Blog Assignment 1

It is easy to argue that violence is inherent in humans, because all animals commit acts of violence. And when one considers that even primates use violence, or, more commonly, the threat of violence, to help achieve certain social goals, it seems perfectly natural to assume that there is a genetic predisposition toward humans using violence to solve certain social goals as well. But there is some discrepancy between the two: primates do not commonly use violence, because most violent actions would be disproportionate to the social goal the primate is trying to achieve—if it’s unnecessary to kill monkey 1 to eat, monkey 2 just won’t do it. Humans, however, consistently (I would even dare say constantly) use unnecessary amounts of violence.

Over thousands of years, we have been continuously developing into a society that feeds on abstract ideas like faith and pride and power; and as we continue to pour importance into those ideas, the less of those necessities there appears to be to go around. We have built up certain social goals—being powerful, being wealthy, being the most pious, being the most respected—to the point where a disproportionate amount of violence seems completely appropriate to help achieve what is necessary for the new form of survival we have created for ourselves. So while it be natural or instinctual for us to commit, or threaten, acts of violence, the reasons that we have designated as violence worthy social goals have become extremely unnatural.