
A new book argues that violence laid the foundation for virtue - Hooke
https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/did-capital-punishment-create-morality
======
trabant00
As I grow older I found myself questioning more and more the absolute position
against any form of physical violence in modern society. Before you get angry
I really do mean questioning as in I don't know, not that I have a pro stance
on violence.

There are obvious and known problems with violence. But do we know that there
are no problems with the complete lack of violence as a way to impose
rule/discipline or to settle disputes? And what if (as with many other things)
the mode in which you apply violence is more important that the presence of
lack of it? And what I mean by that, when I was a child it was normal for
parents to slap children - a type of violence that does not harm but was quite
effective in settling some situations.

Maybe I could explain this better but I want to keep it short. And in general
it seems to me society is changing so fast that I ask myself if in some cases
we go against known negatives without really knowing the alternative
negatives. Even asking questions about some of those issues it not really
socially acceptable any more.

~~~
Buldak
Do we not have ample research by now as to the inefficacy and harms of
corporal punishment? What serious evidence is there on the other side?

It also strikes me as something of a bad joke to suggest that we might have
become uncritically prejudiced against violence given America's domestic gun
violence and foreign policy. Tolerance of violence is alive and well as far as
I can tell.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> What serious evidence is there on the other side?

I suspect that the sorry state of our schools are at least partly because it
is no longer possible to take a kid into the principal's office and paddle
them. There's no way to discipline a kid in a way that a kid who doesn't care
about school will still want to avoid.

Note well my choice of the word "suspect". I do not know of any solid evidence
one way or the other.

~~~
johnchristopher
> I suspect that the sorry state of our schools are at least partly because it
> is no longer possible to take a kid into the principal's office and paddle
> them.

Really ?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment_of_minors_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment_of_minors_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Corporal_punishment_in_the_United_States.svg)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
That surprises me. I had presumed that it was illegal everywhere.

I presume that it is still very rare, even where legal, for fear of lawsuits.

~~~
johnchristopher
[https://ocrdata.ed.gov/StateNationalEstimations/Estimations_...](https://ocrdata.ed.gov/StateNationalEstimations/Estimations_2013_14)
> Discipline, Harassment or Bullying, and Restraint and Seclusion > Corporal
punishment (It's a spreadsheet file).

That's 106,000 student receiving corporal punishment that year. Is that
considered very rare ?

Also, keep in mind it's still allowed in private schools from 48 states.

------
ineedasername
This sounds a lot like Nietzsche's Beyond Good & Evil. The entire book is
arguably about this very thing, the genesis of, and inextricable link between
Good, Bad, and Evil. And you don't need to look any further than the preface
to find this thesis laid bare:

 _It could even be possible that whatever gives value to those good and
honorable things has an incriminating link, bond, or tie to the very things
that look like their evil opposites_ [0]

[0] [https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Nietzsche-
Beyon...](https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Nietzsche-Beyond-Good-
and-Evil.pdf)

~~~
daseiner1
There’re definite similarities and heavy amounts of overlap with Nietzche’s
dueling dualities (heh) of Good/Bad (Master Morality) and Good/Evil (Slave
Morality), but this is at a much more primitive level – primates and pre-
language humans, while N spent significant time on the Classical eras.

I was surprised to see neither Nietzsche nor, especially, Foucault name-
checked in this article as the latter has written about similar ideas on the
significance of capital punishment in _Discipline and Punish_.

------
RobertoG
I find the theory compelling but I also think the way is expressed strange.
Maybe I'm missing something.

More than a "violence and virtue" history, it seems to me that the main point
is cooperation brings a positive feedback of more cooperation.

In my view, the killing of the "alpha males" is actually the killing of the
people unable to cooperate. The moment organized collaboration is possible,
the individuals that can cooperate will be stronger than the individual that
is unable to cooperate.

Not sure why this is not the stressed point in the explanation. Maybe it
doesn't make good titles.

~~~
treis
>I find the theory compelling but I also think the way is expressed strange.
Maybe I'm missing something.

There's an odd usage of alpha male. An alpha male is the one in charge and
with high status not the guy with a propensity towards reactive violence. I
hate the phrase, but "toxic masculinity" is a better way of phrasing what he
describes. You can see how it's useful for the Alpha male(s) and a group at
large. They can send them to war against neighbors and reap the spoils. It's
also convenient that their aggression drops off a cliff as they get older.
This ensures enough old men to control the younger ones and direct their
violence towards appropriate targets.

>In my view, the killing of the "alpha males" is actually the killing of the
people unable to cooperate. The moment organized collaboration is possible,
the individuals that can cooperate will be stronger than the individual that
is unable to cooperate.

I'm not so sure about this. Basically every human group throughout history has
one single person in charge. Whether that be the Holy Roman Empire, a ship at
sea, a hunter-gather tribe, or a old ladies knitting group. The trait selected
for is the ability to seize power when you can, cooperate when you can't, and
the wisdom to know if you can.

~~~
RobertoG
"There's an odd usage of alpha male"

I think you are right. How can be a male be the alpha without the group
collaboration? By definition, the alpha is the one in the top of the hierarchy
in a given moment.

"I'm not so sure about this.[..]"

I think we basically agree, the ability to seize power is impossible without
cooperation with others.

