Aggression Violence And War Philosophy Essay

The issue of terrorism and victimization should initially be viewed from two primary causes inherent in human nature and the human psyche, aggression and violence. The concept of aggression can be defined etymologically accordance with the interpretative dictionary of Oxford University as follows: hostile or violent behavior or attitude. It is that behavior that is intended to harm or even, according to Albert Bandura (1973) to injure or destroy personal property. Aggression comes from a psychobiological process of human biology and the brain. According to empirical research, the types of aggression can be divided into two categories, physical and functional and psychological or emotional aggression.

More generally, psychology and psychoanalysis explores the aggression because of a series of socio-historical data, which is directly connected to human behavior. Human aggression is an important social phenomenon, as the human species is one of the few species that exist on Earth who systematically kill members of the same species. Also, the study of aggression continues after daily incidents of crime, namely murder flooding the media. Finally, recording a huge number of wars in human history is an important parameter for the investigation of aggression. Moreover, war is a generalized form of aggression, derived from the human psyche.

In particular, psychoviologika both violence and aggression are in the human nature. It is that innate and instinctive. The Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) in the essay Beyond the principle of Glory (1920) review the previous theory, that dreams and symptoms are the result of fulfilling desires and produced when sought pleasure and avoided when any dissatisfaction. Also, consider the pleasure and dissatisfaction secondary functions and that all psychic phenomena are subject to the operation of the ¨ Death ¨, hence the enormisi death. In accordance with the prior approval of aggression was an obvious situation which functioned as an intermediary capacity come into play to serve the principle of pleasure or displeasure, or even to create a set of behaviors to use to remove any obstacle to sources of pleasure or any discontent. Freud, however, to make the assumption the death ¨ ¨, as enormisi death has brought researchers to understand the concept of aggression as a separate enormisi. The internal mental confrontational situation was now seen as a competition incentives created during the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of displeasure. This confrontational situation investigating the effect of a fundamental competition between Eros and Death, the enormisi that life or the creation and enormisi death or destruction, libido and aggression.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

Ten years after the publication of Beyond the pleasure principle, Freud in 1930 in the book culture as a source of unhappiness (Das Unbehagen in der Kultur) back the question of ¨ ¨ death and refers to the destructive power that exists and develops within the man, manifested in violence against another person or against their own self. Specifically, enormisi death in relation to human existence and human behavior has two aspects. These parameters are essentially conflictual forces vent often with excessive force. The first when the ¨ Death ¨ introversive are the consequences to the person having an internal catastrophic and disruptive nature. In this case, suicide phenomena occur and other facts that are disastrous for the same person. But in the second case, ie when the force is outward, the violent nature of not only convert a proliferation of violence and an internal source of impulse to remodeling within the social context that it occurs. So, according to an analysis of Freud people are capable of extremely cruel and violent actions. On the other hand, the Konrad Lorenz (1903-1989) in his book On Aggression (1966) by adopting the theory of Darwin concerning evolution and the principle of survival, considered the ¨ fighting instinct ¨ is an important factor in the development and course essential to human survival.

 On the other hand, following the behavioral approaches, any behavior, including aggression, can be taught through strengthened. The Albert Bandura in his book The theory of social learning (1977) states that all social behavior can be taught initially through direct experience where the person is directly rewarded for his conduct, and secondly, through indirect experience as the person is taught through a substitution. They say behavioral models through which people act as mimics of these models. The Albert Bandura proevike a series of surveys using children who saw an adult who viaiopragouse against a doll. The result of this investigation was that aggressive behavior can be taught both directly and indirectly when learned can be generalized in other contexts and at different times. Alongside this there is another factor that increases the tendency to manifest a hostility, frustration (Dollard, J., LW Doob and NE Miller, 1939). So even a subjective experience of frustration is likely to express aggression. Because the perception of deprivation is directly related to previous acquisitions, or where an isolated group of individuals than other groups, may be led to conduct rollover of the current situation.

