argument top image

Is violence always wrong?
Back to question

Humans are inherently violent

Human violence is not a contemporary concept, but it is deeply rooted in our ancient history. It has shaped our physical characteristics as well as our brain mechanisms. However, that doesn't mean people are allowed to be violent to each other without any cause.
Ethics Violence

The Argument

Wars between chimpanzee communities were first speculated in the 1970s, and theories were raised about how such conflicts occur and what they teach us about human violence. In ancient times, Richard Wrangham argues that human males showed the same capacity for violence and dominance as male chimpanzees. [1] Evidence from the early massacres sites shows that massive battles took place between people where mass graves with jumbles of shattered bones and pierced skulls were found. [2] Such theories and observations confirm that violence is not a wrong and right question but rather an innate act. Humans cannot avoid it, but humans can protect themselves from giving into violence by other coping mechanisms such as exercising, running, painting, any activities to divert their attention from committing violent acts.

Counter arguments

A biological anthropologist, Agustin Fuentes, argues that most people in the world aren't violent, so it is not correct to consider violence as an innate human trait. [3] According to documentation by Douglas Fry, 70 societies in the world don't contribute to war at all. There is no warfare or other sorts of extreme violence they take part in. [4] So violence cannot be excused by describing it as an innate trait, but rather should be avoided and prevented by humans for safety and peace.



Rejecting the premises


This page was last edited on Wednesday, 11 Nov 2020 at 15:19 UTC

Explore related arguments