Killing: is it natural? (No spam)

[Chanak]

This issue came up in the Gun Control Debate thread, and since I have definite views on this subject, I thought it deserved its own thread (better to discuss that here than go off-topic in another thread ).

First, I'd say that "murder" is a uniquely human concept and invention, whereas killing other living things is common to predatory species of animals. I think there's a difference.

From a naturalist standpoint, killing is only "normal" in the case of predator vs. prey, and rarely in groups of social animals in the following scenarios:

We'll use chimpanzees as an example here (they were used in another thread, and will do an excellent job here). An outsider chimp may petition for acceptance into a group, and the chances are good that the outsider will be accepted if they are a female, and not so good if the outsider is a male. Reason being: the chimp social group is patriarchal. The dominant male will not tolerate any possible competition from the outside so it is rare that a petitioning male is accepted, unless he is very young. An outsider female will more than likely be accepted, but with the following stipulation: if she has young, they will likely be killed by the males of the group. In some cases an outsider female manages to spare the life of her young. In any case, if an outsider is not accepted, they will be chased off. I am not aware of outsiders being killed per se.

This phenomenon happens in other species with highly developed social order, such as wolves. The big difference with wolves: a group is dominated by both an alpha male and female, and sometimes, the alpha female will accept an applicant's pups, treating them as her own. If she does not accept them, she will certainly kill them. It is worth noting that an outsider female submits during this process and will not try to prevent her pups from being killed, nor from being taken and raised by the alpha female. She has become, after all, a member of the pack and demonstrates submission to the order of a pack. In a pack, only the alpha and beta wolves breed. Males also stand an equal chance of being accepted into a pack as a female. The same thing applies here in the case of a failed application by an outsider as it does with chimps: they just aren't accepted, and are chased off if needed. From what I understand, wolf packs are more inclined to accept outsiders since they suffer more deaths during the hunting of prey than, say, chimpanzees do (yes, chimps hunt). In Canada where wolves are natural predators of moose, the death of at least one hunter is very likely when they go after a healthy adult specimen (a moose - even a sick one - is a very dangerous animal).

Killing generally seems to happen in predictable patterns in nature: predator vs. prey, and social groups maintaining order. A curious anomaly occurs amongst some animals wherein a mother will kill her first brood as they are born. That is somewhat of a mystery. It's been observed in a number of species.

Killing is natural amongst lower forms of animals under certain cirumstances, but when it comes to humans - especially modern societies - I would defintely say it is not. I don't believe we are driven by impulse to perform fatal acts of violence, but herein lies the insidious nature of the human beast. The tools we create insulate us from the very acts of violence we perform. Pulling the trigger of a gun is different from an otherwise physically violent struggle. I believe it fosters the inclination to use lethal tools by introducing agents foreign to our natural instincts as they presently exist.

In my opinion, we are still gatherers and hunters from an instinct point of view. Imagine placing a creature accustomed to periods of feast and famine in front of a limitless banquet table. Naturally, the creature enters into a feasting period and will not stop eating until the food is gone...and if it never disappears, they will never stop eating. Dogs are an excellent subject for this illustration. In the wild, canines are able to gorge themselves on a huge amount of food when it is present. When you consider the fact that it might be quite a while before they come across a sizable food source again, you'll understand why this feast and famine mechanic exists. It's geared for survival in the rigors of nature. How many of us have seen obese dogs and cats? They're depressingly common in my country...just like obese humans.

Our own instincts are geared for survival in the natural world. When you place those instincts in the environment of civilization - where you never need be concerned with feast and famine, having to flee from predators or fight them, etc - problems will arise. Specifically, I think, in the out-of-control spiral of instinctual impulses and responses we read about. In nature, killing only happens frequently in predatory carnivores such as the great cats. Canines hunt as well, but unlike the cats they are omnivores and as such will eat whatever they come across as long as it is edible. They'll eat fruit, berries, and scavenge the kills of other animals. The apes - we are one of them - are omnivorous but primarily demonstrate gatherer sort of activities, with the occasional hunt for meat as demonstrated by chimpanzee groups hunting aboreal monkeys (I don't think gorillas hunt other animals as food, though I could be mistaken). In our own case, evidence that agriculture was responsible for the initial formation of human settlements (and thus the impetus for civilization) is a strong one. Agriculture is the gatherer taken to new heights by our brains.

