First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Is it possible to wear off evil from Humanity?
ZinLP 
13027 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 7/31/13
Evil can never be removed from humanity, for most of humanity itself is evil. I have my views on what evil is, and I stand by that 'evil' is natural to humanity. It's just that overs have succumbed to it, which leads to their actions.

I too, am sick of hearing news about murders, rape and kidnappings, but it will never stop... Which is the sad truth...
21596 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / SoCal, HB
Offline
Posted 7/31/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:


pandrasb wrote:
The bull, ram, and rooster are not so gentle


No animals are gentle if provoked or threatened, even a bird will attack you if you try to steal its eggs, therefore my point that most herbivores are gentle in nature still stands.



Rhino, Gorilla, Baboon, Hippo
14311 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/31/13 , edited 7/31/13
You do realize the designer is us right? Morality is solely a human thing (disregarding aliens). Good and evil are subjective machinations of man. To answer your question doe: To be able to remove your definition of evil we would have to *transcend/degenerate* our essence as the current beings we are. We would have to remove the need for competition, beauty, and individuality. Since were on an anime forum the best comparison to this would be turning ourselves into the 'anti-spirals'.

Oh look no rape, murder, or any of that sort here. Its just people sleeping. Looks like an e-mazing time.


*Depends on your views and values of course.

20608 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/31/13
It has to do with free will. There is no unlimited choices if evil is not allowed. And, some are tempted by the evil sides of life. If a designer were to stop all evil, it would that make it obvious that such designer exists.
386 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 7/31/13

The_Protector wrote:


goldslash wrote:

Why everything needs to have an opposite?
I don't buy that.

There's no such thing as cold. The cold is the lack of heat.


LOL, you just contradicted your comment. You just said "cold is a lack of heat", without the coldness there would be no heat, without the heat there would be no coldness.


Humm nope.
In chemistry there's only heat. Heat = energy. You dont use cold to nothing, because cold don't exists for real.
Heat exists, the heat accelerate the matter... The atoms to join and become molecules.

I said before that knowledge is only convenience but somethings can be proved and they become true.
43934 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 7/31/13

pandrasb wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:


pandrasb wrote:
The bull, ram, and rooster are not so gentle


No animals are gentle if provoked or threatened, even a bird will attack you if you try to steal its eggs, therefore my point that most herbivores are gentle in nature still stands.



Rhino, Gorilla, Baboon, Hippo


Like I said, those herbivores will only attack you if they feel threatened by you or you tread into their territory.

http://animal.discovery.com/mammals/rhinos-charge.htm

Even a gentle kind-hearted human would call the police if a stranger steps into their home.



Herbivores don't have murderous instincts as their nature. These murder instincts are only seen in carnivores/omnivores because they need to kill other animals for survival, e.g. snakes being sneaky, tarantulas building traps or lions stalking a prey.


Feel free to watch videos on http://animal.discovery.com/ and http://www.nature.com/ if you want to know more about the differences between herbivore behaviour and carnivore/omnivore behaviour.
267 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / Arizona
Offline
Posted 7/31/13
No, unfortunately. It's a simple concept in my mind, good cannot exist without evil. Why? Simply said if evil didn't exist how could you determine what was actually right and wrong? Kinda like the old saying there is no light without a shadow of equal proportions
2843 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Colorado Springs,...
Offline
Posted 7/31/13 , edited 7/31/13


Pretty much.

Phersu 
33255 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Existence.
Offline
Posted 7/31/13
Well, evil is in it for the long haul. Best learn to live with it.
17916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Pennsylvania
Offline
Posted 7/31/13 , edited 7/31/13





Everyone seems to want to pick a forum fight with you bro

I admire your intelligence ^^; good job backing up all this info man, really good read

i agree with said above statement, its not really possible, but i'll always hope for the better.
13963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Aberystwyth, Wale...
Offline
Posted 7/31/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:


Rowan93 wrote:By human deaths, hippopotami are the most dangerous land animals, and they're mostly herbivorous. Bulls are aggresive enough that we have several sports based on trying not to let one of them kill you.


