Going beyond the edge: violence

[Katsuni]

Let's assume, for a moment, that there's no social restrictions in play here. Let's assume that yeu're in a position where it would be considered GOOD to enact violence, cause harm to another person, and otherwise scar them long term, physically and/or emotionally. Let's assume further, that yeu enjoy it.

We all have our darker instincts, but where are they, and whot triggers them?

The question here, isn't whether yeu would torture or kill someone, but whot circumstances yeu feel would be great enough for yeu to feel it neccesary or enjoyable, or at the very least, satisfying, to do so?


Here's a few common examples:

- Death penalty to a criminal
- Torture for information retrieval
- Soldier killing another in a war
- Self defense
- Defense of a loved one
- Sacrifice someone yeu don't know for someone yeu care about
- Entertainment purposes (most of us aren't this cruel but never know =O )
- Sacrifice of one for the many
- Vengeance after someone yeu'd cared deeply about was injured/killed due to some act the one being tortured/killed (supposedly) did (may not have done so but yeu credit it to them with all yeur vindication)
- "justice" according to yeur personal moral code
- Nationalism
- Strong political belief against someone who opposes yeur belief system
- Strong religious belief against someone who opposes yeur belief system

These're just a few cases, but really, whot would it take to make yeu break? Alot? or just a little? If yeu were in a country where torture was considered a valid form of information extraction, would yeu take this as a job and enjoy going to work every day? Or would yeu need someone to threaten yeur children or other close loved ones to snap?

We all have a breaking point somewheres, and if we didn't have our social restrictions and things we learned growing up from parents, or other sources, our repression of our more base instincts would have less to break through.

So where do yeu draw the line as a whole, and where do yeu stop caring?

 

[Mole]

Let's assume, for a moment, that there's no social restrictions in play here. Let's assume that yeu're in a position where it would be considered GOOD to enact violence, cause harm to another person, and otherwise scar them long term, physically and/or emotionally. Let's assume further, that yeu enjoy it.

We all have our darker instincts, but where are they, and whot triggers them?

The question here, isn't whether yeu would torture or kill someone, but whot circumstances yeu feel would be great enough for yeu to feel it neccesary or enjoyable, or at the very least, satisfying, to do so?


Here's a few common examples:

- Death penalty to a criminal
- Torture for information retrieval
- Soldier killing another in a war
- Self defense
- Defense of a loved one
- Sacrifice someone yeu don't know for someone yeu care about
- Entertainment purposes (most of us aren't this cruel but never know =O )
- Sacrifice of one for the many
- Vengeance after someone yeu'd cared deeply about was injured/killed due to some act the one being tortured/killed (supposedly) did (may not have done so but yeu credit it to them with all yeur vindication)
- "justice" according to yeur personal moral code
- Nationalism
- Strong political belief against someone who opposes yeur belief system
- Strong religious belief against someone who opposes yeur belief system

These're just a few cases, but really, whot would it take to make yeu break? Alot? or just a little? If yeu were in a country where torture was considered a valid form of information extraction, would yeu take this as a job and enjoy going to work every day? Or would yeu need someone to threaten yeur children or other close loved ones to snap?

We all have a breaking point somewheres, and if we didn't have our social restrictions and things we learned growing up from parents, or other sources, our repression of our more base instincts would have less to break through.

So where do yeu draw the line as a whole, and where do yeu stop caring?

The line is clearly drawn in liberal democracies by the Common Law, and internationally, by the Universal Declaration of Human rights.

A few of us do commit offences under the Common Law and for a few this becomes habitual. In fact it becomes so habitual, career criminals are identified by their modus operandi.

This is reflected internationally where dictatorial countries offend against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And it is important to remember that the Universal Declaration was only signed in 1948. And this was preceded by the abolition of institutional slavery for the first time in human history by the House of Commons in 1833, followed by the emancipation of women in the the 20th Century, and in the last 20 years, the first prosecutions in the Criminal Courts for child sexual abuse.

Fortunately the reality is that very few of us 'break' or break the Common Law. And the best predictor of our future behaviour is our past behaviour. And this is entirely reflected in the Common Law, as the Common Law is based on Precedent, just as our very own behaviour is based on our own precedents.

 

[Katsuni]

Or yeu know... yeu could've said "If yeu want to see how people act in a situation they're allowed to, look back 200 years" which would've had about the same effect without the need for the same robust language and examples, therefore making it accessable to more people and so I wouldn't have to write this 'laymans' version for people to read after yeu to respond XD

Anyways, the point is fairly valid, fear keeps people in check, this's true. My point is moreso to test whot people would do to break under pressure; would they be willing to harm someone just because it's not against the law, or would they require excessively adverse situations to provoke such a response?

