Outline and evaluate evolutionary explanations of human aggression (infidelity and jealousy) [8+16 marks] The evolutionary theory states that a human’s main aims are to survive long enough to pass on their genes, and to ensure that those genes live on in their children. If the desire to achieve these goals is not met, or is threatened; humans can become aggressive. Evolutionary explanations can explain aggression in many ways, including infidelity and jealousy. In both males and females infidelity, whether it is real or imagined, causes jealousy and therefore aggression. The jealousy is seen by evolutionary psychologists as an adaptive response and it is therefore useful.
In a Deontology perspective this would be immoral because the player has violated the rules and standards of their contract. People want to follow rules to make moral decisions, but the reward may out way the consequence. Consequentialism is when a decision is made if the oneself feels that the action out ways the consequence. An athlete would think performing at the max for a year and getting the fame would be more important rather than the consequence; it could be the other way around also. When a player takes steroids he or she would rather take the risk for strength and skills, rather than worrying about future consequences.
-The interplay between heredity, biology, and the social environment provides the nexus for any realistic consideration of crime causation. • 2. What biological factors does this lesson suggest might substantially influence human aggression? -Like Charles Darwin in the nineteenth century, Konrad Lorenz in the twentieth century proposed that aggression is found throughout the animal kingdom and is also inherent in human beings. -Lorenz also claimed that instinct provides motivation and direction to human thought, and that humans value
The athletes are encountered with pressure that is unfair and high demand from the public which makes the decision between right and wrong harder for them and it is why Alex took steroids once they were offered. So Moller’s argument comes down to whether or not the blame are being put on the players. But since the decision lies in the players hands, the public affects their decision almost provoking it which shifts the blame to the public. Also Moller uses a logos argument to illustrate some players that were also cheating and the extent they were willing to gain an edge. Some of them were Sammy Sosa, Johnny Damon, Pete Rose and others.
Outline and evaluate the evolutionary explanation of group display The evolutionary explanation of xenophobia for group displays of aggression outlines how natural selection results in favourable genes that make people aggressive to people they do not understand. This would benefit early humanity as it would be far more beneficial to be over aggressive and deal with a threat than be under aggressive and die. Thus the more aggressive humans survived. Balestri et al looked at the behaviour of football crowds in Italy finding examples of xenophobic tendencies towards another team’s supporters and players. Group displays were identified through racist chants and anti-Semitic posters.
The phrase; “bred to kill” and “aggressive killer” are thrown around without hesitation from those that are not familiar with the breed. In the Pit Bull debate, the word "vicious" functions to vindicate the breed and cause a lot of negative reactions from the press and the general public, this aggression is nurtured and not innate. The fact that they are publicly ousted as a particularly fearsome breed doesn’t allow people to form their own opinions and forces them to feel afraid of them. Fear is a feeling of apprehension and a response that is both physiological and psychological, to the perception of danger or harm (Petersen 1996). When we hear of horror stories in the media our minds are made up for us without having an informed argument from both sides of the Pit Bull debate.
One of the biggest ethical issues in sports today is performance enhancing drugs. In order for one to decide whether or not the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports is ethical or unethical, one must know the definition of ethics, sport, and performance enhancing drugs. Ethics is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts such as good and bad, right and wrong, justice, and virtue. By definition sports are institutionalized competitive activities that involve rigorous physical exertion, or the use of relatively complex physical skills by participants motivated by internal and external rewards (Coakley 2008). Sports are supposed to teach ethics, honesty, health awareness, character, teamwork, and respect for rules and laws as well as respect for self and others.
Displacement of Aggression Aggression is a normal aspect of human behavior but if exhibited in excess or in an abnormal manner, it can be indication of psychological disturbance. Interestingly aggression may not always be demonstrated towards the source of frustration or insult; sometimes it can be directed at an innocent target. This is when aggression is called displaced aggression. Displaced Aggression: Discussion If a colleague recently lashed out at you when all you did was make a humble request, then you have just witnessed an episode of displaced aggression. Myers (2005), explains, “Displacement is the redirection of aggression to a target other than the source of frustration.
Part 1 Genetic modification has many negative impacts, one topic in particular that comes to mind are sports. Sports are one of the few things that are culturally accepted worldwide and introducing genetic modification can only be bad. The people, who are altered, could have major advantages in every sport you can imagine. If genetic modification were to go main stream, eventually, sports would be exclusive to the people who can afford to get altered. The players that cannot get modifications would have an automatic disadvantage no matter what they do.
“Institutional aggression” is a term which refers to the aggressive behaviour portrayed by groups sharing a common identity and aims, as a ploy to achieve personal or collective goals. This can range from physical abuse to acts designed to destroy national, racial or religious groups. Two explanations of this type of aggression are shown via The Importation and the Deprivation Models. The Importation Model was derived by Irwin and Cressey in 1962. It states that inmates, who enter prison with certain characteristics such as abnormal values, bad attitudes and a violent/aggressive personality, are more like to contribute in interpersonal violence than other inmates.