The main source of human capacity to generate force is the mechanism that combines frustration and aggression. Key disappointment need not lead to violence but it works in some people motivated to increase their expectations. Thus, the rage and anger caused by frustration, is a force that acts as an incentive that leads the person to aggression regardless of any function as a mediating tool. Thus, the disappointment is even greater during a strong synaisthitikes transitions, it is almost certain that the aggression will occur. The frustration-aggression mechanism to that effect is so powerful in proportion to the law of gravity, as reported by Ted Robert Gurr in his book Why men rebel (1970:37), and the frustrated person has an innate desire to produce violence proportional to the intensity of frustration, just as objects attract each other in direct proportion to their masses and inversely proportional to their distance. A sequence of other variables affect the way people behave, and articles in the following cases: for individuals, their opinions, their inhibitions and social environment and the objects in the gravitational field, their actions, shaping and properties of the medium in which they operate. But it seems even less feasible shorthand to refer to political violence without mentioning the attributes of people going for violence ().

Thus, Gurr has created a comprehensive theory of collective political violence based entirely in a case concerning the issue of frustration and aggression. According to this theory Gurr linking the concept of frustration in socio-political in the sense of deprivation and its following “actors’ perception of discrepancy between their value expectations and their value capacities. Value expectations are the goods and conditions of life to which people believe they are rightfully entitled. Value capabilities are the goods and conditions they think they are capable of getting and keeping “. The first case of Gurr, which is a fundamental factor in the rest of the book is that the potential for a collective violence largely varies in intensity and in the viewing of a relative deprivation among members of a collectivity (Ted Robert Gurr 1970 : p.24). Basically, the Gurr not looking to find a complete and objective evidence of deprivation as the source of political violence.

At this point we have to consider the phenomena of violence and conflict and are implementing aggressive. Moreover, the phenomenon of violence will focus on the violence of war philosophy to clarify the content in a social context within which it develops. Etymologically, the violence is a behavior that involves the use of force to be hurt, to destroy or kill. So, according to the contents of the confrontational behavior as aggression, as reported above, the phenomenon of violence need to be seen in the general form as the starting point is the aforementioned psychobiological state of human nature.

The philosophical approach to the war has many parameters to investigate. Initially, according to the interpretative dictionary of Oxford University, the war is a situation of armed conflict between nations, states or armed groups and an ongoing struggle between rivals or campaign against something undesirable. According to Alexander Moseley in his book The Philosophy of War (2002) the concept of war is examined as to the etymology of the word, the causes of the rise, the link with human nature and finally the moral personality. Initially, to determine the meaning of war must be designated parties that can manage and to participate in it. Thus the definition of the concept of war is often the perceptions of those who define the issue in a broader socio-political philosophy.

However the definition is limited to a eterokathorismeni confrontational situation between nations, states or ideologies. Therefore, the deterministic identification with the free will is a way to explain the causes of conflicts between nations and states. That is, when acts of individuals not subject to any sense of discipline and control deterministic then the war is wrong and can not be avoided. On the other hand, if the individual chooses the war then the causes of conduct derived from endogenous and exogenous factors such as human biology, the cultural context in which it develops and the rational capacity. So mind taking the matter under consideration in this research, the confrontational behavior based on relationship between human nature and war, terrorism or war. However, the ethics of military conflict varies because of the complexity of the justification issue, as the war has been the subject of research and reporting from Plato to modern philosophers. However, there are three points of which will be analyzed below, through which it will explore the ethics of war: Realism, ton pacifism under the doctrine of just war. Thus the evolutionary version of the war, philosophy outside of the parties involved, namely the military and civilian, will be presented through the prism of the substantive aspects regarding the location, time and the means of attack. It also plays an important role and ideological context in which a war. In this way the philosophical analysis is of more practical nature, combining the moral side of the ideological war with the nature of violence.

So starting with the definition of war and social violence as a social phenomena make sense, according to the reports of war and political theory both in consciousness and a philosophical level. In ancient Greek drama the concepts of war and violence, whether State or generalized conflict played an important role. In the comedy of Aristophanes, Peace (2004) is the god of war as war and conflict in Prometheus Bound (Mark Griffith 1983) Aeschylus personalized presents the concepts of state power in the State and violent behavior with violence. On the other Plato refers to the state of civil war and the art of war. Cicero in his book De Officiis (Marcus Tullius Cicero, I, XI (34), 1913) defines war as follows: ‘if a rule concerning external relations, the rights of war must be strictly observed. Since there are two ways to resolve a dispute: first, the debate and the second with physical violence since the first is characteristic of man, the second animal-like, should not resort to violence only if we can not invoke the debate ‘.

