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?
2393 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / In Rainbows
Offline
Posted 7/31/13

m-seversky wrote:


Sir_jamesalot wrote:

and this is a silly question because there's no such thing as morals. Therefore there is no evil or to paraphrase:
people are evil by default. To remove the evil from the world is to remove the humans or their ideas of justice.




OMG i'm laughing so hard at that pic. LOL
43865 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 7/31/13

Shy-Anime-Guy wrote:

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.



I don't mind it. I welcome anyone wanting to challenge my opinions. After all, I'm not omniscient and perfect.

Thanks, now I feel obliged to say something modest... I'll let you know that my official IQ is only 102. I can't do maths and spatial thinking.


2393 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / In Rainbows
Offline
Posted 7/31/13

AshRandom wrote:


dyingsoon wrote:
and if there is a designer why did he design rape to be evil instead of eating your own crap.


This is an actual research topic called: THEODICY.

It's the attempt to resolve the evidential problem of evil by reconciling the traditional divine characteristics of omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience with the occurrence of evil or suffering in the world.

Essentially a human mind, regardless of which millennium it was born to, is capable of recognizing the obvious flaws in whatever religious system they're born into. This is done simply by paying heed to the vast amount of injustice, pain and suffering in the world around them. The conclusion was most famously reached by Epicurious, an Athenian living around 300 B.C. but has been restated repeatedly by thinkers and philosophers and laymen again and again throughout history.

If God is unwilling to prevent suffering -- God is either impotent, or evil.



I'm into it right now.
17916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Pennsylvania
Offline
Posted 7/31/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:


Shy-Anime-Guy wrote:

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.



I don't mind it. I welcome anyone wanting to challenge my opinions. After all, I'm not omniscient and perfect.

Thanks, now I feel obliged to say something modest... I'll let you know that my official IQ is only 102. I can't do maths and spatial thinking.



ah, now thats a good way of thinking ^^; good views. yeah, well i don't think any of us are xD i know i'm not.

you're welcome good sir! xP you didn't have to but hey thats quite high, more than the average at least! how did you find out anyhow? hey thats alright, math isn't really widely used in society anyway unless your job calls for it. i find most of what i'm learning today quite useless x3 i mean at one point i was learning about imaginary numbers. "imaginary!" <-- 0.0

and well uh. im probably bad at spatial thinking too i don't have any talents, hbu?
43865 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 7/31/13

Shy-Anime-Guy wrote:
ah, now thats a good way of thinking ^^; good views. yeah, well i don't think any of us are xD i know i'm not.

you're welcome good sir! xP you didn't have to but hey thats quite high, more than the average at least! how did you find out anyhow? hey thats alright, math isn't really widely used in society anyway unless your job calls for it. i find most of what i'm learning today quite useless x3 i mean at one point i was learning about imaginary numbers. "imaginary!" <-- 0.0

and well uh. im probably bad at spatial thinking too i don't have any talents, hbu?




I took a test 102 is the average score lol... on the bottom side of average, I might add. But that's ok, my brother took the same test and he got 95, which was below average He's the same as me though, I wouldn't say he's less intelligent.
(I'm sure you've heard of insults where people say things like, "You're so dumb your IQ is a double digit number". Lol.



What are imaginary numbers?? Are they the same as irrational numbers? I don't remember anything from maths


You shouldn't say that, everyone's got a talent in something.

I've took a look at your profile (don't worry, I read everyone's profile, I like reading fun facts about people, I don't stalk I promise), and you like Hunter x Hunter and Pet Girl of Sakurasou... since both are my favourite anime, I can be certain that you have a talent for appreciating good stories

I like painting so that's where my natural talent lies, but I can only draw the human face, I can't draw horses or landscapes. Lol.





17916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Pennsylvania
Offline
Posted 7/31/13


idk, my teacher wasn't too fantastic at teaching, i think we kinda skipped it 0.0 it went something like this i think i√253 or something weird.. im not too great at math either, i have to focus a lot. lolol, i believe i will forget everything soon too x)

hahah don't worry man i'm not worried its fun isnt it? i also like looking at peoples profile, and i believe ya xP nor do i. yeah dude they are great stories :O i can relate to pet girl a lot ahahah, i wish i had a place to live like that seriously though, amazing stories. thats partly the reason why i love anime, the stories are just so amazing i see your tastes in anime are pretty broad, at least.. i presume them to be? wooooh :O i have a talent! thanks man!!

woah seriously, thats awesome man! did you paint your avi?! i can't paint anything so i call it abstract but i love anything to do with art lol.. i leave my painting dream in your hands xD human faces are more impressive in my opinion
13963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Aberystwyth, Wale...
Offline
Posted 7/31/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:


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.


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.


But... they kill things in self-defense. Your last comment spent ages justifying how herbivores are totally peaceful if all the killing they're doing is in self-defense, but that's no reason that the instincts that drive a rhinoceros to gore someone to death are any less murderous than the ones that drive a lion to have breakfast.



Rowan93 wrote: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.


That sounds exactly like what I thought you were saying. Leaning towards the "tautological" interpretation, plus or minus the loony conclusion.



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.


Oh my god, you did not just go there. What are you, fourteen?

Seriously though, how does this "collective illusion" process work. How do the people pretending to feel guilty, or pretending to feel in love, know what to pretend if none of it is real? How did the idea come about - what did the transition look like? How the hell would the first person to pretend to be in love with someone gain an advantage? Was there some meeting? Or did it spontaneously develop among everyone? How does this crazy everyone-is-a-sociopath world you live in even work?



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.


It's debatable whether it's immoral to kill people if you have to do it to survive. The argument regarding the morality of bombing cities full of civilians is a bit more questionable, and also more abstract, but definitely there.

If the animalistic instinct to survive is all that's keeping humans killing each other (I'm not sure if "killing each other for any reason" is the same thing as "evil", since if you insist on staying on-topic the OP just quoted a dictionary definition and then listed some examples of evil stuff he's annoyed at seeing happen on the news, with murder being one of them) then surely all you have to do is make it so that humans don't have to kill each other to survive? All that'll take is 100 years' worth of economic growth and demographic shift.
13566 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / New York
Offline
Posted 7/31/13

dyingsoon wrote:


AshRandom wrote:


dyingsoon wrote:
and if there is a designer why did he design rape to be evil instead of eating your own crap.


This is an actual research topic called: THEODICY.

It's the attempt to resolve the evidential problem of evil by reconciling the traditional divine characteristics of omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience with the occurrence of evil or suffering in the world.

Essentially a human mind, regardless of which millennium it was born to, is capable of recognizing the obvious flaws in whatever religious system they're born into. This is done simply by paying heed to the vast amount of injustice, pain and suffering in the world around them. The conclusion was most famously reached by Epicurious, an Athenian living around 300 B.C. but has been restated repeatedly by thinkers and philosophers and laymen again and again throughout history.

If God is unwilling to prevent suffering -- God is either impotent, or evil.



I'm into it right now.


I suggest reading Sam Harris's book: The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values
66790 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / ???????? ?? ?????
Offline
Posted 7/31/13
People are born inherently evil. Humanity will never change this.
43865 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 7/31/13 , edited 7/31/13

But... they kill things in self-defense. Your last comment spent ages justifying how herbivores are totally peaceful if all the killing they're doing is in self-defense, but that's no reason that the instincts that drive a rhinoceros to gore someone to death are any less murderous than the ones that drive a lion to have breakfast.


This is where you're wrong, again.
Herbivores like Rhinoceros don't "kill" other animals, whether it be human poachers or deers. They defend themselves against any unfamiliar threat.
Whether you end up dead from this defense behavior or not, that's up to luck. But the main point is they don't go out of their way to kill you if they don't notice you.

Lions, spend ages stalking their prey, hiding in the tall grass, then leap at the opportunistic chance... this is clear murderous intent. Snakes doing the same thing. Spiders building traps. Herbivores DON'T do any of these things.

I don't know why you can't tell the difference, they're not the same thing. Both behaviors might end up killing, but the second one is done with the intent to kill.

