A Naturalistic Perspective On Stalking - Essay Example

A NATURALISTIC PERSPECTIVE ON STALKING Naturalistic Perspective on Stalking Naturalism refers to the perception that there is only one common world as proclaimed by science and that human beings are entirely part of it. According to naturalism, everything that human beings are gets derived from the conditions that surround them and introduce them and do what is connected to the rest of the world. Naturalism asserts that humans are evolved creations of natural selection, which functions without foresight, intent or purpose. It also alleges that human beings get shaped by various psychological, physical, social and biological processes defined by science (Sneddon, 2006). Scientifically, there is no evidence of spirits, subtle selves and disembodied souls that exist besides the physical world. This paper evaluates current theory and research on the naturalistic aspect of stalking. Various integrative developmental models suggest that stalking is a persistent form of violence that can be clearly identified by situational, sociocultural, interpersonal and intrapersonal factors. This paper purposes to contribute to the scholarly study of stalking within a naturalistic context. The article first discusses issues that concern stalking and then presents a functional framework and theoretical model on stalking. Naturalism is a worldview based on the assertion of science and not religious beliefs or personal revelation (Callebaut & Betchel, 2003). From a naturalistic perspective, the human role in nature and the information they possess is the realization of a joint effort to come up with a clear view understanding of the world that is in charge. The knowledge possessed by human beings gets also tested through rational inquiry and analysis. The truth of the occurrences in this world gets not determined by the human need for something to be accurate or the deep personal conviction that something is true. As a result, the empirical scientific tests aim at unifying human knowledge on the world under a primary context. Stalking is a strange behavior that involves malicious, systematic harassment of a person and, as a result, causes people to fear for their safety. Often, stalkers try to control other people and exercise authority over them (Hanson & Davies, 2012). This usually ends up being successful for them since they may be able to maintain contact through emotional connection to their victims. Most cases of stalking entail people who are recent acquaintances. The behavioral patterns of stalking closely reflect those of domestic violence cases. Such patterns get typically triggered when the advance of the stalkers towards their victims is aggravated. This is often regardless of whether or not the stalker seeks to establish a past acquaintance. When the stalkers are unable to re-establish the power of control over their victims, they turn to violence as a way of reaffirming their dominance over their victims. Some perpetrators may even be willing to kill their victims, and themselves, in an attempt to re-establish the domination. Stalking often causes stigma to the victims of the action. They try to instill fear into the victims from their workplace to their homes. While others show up at home and workplace of the victim, others try to communicate through phone or by breaking into the residences of their victim and vandalizing property. Stalking describes kinds of behavior aimed at a person through threatening and harassment from the perpetrator. However, the perpetrators usually have different strategies that become limited by their ingenuity and creativity (Sneddon, 2006). From a naturalistic point of view, stalking is practically any unwanted contact by perpetrators to their victims, whether direct or indirect, that causes stigma and fear. Stalking is not a new phenomenon. The central theme in this discussion is that there are no unusual concepts. Stalking occurs only as members of interrelated concept. The entire rationale of stalking gets determined by the role that perpetrators play in the lives of the victims. There are, however, several forms of stalking that are involved in determining the deviance. The preliminary issue to be noted is that stalking has always been in existence since way back. The only difference is that before stalking became a household word, it got referred to as domestic violence or harassment. As creatures who are strictly physical in nature, human beings do not exist as mental or spiritual selves who control behavior. Stalking is the result of this physical process that comprises of the body and the brain. Naturalism asserts that human intentions, thoughts, desires, actions and feelings arise independent of the supervisory physical body (Scarre, 2006). Actions such as stalking are constituted by the consistent actions, beliefs and physical characteristics and not the complicated physical processes that make up human beings. In spite of the fact that stalking strongly appears to be a self-witnessing and background behavior it gets strongly disapproved by the naturalistic understanding of stalking. Naturalists View on Stalking Naturalists believe that stalking as a deviance arises from the interaction between human beings and their surrounding environment. This bizarre behavior is not from the willing self of a being that yields behavior