That's why I said most herbivores, not all, are peaceful in nature.


And I'd have to give literally thousands of counterexamples to prove that statement wrong. I was just giving examples as to why I think herbivores tend to be at least as violent as carnivores.


And the examples you gave do not represent the nature of herbivores. Herbivores don't attack for survival, they attack if they feel threatened, this is pretty much a defensive mechanism that exists in all organisms--even plants have defense mechanisms like poison ivy for example, if you touch them, you will be affected.

The point is, herbivores don't attack unless they feel threatened by something, like rhinoceros, they will charge at anything unfamiliar because they are threatened by poachers.

http://animal.discovery.com/mammals/rhinos-charge.htm


Hunting prey is no less moral than lashing out in self-defense. Plus, I think "feels threatened by anything that moves and acts in self-defense against everything" isn't awfully distinct from "is extremely violent and aggressive". Sure, you've explained why the animal in question is acting completely psychotic, but that doesn't make it peaceful.



I don't think this tendency you're talking about exists at all, and if anything herbivores are more violent: Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence to support your theory that herbivores tend to be peaceful?


Yes. This scientific paper:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.13.6574&rep=rep1&type=pdf


You don't have to read through all of it, basically in the paper they were simulating an ecosystem and simulating the behaviour of herbivores vs. carnivores.

This is the point you should focus on:

"1. Herbivore doesn't move until starvation or it is eaten by carnivore.
2. Then, herbivore starts walking towards plants and eats them
3. Then, herbivore runs away when carnivore in eye sight
4. When satiation, herbivore doesn't move until carnivore comes in eye sight or its energy decreases under some level. If carnivore comes in eye sight, herbivore runs away. Herbivore starts eating plants again when its energy decreases."
(Takashina et al.)

This youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRZocdRNxSw

"Some carnivores, such as lions, stalk and kill their prey"




So no, my points weren't anecdotal, every scientists and animal documentaries pretty much support my statements.


Are you entirely basing your "carnivores and omnivores are evil and that's why humans are scumbags" theory on the fact that predators kill things for food? I'm not sure if that's tautological or completely loony, but either way it's a bit dumb.

The kind of violence that matters for this comparison is intra-group violence. The sort that's most analogous to humans being dicks to each other.



You know how much humans tend to hate murderers? We didn't decide on that by a rational process, that's an evolved trait.

You know how guilty you would feel if someone made you kill a guy? Evolved trait. Same goes for theft. Humans are social animals, and couldn't survive on our own in the wild, we had to co-operate with a whole bunch of people, and make sure not to piss them off by murdering their friends or whatever.



I'll have to disagree with that statement.

Guiltiness is not an evolved trait, it is a trait developed by social conditioning. This trait stems from humans' high intelligence. In other words, intelligence and the capacity to empathise are the evolved traits, not guiltiness itself.

You feel guilty when you kill a human because that was what was conditioned into you from a young age by society and social norms.


Guilt is an emotion. How would we go about creating a collective illusion of having an emotion in our mental repertoire that we actually do not have? And why isn't that theory like fifty times more complicated than just "guilt is an evolved trait".


Thought experiment: If a person was raised by wolves in the jungle until adulthood and he killed humans, would he feel guilty?


He'd feel guilty if he killed a wolf. Y'know, 'cause that's what everyone he's ever known has looked like, and as far as he's concerned a human is just a weird monkey up until he looks in a mirror, and maybe not even then.


And if you think that humans evolved "morals" by nature, you obviously haven't read up on this unethical human experiment: "Stanford prison experiment".

Basically in that experiment, normal people were placed into a prison setting and taken the roles of prisoners and wardens, they didn't expect this to happen but the wardens became violent toward the prisoners FOR REAL.

