Violence is at all times presented as negative behavior with intention to harm someone, without positive effects. But is aggressive behavior at all times negative, or does positive effects of violence exist?
Observed in context of various real life situations, aggressive behavior happens fairly often and, for my part, it’s often justified.
Also, I could say that it’s often unfortunately crucial.
A person who used gun against burglar to guard himself and his family, policeman who killed terrorist, a lady who used tear gas to eliminate attacker, etc… Those are all on daily basis examples from real life during which aggressive behavior was crucial. Beside that, necessary institutions of virtually every country use violence to maintain peace (police, military…). Also, members of those organizations get rewards, promotions and prizes due to violence.
To sum it up, violence and aggression are justified only in self defense.
So, conclusion is that aggressive behavior is completely crucial (to stop unwanted consequences), useful and justified (since it’s utilized in self defense) in society today.
But after we observe violence and aggressive behavior alone, like an isolated motion without context, it is usually negative and I am unable to seem to seek out a way during which it could possibly be positive.
Difference between aggression and violence
Violence is the closest term to aggression. Violence may be defined as an assault on other person or on group of individuals, with serious injuries or serious material damage.
It’s obvious that term violence is barely smaller a part of aggression – violence refers to only physical damage while aggression refers to each intention to deal damage or to harm any individual in a physical or in verbal way. And it doesn’t matter if that attack really happened or failed in some unspecified time in the future.
So mainly, after we speak about violence, we are able to use term aggression. But after we speak about aggression, we won’t use term violence.
