NATURE V NURTURE: IS THE HUMAN SPECIES NATURALLY VIOLENT?

Nature v Nurture: Is the human species naturally violent?

Nature v Nurture: Is the human species naturally violent?

Introduction

Humans are overwhelmed by Violence. Children acquire it in with their first taste of food grains. They will learn almost twenty thousand (20,000) aggressive killings on TV by the time they graduate from senior high school. They will observe physical barbarity in prime-time sports and acquire "bullets and bombs” create gridiron champions. They will listen their esteemed politicians assure them how come they require to begin a new warfare. They will be paddled by their nurtures and acquire that violent behaviour and peace go side by side. If it is not innate biologically, then aggression must be something people instruct (Kaufman, 2002).

Violent behaviour is fundamentally a representation of hostility. There are numerous definitions of violent behaviour, one of which is that violent behaviour or aggression is the employment of force - open or obscured - with the aim of getting from a human or a radical something they do not prefer to accept to freely (Bandura, et.al. 1961). Additionally, it must be observed that there are different forms of aggression. One must differentiate between direct and indirect or structural aggression. Direct aggression corresponds to physical aggression while collateral or structural aggression implies scarcity, victimisation, societal iniquity, no majority rule, and the likes of such things. In an aggressive state, of affairs, the parties involved in the dispute ascertain their economical and societal rights being breached as well as their civil and political rights. The short-run and long-run aftermaths of an aggressive dispute in terms of human rights offences are annihilating and impart deep marks in communities (Baumesiter, et al. 1996).

Considering that violent behaviour is part of the human development process is an over justification. It is not essential that everybody shows aggressive conduct. If mankind were aggressive by nature, our species would not have lasted for that long.

However, if we do extensive research, we will ascertain even more perplexing queries. Are our aggressive intents hidden deep inside us, anticipating the correct collection of conditions to come across? Or do we require determining aggressive conducts from other people? Do our societal groups restrain our aggressive inclinations, or do they nurture them?

Scientists who conduct research on human behaviours including ethologists, psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists have found difficulty in answering these queries. Humans are complicated species, and there is no simple clarification. Humans are adequate of believing their personal activities. They can contrive and meditate upon our efforts and are capable to doubt their personal needs and conceive the aftermaths of the affairs conducted by them.

Although all of humans could have the potential to be aggressive, they may merely practice violent behaviour under particular conditions. It is not difficult to conceive of two scenarios having the same set of individuals that effect in either reducing aggressive inclinations or adopting them. In the foremost scenario, among the specifying features of society is a static family structure. In the second scenario, the households inside the society lack constancy. One would likely imagine that the second scenario would be more disordered and aggressive. It would be nearly inconceivable and for sure dishonourable to execute such a test, but statistics of offenses appear to suggest that societies that ...