The Decline of Violence

[MediumTex]

In a world of scarce resources and unlimited desires, what could possibly rid the human species of violence?

Isn't violence just one manifestation of competition for scarce resources?  One reason that evolution has favored aggression and violence in predators is that it is a necessary trait to survive, right?

If we have tens of thousands of years of natural selection for the effective use of violence in our species, what would make us think that a couple of generations when there is plenty to eat for most people would change that?

It reminds me of those sharks in Finding Nemo who were trying to overcome their shark nature, with comical results.

If you want insight into humans and violence, I would say go talk to every previous inhabitant at the top of the food chain in various habitats around the world before humans came along.  They will say "Those humans are by far the most violent creatures we've ever seen."

What I think that anthropologists have seen over and over is that one tribe will basically come to view members of other tribes as inferior sub-human creatures, and therefore deal with them just like they might deal with a pack of aggressive lions or wolves who kept stealing their food--i.e., with generous doses of violence until the sub-human creatures have either been completely exterminated or forced into compliance.

If there is ever a lull in human on human violence, doesn't that just suggest a few years of good crops and momentary unfavorable conditions for tyrants and despots?

Tom Friedman has this dopey theory that nations that each have McDonalds don't go to war with one another.  That's fine, but it says nothing about the fact that a country with lots of McDonalds may feel entitled to go to war with plenty of countries that don't have McDonalds, which is sort of how the U.S. has done it over the last 60 years or so.  The amount of net violence around the world could easily increase even if the McDonalds theory of war were true.

[MediumTex]

Okay.  Say Guy A hunts on a piece of land.  He believes he owns it.  Guy B comes along and builds a house on it.  He believes he owns the land.  Both of them do, depending on your definition of property and how it's acquired.  One of them is getting shot, in defense of the other guy's property.

This clearly demonstrates that a forceless society is impossible, at least without definitions of pretty much everything, but especially property ownership, clearly self-evident and unassailable with no gray areas.

The bolded statement is obvious to pretty much everybody.  And, in my estimation, a big reason why this thread continues is there is still disagreement around this point, since {"everybody" — "pretty much everybody"} > 0.

It is equally obvious to me that {"everybody" — "pretty much everybody"} will not be persuaded to the contrary.

Which is why I've learned to love the Ignore feature.

I missed the part about why they have to shoot each other. Why does one have to shoot another one again?

Scarce resources and evolutionary processes that have selected for violent tendencies (especially in the males).

***

It seems to me that humans are only "sinful" if you try to cast them as civilized and purely rational creatures.  If, however, you see humans as a mix of the qualities above with a set of basically animal instincts, then I don't think we look all that bad.

Maybe all of religion is basically an allegory for what non-animal humans might look like if they existed.  Because we aren't fully non-animal creatures, however, religion labels us as "fallen", but the truth is that we never actually completely climbed out of the desires and instincts that are left over from an earlier time in our evolutionary history that would be necessary for us to "fall" in the first place.

Rather than "fallen", a better term to describe humanity might be: "Never got quite high enough to fall."

[Kshartle]

In a world of scarce resources and unlimited desires, what could possibly rid the human species of violence?

What rid us of slavery and child sacrifice?

There are 7 billion of us now. In 1900 there were 1 billion. Are we richer now or were we richer then? How about in 10,000 BC when there were 100,000 people?

Centuries of raising kids nonviolently and shunning those who advocate violence as a solution to problems seems to me to be the only way. Explaining to those that advocate violent solutions what they are actually supporting is another way but it really comes down to peaceful parenting. The kids become the teachers.

How much of the elderly portion of society is racist or homophobic compared to the younger? Imagine 100 years ago or 200 years ago. Why is this?

Look, humans might always be violent towards each other. In fact, I'm sure there will always be a tiny fraction that is no matter what. It won't be because of scarce resources. Cooperation is a much better way to deal with scarcity. Violence is a terrible solution and destructive.

It won't be because it's always been that way. That's the argument from history or whatever. I'm sure someone in South Carolina argued that in 1861.

It won't be because we're primates. The implication is that it's just nature that causes us to be violent and not a choice. For the people who can't choose because they are little kids or mentally deficient....this is not a difficult problem to solve. Let's not pretend it is. 

