ANSWERS: 15
  • i think you asked a very confusing question. would you mind dumbing it down for me?
  • Even a natural boxer needs training to fight better than his opponent.
  • I'm not sure what Darwin said about our "nature to kill," but military training just makes people more effective killers. Many people with no military training have killed.
  • In case the question was too confusing, and I realize it is, I didn't have enough space-here is an elaboration; --I tried wording it better by editing, but here goes-Darwin thinks that violence and the will to kill our fellow man is human nature-survival of the fittest and all that, the main cog of evolution-some people argue this by asking that, if it's true, then why do we need things like military training in order to "learn" how to kill? I'm asking what people think about both sides of the arguments.--
  • We are all born with the natural ability to kill. It's crucial for our survival. Military training dosen't teach us how to kill. It hones our abilities to do so.
  • We don't learn to kill with military training. Humans were killing before military existed. We need the military to kill more effectively, in groups, using the specific weapons the military at the time uses. Military makes you disciplined and effective, not a killer. You can kill with no training what-so-ever.
  • Ridiculous assumption by people. Ex: Little kids know how to fight. They can bite, kick, scratch, punch. But can they do it effectively? No. If they take martial arts class, then they can learn the proper way to punch, thus making it more effective. Same concept in military. You need the training to be able to do it effectively. Stupid argument on their part.
  • I think it's a matter of practice makes perfect. If I understood you.
  • Animals kill, other than for food, only when they are very angry. Military training makes you better, but it also encourages one to kill through ideology ---in some cases brain washing. Think about the child soldiers. Of course there is the idea of the possible Homo Sapian Sapian vs Neaderthal race war, though that debate continues.
    • mushroom
      I doubt it was a war of rampage as much as a war of attrition. Scorched earth and all that.
  • I would point out to those who disagree with Darwin that many predatory animals take their young out to hunt with them in order to develop them into better killers. Obviously we do not kill other human beings for food, but even animals born to kill must be taught by those more experienced how to do it more efficiently and with minimal damage to one's self.
  • 1) "Critics of evolution have argued that "survival of the fittest" provides a justification for behaviour that undermines moral standards by letting the strong set standards of justice to the detriment of the weak. However, any use of evolutionary descriptions to set moral standards would be a naturalistic fallacy (or more specifically the is-ought problem), as prescriptive, moral statements cannot be derived from purely descriptive premises. Describing how things are does not imply that things ought to be that way. It is also simplistic to suggest that evolutionary "survival of the fittest" implies treating the weak badly, as social behaviour cooperating with others and treating them well improves evolutionary fitness. It has also been claimed that "the survival of the fittest" theory in biology was interpreted by late 19th century capitalists as "an ethical precept that sanctioned cutthroat economic competition" and led to "social Darwinism" which allegedly glorified laissez-faire economics, war and racism. However these ideas predate and commonly contradict Darwin's ideas, and indeed their proponents rarely invoked Darwin in support, while commonly claiming justification from religion and Horatio Alger mythology. The term "social Darwinism" referring to capitalist ideologies was introduced as a term of abuse by Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought published in 1944. When used as a criticism of Darwin's theory of evolution, this claim is also an example of the appeal to consequences fallacy – even if the concept of survival of the fittest was used as a justification for violence in human society, this has no effect on the truth of the theory of evolution by natural selection in the natural world." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest#.22Survival_of_the_fittest.22_and_morality Further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism 2) "Homo homini lupus is a latin phrase meaning "man is a wolf to man." First attested in Plautus' Asinaria ("lupus est homo homini"), the sentence was drawn on by Thomas Hobbes when he wrote "Man to Man is an arrant Wolfe" in the opening line of the De cive, Epistola dedicatoria section of Leviathan as a concise expression of his view of human nature. The phrase is sometimes translated as "man is man's wolf", which can be interpreted to mean that men prey upon other men. It is widely referenced when discussing the horrors of which humans are capable." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus 3) The further development of Evolution theory has show that human, and even animal evolution can works with various other mechanisms. "In the science of ethology (the study of behavior), and more generally in the study of social evolution, altruism refers to behavior by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing the fitness of the actor. Research in evolutionary theory has been applied to social behaviour, including altruism. Some animal altruistic behaviour is explained by kin selection." "When apparent altruism is not between kin, it may be based on reciprocity." "Researchers on alleged altruist behaviours among animals have been ideologically opposed to the social darwinist concept of the "survival of the fittest", under the name of "survival of the nicest" — the latter being globally compatible, however, with darwinist' theory of evolution." "Recent developments in game theory (look into ultimatum game) have provided some explanations for apparent altruism, as have traditional evolutionary analyses. Among the proposed mechanisms are: - Behavioural manipulation (for example, by certain parasites that can alter the behavior of the host) - Bounded rationality (for example, Herbert Simon) - Conscience - Kin selection including eusociality (see also "The Selfish Gene") - Memes (by influencing behavior to favour their own spread, for example, religion) - Reciprocal altruism, mutual aid - Sexual selection, in particular, the Handicap principle - Reciprocity (social psychology) - Indirect reciprocity (for example, reputation) - Strong reciprocity - Pseudo-reciprocity" Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals
  • not sure what to think
  • Military training just makes you a more efficient killer, among other things.
  • What theory are you referring to? Stupidity exists at many levels!
  • So you are suggesting that military combat training should not be necessary if killing is part of human nature. It is not logical to assume that because something is human nature (or not) it is naturally done at the pinnacle of efficiency and training will not be effective to make it more efficient. The question is a non sequitur.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy