How to eliminate the causes of violence in brazil and the world


Published on

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

How to eliminate the causes of violence in brazil and the world

  1. 1. 1 HOW TO ELIMINATE THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE IN BRAZIL AND THE WORLD Fernando Alcoforado * Violence occurs in relations between nations states, between companies, between individuals and between nations against businesses and individuals and between companies against individuals. Violence between nations reaches the apex with international conflicts that result in wars of regional or global aggression. Violence between companies configures the unfair action of many of them in an attempt to establish themselves on the market at the expense of others. Violence among individuals results, among other factors, the frustrations and social inequalities. The violence by governments against companies and individuals materializes in extremely high tax burden, the violence by governments against individuals that fight for political, economic and social changes and the violence of businesses against individuals concerning the brutal exploitation of the labor force in productive activity and the pricing policies of monopolies. Historians assume that wars have always existed because the documented records of human history, dating back 6,000 years, there have been only 292 years of relative peace between peoples. This time period of 55 centuries, however, is only a speck of the total time of human presence on Earth (See website <>). The following passage, taken from the book Uma História da Guerra (A History of War) of John Keegan (Companhia de Bolso, 2006), illustrates the prevailing perception about: "The writing world history is largely a story of war, because the States where we live born of conquest, civil wars and struggles for independence. Moreover, the great statesmen of history writing were generally men of violence, because even though they were not warriors - and many were - understand the use of violence and did not hesitate to put it into practice for their purposes ". Despite repeated intentions of all countries of the globe to maintain world peace, the twentieth century was the scene (so far) three major wars. In World War I (1914-1918), died about 9 million people. In 1919 was founded the League of Nations, whose basic principles were "the prohibition of war, the maintenance of justice and respect for international law". European leaders were convinced that a new and lasting international order was beginning. For British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, the League of Nations would raise humanity to a higher plane of existence. Only twenty years later, the Second World War broke out (1939-1945), which killed between 40 and 52 million people. Moreover, the violence of conflicts in our time has no parallel in history. The wars of the twentieth century were "total wars" against combatants and civilians without discrimination. The historian Eric Hobsbawm [A Era dos Extremos (The Age of Extremes), Companhia das Letras, 2008] adds: "Without a doubt the twentieth century was the most murderous century of which we have record, both in scale, frequency and extent of the war that filled, barely stopping for a moment in the 20s, as well as the single human catastrophes that produced from the greatest famines in history to systematic genocide volume". The tragedy of the wars in the twentieth century is well summarized in the words of John Keegan [Uma História da Guerra (A History of War), Companhia de Bolso, 2006): " In this century, the frequency and intensity of wars also distorted the perspective of ordinary men and women in Europe West, in the United
  2. 2. 2 States, Russia and China, the demands of the war reached most households over two, three or four generations. Call to arms took millions of sons, husbands, fathers and brothers to the battlefield, and millions did not come back". Violence kills more than 1.6 million people worldwide each year, according to a report by the World Health Organization (WHO). Violence is now the leading cause of deaths of people between 15 and 44 accounting for 14 % of deaths among males and 7% of deaths among women [See article Violência no mundo mata 1,6 milhão de pessoas por ano (Violence in the world kills 1.6 million people each year) published on website <ícias/2002/021003_violenciamv.shtm>]. The director of injury prevention and violence department of WHO, Etienne Krug, said that deaths could be avoided with a change of attitude and that there is nothing inevitable about violence and it is not intrinsic to the human condition. The WHO report calls for the implementation of educational programs for children in schools, parent training and schemes to reduce the use of firearms, as well as better support for victims of violence. The new edition of the Mapa da Violência (Map of Violence), drafted by sociologist Julio Jacobo Waiselfisz and edited by the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO) and the Brazilian Center for Latin American Studies (Cebela), brings serious warning about what it calls the "epidemic" violence in Brazil against children and adolescents [See Article Mapa da Violência coloca Brasil entre os quatro países com maiores taxas de homicídio de jovens (Map of Violence puts Brazil among the four countries with the highest homicide rates of young) posted on the website < coloca-brasil-entre-os-quatro-paises-com-maiores-taxas-de-homicidio-de-jovens>). In a ranking of 92 countries, only El Salvador, Venezuela and Guatemala present homicide rates higher than Brazil (44.2 cases per 100 thousand young people aged 15 to 19 years). The high rates of homicide, according to the coordinator of the study, the researcher Argentine Julio Jacobo Waiselfiz show a sad reality: Brazil and the Latin American societies are violent. The presented data also confirm a diagnosis made recently by Amnesty International. According to Atila Roque, executive director of the NGO in