On Killing By Dave Grossman Summary

Humans are drawn to acts of a primal nature. Raw, passionate, and vastly entertaining; primal instincts have always been at the root of human behavior. Archeologists say that the first humans were found with spearheads embedded in their ribcage. Mankind’s curiosity will always be sparked by the thought of bloodshed. Just look at the entertainment we as a species hold most dear; violent action films, movies about war, videogames based solely on the concept of killing the opponent, the list in never-ending. The fascination around violent acts is understandable. Since the invention of society, the act of killing another human has been frowned upon by the rest of society. The contrast of the acts of violence to the norms of everyday life are hard

“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.

Instinctivist theories on human aggressiveness often promote the notion that warfare is in the nature of humankind and therefore cannot be prevented. However Margaret Mead eloquently refuted this idea in her renowned essay Warfare: an Invention – Not a Biological Necessity. Mead states, “War is inevitable unless we change our social system and outlaw classes, the struggle for power, and possessions; and in the event of our success warfare would disappear, as a symptom vanishes when the disease is cured.” Through this statement Mead makes it clear that because aggression and subsequently warfare is a learned invention, it can be avoided. For the purposes of this essay, aggression will be defined as “a response that delivers noxious stimuli to another organism.” This essay will outline how and why aggression, and thus warfare, is not biological and is rather a behaviour that is learned as a reaction to social stimuli. Furthermore, it will be explained that violence is used by societies as a political weapon to achieve ostensible objectives.

Homicide always will be an aspect of life, whether it is in the 16th century, 21st century or in the future. At times of extreme stress, people may turn to murder as an outlet of a greater problem they cannot fix or control. Presently, homicide has a greater value in society due to popular culture references through the media such as television, film and writing; society constantly has homicide and murder in the subconscious. In David M. Buss’ findings in The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind is Designed to Kill,

Many studies have been conducted to determine the reason otherwise nonviolent people can commit vehement actions against another human: otherwise innocent people have proven to be capable of the most unimaginable of acts after being caught up in their actions. Maxine Kumin’s poem, “Woodchucks,” indirectly addresses this issue by presenting a metaphor of a woodchuck infestation being controlled by a fanatical hunter. The poem can either be interpreted to recount a simple, meaningless woodchuck hunt or to serve as a representation of the manners by which people can be overcome by desires for violence. Though a reader might at first overlook the violent genocidal references throughout the poem, after a thorough analysis

In the pursuit of safety, acceptance, and the public good, many atrocities have been committed in places such as Abu Ghraib and My Lai, where simple, generally harmless people became the wiling torturers and murderers of innocent people. Many claim to have just been following orders, which illustrates a disturbing trend in both the modern military and modern societies as a whole; when forced into an obedient mindset, many normal and everyday people can become tools of destruction and sorrow, uncaringly inflicting pain and death upon the innocent.

Plot is defined as, "the authors arrangement of incidents in a story it is the organizing principle that controls the controls the order of events (Meyer,64)." The element of plot is heavily relied on in the short story, "The Killings" by Andre Dubus. The plot which is completely made inside the imagination of an author (Meyer,64), gives the audience important insight to people, places, and events in the story (Meyer,64) . "The Killings" provides a somewhat conventional plot pattern, where the character is confronted with a problem and is then led into a climax, which late leads to the resolution of the story (Meyer,65). The conventional plot is easy to follow and serves as a basis for movies and other

The short story “The Death of Dolgushov” by Isaak Babel is a gut wrenching story, at times literally, about the dilemmas of killing. Babel, a master of the short story, challenges readers’ morality by contrasting two soldiers plights. On the one hand, a soldier, Dolgushov, pleads that he has “had it (241),” meaning that he wants his comrade to kill him after being mortally wounded by machine gun fire; while on the other hand, another soldier, unnamed, cannot bring himself to kill Dolgushov. Throughout the story, war is depicted as a game until a soldier gets seriously hurt. This device, combined with the vivid imagery associated with both soldier’s plights, complicates how readers’ judge the act of killing and war in general.