The first one is an attack due to defense mechanism, if the herbivore was a rabbit or a goat, you're not going to die from their attacks simply because they don't have the physical strength to kill something larger than them or any traits that will allow them to kill something.

Snakes and lions can kill things that are bigger than them in size, because they evolved the traits required for KILLING.




Oh my god, you did not just go there. What are you, fourteen?

Seriously though, how does this "collective illusion" process work. How do the people pretending to feel guilty, or pretending to feel in love, know what to pretend if none of it is real? How did the idea come about - what did the transition look like? How the hell would the first person to pretend to be in love with someone gain an advantage? Was there some meeting? Or did it spontaneously develop among everyone? How does this crazy everyone-is-a-sociopath world you live in even work?


You clearly haven't thought about society and human psychology enough if you have to ask me these series of questions.

People are conditioned from birth to believe in certain things and act a certain way and feel a certain way. People give names to the results of these conditioned behaviour, such as "feeling guilty for doing the wrong thing", "being in love", "being polite" etc.

Why do you think humans find it easier to learn the bad things (such as swearing) from someone rather than the good things (saying thank you)?
Why do some people cry to "The Notebook" but others can't?

This is just a simple example, but I hope you get where I'm coming from.

Note: Even the above example is a result of me being conditioned. See, I think saying thank you is a good thing because that's what I've been taught from birth.



It's debatable whether it's immoral to kill people if you have to do it to survive. The argument regarding the morality of bombing cities full of civilians is a bit more questionable, and also more abstract, but definitely there.

If the animalistic instinct to survive is all that's keeping humans killing each other (I'm not sure if "killing each other for any reason" is the same thing as "evil", since if you insist on staying on-topic the OP just quoted a dictionary definition and then listed some examples of evil stuff he's annoyed at seeing happen on the news, with murder being one of them) then surely all you have to do is make it so that humans don't have to kill each other to survive? All that'll take is 100 years' worth of economic growth and demographic shift.


That will be ideal.

But it doesn't work that way in reality. There is no perfect political system (as of yet), whether it be capitalism or socialism, there will always be those who are disadvantaged and treated unfairly.

43865 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 7/31/13

Shy-Anime-Guy wrote:






I think that Maths and Physics are the two hardest subjects to teach to anyone. Because they're hard to explain and also... if a teacher isn't creative, the topics can become boring.


I believe a place like Sakurasou would be the ideal place for me too. I believe that if such a place existed for me, I could have lived a happier life... but oh well.

Yeah, I like all kinds of animes, from psychological to horror to sci-fi to shoujo to shounen to parody to whatever. It's not the genre that defines a good show, it's the show itself. :)


Yeah I drew my avatar on a digital software You should take art classes, I think they're fun... they'll ask you to draw fruits and stuffs. Play around with colour.


5174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38
Offline
Posted 7/31/13

dyingsoon wrote:

here is the definition of evil

morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
harmful; injurious: evil laws.


Bit self-referential in that definition.

The trouble is in the details. For example, is murder evil? That's a bit of a tautology - we only call it murder when we've accepted it as evil. Killings which are not deemed evil - ones that are justified in some way, or accidental - we call something else.

But levels of justification vary. What is evil to me, is survival or justice to another. Because of this, 'evil' will exist so long as humans are diverse. But paradoxically, I would argue that ending human diversity is an evil in itself...
159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / California
Offline
Posted 8/1/13
The bigger question is whether evil should be rubbed off as you say.

You asked why evil exists and come up empty, therefore until you know its purpose then you shouldn't be thinking about trying to get rid of it. It maybe that its something that is needed or essential to us. To what degree we can only speculate, but we must always first ask if we should before seeing if we can.
386 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 8/1/13
Where is my comment about Red Sun?
377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / エーテル
Offline
Posted 8/1/13

Rowan93 wrote:

It is said by who? Because whoever said that, they haven't even met evolution. If there's a trait that gives more genetic fitness, evolution will push it until it stops increasing genetic fitness (which is almost completely unrelated to actual fitness) or until the entire species dies.


It is merely a philosophical theory^^

I do think you're right though. As long as there are people willing to better humanity, then there is always room for the greater good^^
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.