don't want to be killed, I should respect that in others.

But, underneath that 'code', I get angry (very rarely) - and that is tapping into an emotional undercurrent - the undercurrent that leads us to destroy, rather than create.

Satisfying ANY emotional need gives a 'good feeling' (even a 'good cry' can leave the person feeling better - and self-hurters receive validation and control from their pain) - and, in the case of killing - the good feeling is ALSO coupled with a victory (since your mind can always make an 'us-or-them' rationality.

Strip away all the conditioning, the fostered squemishness about blood, the enforced social guidelines - and people are killing machines... so, it is no wonder that all civilisations learn to funnel that behaviour - by government, by religion, or whatever.

Last thought, about your post.. "Do various imams use that undercurrent in their madrassa students?".

Yes... it is no coincidence that "Taliban" means "Student". The Taliban of today was 'educated' (in Saudi Arabia, I believe) specifically for the purpose of resisting an occupying army (Russia), by whatever means necessary.

The Russian occupation is long gone - but the legacy continues. (Which is one thing that worries me about the US in Iraq...)

My older brother served in the Army for several years - and recounted many tales of people who really DO enjoy the violence. And the killing... and those people would prefer violence over a non-violent solution.

Do you live in a cave? Not really trying to be insulting - but I have lived in several large cities - and I have personal experience that there are SOME people who will go out of their way to engage in some senseless brutality.

I've lived in a bunch of major cities. Again, see my first post in this thread, I don't think those people so much enjoy violence and making other people miserable as there are other factors causing them to do so. Alcohol is a major factor in many cases of violence, and abuse of alcohol is rooted in other causes, whether social, economic or through mental illness. I don't believe people have a natural tendency towards violence. Proof? There are over 250 million guns in this country, yet relatively few homicides based on the whole population. Many of the exceptional homicides (like the school shootings) or serial killers (like Jeffery Dahmer) are people who have slipped through the cracks and were formerly under the care of a mental health practitioner. I don't think you will ever eliminate violence completely from society, but you certainly can do things to prevent it.

I've known and have several very good friends who were Marines or Army Special Forces. They enjoyed the action and the adreneline. But, if you talk with them for more than a few minutes, you can see that they are not proud of, and are bothered by the people they harmed in the course of their duties. I know one person who was an avid deer hunter before the first gulf war, and now only takes photographs.

I've lived in a bunch of major cities. Again, see my first post in this thread, I don't think those people so much enjoy violence and making other people miserable as there are other factors causing them to do so. Alcohol is a major factor in many cases of violence, and abuse of alcohol is rooted in other causes, whether social, economic or through mental illness. I don't believe people have a natural tendency towards violence. Proof? There are over 250 million guns in this country, yet relatively few homicides based on the whole population. Many of the exceptional homicides (like the school shootings) or serial killers (like Jeffery Dahmer) are people who have slipped through the cracks and were formerly under the care of a mental health practitioner. I don't think you will ever eliminate violence completely from society, but you certainly can do things to prevent it.

I've known and have several very good friends who were Marines or Army Special Forces. They enjoyed the action and the adreneline. But, if you talk with them for more than a few minutes, you can see that they are not proud of, and are bothered by the people they harmed in the course of their duties. I know one person who was an avid deer hunter before the first gulf war, and now only takes photographs.

While I think that alcohol, drugs, or a psychological 'flaw' may make it easier for a person to carry out acts of violence - I don't perceive any of those things as the ROOT of the violence.

As I said - my brother was stationed with a number of individuals who CLEARLY expressed a preference for hurting over not-hurting... for killing over not-killing. Maybe they are atypical by armed forces standards (one would hope) but they are certainly representative of an element of humanity... and, I suspect, they are also evidence of the basis of violence in ALL of us - just with less of the control.

I suggest reading about 'Feral Children' - which gives some clues into what may be the basis of human psychology:

"Feral children ought to be an excellent source of evidence in the continuing nature-nurture debate. Feral children cannot walk, talk, or socialise: they cannot show empathy with others. Indeed, these poor creatures are so apparently sub-human that Linnaeus classified them as distinct from home sapiens."

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/nature.php

http://www.geocities.com/zzippeddskripptzz/apeland/POTA_67.html


Cornelius crosses to Zaius, and takes a small book bound in black
leather from the breast pocket of his tunic.

ZAIUS
Read it to him: the twentythird Scroll,
ninth Verse.

Cornelius thumbs through the book, finds the citation and reads aloud:

CORNELIUS
'Beware the beast man, for he is the
devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates,
he kills for sport, or lust or greed.
Yes, he will murder his brother to possess
his brother's land. Let him not breed
in great numbers, for he will make a desert
of his home and yours. Shun him. Drive him
back into his jungle lair: For he is the
harbinger of death'.

http://www.geocities.com/zzippeddskripptzz/apeland/POTA_67.html


Cornelius crosses to Zaius, and takes a small book bound in black
leather from the breast pocket of his tunic.

ZAIUS
Read it to him: the twentythird Scroll,
ninth Verse.

Cornelius thumbs through the book, finds the citation and reads aloud:

CORNELIUS
'Beware the beast man, for he is the
devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates,
he kills for sport, or lust or greed.
Yes, he will murder his brother to possess
his brother's land. Let him not breed
in great numbers, for he will make a desert
of his home and yours. Shun him. Drive him
back into his jungle lair: For he is the
harbinger of death'.

BINGO! YAHTZEE! and the answer is....

Personally, I would say that even though I myself am opposed to violence. I would not have a problem with taking thelife of another. It becomes an internal struggle with one's philisophical and moral beliefs vs. accepting the reality that violence and death is part of life. There will always be strife. Before and after human beings, conflict will remain. Those who strive against it, are those whose hands have never been stained with blood. They can never grasp the truth that violence cannot be stopped. It is hard truth, but for those that can understand, it elucidates deeper emotions and understandings of the way the natural world works.

BINGO! YAHTZEE! and the answer is....

42?

42?
its always 42.
its the answer dummie :rolleyes:

"Feral children ought to be an excellent source of evidence in the continuing nature-nurture debate. Feral children cannot walk, talk, or socialise: they cannot show empathy with others. Indeed, these poor creatures are so apparently sub-human that Linnaeus classified them as distinct from home sapiens."


Holy crap! Linneaus? I think science has come a little farther than it was in 1750!!

Come on, you have to be able to do better than that. At least come up to Freudian or Jungian psychology!:rolleyes:

I stick by my original assertion: that people are inherently non-violent and compassionate, and that other forces cause them to become violent, like mental illness or conditioning or intoxication. I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary. My eveidence in support of my theory is this: that with the sheer number of weapons and cars and other implements that could be used to kill a person, this country still has a relatively low violent crime rate, and the violence and extreme violence are the rare exception, and not the rule.

I can explain your brother's Army stories in two words: lockerroom talk.