Discuss evolutionary explanations of human aggression One evolutionary explanation of human aggression is infidelity and jealousy. This suggests that sexual jealousy is one of the main causes for aggression in humans. In the environment of evolutionary adaptation (EEA) our male ancestors would have feared cuckoldry (the reproductive cost that might be inflicted on a man as a result of his partner’s infidelity). It is suggested that such fear of investing in another man’s offspring lead to men adopting mate retention strategies. This is where males have evolved a number of strategies specifically for the purpose of keeping their mate, so that she does not copulate with another male.
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.
Pit bulls may attack often, but this may just be because they are trained to do so. People buy pit bulls because they want tough dogs that can attack and be violent, so the dogs are trained in a manner that promotes this. However, this quality is not inherent. If pit bulls were banned, dog owners who wanted dogs that could fight would just train another dog breed such as german shepherds to do the same thing. Therefore, banning pit bulls would make no progress.
For example the Scottish football teams, Celtic and Rangers, have introduced a movement to abandon the tradition of only hiring catholic players for their teams. Hungtingford suggests that non-human animals show aggression towards outsiders and attack with increasing force when defending territory. This has its human version in the displays of rugby teams prior to a match such as the Hakka dance that the New Zealand rugby team perform to scare their opponents). Aggressive displays would have been adaptive for our ancestors as they allowed groups to defend valuable resources associated with territory without endangering themselves and thus ensuring their survival, resulting in the gene being passed on through
2. According to the ASPCA Pit bulls have been bred to behave differently during a fight. They may not give warning before becoming aggressive, and they’re less likely to back down when clashing with an opponent. They were bred to fight and hurt other animals.
But, it emphasizes the cooperation of communities as a whole to become no-kill. Yes, this is an even larger aspect to tackle than simply just turning shelters away from the “dark side,” but it actually makes full sense once the article is read. The article basically states the same things as above about how no-kill shelters tend to inadvertently dump loads of left over animals onto other shelters for them to deal with: “[C]hoosing to be limited admission by limiting the number of animals you accept, then touting yourself as "no kill" while leaving other rescues to deal with the animals you didn't accept only divides the animal welfare community...which in the end is bad for the animals.” ("KC Dog Blog,"
Steinbock states that “Intelligence is thought to be a morally relevant capacity because of its relation to the capacity for moral responsibility”. In comparing the ideas of racism or sexism to speciecism, the lack of the capacity to be taught to own those rights as can be done in the divide between genders and races, appears to be a measure through which the capacity for rights are bestowed. Because a woman or an African American can be taught and can learn and have equal responses to situations and responsibilities, their rights should be equal to that of white men. But on the other hand, animals do not have the capacity to respond to the world as an equal to humans, therefore they are not subject to human morality or the rights that comes from
We will not make them suffer long painful deaths. Ethical treatment of animals can be solved using the deontology theory. “Deontology focuses on what we are obligated to do as rational moral agents. It is particularly important to see that the deontologist does not say that actions do not have consequences; rather, the deontologist insists that actions should not be evaluated on the basis of the action's consequences (Mossler, 2010).“ One example of the deontology theory in action is your livestock is being attacked by a wild animal. In efforts to protect your livestock you shoot and kill the wild animal.
A range of biological explanations for human aggression exists in psychology. One of these is the link between genetic factors and aggression. This explanation claims that aggressive behaviour is caused by the genetics passed down to a person and that certain genes predispose a person to be aggressive. This view has support from Sandberg (1961) who identified the XYY karyotype. This is an abnormality in the set of chromosomes found in men- instead of the normal 46 chromosomes men with the XYY gene will have 47.
-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