Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Differences between animals and humans
Elements of violence in literature
One major similarity between humans and animals
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Differences between animals and humans
In her book, On Violence, Hannah Arendt studies violence as it relates to war, science, power, aggression, and the like. In this paper, I will speak on the topic of violence as it pertains to aggression. I argue that we, as human beings, possess at least a basic level of aggression that is explainable through animalistic research and characteristics. This argument is one that contradicts the overarching ideas of Arendt’s thoughts on the topic. Through an explicative and then disputatious discourse, I hope to bring validity to my viewpoint. First, I will look at Arendt’s criticism of violence. She believes that violence is not an idle concept. It needs to be justified by ethics and philosophy and often cannot be referred to without regard to …show more content…
My argument is that animal behavior can explain a very basic level of human behavior. “Evolution can explain why humans exhibit aggression because it is a primal emotion like any other, experts say” (Whipps). If we can accept and support the idea that children possess the basic need of love when they are being raised, then we must realize that this concept was first witnessed and tested in animals. The presence of compassion and love in the early life of an offspring raises his/her potential for success and increases his/her quality of life for a longer length of time. As biologist David Carrier agrees, he states that “[j]ust as compassion for your offspring increases your genes' chance of survival, violent tendencies may have been similarly useful for some species” …show more content…
However, I do believe that violence through the means of aggression is rational in nature. If Arendt can argue that violence is rational if it is effective in reaching a short term ends that justify it, then I can only think that the continuation of this idea is evolution. Animals have evolved and mutated for billions of years in reaction to their environment and competition. Their aggression is an obvious attribute of survival and protection of their offspring. We apply their other traits and characteristics to our explanations of human behavior, so why leave out aggression? We, as a human species, have had short term goals, often relating to survival, since the beginning of our time. If animals survive because of their aggression, and humans are related to the animal as a species, then animal aggression is related to human aggression. As Carrier puts it, “[w]hile a gang member's desire for more things, money or partners causes problems now, it may have been the key to their survival 100,000 years ago” (Whipps). With this logic, I feel it is unreasonable to believe that rudimentary human aggression, even in terms of violence, cannot be explained by animal
Violence can be justified if the cause is to protect yourself or others; The Outsiders by: S.E. Hinton gives light to these crimes. Creating change helps the lives of people prosper and grow usually people create change with violence. Our planet changes everyday our thoughts, opinions, feelings and people come in and out of our lives and we cannot change that with anything we do. When reading The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton you get told a story about the hardships of teens living in “the hood”. It brings light to what they go through to protect themselves and their loved
Now that we have seen the shortcomings of two popular views of violence, Coady proposes his positive account; namely, that we ought to adopt a restricted definition. He begins with a dictionary definition (physical force with intent to damage/injure another), but he then observes that this is too restrictive and that we ought to include some psychological considerations. A restricted definition, Coady argues, is less morally loaded than the other two views given that it allows us to call an act a violent one without being committed (at least not as committed as the other views) to a certain ethical
Arendt, Hannah. On Violence. San Diego, New York and London: Harcourt, Brace & Co. 1970
For the purpose of this essay it must be stated that in relation to the discussions of violence that reference is made not to individual or interpersonal act of violence such as domestic violence. But rather violence which is structured into society, in a way in which to organise, make change and influence society through either legitimate or illegitimate force, such as state violence, military violence, riot and protest. In the time that Arendt was writing On Violence (1970) evidence of all these forms of violence were heavily taking place, in the forms of the fallout from the Vietnam war, Anti-Colonial struggles of the then third world, immensely violent student revolts within Europe and the United States, the invasion of Cambodia at the hands of the United States and most notably the Cold war which involved the nuclear stand-off betw...
These questions appear to be open-ended, provoking the reader to interpret and answer them on their own; they serve a purpose. They cause us to think, to look at things in ways which are new to us. So, just as Marie Umutesi and Susan Griffin pose questions in their writing, so shall I. I am going to take their questions and incorporate them into one overall question: Where does violence stem from and who is involved and why?
For my March book I read the book Speechless by Hannah Harrington. This book is about a girl who loves drama and tends to cause it. However, one night at a party, Chelsea witnesses something and ends up telling her friends. This causes a boy to be beaten in a gas station parking lot to the point of hospitalization. After she learns of this, she takes a vow of silence, vowing to never speak again due to the trouble she caused. Throughout this book we witness a theme much like chapter 11 of Thomas C. Foster's book How to Read Literature like a Professor. In this chapter, Foster talks about how violence can be symbolic and how it can effect characters for a long time. In Speechless, violence is symbolic for a rebirth, renewal and hatred.
Dating back to Biblical times, violence and hate is nothing outlandishly new for humans. Violence is the primitivity of our nature and it runs fiery through human’s veins but is suppressed by longings for a collective society. Violence is alive and well, but it stalks waiting to come rushing forth in bursting outcry. It practices dormancy until it is awakened, awakened by other violence. Violence can only go forward, pushing into motion other violence. Which in reactions, catalysts even more violence. The past pushes forward the present, just as past atrocities allow for current violence. Violence is cause and effect in its nature, and in fiction and in real life, this can be observed. In the fictional novel, Dawn by Elie Wiesel violence is used in the response to the past.
