Mo_reese wrote: ↑Yesterday, 11:55 am
It seems there are two types of bullying being discussed. One where a stark imbalance of power is used to overpower and humiliate a weaker victim, for example when the bigger kid takes the lunch money from the small kid. This isn't competition and IMO not healthy for society. This type of bully is usually insecure and themselves victims of bullying.
Although I haven't found such a definition it seems from discussions here that strong competition for power or resources can involve bullying. Some view these actions beneficial to society. It looks to me like too much of this domineering is detrimental and what usually brings down societies that rely on such. Mussolini's Italy comes to mind.
Yes it's the taking advantage of a power imbalance to do harm that characterises bullying to me.
It's natural in the way we have selfish predispositions which help us survive and reproduce. But as a social species we also have a natural sense of fairness which makes bullying feel yucky.
Of course there are variations in individuals, and the role of the environment (cultural and personal experience) will contribute to that. But we've survived as a species employing both selfish and social traits
Generally speaking societies find a balance which works, until it doesn't, then the balance shifts.
That's the
Is of human nature. How we
Ought to behave is a different, moral, question. Humans are smart too - we're primarily driven by our passions as Hume would say, but we can also conceptualise about Right and Wrong, and change our behaviour accordingly. Somewhat.
Then again we can use our smarts to rationalise pretty much anything, often without even realising.