Human Nature to Fight?

[Dividing MDH]

So I saw another thread on this topic about the meaning of life, and it reminded of a fierce internal debate I've been having for months. One one hand you see time and time again that in times of peace we always bring ourselves to violence, whether for power, or greed or just the lulz.
That's all well and good, and if you asked me the question last year I'd have said that and been done with it, but a few months ago I countered it with this: then if it's so easy to fight as it's in our basest human nature, then how come we all have to get used to killing for the first time?

It's an argument that's been going on for centuries by Confucianists and Legalists, but I'm at a loss here.

 

[ShockBolt21]

I feel that this is quite a common misconception. Many people have a lower opinion of ourselves because of how we've fought wars in the past, and refer to humankind in general as "naturally evil," or that war/fighting is "in our blood" and will always be a constant of our civilization. However, I feel like we are on the road to world peace. As nations continue to modernize, people are increasingly realizing the value of human life.

Back in World War II, America dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because those cities had a high civilian population, and they killed tens of thousands of Japanese citizens. Now, we would never, ever do anything like that again- we refuse to take the lives of any civilians of any nation despite the potential military advantage. On June 6, Americans and other allied countries stormed the beaches of Germany, knowing that we would lose thousands of men in the process. Now, it's a huge deal when ten American soldiers are killed in combat, and we try to only conduct operations when we have a high confidence that every man will make it out alive. Orginizations like NATO are formed to prevent wars. Modern, developed, civilized countries like America and most European nations do everything they can to avoid violent conflicts, with war only being a last resort after all other diplomatic options are exhausted.

America is currently engaged in counter-terrorist operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, but we are not actually at war with any other nation. I'm starting to think that a war between two developed nations would be seen as immoral and could not happen, and all other actions would be taken to resolve conflicts and reach a solution or a compromise. As nations continue to modernize and reach this civilized mindset, the wars and conflicts around the world will diminish and disappear.

I am confident that you and I will both live to see the day when there are no wars, and the idea of killing, internationally or otherwise, is seen as an international wrong. Europe is pretty much already in a state of widespread peace, as they're not actively in combat anywhere, and America is close.

...time and time again that in times of peace we always bring ourselves to violence...

History has indeed shown this to be true, but it's also true that in times of violence, we always bring ourselves to peace. Wars and violence, even in ancient times, were not as prevalent as you may think- Plenty of citizens of ancient cultures went their entire lives without seeing any conflict. Wars were spread out, separated by long time periods of peace.

 

[Dividing MDH]

Back in World War II, America dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because those cities had a high civilian population, and they killed tens of thousands of Japanese citizens. Now, we would never, ever do anything like that again- we refuse to take the lives of any civilians of any nation despite the potential military advantage. On June 6, Americans and other allied countries stormed the beaches of Germany, knowing that we would lose thousands of men in the process. Now, it's a huge deal when ten American soldiers are killed in combat, and we try to only conduct operations when we have a high confidence that every man will make it out alive. Orginizations like NATO are formed to prevent wars. Modern, developed, civilized countries like America and most European nations do everything they can to avoid violent conflicts, with war only being a last resort after all other diplomatic options are exhausted.

Yeah I see what you mean, and I'm still on the fence trying to argue both sides, and I can argue with this. You're comparisons are made from nearly a century ago to now. You claim that in the more civilised countries we repel violence, and frown upon mistreatment of others, and you claim that the development of society that will eventually cease the flow of wars right/

While those are great points, in Mexico drug cartels fight a bloody war, resulting in thousands of drug related deaths every year. And only 1% are even investigated because of crooked cops. In 1993 the FBI burned down a building full of civilians and covered it up, and crime is still apparent in our society. The last time I read about it, there is still organised crime in New York City.

However I sort of agree with you because of how we all need to come to terms with killing, even in ancient times where as a child, you needed to accept that the world was harsh, so you needed to bite back.

 

[SOLIDSNAKEee]

TLDR;
Peace is an unnatural state for man, its enforced by the powers at hand so they do not lose control.
Violence is a natural state for man. An example would be a tribe against another tribe weather it be for different beliefs ( yeah yeah I know ), simple expansion which may cause displacement or wars, jealousy over love or a loved one etc. I could go on but I believe my points already been made.

 

[harry_c0]

In a state of nature Hobbes claims that 'life is nasty, brutish and short'. That we have no natural morality and life revolves around self preservation...

Perhaps our higher standard of living, living under a 'state' with laws and order has coerced many of our basic survival instincts out of us, and as we never have to worry about food or any of the basic necessities; we don't have to compete, we don't really have opportunities to show a more 'naturally violent' side, but maybe it's still there within all of us, there are just not opportunities to showcase it. Just look at the poorer parts of the world with are genocidal wars going on across many countries in Africa, the Middle East is seeing civil wars: any part of the world where resources are scare where there is a need to compete - what we deem as violence is common place, a part of day to day life. I'll refrain from more sweeping, generic statements but I believe violence is natural, we're far from altruistic most actions we do are about I, not we. In some form self preservation is the main goal. Not necessarily life or death decisions, but a more tamer form such as material gain. It's our morality, a sense of reason which separates us from your everyday orangutan.

America is currently engaged in counter-terrorist operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, but we are not actually at war with any other nation.

Is this still not war? I'm not talking about ideally sitting by when attacked. These countries need to develop on their own. I think many of us have an almost preconceived idea that every country needs to westernize, and westernize now. It's a cycle that should not be interrupted England went through the same process, we had our sweat shops, our civil wars. As did America - Was the war of independence not an act of terrorism?