[Kshartle]

The bolded statement is obvious to pretty much everybody.  And, in my estimation, a big reason why this thread continues is there is still disagreement around this point, since {"everybody" — "pretty much everybody"} > 0.

It is equally obvious to me that {"everybody" — "pretty much everybody"} will not be persuaded to the contrary.

Which is why I've learned to love the Ignore feature.

I missed the part about why they have to shoot each other. Why does one have to shoot another one again?

Scarce resources and evolutionary processes that have selected for violent tendencies (especially in the males).

Cooperation is a vastly superior way to deal with scarcity, more so now than every before. So maybe we can start selecting for rational mates that choose non-violence.

Incidently, are you violent and how many of your friends and family are violent or think violence solves problems? I think it's only a tiny element....and they infest the government and other gangs. the government gang has just succeded in convincing everyone it's different or neccessary to protect them from other violence. It's a swindle.

We are far more inclined towards cooperation than violence. Violent humans who could not share scarce resources and cooperate to get more did not do most of the procreating. A tiny few that claimed mastery would do well for a time though.

[Libertarian666]

The above statement seems to be more premise than fact.  It appears to be stated as fact (self-evident).  I do not agree that it is self evident.

Fact:  We humans have disposed of over 53,000,000 lives since Roe vs. Wade.

Conclusion:  Humans are sinners.

Logic:  Inductive?

or,

Premise:  Humans are sinners.

Observation:  Humans may kill other humans and get away with it because all are sinners.

Logic: ?

My point:  Once again, the Christian worldview really does make the most sense of life and death, property ownership, animal rights, etc., etc., etc.

Sure, to those who subscribe to the Christian worldview.
To many others, it seems nonsensical.

Are you saying murder of 53,000,000 lives is nonsensical?  Or something else was nonsensical?  Help me understand your intent.

... Mountaineer

The Christian worldview, to many of those who don't subscribe to it.

[MediumTex]

Incidently, are you violent and how many of your friends and family are violent or think violence solves problems? I think it's only a tiny element....and they infest the government and other gangs. the government gang has just succeded in convincing everyone it's different or neccessary to protect them from other violence. It's a swindle.

I'm only not violent because I don't need to be violent to get my needs met.

While my community may not be especially violent, the members of my community vote leaders into office who are very violent, and thus my community has basically outsourced its violent tendencies to its political leaders, who then apply violence to other tribes around the world that my community doesn't like.

It's all very neat and clean, but its still very violent.  Have you seen what those Apache helicopters can do to a group of people who don't like foreign troops occupying their cities?  Violence!!!  Get some!!!

[Libertarian666]

Incidently, are you violent and how many of your friends and family are violent or think violence solves problems? I think it's only a tiny element....and they infest the government and other gangs. the government gang has just succeded in convincing everyone it's different or neccessary to protect them from other violence. It's a swindle.

I'm only not violent because I don't need to be violent to get my needs met.

While my community may not be especially violent, the members of my community vote leaders into office who are very violent, and thus my community has basically outsourced its violent tendencies to its political leaders, who then apply violence to other tribes around the world that my community doesn't like.

It's all very neat and clean, but its still very violent.  Have you seen what those Apache helicopters can do to a group of people who don't like foreign troops occupying their cities?  Violence!!!  Get some!!!

Sure, but can you explain exactly why are there foreign troops occupying those cities? How do you or I, or your community for that matter, benefit from that?

[MediumTex]

Incidently, are you violent and how many of your friends and family are violent or think violence solves problems? I think it's only a tiny element....and they infest the government and other gangs. the government gang has just succeded in convincing everyone it's different or neccessary to protect them from other violence. It's a swindle.

I'm only not violent because I don't need to be violent to get my needs met.

While my community may not be especially violent, the members of my community vote leaders into office who are very violent, and thus my community has basically outsourced its violent tendencies to its political leaders, who then apply violence to other tribes around the world that my community doesn't like.

It's all very neat and clean, but its still very violent.  Have you seen what those Apache helicopters can do to a group of people who don't like foreign troops occupying their cities?  Violence!!!  Get some!!!

Sure, but can you explain exactly why are there foreign troops occupying those cities? How do you or I, or your community for that matter, benefit from that?

As I have said before, it's a make-work program for poor people and defense contractors. 

It benefits us by making us feel like our thirst for violence is being channeled into useful applications of violence around the world, ideally to promote vague concepts like "freedom."

