There can be no malice without fear

[Cognisant]

Malice is a proactive defense mechanism, even a hitman in the act of killing someone does so out not out of greed but rather the fear of poverty and in the absence of fear there is nothing that can convince one human to harm another.

At least that's my hypothesis, what do you think?

 

[Reluctantly]

So what's a white supremacist afraid of then? Being subjugated or something?

 

[Cognisant]

Their own inferiority, hence why they're usually bogans, rednecks and trustfund babies.

 

[Thurlor]

What about greed and jealousy?

Greed - A rich person kills to increase their wealth.
Jealousy - A scorned lover/spouse kills their ex because if they can't have them no one can.

I'm sure there are many other 'primal' reasons for murder as well as all of the 'rational' reasons. I'm not quite sure that fear can be labelled as the only distal cause of causing harm to another human.

 

[Cognisant]

Greed - A rich person kills to increase their wealth.

But why do they want that wealth so badly that they're willing to kill for it?
Greed isn't a motivation, it's a reason, the motivation for greed is the fear of wealth's absence.

Jealousy - A scorned lover/spouse kills their ex because if they can't have them no one can.

Jealousy is the fear of losing one's desire.

Killing one's ex out of spite is an act of anger, all anger is the result of unmet expectations, thus the act of retribution is the reassertion of those expectations. Simply put the scorned person kills their ex because they fear being betrayed again, either by them or another, either way the murder serves to illustrate a point: "betray/scorn me and I will kill you".

Malice is a proactive defense mechanism.

 

[Turnevies]

It seems that you are talking about a hobbesian trap here.

Greed and honour/grandeur are two other main reasons for violence.
Yeah, you could explain these things at least partially by being afraid of not becoming historically important (or getting 72 virgin bitches in the afterlife) in the case of grandeur. In the case of greed it doesn't have to be about money, the primary reason for violence used to be getting food and other resources. Of course, this can also be explained as a 'fear for hunger'.

But then there are the Ramsay Bolton's and similar psychopaths, or nazi's in the death camps. There deeds were well beyond what a rational being must do to feel safe.

 

[TBerg]

I think fear is a universal constant. It is not as though we can say certain people have fear and others don't. But according to r/K selection theory, certain people are more fearful of disruptive change that interferes with long-term planning and others are fearful of those who would crack down upon short-term pleasure and profit.

Another thing is that fear, in a Darwinian and Nietzschean sense, is the only thing that keeps us alive and adapting. We could say that the one without fear is the one who does not want more out of life. He has become so content that he could imagine no more. He would become the Last Man.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Malice is a proactive defense mechanism, even a hitman in the act of killing someone does so out not out of greed but rather the fear of poverty and in the absence of fear there is nothing that can convince one human to harm another.

At least that's my hypothesis, what do you think?

It's the inevitability of human communities. This is why mechanisms like religion exists, so that (singular) social hierarchies are established through adoption.

 

[kora]

Malice is a proactive defense mechanism, even a hitman in the act of killing someone does so out not out of greed but rather the fear of poverty and in the absence of fear there is nothing that can convince one human to harm another.

At least that's my hypothesis, what do you think?

Sadism.

 

[Cognisant]

Sadism is a power trip, the sadist enjoys the power because they're insecure.

It seems that you are talking about a hobbesian trap here.

Not specifically but that's a great example.

Greed and honour/grandeur are two other main reasons for violence.

I draw a distinction between reasons and motivations, there are plenty of scenarios in which violence may be rationally justifiable however I believe the willingness to act violently requires an emotional impetus.

Being inherently violent is an astoundingly poor survival strategy but so is being incapable of violence thus we are all inherently capable and unwilling, we require motivation to "justify" the risk; people that appear inherently violent are either emotionally damaged or literally broken.

But then there are the Ramsay Bolton's and similar psychopaths, or nazi's in the death camps. There deeds were well beyond what a rational being must do to feel safe.

I am not convinced, tell me why that is beyond what a supposedly rational being will do to feel safe.

 

[Turnevies]

I am not convinced, tell me why that is beyond what a supposedly rational being will do to feel safe.

The nazi's depicted jews *among other things* as immoral beings that were holding back the glory of the third reich. To get rid of them, the endlösung was designed, in order to massacre them all.
You could explain the killings as fear for what jews would do to german society. But in this case, you would expect the killing to take place as efficiently as possible. The gas chambers, mobile firing squads etc. are indeed an example of cruel efficiency.
However, in all concentration camps, there are plenty of examples of psycho SS-officers enjoying playing games with the prisonors, and having fun making them suffer in the most creative ways they could imagine.
This sadism is in no way necessary for feeling safe, a jew that is emprisoned and is about to be gassed to death soon is no longer a threat for the third reich.

Or think of the history of gladiators for example, people actually used to watch their battles for fun.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

At least that's my hypothesis, what do you think?

I agree that it's a proactive defense mechanism, but not with your example. Malice is rooted in an unconscious fear of losing control and being harmed.

 

[Cognisant]

However, in all concentration camps, there are plenty of examples of psycho SS-officers enjoying playing games with the prisoners, and having fun making them suffer in the most creative ways they could imagine.

Indeed, but even assuming that they're not afraid of the prisoners themselves that was a time or war and great uncertainty, acting out of fear isn't strictly a matter of self defense.

Then again there's the Stanford Prison Experiment which my theory falls short of explaining.

 

[cheese]

There are two main motivational systems right? Approach vs avoidance. Introverts tend to be heavy on the avoidance side and extroverts on the approach, and I notice on this forum people tend to posit avoidance/fear as the "real motivation" for most behaviour. But regardless, both systems exist in everyone, and for most acts one's motivation may come from either system. Killing is no different imo - it can be an act of joy/desire (approach-based). It's probably not for the majority of people (and comes from fear/the avoidance system, as you said), but for a special few it would be.

Malice more generally I'm not sure about, but I think it quite possible that again, either motivational system can produce it. Fear/avoidance, for the reasons you said, and desire/approach, because of sadism/thrilling in causing harm.

(I *have* often found fear to be the root motivation behind a lot of negative behaviour though.)

 

[Cognisant]

Hmmm, it's less useful though.

If I know fear is the cause of malice then I need only identify the root fear of anyone acting maliciously and I'll be able to figure out how to manipulate them, but if it can be fear or desire I'll need to identify which it is before I'll be able to deduce anything.

Edit: And as I said before being inherently malicious (enjoying malice) seems like an incredibly poor survival strategy, even if some people are more predispositioned towards it I find it unlikely that anyone can be malicious without some degree of fear to get them past the threshold of self interest.

That said you're very convincing.