No, humans are not "naturally" violent...Further, the instinct to survive, survival instinct, is in every "normal" human being, from birth (conception?) on and throughout our lives...Yes, conditioning (environment) plays a part as does intellectual capacity (reasoning), chemical condition (brain chemistry), circumstance, etc....The ability to be or become violent is in every human being....Some act on it others do not.....But violence, the act of being violent toward another human being, is not a given, it is not natural, it does not come with the package....In studies about the conscious (controlled thought), it has been established that a conscious is developed early on, it has also been established that there are those, who for various reasons, lack a conscious, usually due to neglect (the absence of nurturing) or abuse suffered in the formative years.....Abuse is cyclic, this is a fact....

I love how Steven King has mastered the art of writing good contemporary fiction......

Human Nature-the psychological and social qualities that characterize humankind, especially in contrast with other living things.

Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that humans tend to have naturally.

Naturally-
without artificial aid, according to the usual course of things : as might be expected, without distortion or exaggeration.

Part 1 this Sunday night, part 2 Monday.

Anyone who had children knows that humans are naturally violent.

"Moooooooooooommmmmmmmmm! She hit me!!!!!!!!!"

Well, my daughter was benched yesterday for hitting her friend, Eddie. And, scratching him.

She said, "It wasn't my fault he got hurt! I didn't know my nails were so long."

Sadly, I've seen the damage a violent parent can inflict on a child. Child abuse calls were the calls I could hardly bear.

I would not try to prove we cannot be violent, but that the actions that result from natural tendencies toward anger are not themselves necessary extensions of that emotional tendency.


ie, while anger is a natural emotional state, violence is not necessitated from that emotional state.

ie violence is not a natural tendency even tho anger is.

So I would spend the first period of time arguing in FAVOR of anger as a natural tendency and then highlight the differences between anger and violence, one is an emotional state, the other a physical outcome.

Humans do not have instincts in the way most other animals have instincts and that in a mentally functioning human a decision toward violence has to be made, ie it is not a natural: automatic response for violence even when the mental state of anger is such a instinctual reaction.

Basically we have a will, and that will dictates choices, not the emotional context of the reaction.

According to the frustration-aggression hypothesis, frustration stimulates a drive that leads to aggression. However, frustration is not the only variable that causes aggression. The response to frustration may differ depending on the kind of responses a person has learned to use in coping with frustrating situations. If a person has learn (through imitation or social learning) that aggression can elicit a desired result, then they would respond to frustration with aggressive behavior. For example, people in poorer communities become frustrated when their physiological needs cannot be met and some are motivated to acquire these needs through crime. This is where social learning plays a role. When a person becomes frustrated they are motivated to react in a way that they learn would produce results. People can learn that crime pays. Therefore, while frustration and aggression seem to be closely linked, the mere presence of frustration does not seem to suggest aggression, social learning is also an instigating factor.

Exactly, so I would come from a perspective of natural tendencies are emotionally driven. The emotions are natural, the responses learned.

Its this distinction that will win you the debate. Examples of peace and examples of violence will only stalemate you, and IMHO should be avoided all together.

Thank you BBC, I appreciate your opinions and insight.
This has been my favorite/most entertaining class to date and it's almost a shame that the semester is coming to an end.

This rolled across my Facebook page today. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45602445/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TuItbNVVVQV

"Empathic rats help each other out." Good article, and I do believe that all animals, humans included are willing to help each other out more then hurt each other.

I think it would be in your best interest to avoid conscious actions by mankind as much as possible and compare us to the animals since the debate is to focus on the "basic nature". Compare us to mammals in general and predators specifically.

Take the lion, king of the jungle; generally known as the most violent of creatures. They lay around in the shade most of the time. They, like us, kill animals to eat or defend their young and pride. They fight for sex as part of the natural order to pass their genetic material; with good result as the strong then survive. However, their nature is to lay around with a full belly and mind their own business.

The closer you get to explaining the violent part of humanity as part and parcel of the "flight or fight" reflex, NOT part of conscious thought, the better your argument will sound.

Murders can be statistically grouped with abhorrent behavior, as can much domestic violence. Wars can be explained as "fight or flight" (without the flight) by tribal tradition, historical conditioning, and peer pressure.

Even the elephant, the most peaceful of creatures, goes rogue on occasion. Comparing individualism and the vast hordes of humanity is the key.

Thank you Dancer and Metal...
I will check out the article. However, I have already taken some material out and want to try and refine this to bare bones and not leave so much open for debate/debunk.

I am really leaning towards frustration and anger are emotional states and natural; violence is one possible physical outcome but is not a natural tendency.

I do have to address the fight or flight response (biological) because I am sure it will be brought up but haven't drawn a conclusion as to how I will do so. I am looking up case studies and other literature to better define this.

-I am assuming there must be some outside influence to cause a fight or flight response.

-Do human infants fight or flight or does it take experience to have the potential of fight or flight? Do we have to learn a certain number of things to make the natural ability of fight or flight a reality?

-How much does our total 'programming' apply to the actual reaction (or possible outcomes) whether we consciously decide to or not?

Maybe some Food for thought here!

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/physical_force.html

Always food for thought when reading Ayn....Transcends time too.....

Yes!
Philosophy ought to be universally,and applicable without a timelimit.

The good stuff is!!!

Don't know what world you live in but not all humans are like that.

There are some humans that refuse to say a simple word like sorry.

It is such a simple word.........sorry

Don't know what world you live in but not all humans are like that.

There are some humans that refuse to say a simple word like sorry.

It is such a simple word.........sorry

Exactly!