I don't see how I personally benefit from Apache helicopters turning Afghan hillbillies into messy piles of human flesh.

[Libertarian666]

I'm only not violent because I don't need to be violent to get my needs met.

While my community may not be especially violent, the members of my community vote leaders into office who are very violent, and thus my community has basically outsourced its violent tendencies to its political leaders, who then apply violence to other tribes around the world that my community doesn't like.

It's all very neat and clean, but its still very violent.  Have you seen what those Apache helicopters can do to a group of people who don't like foreign troops occupying their cities?  Violence!!!  Get some!!!

Sure, but can you explain exactly why are there foreign troops occupying those cities? How do you or I, or your community for that matter, benefit from that?

As I have said before, it's a make-work program for poor people and defense contractors. 

It benefits us by making us feel like our thirst for violence is being channeled into useful applications of violence around the world, ideally to promote vague concepts like "freedom."

I don't see how I personally benefit from Apache helicopters turning Afghan hillbillies into messy piles of human flesh.

Or in other words: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

[Mountaineer]

Sure, but can you explain exactly why are there foreign troops occupying those cities? How do you or I, or your community for that matter, benefit from that?

As I have said before, it's a make-work program for poor people and defense contractors. 

It benefits us by making us feel like our thirst for violence is being channeled into useful applications of violence around the world, ideally to promote vague concepts like "freedom."

I don't see how I personally benefit from Apache helicopters turning Afghan hillbillies into messy piles of human flesh.

Or in other words: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Libertarian666, interesting article.

... Mountaineer

[MediumTex]

Libertarian666, interesting article.

... Mountaineer

I would expect the finest anti-war writings to come from current or former senior military leaders. 

I always marveled at how perceptive Eisenhower's "military industrial complex" warnings were.  He knew how the game worked.

[vnatale]

So property is not just a product of our efforts, but of the natural resources around us.  These exist independent of our efforts, so our ability to claim them as morally connected to us is questionable, but necessary to survive, and even more to prosper.

So you see, property is not just a moral connection to some amazing thing you created from nothingness, it's an imperfect solution to a moral/ethical dilemma.  See more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_dilemma

So to respect your individual sovereignty, I have to let you hunt on land that I was hunting on, unless I have some basis to claim that land as my own, and up to this point, I haven't seen you give me a very good layout for what constitutes a valid claim to property.  You can't just say "you know you own your clothes."  What about land?  What about things that existed before we came into being?

So either our moral code is invalid, or we simply have to make the best of these dilemmas that we face because nature put us all on a deserted island together, made it necessary that we eat and take shelter, and said "to hell with your moral code."

Haven't we beat the land thing to death over a dozen pages already? I know we talked about lakes, cabins, farmland etc. in a previous thread. I know you were involved and the answer was not "put a fence around it".

I will look at that thread and see if the entire argument is sufficiently laid out there as it's complex and tiresome.

Moda's point seems to be the crux of the issue.

Kshartle seems to adhere strongly to deontological ethics. He thinks he has locked down an airtight case, but the fact is that his deontological system of morals and ethics receives heavy fire in philosophical circles.

A deontologist is someone who believes that there are certain types of acts that are wrong in themselves and that we have a duty not to do those types of acts. Someone who follows either Kantian ethics or Natural Moral law would be a deontologist. The word ‘deontology’ comes from the Greek deon, meaning duty. Deontologists contrast with teleologists, or consequentialists, who judge the goodness of an action by looking at the consequences that the action brings about. Utilitarians and situation ethicists are teleologists.

A common criticism of deontological moral systems is that they provide no clear way to resolve conflicts between moral duties. a deontological moral system should include both a moral duty not to lie and one to keep others from harm, for example, but in the above situation how is a person to choose between those two moral duties? A popular response to this is to simply choose the "lesser of two evils," but that means relying on which of the two has the least evil consequences and, therefore, the moral choice is being made on a consequentialist rather than a deontological basis.

Some critics argue that deontological moral systems are, in fact, consequentialist moral systems in disguise. According to this argument, duties and obligations which set forth in deontological systems are actually those actions which have been demonstrated over long periods of time to have the best consequences. Eventually, they become enshrined in custom and law and people stop giving them or their consequences much thought — they are simply assumed to be correct. Deontological ethics are thus ethics where the reasons for particular duties have been forgotten, even if things have completely changed.