The point of my post is not to prove something we already know, but rather to point out that killing is not a "natural" impulse in humans. Fight or flight is. The warping of instinct by the conscious and subconscious mind - and the dominance of conscious thought - is what happens. Humans are the only animals I know of that engage in premeditated killing, and wars. It is a conscious effort, something that arises from ways of thinking and from outlook, not something that occurs "naturally." A wolf pack does not attack another wolf pack. One group of chimps - even though they seem to demonstrate some behaviors disturbingly similar to our own - does not set out to attack another group.

I also want to comment on the discussion of "murder" and "killing" that arose in another thread, and figure this one is the perfect place for it. "Murder" is, by definition, taking the life of another human being unlawfully. It is a concept inexorably tied to civilization. Soldiers - while acting in the capacity as combatants in a conflict - do not commit murder so long as they act within the confines of said conflict and within the limitations of wartime conduct. Back during the 20th century certain things regarding conduct in war were agreed upon by a number of nations, and as long as a soldier acts in accordance with those agreements, he or she is immune to prosecution for murder. Yeah, there is big difference between a soldier killing an enemy soldier, or an unarmed civilian. One is acceptable conduct in a war, the other is not.

Not that I care for war at all. It is one of the greatest evils humans perform, and as far as I am concerned, should be one of the things we as a race strive to abolish completely.

[Lady Dragonfly]

Quote:

First, I'd say that "murder" is a uniquely human concept and invention, whereas killing other living things is common to predatory species of animals. I think there's a difference.

The difference between animals and humans is that humans have a sense of "moral laws" they developed over time. The evolution of moral ideas is very interesting and can be traced from the early savages up to present.
The word "murder", according to Webster, means:

1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b : something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

A person we generally call "civilized" is supposed to know right from wrong (as defined by a relevant society). My favorite Greeks defined the moral law as a social law enforced for the good of society (Plato), and as a concern for human welfare (Democritus).

However, there are so-called sociopaths (psychopaths) who are very egocentric, have a complete disregard for any social morals, and are devoid of conscience (antisocial personality disorder).

Quote:

The point of my post is not to prove something we already know, but rather to point out that killing is not a "natural" impulse in humans. Fight or flight is. The warping of instinct by the conscious and subconscious mind - and the dominance of conscious thought - is what happens.

I think aggressive behavior is a “fight” part of response to stress, physical violence being the extreme expression of aggression.
People can learn rationally restrain themselves and manage anger, but the physiologic shift in the body will still manifest itself. This inner turmoil is very harmful and should be relieved by physical exercise.

[Claudius]

There is no behavior that is 'natural' in the sense that it is permanent. All behaviors are dependent on causes and conditions coming together. When the cause and condition of a behavior changes then that behavior can be overcome. And mind has no fixed nature.

This applies to agression. Killing is an extreme of aggression.

"Our artificial man-made 'reality' is seen more and more as 'natural'. Will what we still call natural once be understood as artificial?"
Hans Taeger

[Magrus]

I thought I would shift this over here, I hope this appropriate? I thought it relevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grombag If you want to you can use anything as a weapon. Although I think that is true, I don't think you'll get a massacere of any kind. There are a couple of reasons for that. First you have to use alot of effort to actually kill somebody. You need alot of force to swing your textbook, or your pencil hard enough to do the right amount of damage. Plus the strugle that can come out of it. Furthermore you can't take on a large group, even if they won't fight back you have somebody running around calling "he got a knife, he got a knife". In this case panic isn't working in your favor, since you have to go and chase everyone around/ getting more large groups on you. As a last argument, here in the netherlands guns are not allowed. Until now nobody has been rampaging through the school with a box full of pencils (or be crazy and take a scissor). It also isn't the case nothing goes wrong here. There are cases known that troubled students hang themself.