the country, "Brazil lives, tragically, with a sort of 'epidemic of indifference', almost complicit large portion of society, a situation that should be being treated as a real social disaster. This is due to certain naturalization of violence and a frightening degree of compliance of the state in relation to this tragedy" says in the passage quoted in Map of Violence. Over the past 30 years, the homicide victims arrive in Brazil for more than 1 million people. Data are collected in 27 Federative Units, 33 metropolitan areas, 27 state capitals and 5564 municipalities in the country, using information from the ministry of health, public safety, notary, police and other public bodies [See Article Violência no Brasil: pior que Iraque, Angola e Afeganistão (Violence in Brazil: worse than Iraq, Angola and Afghanistan) posted on the website < afeganistao/>]. To be clear the absurdity of the number of violent deaths in Brazil, just compare with other places that live extreme situation such as Angola, a country in civil war for 27 years (550 000 victims, nearly half of the victims here in the same period). Others recent armed conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, together totaling 89 000 deaths
  3. 3. 3 by 2007. Ie, the bloodiest war here is that these places already excessively bloody planet. Increasingly, the media no longer clear that we are vulnerable to violence, forcing us to see that violence has invaded all areas of life and the relationships of the individual. Clearly the concern about violence in our society manifested in organized crime, widespread corruption in the various public bodies, to wars between countries, the relations of domination exercised by developed countries against peripheral countries, terrorist acts, etc. Violence represents everything that hurts, destroys, mugs or hurt people - actions that do not preserve life but harm the welfare of both individual and collective. We live in a world that has as one of its main features the violence perpetrated by man against his fellows. The perception of many people is that violence is the predominance of animal instinct that we have on the values of civilization. This would explain the escalation of crime and war in all ages around the world. The debate about violence puts on the agenda the question of human nature whose theme was treated by eminent thinkers such as Sigmund Freud (Austrian neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis), Carl Rogers (American forerunner of humanistic psychology), Immanuel Kant (Prussian philosopher), Thomas Hobbes (English political scientist, mathematician and philosopher), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Swiss writer and philosopher) and Karl Marx (German economist, philosopher, historian and political scientist), among others. For millennia philosophers and scientists raise the question: human nature is innate or is the product of the environment or both? It is genetically determined or by society where the human being lives or both? Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Eastern Religions and Spiritualism also address the question of human nature which are presented below. As for Christianity, there is the assertion that we are endowed by God with free will and that the first impulse of our freedom goes to evil and sin, that is, for the transgression of divine law that we are beings weak, sinful, divided between good (obedience to God) and evil (demonic temptation to submission). Christianity is to believe that the human being is, in itself and by itself, unable to perform well and virtues. Humans, must recognize the will and law of God, fulfilling the mandatory, ie, for acts of duty [View Article Cristianismo: O Problema Moral (Christianity: The Moral Problem) posted on website < / 10/cristianismo-o-problema-moral.html>]. The Judaism as much as Christianity, considers the violation of a divine command as a sin. Judaism teaches that humanity is in a state of inclination to do evil and the inability to choose the Good instead of Evil. Judaism uses the term "sin" to include violations of Jewish law that are not necessarily a lack moral. According to Judaism, man is responsible for sin because it is endowed with a free will, yet he has a mild nature and a tendency to evil, because the the heart of man is evil from his youth. So God in his mercy allowed the man to repent and be forgiven [See Encyclopedia Judaica (Jewish Encyclopedia) published between 1901 and 1906]. Islam, in turn, is a monotheistic religion based on the teachings of Muhammad, called "The Prophet", contained in the Islamic holy book, the Koran. The word Islam means to submit, and expresses submission to law and the will of Allah. His followers are called Muslims, which means one who submits to God. For Muslims, the Koran contains the message of God to Muhammad. According to Mohammed, he is the author of good and evil. Islam believes that there will be the day of resurrection and judgment of good and
  4. 4. 4 evil. On this great day, all man's behavior, whether good or bad, will be placed in the balance. The Muslims who have acquired sufficient merit in fair and personal favor of Allah will go to heaven, all others will go to hell [See the article Islamismo (Islam) published on the website Islam <>]. Eastern religions support the thesis that, in general, human nature is originally good and it degenerated because of ignorance, or the desires of his mind clouded, which causes it to become required severe discipline to retrieve her original goodness. This is the main reason why oriental ethics advocates a strict discipline in order to recover the man's original virtue. Herein lies the explanation of oriental appearance of evil that would be entirely the creation of Man. Virtually all Indian religious systems, including Buddhism, and Taoism in China, they attribute the appearance of evil ignorance of man, which gives rise to knowledge false and pernicious desires. Eastern Philosophy believes that, as the man produces evil, can also destroy it [See the article Características da Filosofia Chinesa e Indiana (Characteristics of Chinese and Indian Philosophy) of Chan Wing- tsit in Moore, C. (ed.) published on the website < Chinese-e.html>]. The vision of Spiritualism is exposed in Article Natureza Humana (Human Nature) in which questions how is it possible that man, created in the image and likeness of God, is viscerally bad? As understood that the Supreme Architect of the Universe works produced there intrinsically flawed and defective? To the spiritualists, man is unfinished. Among unfinished and defective work there is a chasm away. The evil that is in man there is extrinsic and not intrinsic. The defects and glitches are the result of ignorance, weakness and imbalance that humanity still suffers. Remove such causes, decanted human corruption will disappear [See the article A Natureza Humana (Human Nature) published on the website < natureza-humana/>]. In the article cited above, the problem of evil, according to Spiritualism, is solved through the enormous job of education to transform human darkness into light, the vice into virtue, common sense in the madness, weakness in force. The greatest good you can do to a man is to educate him. Kant, the philosopher thus comprises education: "Develop the individual all the perfection of which it is susceptible: that the purpose of education." Pestalozzi, the consummate educator, says: "To educate is to progressively develop the spiritual faculties of man." John Locke, great preceptor, is expressed on the matter this way: "To educate is to straight spirits, ready at any moment, not to do anything that does not conform to the dignity and excellence of a reasonable creature." Lessing, authority no less illustrious, compares the work of education to the work of revelation, and says: "Education determines and accelerates the progress and improvement of man". For the doctrine of spirits, evil is man's own creation and has no existence except temporary, transient, because the largest arrangement of Life has no meaning the permanence of evil. The evil in this way is part of learning, but the condition of waste, so it must be dropped at some point. Alan Kardec points in Obras Póstumas (Posthumous Works) that "God did not create evil, was the man who produced the abuse that made the gifts of God, by virtue of his free will" (See the article A transitória maldade humana (The transient human) evil of Abel Sidney de Souza published on the website < transitoria-maldade-humana.html>).
  5. 5. 5 For these reasons, Christianity, Judaism and Islam admit that the human being has a penchant for good and for evil, and that man is, in itself and by itself, unable to perform well and virtues. Virtually all Indian religious systems, including Buddhism, Taoism in China, present a view diametrically opposed to assert that human nature is originally good and it degenerated because of the ignorance of man, which gives rise to knowledge false and pernicious desires. According to Spiritualism, the evil that is in man there is extrinsic and not intrinsic, ie defects, snags and glitches are the result of ignorance, weakness and imbalance that humanity still suffers and that removed such causes, decanted human corruption will disappear. Eastern religions believe that, as the man produces evil, can also destroy it. According to Spiritualism the problem of evil is solved through the enormous work of education of man to transform darkness into light, the vice into virtue, common sense in the madness, weakness in force. The question of human nature was treated by eminent thinkers such as Sigmund Freud (Austrian neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis), Carl Rogers (American forerunner of humanistic psychology), Thomas Hobbes (English political scientist, mathematician and philosopher), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Swiss writer and philosopher) and Karl Marx (German economist, philosopher, historian and political scientist), among others. For millennia philosophers and scientists raise the question: human nature is innate or is the product of the environment or both? It is genetically determined or by society where the human being lives or both? Freud stresses in his work the destructive aspects of man. It demonstrated the need posed by Freud, in order to control and restrain the individual, because of the danger that he might pose to society, which leads him to conclude that man, he recommended, is not, socially speaking, very trustworthy. According to Freud, civilized society is perpetually threatened by disintegration because of this primary hostility of men among themselves. The culture has to resort to every possible reinforcement in order to erect barriers against the aggressive instincts of men. Faced with a being so hostile and disintegrating, nothing more natural than the society to use its coercive power [See the article by Sonia Maria Lima de Guzman under the title A natureza humana segundo Freud e Rogers (Human nature according to Freud and Rogers) posted on the website <http:// / / sonia / natureza.htm>]. In the above-mentioned article, it appears that, in Carl Rogers observes the opposite of Freud's view, because he believes it is precisely in a coercive context, where the individual cannot expand, or better, update the potential that makes it hostile or antisocial. Otherwise, we have nothing to fear, because their behavior tends to be constructive. Rogers notes that when the man is truly free to become what he is in the depths of his being, when it is free to act according to its nature as a being capable of perceiving things that surround him, so he Clearly, it is routed to the overall and integration. The design of a naive view of human nature attributed to Rogers is far from the truth because he knew that to defend itself and driven by intense fears, and individuals may, in fact, behave incredibly destructive, immature, regressive, antisocial and harmful. For Kant, the human being is born endowed with certain provisions, whose destiny is to go through a process of development increasing through generations. Thus, human nature brings the original dispositions that comprise the one hand instincts, and on the other, reason. There is an expectation that the man has a compass and guide their reason and not instinct. Thus, the two types of arrangements are antagonistic and fighting with