A second criticism is that deontological moral systems do not readily allow for grey areas where the morality of an action is questionable. They are, rather, systems which are based upon absolutes — absolute principles and absolute conclusions. In real life, however, moral questions more often involve grey areas than absolute black & white choices. We typically have conflicting duties, interests, and issues that make things difficult.

Another common criticism of deontological ethical theories is the question of just which duties qualify as those which we should all follow, regardless of the consequences. Duties which might have been valid in the 18th century are not necessarily valid now, but who is to say which ones should be abandoned and which are still valid? And if any are to be abandoned, how can we say that they really were moral duties back in the 18th century?

If these were duties created by God, how can they possibly stop being duties today? Many attempts to develop deontological systems focus on explaining how and why certain duties are valid at any time or at all times and how we can know that. Religious believers are often in the difficult position of trying to explain what believers of the past treated certain duties as objective, absolute ethical requirements created by God but today they aren't — today we have different absolute, objective ethical requirements created by God. These are all reasons why irreligious atheists rarely subscribe to deontological ethical systems, though it can't be denied that they can at times have ethical insights to offer.

Doodle,

Until just a few minutes ago I'd NEVER heard of deontological ethics or anything related to it.

GREAT exposition here!

Vinny

[vnatale]

Moda,

"the existence of a god implies that we don't truly own ourselves. I mean, if we were created by an omniscient, omnipotent being, aren't we essentially his property?"

I'm coming into the end of a LONG thread, but I'm not sure where that conclusion came from i.e. I don't think many conventionally religious people would agree with it.

Out of curiosity, are you an atheist?

Little did Benko know that he was NOT coming to the "end of a LONG thread"! His post merely appeared on page 30 that eventually went on to 19 more pages (49 (!) in total).

What is the record in this Forum for the most pages?

Vinny

[Xan]

The religion thread is at 365 pages. Gold scream room at 219. Then there are a few in the 50-70 range: Trump as tragicomedy, nowhere to hide, stock scream room, will Trump be re-elected, Youtube Junkie, Proving Morality.

Decline of violence is here at 49.

[Smith1776]

I really hate violence.

I used to be quite into boxing and kickboxing as a teenager. A large part of why I stopped was because I didn't like the idea of harming someone else, even if it's just part of a sport.

Martial arts training? Sure, I'll still do that. But no real fights for me.

[Ad Orientem]

The religion thread is at 365 pages. Gold scream room at 219. Then there are a few in the 50-70 range: Trump as tragicomedy, nowhere to hide, stock scream room, will Trump be re-elected, Youtube Junkie, Proving Morality.

Decline of violence is here at 49.

Smith1776: "Hold my beer."

[Mountaineer]

The religion thread is at 365 pages. Gold scream room at 219. Then there are a few in the 50-70 range: Trump as tragicomedy, nowhere to hide, stock scream room, will Trump be re-elected, Youtube Junkie, Proving Morality.

Decline of violence is here at 49.

Interesting. Appears people are a lot more interested in what happens after death than gold, Trump, stocks, YouTube and morality (unless you are a 'religion is for your best life now' adherent). Most people are smart. Will it be or for you?

[Mountaineer]

The religion thread is at 365 pages. Gold scream room at 219. Then there are a few in the 50-70 range: Trump as tragicomedy, nowhere to hide, stock scream room, will Trump be re-elected, Youtube Junkie, Proving Morality.

Decline of violence is here at 49.

Interesting. Appears people are a lot more interested in what happens after death than gold, Trump, stocks, YouTube and morality (unless you are a 'religion is for your best life now' adherent). Most people are smart. Will it be or for you?

I would be curious to know what % of the posts in the Religion thread are yours. Is the forum concerned or are you?

According to a quick scan of forum stats, I've posted 1099 times (many/most answering questions or responding to comments of others - feel free to do the exact math if you wish to determine accuracy of my parenthetical statement; I don't have the time nor the will to do so) in the "Figuring Out Religion (FOR)" thread and 3411 times in all forum threads including this post. There are 4370 total posts in the FOR thread and a total of 473,035 views in the FOR thread. I can assure you that not anywhere close to all of those 473,035 views are mine. I report, you decide on the answer to your last question above.