The Decline of Violence

[Gumby]

And on top of that, the entire idea of "free will" isn't something that's ever been proven — it's just a concept that philosophers have used to explain a Homocentrist viewpoint.

Likewise, morality isn't something that only humans have. Many animals have degrees of morality.

So, if one's entire world view rests on a Homocentrist viewpoint, where only humans have morality and "free will" it's easy to poke holes in that viewpoint. It doesn't necessarily make it wrong, it just means that it probably needs rethinking.

[Kshartle]

The reason I brought up animals is because KShartle said...

The idea that humans will always use force against other humans....this is the one where I have yet to see an argument that isn't fallacious.

I responded by saying...

...This idea that humans could live in a world without violence seems more than a bit of a stretch in terms of our evolutionary history.

Humans are primates of the family Hominidae. We are primates that just happen to have larger brains, with more neurons than our primate cousins. Nevertheless, we are still primates. All primates exhibit violence amongst one another.

To which KShartle replied...

Incidently, humans and gorillas are not the same, just similar. The biggest difference is the critical one. Free will. We are in control of ourselves. Nature controls the gorilla. They have no concept of what is moral and immoral.

Some humans might always choose violence to solve their problems, in fact I agree they will, but it's not because they're primates

Unless I'm misunderstanding him, KShartle's entire world view — property, responsibility, "free will", etc. — appears to be all based on a Homocentrist idea that animals have no control over themselves and have no concept of fairness or morality — so that's why they exhibit violence and that's why we deserve to own their property, etc.

It's not entirely true though. Violence is a part of our evolutionary history. And these animals very much understand concepts such as, "attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group".

All I did was show him that his assertion isn't completely true. So, now he is backtracking and saying that animals aren't important. Sure they are! If animals understand these "human" concepts that KShartle wrongly assumed they had no knowledge of, they shouldn't have a tendency towards violence according to KShartle (if I understand him correctly). And yet, they do.

Keep in mind that Moda showed a video of a chimp that exhibited violence when he was given unequal pay.

None of that is relavent to whether or not humans own themselves. Even if all animals dissapeared it doesn't affect the argument for human self-ownership.

You stated that humans will always be violent because we are similiar to gorillas and they will always be violent.
Now I agreed that some humans will always be violent, just not because they are similar to gorillas. Humans choose to be violent, so it's tied to the choice, not the genetic similarity with gorillas.

I'm saying your statement is not supportable......but please go ahead and try, maybe I'll learn something. Explain how we will always be violent because gorillas are. If I don't respond it's not neccessarily because I think you're onto something. Quite the opposite. If you come up with something really compelling I will definately respond with thanks.

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

All you would have to do is admit that your argument has some solid inductive qualities, but is not deductive, and that there are a lot of grey areas that make it not deductive, and we'd be about a million times closer to agreeing with each other.

That, or lay out your case, with definitions, in deductive logic format.

Please, for everyone's sake. We might just finally realize you're right.

It might be inductive, but it's about as inductive as me knowing I'm responding back and forth with a human and not a simulation like the matrix....imo

I'll give it another shot.

Can you agree that just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's false?
Can you agree that something isn't false just because it's not proven?
Can you agree that the existance of grey does not mean there is no black and white?

Ok so now we've moved to the realm of inductive logic. Now observations and grey areas are huge contributors to the conversation.

Thanks for admitting it's not deductive logic and that we can't prove morality.

If something is a fact, it can be true or false, but if something is an opinion, then we can disagree. Facts aren't matters of agreement or disagreement, they are a matter of either correct, incorrect, or we simply don't know. (Remember, I'm not disagreeing with most of your statements, but simply stating that there are complications and moral dilemmas that make this shit pert' near impossible to analyze objectively with perfect logic).

I agree that something isn't necessarily false just because it's unproven.

I agree that grey areas do not eliminate clearly black/white areas.

[Kshartle]

Whether it's true or not is irrelevant to the test that IF it is true, we have some questions to ask about sovereignty of animals as well. 

Ok. If animals own themselves, and have rights.....then there are other questions and implications. This is a different topic though....and one I'm not interested in. It doesn't mean it's not interesting or you shouldn't have it....just not with me and certainly not until we nail down the human stuff. We don't need the added complexity.

[Gumby]

I'm saying your statement is not supportable......but please go ahead and try, maybe I'll learn something. Explain how we will always be violent because gorillas are. If I don't respond it's not neccessarily because I think you're onto something. Quite the opposite. If you come up with something really compelling I will definately respond with thanks.

I'm simply saying that many animals — including primates — are violent. It was in response to your suggestion that we could live in a world without violence because we are human — and somehow that should make us immune to urges of violence. But your assertion isn't supported by evolutionary behavior, which shows that all primates exhibit violence towards one another over concepts that are the building blocks of morality.

So, we put it on you to prove why human violence is so much more special than primate violence to back up your assertion. You said it was because of "free will", which is basically a Homocentrist concept that might not even exist as far as we know.