The past is a good indication that more than a few of us would do pretty horrific things if it wasn't illegal though... no matter how evolved we may like to think we are morally, we're really not, except for the gun against our collective head telling us not to.

 

[Fluffywolf]

I don't have a breaking point.

My social restrictions are not taught but self-applied.

PS: I do not and never have enjoyed harming other people, even if they deserve it.

 

[BerberElla]

The question here, isn't whether yeu would torture or kill someone, but whot circumstances yeu feel would be great enough for yeu to feel it neccesary or enjoyable, or at the very least, satisfying, to do so?

If they had tortured me physically or any of the family and friends I hold dear to me. Or they had hurt a child in the equal way, then I could more than enjoy what I am dishing out as revenge. Yes, it's revenge, and no I don't care for the difference between justice and revenge under those circumstances.

These're just a few cases, but really, whot would it take to make yeu break? Alot? or just a little? If yeu were in a country where torture was considered a valid form of information extraction, would yeu take this as a job and enjoy going to work every day? Or would yeu need someone to threaten yeur children or other close loved ones to snap?

I would need my children to be threatened to torture on command, but I would get no satisfaction from it and would always be looking for a way to turn the tables on those threatening to hurt my kids.

 

[Katsuni]

If they had tortured me physically or any of the family and friends I hold dear to me. Or they had hurt a child in the equal way, then I could more than enjoy what I am dishing out as revenge. Yes, it's revenge, and no I don't care for the difference between justice and revenge under those circumstances.




I would need my children to be threatened to torture on command, but I would get no satisfaction from it and would always be looking for a way to turn the tables on those threatening to hurt my kids.

As much as I'm sure most will try to deny, I think this's pretty much whot I'm looking for. It's not like "zomg yay I'm hurting someone!" but moreso along the lines of ""Hello. My Name Is Inigo Montoya. You Killed My Father. Prepare to die." Where under flawless circumstances, it would just seem 'right' to punish them, even if it may not be legally allowed, or especially if it were.

That being said, I respect yeur restraint in such matters, but would caution to be absolutely certain of yeur case before the retribution is applied; alot of pretty nasty things have happened because someone punished another for something they THOUGHT the other did... sadly our emotions cloud our judgment and make it hard to see evidence to the contrary at times though ;_;

Even so, such a high breaking point is rather admirable.


Myself, my breaking point in today's standards, and with how I've been raised so far, is one that I wouldn't be much better in many situations. If someone intentionally inflicted great harm on another simply because they found it amusing... there's no way to correct that behaviour any longer, they'll generally be stuck like that until the end of their days, and it's a waste to keep them in prison any longer. Irredeemable sadly... for example, there was a case where some guys put a live kitten on a hot BBQ... if someone did that in front of me, I seriously don't think they'd be alive for too much longer, and that I would feel no guilt for passing judgment in lieu of the law.

On a darker note though, despite that I am rather restrictive NOW, had I been raised in a situation where it was acceptable to harm or kill, I think I'd take alot of enjoyment in it sadly. It's bothered me for a long time, due to knowing better, but were I in a situation where say... torture and death were valid forms of information retrieval, I could sadly see myself being one of the most sadistic and cruel of torturers known, and would enjoy it. That thought kinda scares me now, since I can think my way around such now, but if I didn't have those values ingrained into me from birth, and pushed heavily away from that base nature, and further self restrictions applied after gaining that respect, I could easily see myself enjoying that as a job, and taking great pride in my work.

Which's primarily my reasoning for the posting; historically we know many people are like this. Allow people to stone someone to death, and many will join in eagerly. Many cry for blood after a crime, disproportionate to the crime committed... the list goes on indefinitely it seems, at times.

I've trained myself away from my basic instincts and recognize they exist, but how many people have failed to do so? How many only shy away from such because they're scared of retribution from the law, rather than like Fluffywolf or myself, who have developed over time our own understanding of our base problems and know how to control them (though I think he may either be exaggerating, not grasping the question, or is far better of a person than I am XD )? It's kinda scary when yeu think about it... the only way to truly solve a problem is to understand there is a problem in the first place, so many have gotten wrapped up in their own self glorification of being "better than animals" that we forget that we are, at our core, no better than animals ourselves; the primarily difference isn't art, and it isn't culture, it isn't tool use nor capacity for thought, but rather, our ability to suppress our instincts due to the situations we're presented in. If it's illegal to kill someone who has angered us, we can suppress the immediate desire to do so. This's the primary reason why we're better than animals, and those who break this, often aren't any better than such. Some instincts though, such as maternal and paternal, self preservation, and so on, are so deeply ingrained, that it's virtually impossible to override them, even with our morals, or our religion, or politics, or personal views, laws, or taboos.

In any case, it does make me wonder from time to time... how many people do not realize, or don't admit, to their base human instincts, and therefore don't strive to repress them in undesirable situations?