  6. 6. 6 each other without, however, that a win other permanently. Reason and instinct will still exist even with the maximum development of rational capacity, which means that the continued progress and development of the faculty of reason does not determine the disappearance of instinct [See the article by Adriene Leyserée Fritsch Xavier under the title Considerações sobre a natureza humana em Kant e Freud e suas implicações para o desenvolvimento da Civilização (Considerations human nature in Kant and Freud and their implications for the development of Civilization) posted on the website < kant_freud.pdf>]. Hobbes has as its central thesis about human conduct, which all humans are selfish and are willing to use others for their own benefit. Hobbes speaks of “the war of everyone against everyone", the ongoing struggle that would trigger if men do not live in safety and had to rely completely on their own resources. Hobbes tries to show that there can be no society without government and without the penalties of the law. There would only individuals antagonistic to each other. Hobbes compares human life to a race where we have to assume that there is no other purpose unless another prize of getting to the first. The competition - the desire to outdo the other - is part of the fabric of our lives, or want to achieve something at the expense of others, or we defend what we've gained [See the article by Roger Trigg under the title A Natureza Humana em Hobbes (Human Nature in Hobbes) posted on the website <http://qualia->]. The central idea in Rousseau's thought is based on the conviction of man's natural goodness. According to Rousseau, the drawbacks of socializing away from the man himself threw him against his fellow man. It is this process of transformation that man degenerates. Because he abandons his natural instincts going to use the justice instead of mercy. The natural feelings lead men to serve the common interest, while the ratio compels selfishness. To be virtuous, a man need follow the natural feelings more than reason. For Rousseau, socialization is the cause of denaturation of man, and the best way to their degradation. The communion with nature is the only way to preserve the true essence of man [See the article by Fatima Dalva Fulgeri under the title Conceito de natureza em Rousseau (Concept of Nature in Rousseau) posted on the website <>). For Marx, what characterizes the man is not only rationality, but the fact of being the architect of their own development. Humans are able to change the world around them and in doing so, they change themselves [See the article A Natureza do Homem Segundo Karl Marx (The Nature of Man According to Karl Marx) posted on the website < marx.html>]. Marx presented a definition of the essence of human nature in Philosophical Manuscripts, which characterizes human beings as free and conscious activity, in contrast to the nature of the beast [See the article by Viana Nildo under the title A Renovação da Psicanálise por Erich Fromm (The Renewal of Psychoanalysis by Erich Fromm) posted on the website < fromm/renovacao-psicanalise-fromm.shtml>]. For these reasons, it is clear that Hobbes and Freud converge in their thinking when considering the aggressive instincts of man and the necessity of coercion to suppress them. The pessimistic view of Freud and Hobbes is opposed to that of Carl Rogers said that only in a coercive context man becomes hostile or antisocial and that no coercion it
  7. 7. 7 will tend to be constructive. Kant defends the thesis that the provisions based on reason will have greater progress than those based on instinct. Rousseau has as its central idea the conviction of the natural goodness of man and that society is that degenerates him threw him against his fellow man. Marx says that man is master of its own development and that human beings are capable of changing the world around them and in doing so, they change themselves. In summary, it is quite clear that the existence of a society based on social justice, antithesis of the inhuman capitalist system in place, can make human beings behave constructively and be able to change the world around them and in doing so, change yourself. This is the way to combat the violence that increasingly contributes to the disintegration of the social world in which we live. * Alcoforado, Fernando, engineer and doctor of Territorial Planning and Regional Development from the University of Barcelona, a university professor and consultant in strategic planning, business planning, regional planning and planning of energy systems, is the author of Globalização (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1997), De Collor a FHC- O Brasil e a Nova (Des)ordem Mundial (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1998), Um Projeto para o Brasil (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2000), Os condicionantes do desenvolvimento do Estado da Bahia (Tese de doutorado. Universidade de Barcelona,, 2003), Globalização e Desenvolvimento (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2006), Bahia- Desenvolvimento do Século XVI ao Século XX e Objetivos Estratégicos na Era Contemporânea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The Necessary Conditions of the Economic and Social Development-The Case of the State of Bahia (VDM Verlag Dr. Muller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010), Aquecimento Global e Catástrofe Planetária (P&A Gráfica e Editora, Salvador, 2010), Amazônia Sustentável- Para o progresso do Brasil e combate ao aquecimento global (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2011) and Os Fatores Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012), among others.