Cat of Ice
I was asked to write a paper on this, and was wondering what you guys think. Don't worry, you are not doing my homework by replying. So are people born violent, or is it something we learn as we grow?
I am always fascinated by this discussion. This gets into philosophical thinkers such as Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and Shang Yang. Locke believed that humans are born a "blank slate," and their environment shapes who they become as individuals. He believed that humans are naturally social, and know right and wrong. Therefore, Locke theorized that humans are not born violent.
Hobbes, however, held a much more depressing idea of human morality. He believed that humans are not naturally social; they became social through necessity to remain well populated and this social interaction is forced upon by the hand of the state, and believed that human property is simply decided by the will of the state, and therefore violence is an inevitability of life; therefore, Hobbes theorized that humans are almost destined in a way to be violent creatures, and therefore it can be thought that Hobbes believed that humans were naturally violent.
Rousseau seemed to share a common belief with Locke, while sharing a common factor with Hobbes. While he theorized that humans are naturally good and are effect by society, he also believed that the state was the primary (if not only) cause of evil activities within mankind, thus sharing a common factor of evil with Hobbes. The general idea of Rousseau is that society forces man to be violent by morphing their moral philosophy from birth towards one of violence, such as encouraging fighting in wars for their monarchs. Therefore, it is safe to say that Rousseau theorized that humans are not naturally violent.
Shang Yang was a statesman of the Qin Dynasty of China. He founded a belief system known as Legalism. This idea, in as simply a way as can be put, states that humans are naturally evil and vile creatures, and, as such, must have strict and horrible laws and punishments put on their actions for them to be good. As such, Yang theorized that humans are naturally violent creatures, and, ironically enough, suggested violent punishments again them as a result, perhaps in a philosophical "eye for an eye" mentality.
Personally, I yield more towards Locke's theory on human nature. I therefore say that I believe that humans are naturally good, and know objective rights and wrongs when they are born, such as that is it wrong to be violent. However, this does not mean that all rights and wrongs are objective. While some things are objectively wrong in the eyes of society - like rape, murder, and ***** - some things are subjective - like my idea that killing in general, despite in self defense or not, is wrong, and that drug use of any form or anything else that can be life-threating should be permissible because it is your own body.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
That's my writing for the year.
sweatdrop