Humans are inherently violent

The argument

Wars between chimpanzee communities were first speculated about in the 1970s, and the theories raised then concerned both how such conflicts occur and what they teach us about human violence. The inference the argument draws is one of continuity. If organised, lethal aggression between groups is found in a species closely related to our own, it is unlikely to be a purely human invention produced by a particular culture, economy or political arrangement; it is more plausibly something older that both species carried forward. Richard Wrangham argues that in ancient times human males showed the same capacity for violence and dominance as male chimpanzees, which is the claim that makes the comparison load-bearing rather than merely suggestive. The archaeological record is offered as the second line of evidence, and it matters because it reaches back before the institutions usually blamed for violence existed. Evidence from early massacre sites shows that massive battles took place between people, with mass graves containing jumbles of shattered bones and pierced skulls. Violence of that scale, at that date, cannot be attributed to modern states, ideologies or weapons; it is present wherever people are found. Taken together, these theories and observations are held to confirm that violence is not a right and wrong question at all but an innate act — a disposition belonging to the species rather than a choice about which a verdict can be handed down. The practical conclusion is not resignation, however. Humans cannot avoid the disposition, but they can protect themselves from giving in to it by using other coping mechanisms: exercising, running, painting, or any activity that diverts their attention from committing violent acts. The argument is therefore that violence should be managed as a permanent feature of human nature rather than condemned as though it were an aberration.

Premises

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. 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. 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

[Rejecting P1] Chimpanzee intergroup conflict and archaeological massacre sites establish a capacity for organised violence, which nobody in this debate denies. Capacity is not compulsion, and the counter's point that documented societies exist without warfare shows the trait is not universally expressed. [Rejecting P2] The inference is a non sequitur, and the argument concedes as much: it says the impulse can be diverted into other activities, which presupposes the choice it denies. That something is natural also says nothing about whether it is wrong — the same reasoning would excuse any behaviour with an evolutionary story — so the premise cannot reach a conclusion about justification at all.