Even Hugo Groton (1583-1645) in his book On the Law of War and Peace (1901: p, 3) states that ¨ the war is a state of warring factions and as such is well ¨ and ¨ The word war means a state of incidents, which may exist even when the functions are then ¨ (1901: III, chap. 21, p, 324). Then, for Diderot (1713-1784) ¨ war is a product of the depravity of human beings is a convulsive and violent sickness of the body politic ¨ (Jacques André Naigeon 1821: p 65). For historical and theoretical militarism, Carl Philipp Gottlieb von Clausewitz (1780-1831) in his book On War “War is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our desire” (Carl von Clausewitz, 1982 : p, 14). On the other hand, war and politics, for Clausewitz, did not differ in their understanding of the purpose they serve a state. Therefore, the war co-exist and function together with militarism and politics. There is a difference in the definition of war. As mentioned above, according to the explanation given by the explanatory dictionary of Oxford University say that war is a situation of armed conflict between nations, states or armed groups and an ongoing struggle between rivals or campaign against something undesirable, Clausewitz’s view of the contrary.

This contradiction lies in the fact that Clausewitz believes that war and a strong political theory concerns only the State, because the conflict is the expression of this political activity. Of course, the most rational and realistic view on a political level is the interpretation which regards war as an armed conflict between states, nations or the duration of the conflict. Moreover, politically there is widespread state or ethnic conflict failing the first declaration of war. About referred to the Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) the Social Contract with mathematical precision and a more naturalistic style “o war composing a relationship between things, and not between individuals: and, as the situation of war can result from simple personal relationships, only the actual relationships, personal war, or war man with man, can not be naturalistic or where there is no fixed property, or the welfare state, where everything is under the authority of law “and becomes a concluded that “war is a relationship, not between man to man, but among state to state, and those enemies are random, not as people, nor even as citizens but as soldiers: not as members of their country but as defenders of “(Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 2008: p, 19-20).

Apart from the socio-interpretation of the war which has historical roots, there is a more metaphysical. Heraclitus (c. 540-c. 480 BC) called the “father of all war and all the king; and sometimes appears as a god, sometimes like a man? Sometimes enslaving, and other releases” (Heraclitus, 1981, LXXXIII, p, 67 ). The nature of war is subject to a metaphysical rotation as in all affected by the confrontational nature of the universe. All this confrontational situation that exists in the laws of nature and natural phenomena described by Voltaire (1694-1778) in the Philosophical Dictionary “Famine, the plague, and war are the three most famous ingredients of this lower world” (Voltaire 1765: p, 319) “All animals are perpetually at war; every species is born to devour another … Air, earth and the waters, are fields of destruction” (Voltaire 1843: vol.2, p, 578).

The explanatory dictionary of Oxford University with additional explanation on the definition of war, check the metaphysical nature of the concept which addresses both Heraclitus and Voltaire.

Exploring, then the question of such widespread violence should seek the causes of war as a deterministic phenomenon and as a product of free will of man. Bearing in mind the premise of Alexander Moseley in A Philosophy of War, that the person is not entirely free to choose his actions, which is a strong part of determinism, war takes the form of unavoidable reality of the world which man is to contest. In this case, the range of concepts is large, both by those who consider warfare a necessity and an unavoidable fact and of those who consider the war and an inevitable solution, nevertheless believe that the person is able to minimize the damage caused. Thus, the person can not be held responsible for their actions and therefore disclaims all liability for any conflict. On the other hand, a weaker form of determinism, man is shaped by the environment within which developed and be able himself to create. In this respect, human behavior is quite complex when there are forces such as enormisi death mentioned above, prompting the man in the war.

The reference to the free will of individuals, war is the result of human selection and thus bears the ultimate responsibility. But behind this lies a politically structured event directly related to the nature of selection that determines the behavior of individuals in confrontational behavior. The nature of this trend involves causation in political philosophy and the person involved in the decision of government or military power to declare war. Here is the moral issue of engagement of the individual, ie the extent to which the citizen is responsible for the war. In this case the cause of the war looking for the primary factor leading to conflict or is an individual or group that manages power. The question here takes a narrative form to the officer sought a declaration of war and the legitimacy of the process. That is, whether a declaration of war reflects the will of the people and the consensus of this decision and if the people remain unaffected or manipulated in such decisions.