Page 1 - Page 2 - Counter 1 - Counter 2 - Counter 3

So it is alright to say No to the killer instinct. For with proper martial arts training the person will still be able to defend themselves effectively, making sure to use the right amount of force, without exceeding what is necessary, while developing a mental ability which will allow the person to meet all situations in life with equanimity, knowing that they have done what needs to be done, not more nor less. This then is the superior mental level sought by Oriental philosophers and martial artists for centuries, and available to those who are willing to seek higher spiritual levels through martial arts training today. So, according to Mr. Durbin, a person with a killer instinct may kill when it is unnecessary, while a person without a killer instinct is able to kill when necessary. According Mr. Durbin, a person with a killer instinct cannot stop killing, but a person without a killer instinct is able to kill, as long as the person possesses the superior mental abilities brought about by the intense study of Oriental philosophies and religions. Bullshin!

Mr. Durbin presents the opinion that the human “killer instinct” is an inappropriate behavior, is unneeded for self-defense, and should be expunged from a martial artist’s personality. If a killer instinct is inappropriate, why do humans and other animals possess it? We possess it for survival. Humans, as with lions, dogs, birds, etc., possess a killer instinct to protect themselves from attack and to kill food. Humans are carnivores, as evidenced by our sharp, canine teeth; we do not have the flat teeth of a grazer. We kill other animals for food. As with all other animals with a killer instinct, humans must control it. Lions do not walk the plains killing everything they see; they only kill for food and protection, unless the lion is rouge. Likewise, normal humans only kill when it is necessary, and, in the animal world, humans are not especially violent or efficient killers.

When humans fight each other, we instinctively try to keep from actually injuring one another. If you have seen bar fights, untrained fighters use mostly shoving and overhand blows to the bony structures of the upper body that do little serious damage. Trained fighters have learned to overcome this instinctive behavior and use focused strikes to soft tissue. Since humans do not want to harm other humans, the military must expend an enormous amount of time and training on recruits to get them to obey orders and identify with the group so they will not freeze in combat and will kill when necessary.

Contrary to the Judeo-Christian belief that humans are killers at heart because of Cain killing Able and bringing the “mark of Cain” upon humanity, humans are not killers. Other than a few sociopaths and psychopaths, humans are simply not natural killers. The man-as-killer myth has been perpetuated by other beliefs, such as the philosophy of the Enlightenment  in which Thomas Hobbes's depicts the state of nature as a "warre of all against all."

Hobbes argued that, without government, the conflicting desires of humans would pit every man against his neighbor in a bloodbath without end. He assumed "wild violence" as the normal state of humans in what anthropologists now call "pre-state" societies. However, Hobbes underestimated the innate sociability of human beings. History presents many examples of "pre-state" societies, which, while violent against outsiders, are internally peaceful. With the exception of wartime, humans, contrary to what is presented by the entertainment industry, are stable and nonviolent.

The entertainment industry depicts humans as cold blooded killers just waiting for a reason to kill. They perpetuate the myth that when humans are driven to desperation, they kill naturally. Yet, the military still has to train recruits to kill other humans, even when they are being shot at by the enemy. Although humans instinctively kill for food, they do not instinctively want to kill other humans, no matter the reason.

During war, ordinary humans routinely kill other humans. As discussed above, human beings are not natural born killers of other humans. Therefore, how do we explain human violence in war? Killing during war depends on soldiers being trained to, and developing habit of, killing on orders. Killing during war is a behavior taught to soldiers. They are taught to follow the orders of a few leaders who are themselves following the orders of their superiors. They kill on orders. The real killers are the politicians whose actions led to war.

Humans are social primates with social instincts, one of which is docility, a predisposition to obey the tribe leader and other dominant males. This resulted in fewer status fights and meant more young, unmarried males were available to protect the tribe or to hunt for food. A tribe would flourish best if it members were both aggressive towards outsiders and amenable to social control.

This process works if the tribe is kept small. However, when one person gains command of a large group of males, such as a city, war becomes possible. Due to the intense training and unquestioning obedience of the warriors, war only requires a few leaders that are murderers. Stanley Milgram in his 1974 book The Perils of Obedience described experiments that showed how otherwise ethical people could be induced to torture another person by the presence of an authority figure that commands and legitimizes the violence.

Page 1 - Page 2 - Counter 1 - Counter 2 - Counter 3