In this TEDTalk, Steven Pinker introduced an interesting trend in societal violence. The talk began by presenting fax that showed a dramatic decrease in the amount of violent crime beginning as far back as the earliest human hunter-gatherers. In many places during that time period, the chances of dying at the hands of another human were as high is sixty percent. Although the media and people tend to believe we are living in a time of extreme violence, we are actually living during one of the most peaceful times in human history. Even though the 20th Century witnessed tragedies such as the Holocaust, Rwanda, Stalin’s mass executions, and two World Wars, the chances of a human by violent means was less than three percent.

Deceased philosopher Bertrand Russell once said, “War does not determine who is right- only who is left”. Those left are the soldiers of the 1-502nd, specifically Bravo Company 1st plt, and the Janabi family and to a greater extent, the ever-changing global world we all live in today. The tragic events that conspired in a small Iraqi village became a microcosm of how leadership failures at every level shaped the actions of a few soldiers who committed atrocious acts. One can also see how a high operational tempo, along with prolonged violence and death, has on a person’s psyche. It is the ugly side of war that the average American citizen may not want to hear or talk about. For a soldier, it is inevitably what they train their

Violence and war is notable throughout history. However, it is lazy to say that this proves humans are naturally violent. Rather than using nature as an excuse for those who chose to act violently it’s important we recognize that we have a choice to decide how we act. In Howard Zinn’s, “Violence and Human Nature” He shows that violence is not an instinct but that the environment in which they live in provokes them to act violently or peacefully depending on their choice (43). In City of God, a film concentrating on the gangs of Rio de Janeiro during the 1960’s to the 1980’s, specifically the township of Cidade de Deus, we are introduced to various characters who all make different choices under different motivations. Rocket, the little brother to a member of the Tender Trio, who are essentially the Robin Hood’s of the City of God, to act non-violently despite his environment and the influences around him.

Violence is a key feature in human interactions and has a long and profoundly complicated history in our species (Bocquentin and Bar-Yosef 2004; Kelly 2000; Martin and Harrod 2015; Schmidt and Schröder 2001 after Pérez 2016). This issue always intrigued researchers of many different disciplines, among others bioarchaeologists, paleopathologists, and forensic anthropologists (Pfeiffer, 2016; Martin, Harrod, 2015). It has been noticed the rapid growth literature on this matter as well as the matter of warfare, in particular, over the last decade (quotation needed). The most common definition of the violence is that it is a behaviour that includes physical force and aim to harm, hurt or kill something/someone. Social sciences often add psychological,

As a citizen of the United States, I am part of an institution that has been, and is currently, killing people. Whether or not all or some of these killings are ethically defensible is a difficult question to answer and most people simply never confront the issue. I will evaluate literature on the topic, identify the different justifications for killing in time of war and decide if they legitimize our actions. After describing some compelling arguments, I will defend my own position that pacifism is the only ideal which mankind should embrace.

Our office's contract will go up for re-bid in 2015. In order to ensure that we have done everything possible to better position ourselves for the upcoming re-bid, upper management has asked me to review.” They want to determine if the book would be a good tool to recommend for our managers as we try shift efforts on slimming our cost and preparation for a new contract. “Execution” is a management guide that prides itself on grooming managers to focus on production, results, and finally accomplishments. Overall, it was a quick and dirty book that was very direct. It has some great ideas to consider, especially for people who have little experience with management. However if upper management does decide to recommend

2. There are different theories that seek to explain why humans still fight in war. Some of the individual, state and global level theories of conflict are based on: Human Nature or Individual Leaders, States’ Internal characteristics, and Global Level System (Turetzky lec 11). Human Nature arguments for the causes of war are based in Sigmund Freud idea that “aggression is simply part of human nature that stems from humans’ genetic programming and psychological makeup.” Realists also “argue that violence is a product of bad human nature” and that there is not anything to eliminate this bad human habit. I believe that it is true that humans’ nature is composed with an instinct of violence (War). However, society has a lot to do with the expansion of this bad habit. Today aggression is embedded in everything, which enforces our acceptance and practice of violence. Obviously, as realists argue, it is almost impossible to eliminate this bad habit from human nature. In contrast, the individual Leader arguments blame the state leaders for wars. However, we can’t blame a country’s leader for war. The author Stoessinger, stated in his book that a state head’s perceptions are decisive in war (Stoessinger 65). I believe that a leader’s