Violence Caused By Morality

[beso]

"WHY would anyone hurt you? Why would you hurt or kill someone else? Contrary to popular perception, people are rarely violent simply because they lose control and fail to think about right and wrong. They rarely commit violence because they lack empathy and fail to see their victims as fully human. And almost no one is violent because they draw sadistic pleasure from the suffering of others.

"Across cultures and history, there is generally one motive for hurting or killing: people are violent because it feels like the right thing to do. They feel morally obliged to do it.

"Loss of control, lack of empathy, dehumanisation, self-interest: these are factors that help facilitate violence, but none of them account for the motives underlying most acts of violence. When people impulsively lash out, on the whole they don't simply lash out randomly."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429973.000-most-violence-arises-from-morality-not-the-lack-of-it.html

I am not a subscriber so I can't read the whole story but you get the idea.

What do you think?

[Baldric]

^^^Blooming Italics!!!!!

[TWR]

I did not lower myself to that person's level Ummmm

Long story Baldric, I had the D.M. Involved with this, but the witch talked her way out of kit, but she is well known within the Job.

[atalanta]

You can probably read the rest of the article in the local Public Library.
But I do wish the New Scientist would distinguish between male and female psychologies when they publish articles like this. For instance, how many of Milgram's subjects were women ? It is extraordinarily difficult to find out whether a mix of people were tested, or ( as usual) only men.

[mibn2cweus]

In my experience, a vast chasm lies between what is and what some individual might choose to believe is moral behaviour in a particular situation, between what is truly just and what someone might offer to themselves as justification for their actions . . . or what evidence one might present to support an assertion that NS is in any way, shape or form an authority of what constitutes morality or moral behaviour.

[Old_Geezer]

It doesn't need to be an authority if it is merely reporting the results of a scientific investigation. That sort of concern is really only applicable to editorial comment and similar.

[PsychoBunny]

The authors are playing word-games in order to be controversial. We all know morals are frequently involved in violence.......In the case of "illegal" violence, the morals involved, if any, are incompatible with the social contract.

[Elina]

I'd say there are many different factors make a person violent. Mental illness, lack of nurturing/ boundaries, outside influences, drug/alcohol problems.

[Old_Geezer]

The article says morals are involved, and claims most violence is down to the perpetrator believing that the victim is deserving of the violence. That it is right, so no amount of penalty stops it. It isn't denying other, individual, antisocial violence occurs, merely that, that is the minority situation.

[solvitquick]

Morality is a philosophy which differs between societies.
Cannibalism whether accepted by the society or necessary after a plane-crash in the desert could well be morally justified.
Hurting or even killing animals etc., is necessary for survival of we carnivores. I don't know if vegans are ancestral, pre-carnivore, or a new approach to survival through empathy with animals-with-feelings (that is personally moral). So violence seems to be innate.
Not therefore surprising that this instinctive approach can be expressed in a the wider context of society by some. But here I believe it boils down to greed, and selishness. Those who hurt others either lack a moral code or embrace one which accepts it.
We then enter the world of "hurt". Physical or psychological? As a pure example I refer here to our current "non-physical violent" UK society. Generally good, of course. However I think children in school would be better off receiving the "cane" on the hand rather than teacher's punishing them psychologically - I know from a teaching friend that this happens: humiliation, exclusion from the class society etc.
I never impulsively lash out nor feel the need - but I know some do and don't understand why. It must be lack of thought of the conseqences which could be prison or, of course, amorality.
As for "lowering oneself to the level of the perpertrators", I think this is rubbish. I would bring back "the rope" and in respect of certain child-molesters or those who inflict torture and then murder others - and Yes, I Would pull the leaver! So I am capable of violence in the interests of others but that's back to morality just as are "just-wars".
SIQ.