What is unlikely isn't impossible. I was once surrounded by 6 kids and attacked. They had never been in a fight before, and given that I had multiple times, I put 5 of them down to the ground before one ran away. Should I have wished to do so and not stopped myself, I would have killed them, and probably before the parents who were alerted ever came to rush those teenagers to the hospital.

To clarify the "put 5 of them down" I mean that 3 were stuck in Intensive Care and had to be stabilized after reaching what was deemed "critical condition" by the staff there. At least one of those boys was likely to have ended up dead without medical care. They all had massive internal bleeding and broken limbs. The others got off with bruising bad enough to keep them out of school for a few days, save the 6 one who got away without my having struck him. I was under the belief the one who ran away was going to get more friends, and so I ran, knowing I was too injured to deal with more people, or to try to catch someone healthy who was running away. He really went to get his mother, who stupidly came to see what had happened before calling for an ambulance. Should I have made a different decision, I could probably have killed off at least 3 of those boys before he had come back with his mother.

Another example from my personal experiences was a 16 year old boy who was on the lock-down ward I was in who was being forced to take pills which were harmful to him. He refused, he was grabbed, and in the usual fashion, the nurses attempted to force the boy to swallow them before attempting to go to the costly alternative of holding him down and injecting him with a tranquilizer. The boy took offense to this, and snapped the nurses arm, then tore up the entire night crew. The head nurse was a man of about 6 feet 4 inches tall and probably close to 350 pounds. His back was broken when he tried to hold down the kid. This boy also dropped two security guards before they thought to bring tazers. The arrogance of those people in assuming a 16 year old wouldn't be capable of defending himself against grown adults cost them quite a bit of pain due to broken limbs.

During this incident, the boy (I shall call him "John" for clarity to avoid mixing up of pronouns) who was locked in his room two doors down heard what was going on, took the time to remove the bolts on his door and open it from the inside. I remember waking up due to the noise, and hearing the door next to me rattle, and then a few minutes later crash to the floor. "John" let me out after that, and we ended up being rushed back to our rooms as the security guards brought nurses up from another floor to drug the original boy. They then strapped him down to a bed. Had those security guards not gotten lucky with catching him with a tazer and stunned him, I do believe he would have continued to severely injure people until there weren't any more to go after him.

Humans are omnivores. They do have the instinct to kill if necessary. It is harder to kill and injure someone while unarmed. However, not impossible. Both incidents I listed occurred in under 10 minutes overall. I would estimate mine happening in roughly 5 minutes. They are rather extreme situations, unlike a standard brotherly brawl ending up in a split lip and bruises. However, someone with experience in trading blows eventually learns how to throw a punch for best effect, and what areas to hit to due the most damage.

Perhaps someone with military or martial training can back me up here? Even without sharp claws that natural predators such as a Tiger wields to deadly effect, humans can train themselves to wield their hands and feet to be deadly weapons. The ridge of someones hand can, with sufficient force and a well placed blow crush someones throat. I believe US Navy Seals and Marines are trained to do such things in a more detailed manner than standard soldiers, but I am not sure. Doing this would, should the attacker catch the defender unaware and do the strike properly, would smash the windpipe of the attacked and prevent them from shouting for help or making loud noises. Afterwards, a person with sufficient strength and using the right kind of leverage can grab the persons head, and twist the damaged neck in order to snap it. Chances are good that if no one comes through the area, no one would be paying attention to the area and therefore not hear the sounds this would cause.

Granted, a random person isn't likely to be able to do this. It takes someone who was trained, or has learned through trial and error. Yet, people do learn. I was never trained properly, but I learned enough of fighting unarmed in order to be able to nearly kill outright 3 people my own age and size who had no clue of how to fight.

