Killing by humans

Nature

There is a powerful natural taboo, even among soldiers, to the taking of human life. But the taboo has been breaking down both in battle and in society, with obvious results.

Background

The global significance of killing by humans emerged with early records of warfare, homicide, and ritual sacrifice, prompting philosophical, legal, and religious scrutiny across civilizations. In the 20th century, the scale of violence—exemplified by world wars, genocides, and rising urban crime—intensified international concern. Advances in criminology, forensic science, and human rights advocacy have since deepened understanding of its causes and consequences, framing killing as a persistent and complex challenge to societal stability.

Incidence

Studies of wars prior to World War II indicate that as many as 85% of ordinary soldiers must have done their best not to kill. During World War II the rate at which soldiers actually fired their guns was about 20%. During the Vietnam War it was more than 90%. This increase was brought about by training: killing is turned into a conditioned reflex; the "enemy" is demonized by political or racial propaganda; group pressure is intensified. The American soldier in Vietnam was desensitized and conditioned to overcome the normal resistance to killing.

Claim

Humans disavow their essential humanity when they kill.

We are reaching that stage of desensitization at which the inflicting of pain and suffering has become a source of entertainment: vicarious pleasure rather than revulsion. We are learning to kill and we are learning to like it.

Counter-claim

All carnivores and omnivores and most herbivores kill in order to survive. Some kill animals and others plants. Only the majority of plants are free from the need of direct killing, although few would survive without the death and decomposition of living organisms.