In the process of a dialogue with my colleague, Scott Atran, I wrote to him as per below.
______________________________________________
I've received a response from Scott about the issues I raise. I'd like to hear from other readers as well. Please convey your ideas/thoughts via email to rak@libraryofsocialscience.com.

Possibly we can publish your thinking as an issue of the Library of Social Science Newsletter.
______________________________________________
I have a question, Scott

Since you've been are reading my emails on a regular basis, you see that I’m getting more into the study of biology, evolutionary theory, scientific method, etc.

I’ve been looking at quite a few amazing videos on animal behavior (see also the photo below).

There is one genre that repeats frequently in the videos: a lion chases and catches a zebra (usually a young or somewhat frail one) and attacks the zebra viciously: biting everywhere and eventually killing the zebra through a bite to the neck.

My question concerns the use of the term “violence.” The lion’s attack on the zebra is an almost operational definition of VIOLENCE: so vicious, furious--and horrific to our human way of thinking.

But of course this behavior is simply the Lion doing his or her thing: surviving by killing an animal to obtain food. This behavior obviously is the result of natural selection and has survival value.

But the lion doesn’t hate the zebra or consider the zebra an enemy. Nothing to do with this.

This same term VIOLENCE applies, for example, to the acts of a terrorist who viciously murders an infidel, blows up a restaurant, drives an airplane into the world trade center, etc.

It's obvious that the term violence accurately describes the behavior of the lion and also the behavior of terrorists.

Thinking in terms of the meaning of these two forms of behavior, however, it seems to me that they have little to do with one another. The Lion’s violence is rooted in biological instinct and has survival value.

The terrorist’s violence occurs in the name of an ABSTRACT IDEA or belief system or ideology, and has little to do with biology, evolution, survival, etc.

Yet many theorists (like Steven Pinker) equate the two. This is a common way of thinking among evolutionary thinkers: conflating violence that has biological roots and survival value--with violence undertaken in the name of an abstract idea or ideology.

Are scholars who do not distinguish between thethe two forms of violence muddle-headed?

Would be grateful to hear your thoughts.

Best regards,

Richard

PS: Library of Social Science has published a number of articles by Professor Atran. See, for example, here and here and here.