I am confident that you and I will both live to see the day when there are no wars, and the idea of killing, internationally or otherwise, is seen as an international wrong. Europe is pretty much already in a state of widespread peace, as they're not actively in combat anywhere, and America is close.

I do not think any one in this generation or the next will live to see this. Out of sight, out of mind is the expression that comes to mind.

I'm not renowned for proof reading, it makes sense to me though. It's just everyone else that is the problem.

 

[ShockBolt21]

Sure, people do fight wars, and there is a reason for them. But... human nature? That would imply that people are always craving violence, always looking for a fight. When people do fight, there's a reason for it, not just because it's in their nature and their instincts are telling them to.

Peace is an unnatural state for man, its enforced by the powers at hand so they do not lose control.

^If this were true, then people would always feel uncomfortable while in peace. If we didn't have laws, then it's not like everybody would break into chaos and start murdering each other (would you?). The problem would be that a few people would because they might be aggressive and dumb by nature, and that small number of people could disrupt the balance of the society.

Is this still not war?

You can call it war, but it's not war against another country- it's war against terrorists who happen to be in that country. That's what I was trying to say.

...As did America - Was the war of independence not an act of terrorism?

I'm not sure whether or not the American Revolution was justified- an argument can easily be made for both sides. But whether or not it was actually the right thing to do, it was certainly not terrorism.

 

[SOLIDSNAKEee]

^If this were true, then people would always feel uncomfortable while in peace. If we didn't have laws, then it's not like everybody would break into chaos and start murdering each other (would you?). The problem would be that a few people would because they might be aggressive and dumb by nature, and that small number of people could disrupt the balance of the society.

Because you do not agree it does not make it false.Also trying to apply the logic of no laws, instant violence is just silly. My point is if we didn't have laws to being with then there would be no true piece.True piece is achieved through laws and rules, though humanity has a way with banding together ( tribes, clans, guilds etc ). It is human nature to fight though that does not mean we always will.

 

[harry_c0]

it was certainly not terrorism

terrorism
ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
noun
1. the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

The problem would be that a few people would because they might be aggressive and dumb by nature, and that small number of people could disrupt the balance of the society.

When you say a small number of people can disrupt the whole society, if the whole society reacts in turn with violence is this not our aggressive nature? Surely if we were peaceful we would talk to them as reasonable human beings whatever the cost, and as they too do not have violence in their urr... natural... nature would respond in kind?

It would be interesting to see, but as we have never had a true communist state there's no way to tell. Although there are isolated villages that claim to be true communists and by all accounts are, so perhaps it is possible on a larger scale, but have these small villages experienced violence from within or even without to test it, probably not.

 

[ShockBolt21]

When you say a small number of people can disrupt the whole society, if the whole society reacts in turn with violence is this not our aggressive nature?

It's an attempt to defend ourselves- at that point, there would be no other option. It's not a decision made by natural instinct, but a logical, calculated decision put forth out of necessity.

 

[harry_c0]

There's always an option! The fact that violence (theoretically) was created in a world turned peaceful, where people are only shown love and compassion whether they are "dumb" or not. For me, is proof that violence is 'innate'.

Heres a way to look at it - proposing life is based solely on experience - so in this already peaceful world (village what ever) people have only seen love, so surely can only feel love? So violence could not ever break out because it has never been experienced, unless it was already there as an instinct (assuming the people who are dumb, however you wish to describe them have been born into said happy society, that has been established for a while).

But if it has not been established for long, and instantly faces opposition from some people. Is this again not the sign that violence is innate? Why would people resist a free, peaceful society?

Sounds to me like your describing something closer to Marx's idea of socialism.
I'm not trying to convince you, just showing you how I see it.

 

[Dividing MDH]

look at the poorer parts of the world with are genocidal wars going on across many countries in Africa, the Middle East is seeing civil wars: any part of the world where resources are scare where there is a need to compete - what we deem as violence is common place, a part of day to day life. I'll refrain from more sweeping, generic statements but I believe violence is natural, we're far from altruistic most actions we do are about I, not we. In some form self preservation is the main goal. Not necessarily life or death decisions, but a more tamer form such as material gain. It's our morality, a sense of reason which separates us from your everyday orangutan.

Because you do not agree it does not make it false.Also trying to apply the logic of no laws, instant violence is just silly. My point is if we didn't have laws to being with then there would be no true piece.True piece is achieved through laws and rules, though humanity has a way with banding together ( tribes, clans, guilds etc ). It is human nature to fight though that does not mean we always will.

Peace is an unnatural state for man, its enforced by the powers at hand so they do not lose control.
Violence is a natural state for man. An example would be a tribe against another tribe weather it be for different beliefs ( yeah yeah I know ), simple expansion which may cause displacement or wars, jealousy over love or a loved one etc.

Okay, I think I've come to a personal conclusion.
I think that society has done a lot to prevent our violent nature, just hear me out for a sec. As we children we are being harassed, or bullying someone else, why over something so trivial. Why? Because the person who's being harassed is an easy target, we'll find the slightest flaw to beat them up. As we grow older, most of us would never think of doing such a bad thing, but it still happens more subtly. Nationality, gender, beliefs we use these as excuses to channel instincts.

I'm still open to Confucianism, in fact I encourage someone to prove me wrong in my legalistic opinion, as I don't want to think that everyone you ever will know and know now, have an cave for violence, no matter how big or small.

 

[Ghuesaren]

Because human nature doesn't only involve fighting to survive. In fact that is in many ways the more animal side of things. Unless you consider humans and animals to be the same thing of course.