31.738
Bearbeitungen
Homicide in the Context of Killing (USP): Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Homicide in the Context of Killing (USP) (Quelltext anzeigen)
Version vom 21. April 2018, 04:25 Uhr
, 04:25, 21. Apr. 2018keine Bearbeitungszusammenfassung
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
||
| Zeile 32: | Zeile 32: | ||
5. Genocide is not foreign to the human species. It can be seen as specific kind of coalitionary intergroup aggression that occurs when attackers are able to kill at high gain and low cost to themselves. Alexander Georgiev: "Consider, for example, the situation of the European colonial armies that first encountered the local populations in America, Africa, Asia, or Australia. The benefits of using violent aggression against the indigenous populations were enormous: taking away their land, their possessions, and even their people to use as slaves. The costs of the colonists’ aggression were minimal: armed with rifles, they could quickly kill large numbers of indigenous individuals at little or no physical risk to themselves. Moreover, the indigenous populations looked different and spoke a different language; it must have been quite easy for the colonists to find a psychological, political, historical, or religious justification for their violence, without suffering any consequences. These unusually high benefit/cost ratios for violent aggression against people from other countries are rare or nonexistent in animals, which may explain why large-scale aggression toward conspecifics is absent in animals, with the possible exception of chimpanzees and some species of ants and termites that stage wars against other colonies, destroying or taking away their resources and enslaving the workers." | 5. Genocide is not foreign to the human species. It can be seen as specific kind of coalitionary intergroup aggression that occurs when attackers are able to kill at high gain and low cost to themselves. Alexander Georgiev: "Consider, for example, the situation of the European colonial armies that first encountered the local populations in America, Africa, Asia, or Australia. The benefits of using violent aggression against the indigenous populations were enormous: taking away their land, their possessions, and even their people to use as slaves. The costs of the colonists’ aggression were minimal: armed with rifles, they could quickly kill large numbers of indigenous individuals at little or no physical risk to themselves. Moreover, the indigenous populations looked different and spoke a different language; it must have been quite easy for the colonists to find a psychological, political, historical, or religious justification for their violence, without suffering any consequences. These unusually high benefit/cost ratios for violent aggression against people from other countries are rare or nonexistent in animals, which may explain why large-scale aggression toward conspecifics is absent in animals, with the possible exception of chimpanzees and some species of ants and termites that stage wars against other colonies, destroying or taking away their resources and enslaving the workers." | ||
'''An evolutionary perspective on killing''' | |||
From an evolutionary perspective, animals compete over key resources, and in group-living species groups of the same species also compete over access to resources for reproductive benefits. While aggression is commonly not lethal, species with fission-fusion grouping dynamics (which create imablances between groups), tend to show more lethal violance. This is because killings tend to occur when (numerical) advantage enables attackers to kill at low cost to themselves. Evolutionary history of intense intergroup aggression selected for psychological mechanisms such as parochial altruism and xenophobia. Reproductive benefits from intergroup aggression are high in humans, but primarily accrue to males. Human patterns of warfare, especially risk-taking, require private incentives or sanctions to solve the collective action problem. This is especially true for humans, and within human groups it is more common in cultures with greater risk-taking and elaborate cultural institutions and complex social organization. In more recent evolutionary times, variation in war practices reflects cultural group selection. Features of more successful groups spread within and between populations. Warfare can enable the rise of ultrasocial normals and complex societies. Groups that contain more individuals willing to behave altruistically towards in-group members, and act parochially towards outgroup members may achieve greater evolutionary success in warfare driving the evolution of human parochial altruism. Self-sacrificial behaviour in war is thus associated with improved group outcomes. Not all animals kill also members of their own kind, but the human animal does. In that sense we humans are "bad". But we are not the worst. A study published in the journal Nature found modern humans to be pretty dangerous, killing each other at a rate of about 13 in 1,000. At least we're not the worst. That title goes to, surprise, the meerkat. "Almost one in five meerkats, mostly youngsters, lose their lives at the paws and jaws of their own kind (José María Gómez et al. 2016). The meerkats were followed by two types of monkeys and assorted lemurs. The New Zealand sea lion, long-tailed marmot, lion, branded mongoose, and grey wolf round out the top 11. Not surprisingly, violence was more common among mammals who share territory than among loners like bats and whales. | |||
On the other hand, killings of humans by humans are not an immutable feature of all members and collectives of humans. Much depends on the environment (Maori vs. Moriori). | On the other hand, killings of humans by humans are not an immutable feature of all members and collectives of humans. Much depends on the environment (Maori vs. Moriori). | ||
| Zeile 38: | Zeile 41: | ||
According to Steven Pinker (2011), the big picture is that of the human animal becoming more civilized - less violent towards cospecifics - by the millenia and by the centuries, so that we are now living in the most peaceful era of human existence since Adam and Eve. | According to Steven Pinker (2011), the big picture is that of the human animal becoming more civilized - less violent towards cospecifics - by the millenia and by the centuries, so that we are now living in the most peaceful era of human existence since Adam and Eve. | ||
Early humans killed each other at a rate of about 20 in 1,000, but got more violent during the Middle Ages when the rate shot up to 120 in 1,000. After studying 600 human populations from the Stone Age to the present day, the researchers concluded that "lethal violence is part of our evolutionary history but not carved in stone in ‘our genes,’” lead author Jose Maria Gomez tells the Guardian. Levels of violence are influenced by societal pressures and have "decreased significantly in the contemporary age," says Gomez. - Still, the study published in the journal Nature found modern humans to be pretty dangerous, killing each other at a rate of about 13 in 1,000. "Our study suggests that the level of lethal violence is reversible and can increase or decrease as a consequence of some ecological, social, or cultural factors," says Gomez. (A study found early humans may have killed off real-life hobbits.) | |||
*Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny. Robert Wright. The evidence for convergences in cultural form and dynamics across the globe provides a persuasive catalog to suggest that for all its richness and diversity humankind is on a trajectory toward a common goal. The next stage of human history is here, with the globalization of trade and communication. That is history's destination. The road ahead may be bumpy (to put it mildly), and the tensions of rabid nationalism and environmental perturbation are to some extent intangibles. They may divert, delay or postpone the onward march, but even in the medium term the outlook is rosy. No more extremely bloody wars like WWI and WWII. | *Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny. Robert Wright. The evidence for convergences in cultural form and dynamics across the globe provides a persuasive catalog to suggest that for all its richness and diversity humankind is on a trajectory toward a common goal. The next stage of human history is here, with the globalization of trade and communication. That is history's destination. The road ahead may be bumpy (to put it mildly), and the tensions of rabid nationalism and environmental perturbation are to some extent intangibles. They may divert, delay or postpone the onward march, but even in the medium term the outlook is rosy. No more extremely bloody wars like WWI and WWII. | ||
| Zeile 97: | Zeile 102: | ||
see: [[Töten und Nicht-Töten]] | see: [[Töten und Nicht-Töten]] | ||
Normally, though, societies do not show this degree of respect for life in general. So the reason of singling out murder as an extremely reprehensible act must be found somewhere else, and not in the high value of life as such. | Normally, though, societies do not show this degree of respect for life in general. So the reason of singling out murder as an extremely reprehensible act must be found somewhere else, and not in the high value of life as such. '''A cool observers' perspective on killing''' | ||
A cool observer might be surprised to see that things are not quite what they seem, though. The observer may start with the assumption that human societies are rather peaceful and non-violent, because they have this double safeguard against killings: for one thing, there is the religious taboo - "Thou shalt not kill" - very strong, very clear, and quite intimidating; and then there is the legal prohibition to kill, similarly strong, clear, and intimidating, considering that the sanction for violations of this norm are the most severe ones, and in some cases it is tit for tat - whoever kills must be killed. | |||
But how will a cool observer proceed? He will look at the exact meaning of the word "to kill", and she will then search for phenomena that fit this meaning. To kill, of course, means to put an end to the existence of an organism. We can kill humans, animals, and plants, not stones. We kill plants, like, e.g., trees, by chopping them to sell the wood and to make place for farm land, but we also kill plants by harvesting potatoes, cereals or other food-stuff. We kill animals mostly for producing food for us humans, and we kill humans for many reasons. We kill humans in self-defense and in anger, jealousy. We kill because of greed and hate, and sometimes people kill themselves. We also kill because we are told to do so, because we are members of a hierarchy, a cartel, a gang, a militia, a group of mercenaries, or regular soldiers. The most important reason, why people kill other people, is not deviance and non-conformity, it is not an anti-social personality disorder, but rather the contrary. The most important reason to kill is obedience. There are, of course, the so-called crimes of obedience (Kelman), but those only account for a minority of killings. Most killings are legal killings of obedience. From a legal point of view, they are not worth mentioning, because they are juridically unproblematic. From a cool observer's perspective, though, the legal killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians and of combatants in wars and civil strife is remarkable. | |||
Add to this the killing of animals in slaughterhouses and the killing of trees and plants, and find out that the human animal is not as peaceful as it seems, but that the position on top of the food chain means to be a killer. | |||
''' 4. The reason why homicide is seen as something exceptionally bad does not even lie in the fact that it is the killing of another human being - i.e. an intraspecies act of aggression''' | ''' 4. The reason why homicide is seen as something exceptionally bad does not even lie in the fact that it is the killing of another human being - i.e. an intraspecies act of aggression''' | ||
| Zeile 125: | Zeile 135: | ||
*Police can execute suspected drug dealers (and users) - Philippines | *Police can execute suspected drug dealers (and users) - Philippines | ||
8. The decrease of homicides over the course of history (Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature) is an unquestionable fact. That is a good sign. Pinker's stages and causes. | |||
'''A legal perspective on killing''' | |||
Starting from the legal perspective on killing we find the law-abiding citizen who does not pose a legal problem, at least not in criminal law, and we find the disobedient citizen who violates a law by either negligence or intent or error of judgment and whom the law tries to lead back on the right track - if necessary, by some more or less benevolent sanctions. He might also be a denizen or a non-citizen or an outright enemy bent on destroying the community. In his case, the sanctions might be really severe punishments designed to incapacitate the offender and to neutralize or eliminate the danger flowing from him. | Starting from the legal perspective on killing we find the law-abiding citizen who does not pose a legal problem, at least not in criminal law, and we find the disobedient citizen who violates a law by either negligence or intent or error of judgment and whom the law tries to lead back on the right track - if necessary, by some more or less benevolent sanctions. He might also be a denizen or a non-citizen or an outright enemy bent on destroying the community. In his case, the sanctions might be really severe punishments designed to incapacitate the offender and to neutralize or eliminate the danger flowing from him. | ||
| Zeile 143: | Zeile 148: | ||
To a certain extent, we are all jurists, and we all believe that most people observe not only the letter of the law, when it comes to killing, but also the 5th commandment: Thou shalt not kill. | To a certain extent, we are all jurists, and we all believe that most people observe not only the letter of the law, when it comes to killing, but also the 5th commandment: Thou shalt not kill. | ||