Read more here if you want: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment


This is the first time I've heard the Stanford prison experiment used to justify the hypothesis "all morality is a lie". Usually, people make slightly less outrageous assertions based on it, regarding people's tendencies to fit into roles assigned to them, or how quickly/easily authoritarianism can set in when one group is given power over another.

I think it'll take a lot more evidence than just that one experiment to convince me that any and all goodness in human nature is entirely just a mixture of lies and social conditioning.

Relevant - http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=3025
3905 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / London
Offline
Posted 7/31/13
Paragraphs, paragraphs errywhere

Phersu 
33255 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Existence.
Offline
Posted 7/31/13



Just to the omnivore and humans thing, a human's teeth is closer to a herbivores in structure than an omnivores. Our teeth are made to eat mostly fruits, vegetables, berries and the like. I'm not saying that there isn't no eating meat, just that our teeth are closest structure wise to an herbivores, not a carnivores or omnivores.
5114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Seattle
Offline
Posted 7/31/13
You gotta be realistic with stuff like this evil will always be around consider it a part of life.
43934 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 7/31/13 , edited 7/31/13

Rowan93 wrote:
Hunting prey is no less moral than lashing out in self-defense. Plus, I think "feels threatened by anything that moves and acts in self-defense against everything" isn't awfully distinct from "is extremely violent and aggressive". Sure, you've explained why the animal in question is acting completely psychotic, but that doesn't make it peaceful.


See, the problem is you think I'm applying morals to animal behaviours, which I'm not.

My stance on the existence of morality/evil vs. good is another story.

I don't think that hunting prey is less moral than acting out in self-defense. I was saying that carnivorous and omnivorous animals needed murderous instincts, whereas herbivorous animals don't need those murderous instincts because it's plain to see, they eat grass, they don't need to put effort into trying to kill something.

And you've asked for a non-anecdotal evidence for the difference between herbivore behaviour and carnivore behaviour, which I already provided.


I'm not saying murderous instincts are wrong/evil. I'm just saying they exist in that particular category of animals, and humans are included in that category. And I'm only answering according to the rules of the Original Post, he said that murder is evil, I wrote my reply according to that rule. My opinion on what is evil is another story. This thread is not about good vs. evil or morality, it's about "Can humans stop being evil, i.e. can humans stop murdering each other?"

If you bring the philosophy of whether evil existing or not into this thread, you're being off-topic and avoiding the actual question of the thread.

Since this thread OP already set a premise of what is evil.






Are you entirely basing your "carnivores and omnivores are evil and that's why humans are scumbags" theory on the fact that predators kill things for food? I'm not sure if that's tautological or completely loony, but either way it's a bit dumb.

The kind of violence that matters for this comparison is intra-group violence. The sort that's most analogous to humans being dicks to each other.


No. That's not what I'm trying to say at all.

Carnivores/omnivores have murderous instincts, those instincts are needed to kill prey/food. The ancestors of humans were omnivores.
These instincts passed down genetically.

Some people can suppress those instincts (due to social conditioning and genes), some just can't.



Guilt is an emotion. How would we go about creating a collective illusion of having an emotion in our mental repertoire that we actually do not have? And why isn't that theory like fifty times more complicated than just "guilt is an evolved trait".


Quite easily.

I can give you another example of a collective illusion of emotion that human society has created; Love.





This is the first time I've heard the Stanford prison experiment used to justify the hypothesis "all morality is a lie". Usually, people make slightly less outrageous assertions based on it, regarding people's tendencies to fit into roles assigned to them, or how quickly/easily authoritarianism can set in when one group is given power over another.

I think it'll take a lot more evidence than just that one experiment to convince me that any and all goodness in human nature is entirely just a mixture of lies and social conditioning.

Relevant - http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=3025



I'll give you more examples. During The Great Depression, people were willing to rob and steal.
During World Wars, people were willing to bomb an entire city of civilians.

Do you want me to go on?

Morality cannot suppress the animalistic instinct to survive.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.