On the other hand, people think that people are violent because of their genes or as some people call it the “warrior gene” .which is when you are born with that violent gene. I think this statement is 100% wrong because when a baby is born the child doesn't think: okay when I start walking i'm going to get a gun and shoot someone. In the article “Violence does not come naturally to men and boys” it states that from primatologists to evolutionary anthropologists, we know that neither woman nor men are killers be nature.
Violence has been recorded down in our history from the dawn of time; it seems that in the past, violence was the answer for all disputes. Though time has progressed, “violence has been in decline … and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species’ time on earth” (Pinker). This decline in violence helps illustrate that mankind has been able to change, by dealing with conflicts in a peaceful manner, for violence is now not the first option to deal with issues. This turnaround also shows an evolution in mankind’s thinking process and ethics. Mankind now has understood value in living; thus, this has allowed for peace to play an integral part in society’s culture today.
This line is spoken by a character played by Steven Segal in the movie Hard to Kill, a movie remarkably similar to every other motion picture Segal has ever touched, and depressingly reflective of a larger cultural trend. In Segal’s movies, characters with names like “Orin Boyd” and “Nico Toscani” boast body counts and a shared insatiable thirst for vengeance. Death becomes a prop employed to dispatch central characters, and a cycle of one-upmanship ensues – we saw Segal rip someone’s throat out in Under Siege, so the next movie has to be more ridiculous in its sheer level of violence to be marketable. In 1999, it came as no real shock to viewers when Segal’s character stabbed a Nazi sympathizer in the neck with a broken wine glass. The reality is that technology gives us the means to transmit images and messages of unparalleled intensity, and as we do that, reality is recursively recreated. As artists and media moguls say less, they attempt to compensate through force, resulting in a constant barrage of deafening sound that amounts to nothing more than noise or visuals so gaudy and exaggerated that the thin shreds of meaning behind them are utterly lost. In this context, death is watered down until it becomes comfortably palpable. Theatres full of families cheer when the hero shoots the bad guy in an action movie, but it never crosses a single mind that a murder has taken place. Viewers wear expressions of smug satisfaction when a crooked lawyer is double-crossed, but the underlying web of lies fazes nobody. In this context, authors have to shout over the noise to communicate the true evils that float between humans. There is no longer ...
For example, in Ursula K. Le Guin’s “The Wife’s Story”, the narrator displayed hostility toward a stranger in fear that “the man would kill [her] children if it could” (9). In cases where people resort to aggressive acts, rejecting these forms of expression would be considered self-defense. Being cautious towards ferocious behaviours, as a result, would enhance safety within a community. According to the History.com’s article “9/11 Attacks”, extremists initiated a tragedy that resulted in “a total of 2,996 people...killed”. Some beliefs, such as the terrorists’, spur violence and corruption within society. Thus, in the best interest of society, people should cautiously tolerate differences to prevent the endangerment of a community. Ultimately, rejecting violent forms of expression promote security and balance within
(36) The first part of the Morality Lectures 1995, given by Arendt at New School, was published as "Some Questions of Moral Philosophy." In Social Research, Vol. 61, No. 4 (Winter 1994), pp. 739-64. The other three parts remain unpublished as "Some Questions of Moral Philosophy". Morality Lectures 1965, New School for Social Research, Hannah Arendt's Papers, The Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, container 45. We will take the following systematic: 'Some Questions of Moral Philosophy I' for the part published and 'Some Questions of Moral Philosophy II' for the unpublished one. This quotation is in 'Some Questions of Moral Philosophy II' 024633.
In his lecture, primatologist Robert Sapolsky explains the uniqueness of humans as well as our similarities to other primates. In doing so, he broke it down into six points of interest: aggression, theory of mind, the golden rule, empathy, pleasure in anticipation and gratification postponement, and lastly, culture. Professor Sapolsky approaches each point with interesting fact-based examples thus allowing me to gain insight on humans and other primates. Sapolsky’s knowledge of primates along with his scientific background allows him to make a clear argument that one cannot simply ignore.
‘On violence’ was an essay written by German-American Hannah Arendt (14 October 1906 – 4 December 1975). Arendt was a political philosopher, prolific in the 1960’s, she mainly covered topics revolving around totalitarianism, patriarchy and politics. The essay ‘on violence’ explored views of violence, strength, authority, power and force. Through the essay, she aimed to clarify and distinguish the afore-mentioned points, and create an understanding of them. She aimed to break down the theory in philosophical and academic terms; something she strongly felt was not adequately done at the time. (Arendt, 1972)
QUESTION ONE: Hannah Arendt argues for a crucial distinction between politics, which she takes to be the realm of speech, conversation and debate, and violence, which she suggests is ‘speechless’. Others we have studied this term propose something different – that politics and violence are inseparable, and that one invariably entails the other. With direct reference to at least one of the authors considered in Theories of Conflict and Violence, consider the relationship between politics and violence. Hannah Arendt was one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. After witnessing the atrocities of both World Wars and the worldwide tension during the Cold War, no concepts or theoretical understandings of the crimes and events that occurred were developed, inciting Arendt to comment on political violence.