From: Solipsist9-AT-aol.com
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:22:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: why do we not kill?


In a message dated 97-04-11 02:05:34 EDT, lobster-AT-mail.utexas.edu (mitchell
wilson) writes:

<< no, you're the one who is asserting the extraordinary:  that our species
 killing one another is natural.  so the burden of proof is on you. 
 therefore, the question is not why do we not kill, but rather why do we
 kill.
 
 feral children were never homicidal maniacs, yet no social institutions
 had taught them not to kill.
 
 and, come on! first of all, you are muddying the waters between idioms,
 actualities and drives.  let me ask you:  have you ever REALLY wanted to
 kill someone?  i mean, have you ever wanted to pick up a hammer, and
 REALLY wanted to smash in someone's skull?  i don't believe that you
 have.  you mat have FRAMED you displeasure or aggression in those terms,
 as do little children and adults, neither of who literally mean what
 they say.  and the fact that some people HAVE killed does not mean that
 everyone WANTS to kill.  only a true psychopath WANTS to kill.  so
 saying that you "want to kill" someone or that people kill WHEN they
 assume that they HAVE to kill is not wanting, in a natural way, to
 kill.  
 
 and yes, there is an essential human nature:  that which we are engaging
 in right now.  let me ask you, could we communicate, as is our nature,
 were we to kill one another?  or do you simply not believe that humans
 are social creatures?  and if we are, which we are, then isn't killing
 when something has gone awry?  and if killing is part of being social,
 then asking why do we not kill is like asking why do we not rape?  or
 maybe you believe that to rape is natural too?
 
 well, i've picked on you for long enough.  and i'm looking forward to a
 response.
 
  >>

while this response was not addressed to me, i feel the need to reply. you
are relying on the supposed validity of many premises in your argument:
     
     a. killing is not natural
     b. no sane human has ever WANTED to kill someone
     c. only a psychopath wants to kill
     d. there is an essential human nature
     e. all human beings are social creatures
     f.  killing is essentially synonymous with rape.
 
it seems to me that the burden of proof is now in your hands.  humans are
animals. there are other animals whose "nature" includes the things you are
arguing against.  why do you assume that humans do not have those instincts
in there nature? if there is a human nature, is it not possible that we have
replaced that nature with a "social" nature or social instincts? society is
very possibly a human construction. to assume that how humans are today is
the realization of how they should be or are by "nature" (ideally or
actually), is a grand assumption about that supposed nature of human beings.
in fact, doesn't our theorizing about these matters automatically
predetermine our conclusions since we are part of a society?  just wondering.
john 
solipsist9-AT-aol.com