[Kshartle]

I'm saying your statement is not supportable......but please go ahead and try, maybe I'll learn something. Explain how we will always be violent because gorillas are. If I don't respond it's not neccessarily because I think you're onto something. Quite the opposite. If you come up with something really compelling I will definately respond with thanks.

I'm simply saying that many animals — including primates — are violent. It was in response to your suggestion that we could live in a world without violence because we are human — and somehow that makes us immune to violence.

You are jumping me into a conclusion I didn't make (immunity to violence). I've said that humans choose violence....or force against other humans. The fact that it's a choice and not an irrefutable law of nature like gravity means (in theory), we could have a world without it. No I don't think this will ever be the case, but for reasons other than impossibility. We can live those principles and teach those principles and the result will be the near complete dissapearance of the problems stemming from the use of the force. This will also mean government ceases since it's really just the ultimate expression of using violence and force to solve problems. But it's just a symptom of the larger problem.

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

Animal sovereignty would have HUGE implications on our ability to make claims agains the earth, hunt, farm, etc, so keep this in mind when you say this is a separate issue...

Most people here agree with you on the "specialness" of people and most moral ideals.

Most people disagree with you on the simplicity to fit these moral ideals into a deductive logical framework.

Trying to do so has made you impossible to debate (and I mean that in a very different way than when people say Gumby is impossible to debate) .

You accept nothing but your One Truth and any action outside of that is immoral because you've proven the One Truth and this goes against your One Truth.

Most of us AGREE with you on individual sovereignty being an ideal, but even if you can develop a single moral truth... Even if this shit WAS deductive, we are still in a moral dilemma by being put on a rock together, and if animals have any degree of self ownership, the moral dilemma just got a lot more difficult.

[Mountaineer]

Premise: Humans own themselves so no one has a right to force them

Bonus conclusion: I'm fine with the Christian worldview or any world view as long as you don't violate the top premise.

I'm not sure if I agree with your premise.  Something tells me it is not correct but I can't put my finger on it.  I believe that God is in charge of all; does that mean God "owns" me?  I do believe he created me via my biological parents.  Does that mean He "owns" me?  I don't think anyone on earth that I am aware of "owns" me.  I don't fully buy the concept of self-ownership.  I do think I am accountable for my actions in the horizontal realm to the civil authorities.  So, after that long winded ramble, I think I am accountable for abiding by the rules of those in charge (civil authority) of the horizontal realm and He that is in charge of all (God); in case of conflict, I must be accountable to God and suffer the consequences in the horizontal realm if I have violated civil laws by following God's guidance.

... Mountaineer

[Libertarian666]

There are grey areas like babies but I've gone over and over why a baby can't be disposed of like an animal but it never sticks or the claim is made I haven't addressed it.

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.

[Mountaineer]

There are grey areas like babies but I've gone over and over why a baby can't be disposed of like an animal but it never sticks or the claim is made I haven't addressed it.

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

[Kshartle]

Premise: Humans own themselves so no one has a right to force them

Bonus conclusion: I'm fine with the Christian worldview or any world view as long as you don't violate the top premise.

I'm not sure if I agree with your premise.  Something tells me it is not correct but I can't put my finger on it.  I believe that God is in charge of all; does that mean God "owns" me?  I do believe he created me via my biological parents.  Does that mean He "owns" me?  I don't think anyone on earth that I am aware of "owns" me.  I don't fully buy the concept of self-ownership. 

Mountaineer........my premise has been getting debating for about 28 pages now

What part of owning yourself do you not agree with? Is it God? I know we hit on this already, probably on page 10-20. I might cruise though and look for the arguments. I think they were decent.

[Pointedstick]

Honestly at this point we should really discuss these things this in multiple separate topics. This thread is getting humongous.

[Mountaineer]

Premise: Humans own themselves so no one has a right to force them

Bonus conclusion: I'm fine with the Christian worldview or any world view as long as you don't violate the top premise.

I'm not sure if I agree with your premise.  Something tells me it is not correct but I can't put my finger on it.  I believe that God is in charge of all; does that mean God "owns" me?  I do believe he created me via my biological parents.  Does that mean He "owns" me?  I don't think anyone on earth that I am aware of "owns" me.  I don't fully buy the concept of self-ownership. 

Mountaineer........my premise has been getting debating for about 28 pages now

What part of owning yourself do you not agree with? Is it God? I know we hit on this already, probably on page 10-20. I might cruise though and look for the arguments. I think they were decent.

My screen only shows 12 pages.  I wonder if I have missed stuff or if page numbering is up to the platform one uses to read the electronic rendition of our thoughts? 

[Kshartle]

Honestly at this point we should really discuss these things this in multiple separate topics. This thread is getting humongous.

That's why everytime a bunny trail pops up I point it out. It's not to be mean....it's to stay on target.

If you're referring to the original target......it's like native American ownership of the land. Maybe it's important to know what happened..but it's so far in the past we can't do anything about that now 

[Kshartle]

Human's initiating force against other humans is wrong. It's wrong because we own ourselves and have a right to ourselves.

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?

[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