------
ryanmarsh
"Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human" is a great book and I highly
recommend it to anyone interested in human evolution or general diet. This
article however, is sophomoric.

Anyone interested in the origins of human society and violence should also
read "The World Until Yesterday" by Jared Diamond, "The Origin of
Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", "Man's Search for
Meaning" by Viktor Frankl, "Tribe" by Sebastian by Junger and " Ordinary Men:
Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland".

One problem with TFA, male Bonobos exist and do not act like male Chimps. Why?
Furthermore, human females are not that different from human males. How might
this change the pretext of the article? Human males and females are more alike
than different, _except on the fringes_ where a tiny percentage of males are
much more violent (think of the most violent criminals). Do male humans
tolerate the most violent males? Also, do "alpha" males chimps, stay alpha for
very long if they wield too much violence? Must alpha male chimps maintain the
support of the females? Do some research. See for yourself.

Also, what is the meaning of alpha in this article? The "arch-reactive
aggressor"? In humans? So are alphas the most violent or the most respected?
Could the alpha not be the most violent but instead have the respect of the
most violent? How might that happen? Executioners? Try again.

To add personal anecdote: Most of us live in such relatively peaceful
environments that we've completely lost touch with how the power dynamics of
physical violence work in humans. We have mostly a school-yard version of
reality. A society where "words" are violence further obscures the mechanics
of physical violence.

Truly dealing in violence, absent of any law or government, is like eating
from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Once you taste it your eyes
are opened to a whole world right within ours which no one understands. We in
the west live in a total bubble, so much so that we don't understand simple
danger. The typical "active shooter" drill is basic evidence of this fact.
It's a ridiculous and dangerous model in the face of true unencumbered
violence. It is designed to keep schools from getting sued, not keeping
children alive. You didn't know that because you've never had to kick in a
door and kill as many people as possible (sickening I know).

Furthermore, once you understand violence truly, living in modern western
society is like being an extraterrestrial in human skin. It is completely
bizarre. This article is candy for those in the bubble.

~~~
msla
> "The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"

This is known to be bogus by most experts, though:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_\(psychology\))

> Jaynes's hypothesis remains controversial. The primary scientific criticism
> has been that the conclusions drawn by Jaynes had no basis in
> neuropsychiatric fact.[14]

~~~
ryanmarsh
You are correct. It is, however, a fascinating journey through consciousness.

------
Nasrudith
"Virtue" itself seems to largely be a tautology backed by the status quo and
inertia as opposed to outcomes or impact on how others are treated.

The gladiatorial colloseiums, hunting hellots as a rite of passage, and human
sacrifice and flower wars were all "to promote virtue". All it needs to do is
be sustainable and self-perpetuate - not be optimal or righteous in any way.

------
astazangasta
While I understand that some people have done a lot of good work here, my
problem with this work and the author's previous one, is his use of myth
making. The story told about mass execution is just that, a story. This is how
the author imagines selection operating, but it seems a pure work of fiction.
Just by way of argument, no such cull is imagined for bonobos - is it possible
in their long evolutionary history humans experienced similar forces? At least
as possible as a mass execution of aggressive males.

------
mhuffman
Doesn't violence emerge naturally as soon as the concept arise of property
ownership, protecting the safety of oneself (or one's family or one's
community), and trade of any sort?

Because all of those beget law or government and those require violence if
they are to be enforced at all.

If not, then the incentive arises for individuals to be violent because then
you can just "have" whatever you desire if you are willing to be violent and
no one else is.

------
motohagiography
Popular work in evolutionary psychology would suggest the premise humans have
selected against the "reactive aggression," of "alpha males" perhaps overlooks
whose children those civilized "proactively aggressive," men were actually
raising for all those centuries. The article seems like a proxy for some
culture war themes that would be laughable if it were not so insidious. I
assure you, we're still here.

------
koboll
Human moral development seems to be a cycle of an outburst of violence,
followed by a dramatic retrenchment of violence in response. Each iteration
brings greater violence and then an even greater retrenchment.

Eons ago we discovered through this cycle that rape and murder are wrong and
should be met with cutting the offender off from society permanently. 75 years
ago we discovered that systematic genocide and wars for land are wrong and
should never be tolerated.

We are still recovering from that retrenchment, I think. As it fades further
into the mists of history, the next violent phase of the cycle looms closer.
It's uncertain whether we'll be around to discover any more moral lessons
after it passes.

~~~
boronine
The “solution” to rape and murder is to have a state strong enough to
monopolize violence and eliminate offenders.

The “solution” to wars for land is to have an empire effectively own all the
land such that any attempt of conquest is a local conflict that will be
pacified by the empire.

Genocide is more complicated as it can often be in the interest of the state.
The fact that we haven’t engaged in genocide in 75 years is indeed curious.

Still, I question your theme of moral progress. History would suggest that it
will go the other way as the empire inevitably starts to weaken.

------
RickS
Any Rene Girard readers want to weigh in here? I see some similarities to the
themes in his work but am not well versed enough to comment.

------
hnuser355
So I ain’t read the book from OP or Noetzsche but ain’t Nietzsche explicitly
say this in Zarathustra or something. I’m sure I didn’t do a good reading but
I thought I remember hearing him talk about the incredible violence of what
the op article would call “human domestication”