As to whether it is natural or not? I believe it is. When push comes to shove, the thought process of "what species is trying to hurt me and is it considered murder if I do?" tends to leave your head rather rapidly when something is actively causing you great harm. Legalities dissolve into a flurry of instincts that come rushing forth. The first instinct, as Chanak mentioned, was to fight or run away. If running away ceases to be an option at the moment, other instincts take hold of the person. It takes a supreme amount of effort and self-control to switch back from kill mode once driven to it.

To expound on that, for those of you who haven't been pushed into a violent situation beyond the "civilized" norm... I found multiple levels of violent thought, depending on the urgency of the situations I have found myself in. Granted, these are the result of years of violent encounters in my life, so I should clarify that originally, my first reaction to violence breaking out as a young child was to run away and hide. After realizing that doesn't work in all violent situations, that changed to the following:

The first, was simply anger at my right to not being attacked being removed from my life. This generally lead to wanting to hurt the person badly enough they wouldn't want to do so ever again before wanting to be left alone. Similar to how a house cat will bite a person who snatches it up from a comfortable perch on a chair to be molested in the middle of a nap.

The second reaction was realizing that the person in question was probably going to truly injure me. This lead to seeking a way out of the area and away from the person first off. Along with a measured attempt to get out of the fight, to see if I would be followed. Sometimes the attacker doesn't really want a fight, and simply wants to be able to say they won, and you can leave. Other times, they'll jump on your back as you leave, which leaves you pretty much screwed in a fight against an opponent of your own size.

Third, once I pass the point of realizing that a simple bruising or running away won't solve things, it leads to the realization that the attacker in question really does want to hurt me. This results in the goal of incapacitating the person so he is unable to control his limbs in order to do so.

Fourth, some people don't just want to hurt you. Some pull weapons, and therefore risk the chance of killing you, if not injuring you in an extreme manner. Taking the time to trade a warning blow here could lead to them retaliating with a kill strike, or crippling you. In this case, you seek to incapacitate them immediately and in a manner that they are unable to strike with their weapon long enough so that you can reposition yourself and make the decision on whether to knock them out or kill them. Generally this leads to knocking the weapon aside and striking them in a way that obscures their vision, breaks their arm holding the weapon or knocks them to the ground directly afterwards.

Fifth, you have someone that is actively attempting to kill you. Someone is firing a gun, not just holding one, and it isn't at random, it is at you. This is an incredibly dangerous situation, and if you aren't in the position to retaliate with a good chance of success, your best option is to run. If cornered, your only option is to disarm them and remove their ability to use the weapon to attack you. If you are dealing with someone who is still attempting to kill you, even barehanded, then you've got a moral issue on whether you kill them first or hope you can best them in a fight.

[Magrus]

Continued from above:

Generally, I believe some martial arts train people to go through 4 steps? Those being Warn, Injure, Maim and Kill. Lumping the last two together. However, how do you judge what is "natural" for humans? If you go strictly by instincts, you lead to killing without self-defense coming into the picture occurring in order to ensure your survival and the survival of your family. Tribes of hunter/gatherer humans used to attack each other in order to drive other groups away from their food source. In the event resources in a particular area will only support 1 group of 50, and there are 3 such groups problems arise. If, it is possible to find other food sources and the people know there are other food sources, chances are good that the groups will fight a bit to see who leaves. If no other food sources are available, then only one group will survive, and therefore, the groups will fight over the food source.

Frankly, I am of the opinion the next major world war will not be for simple conquest. It's going to be a war in order to grasp the resources necessary for a civilization to survive. There aren't enough resources for everyone on the planet any. Sooner or later this will end up being a larger and larger problem, and the lawfulness of killing someone will cease to be a consideration. People will be forced to decide between starving in masses or killing others in order to consolidate food sources so only a few may survive. Greed will be replaced with survival instincts, and laws will be tossed to the side in favor of coupling natural instincts long repressed with modern intelligence.