On Killing

1. Human resistance to killing is powerful and innate

The average and healthy individual has such an inner and usually unrealized resistance towards killing a fellow man that he will not of his own volition take life if it is possible to turn away from that responsibility.

Innate resistance: Humans have a deep-seated aversion to killing members of their own species. This resistance is so strong that in many historical battles, a significant percentage of soldiers deliberately avoided killing enemy combatants, even at the risk of their own lives.

Historical evidence: S.L.A. Marshall's groundbreaking research after World War II revealed that only 15-20% of American soldiers actually fired their weapons at the enemy with the intent to kill. This finding has been corroborated by studies of other conflicts throughout history, including the American Civil War, where many soldiers were found to have loaded their weapons multiple times without firing.

Evolutionary perspective: This resistance likely has evolutionary roots, as species that readily kill their own kind would be at a disadvantage for survival. The reluctance to kill fellow humans may be seen as a natural extension of the social bonds and empathy that allow human societies to function and thrive.

2. Physical and emotional distance facilitate killing

From a distance, I can deny your humanity; and from a distance, I cannot hear your screams.

Types of distance: Several forms of distance can make killing easier:

• Physical distance (e.g., artillery, bombing)
• Emotional distance (e.g., dehumanizing the enemy)
• Cultural distance (e.g., racial or ethnic differences)
• Moral distance (e.g., perceiving the enemy as evil)
• Mechanical distance (e.g., viewing targets through a scope)

Impact of technology: Modern warfare has increasingly relied on technology that creates greater physical and emotional distance between combatants. This distance makes it easier for soldiers to overcome their natural resistance to killing by reducing the immediate, visceral impact of their actions.

Psychological mechanisms: Distance allows individuals to psychologically separate themselves from the act of killing, making it feel less personal and more abstract. This separation can lead to a reduced sense of responsibility and diminished empathy for the victims, facilitating the ability to engage in lethal actions.

3. Authority and group dynamics override individual morality

Never underestimate the power of the need to obey.

Milgram's obedience experiments: Stanley Milgram's famous studies demonstrated that ordinary individuals could be compelled to inflict apparent harm on others simply through the demands of an authority figure. This principle extends to military contexts, where soldiers are conditioned to follow orders without question.

Group absolution: The diffusion of responsibility within a group can make individuals more willing to engage in violent acts. Soldiers often report feeling that their actions are justified because they are part of a larger unit or following orders from superiors.

Key factors in authority-driven killing:

• Proximity of authority figures
• Perceived legitimacy of authority
• Intensity of demands
• Group pressure and conformity

4. Conditioning and desensitization enable higher kill rates

Two shots. Bam-bam. Just like we had been trained in "quick kill." When I killed, I did it just like that. Just like I'd been trained. Without even thinking.

Modern training techniques: Military training has evolved to incorporate psychological conditioning that increases soldiers' willingness and ability to kill. These methods include:

• Realistic target practice with human-shaped silhouettes
• Simulations and video game-like training scenarios
• Repetitive drills that create muscle memory
• Desensitization through exposure to violent imagery

Increased effectiveness: These conditioning techniques have dramatically increased firing rates in modern conflicts. In Vietnam, the firing rate reached 90-95%, compared to the 15-20% observed in World War II.

Ethical concerns: While these methods have proven effective in creating more lethal soldiers, they raise ethical questions about deliberately overriding an individual's natural resistance to killing and the long-term psychological consequences for those subjected to such training.

5. The act of killing often leads to severe psychological trauma

I can remember whispering foolishly, "I'm sorry" and then just throwing up ... I threw up all over myself. It was a betrayal of what I'd been taught since a child.

Immediate reactions: Soldiers who kill in combat often experience a range of intense emotional reactions, including:

• Exhilaration or euphoria
• Profound remorse and guilt
• Physical reactions like vomiting or shaking
• Emotional numbness or dissociation

Long-term effects: The psychological impact of killing can persist long after the event, contributing to:

• Nightmares and intrusive thoughts
• Difficulty in personal relationships
• Substance abuse problems
• Depression and anxiety

Moral injury: Many veterans struggle with reconciling their actions in war with their personal moral beliefs, leading to a deep sense of shame, guilt, and inner conflict that can persist for years or even decades after their service.

6. Post-traumatic stress disorder is a common result of combat

Psychiatric breakdown remains one of the most costly items of war when expressed in human terms.

Prevalence: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a common outcome for combat veterans. Estimates suggest that between 18-54% of Vietnam veterans have experienced PTSD at some point after their service.

Symptoms of PTSD:

• Intrusive memories or flashbacks
• Avoidance of trauma-related stimuli
• Negative changes in thoughts and mood
• Hyperarousal and reactivity

Societal impact: The high rates of PTSD among veterans have far-reaching consequences for society, including:

• Increased rates of homelessness and unemployment among veterans
• Higher incidence of substance abuse and domestic violence
• Strain on healthcare and social support systems
• Intergenerational trauma affecting families of veterans

7. Modern media may be conditioning violence in society

The same tools that more than quadrupled the firing rate in Vietnam are now in widespread use among our civilian population.

Media violence: Exposure to violent media, including movies, television shows, and video games, may be desensitizing individuals to violence and potentially increasing aggressive tendencies.

Conditioning mechanisms: Similar to military training, modern media employs techniques that can condition viewers:

• Classical conditioning (associating violence with entertainment)
• Operant conditioning (rewarding violent actions in video games)
• Social learning (imitating violent role models)

Societal concerns: The widespread use of these conditioning techniques in entertainment raises questions about their impact on society, particularly on young people. There are concerns that this exposure may contribute to:

• Increased aggression and violent behavior
• Decreased empathy and sensitivity to real-world violence
• Normalization of violent problem-solving strategies

Need for awareness: Understanding the potential impact of media violence and its similarities to military conditioning techniques is crucial for developing strategies to mitigate negative effects and promote healthier forms of entertainment and conflict resolution.

Last updated: January 22, 2025