impartial of causal connections. Therefore, in the feeling of being their first cause, stalkers do not bear the greatest responsibility for their actions. With the conditions surrounding them, from within and outside, they could not have done what they did. Nonetheless, stalkers must be held responsible, in the purpose of melting out punishment for obnoxious behavior. This helps in the circumstances that human behavior stays within the scope of what is acceptable to the society. Partially, this is how people learn to act and behave in an ethical manner. Naturalism does not compromise stalking concerning the need for morality or responsibility, but places it within the deviance interpretation as understood by science. Most notably, naturalists examine the reason for retaliatory attitude (Callebaut & Betchel, 2003). This is the belief that stalkers could have done differently in the circumstance in which their character arose and, therefore, totally deserve punishment. Personal Opinion concerning Stalking Since naturalism doubts the existence of basic purposes either imposed by the stalker or inherent in personality, values arise from human desires and needs, and not mystical principles. The basic human character is widely shared by standards of being engaged in their mutual evolved species. Stalkers should not draw to unprecedented standards of ethical organization to know that it is wrong to treat their victims in ways they would not rather be treated. Human beings have a natural gift to care for others and their extreme passion for cooperation and mutuality should help them succeed as members of one society. Naturalism shows the optimum possibility of some behaviors, whereby societies may have turned out otherwise and human beings evolved in different ways. However, I believe that with the nature of human beings, people inevitably find themselves with mutual basic needs that serve as the standard for evaluating deviant behavior. Sometimes, these evaluations are strongly disputed and may never be solved. Views of others regarding stalking Most people view stalking as an awkward and socially dysfunctional behavior. While some people see it as psychotic behavior, others consider it a hostile action that deserves punishment. Most responses from research show that men commit most of the stalking (Sneddon, 2006). Utilitarian’s believe that although stalkers may or may not have mental disorders, they all have personality disorders. One utilitarian found out that stalkers are often emotionally immature, and this is what leads to their psychotic tendencies. Utilitarian’s believe in morals that get guided by common sense. They believe that people should have the ability to fall back on something when they are unable to make decisions. Moreover, people should make decisions based on their moral intuitions (Stebbins, 2012). From a utilitarian perspective, people should focus on the consequences that stalking has on the well-being of the victims whether directly or indirectly. Utilitarianism asserts that the difference is determined by whether or not an action is just (Scarre, 2006). Therefore, if the act of stalking does not cause any harm, it is justified and reasonable. This perspective maintains that as long as actions maximize the welfare of an individual, they are right. Stalking can, therefore, be deemed morally wrong if it has negative impacts on the victims. Therefore, the utilitarian theory asserts that stalking is not an act of deviance. This perspective uses the traditional declaration, “The end justifies the means.” The focus is mainly on the action that has taken place, and whether it has positive and negative consequences on the victim (Hanson & Davies, 2012). For example, if while in the process of stalking someone one recovers stolen property, then the action is morally right. This approach is more based on maximizing the happiness and good. Utilitarianism is, however, an understanding that sometimes justifies unacceptable behavior and actions. Most utilitarian’s will agree that a stalker cannot cause tremendous damage to the victim in order to achieve a satisfactory objective (Nicol, 2006). However, the decision on what comprises damage is still subject to debate. In conclusion, this paper presents my personal opinion on stalking and that of naturalists and utilitarian’s. Naturalists argue that stalking is a natural action which cannot be controlled by the physical self of a human being. Utilitarian’s, on the other hand, believe that as long as stalking causes no harm to the victims, it is a reasonable and acceptable act. In my opinion, stalking is an act that causes undesirable effect to the victim whether harmful or not. Therefore, I think that stalking is an unacceptable act that deserves punishment irrespective of its harm or benefit to society. References Callebaut, W., & Bechtel, W. (2003). Taking the Naturalistic Turn, Or How Real Philosophy of Science Is Done. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Davies, D., & Hanson, I. (2012). Stalking: Perspectives on Victims and Perpetrators. New York: Springer. Nicol, B. (2006). Stalking. Colorado: Reaktion Publishers. Scarre, G. (2006). Utilitarianism. New York: Routledge. Sneddon, A. (2006). Actions and Responsibity. New York: Springer. Stebbins, R. (2012). Connecting With Nature: A Naturalists Perspective. New York: NSTA Press. Read More