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?
12963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Aberystwyth, Wale...
Offline
Posted 8/1/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:


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.


If you're trying to paint a picture of a general tendency towards violence, I don't think intent to kill matters. Violently lashing out because you feel threatened by anything that moves, and not caring whether your victims die or not, is not "peaceful" just because there's technically no murderous intent.



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.


my point is, how does this state of affairs come about? Once upon a time, in our evolutionary history, things like love and guilt were not things that existed in our ancestors' psyche. And now they are. If they are simply emotions that evolved because they're useful for passing on an individual's genes, that's super-simple and just how things work. If they're socially conditioned, then you have to explain a mysterious quantum leap between not having love and guilt and so on, to deluding ourselves into thinking we feel those emotions and brainwashing those delusions into our young.



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.



People living on benefits in the United Kingdom aren't as poor as medieval peasants, except in relative terms. When there's no one living on a dollar a day, and the only thing that "poor" means is "not as rich as the rich", the kind of poverty we actually care about will have been eradicated.

And if just economic growth alone won't get things where they need to be, there are a few things we haven't tried yet, like a guaranteed minimum income.
12963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Aberystwyth, Wale...
Offline
Posted 8/1/13

otankun wrote:

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.


That sounds deep and meaningful when you're just talking about some abstract "evil" in general, but look at it in the specifics: replace "evil" with some specific evil:

"Just because we don't know the purpose of having serial killers, you shouldn't be thinking about trying to get rid of it. Maybe having serial killers is something that is needed or essential to us. To what degree we can only speculate, but we must always first ask if we should get rid of serial killers before seeing if we can."

Doesn't sound quite as wise, does it?
2387 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / In Rainbows
Offline
Posted 8/1/13

KaosProphet wrote:


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...


1.)

A murdered B

C can't accept that A is evil. (murder is not evil according to C)

therefore A is not evil.

2.)

your definition of evil

is survival or justice to another.


that's your own definition according to your OWN internal knowledge.

3.)

your definition of evil is questionable if you ask me.





12485 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / SoCal
Offline
Posted 8/1/13
Probably has more to do with how you get your news. I can only imagine that news stations would tell us of all the horrible things going on because it attracts viewers. They are still a business and need to make money somehow. In addition to that with a rise in technology I would think that it also means a rise in the number of solved cases, which regardless of whether it is a serious or petty crime it is more likely to be heard about. I'm not saying that this is an excuse for all the things out there that shouldn't happen but it may just be a bit of a skewed perspective. As for if we will ever see a day without it, I couldn't imagine a world like that and I don't think it is in our power to create it.
2387 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / In Rainbows
Offline
Posted 8/1/13

Gettnlag wrote:

Probably has more to do with how you get your news. I can only imagine that news stations would tell us of all the horrible things going on because it attracts viewers. They are still a business and need to make money somehow. In addition to that with a rise in technology I would think that it also means a rise in the number of solved cases, which regardless of whether it is a serious or petty crime it is more likely to be heard about. I'm not saying that this is an excuse for all the things out there that shouldn't happen but it may just be a bit of a skewed perspective. As for if we will ever see a day without it, I couldn't imagine a world like that and I don't think it is in our power to create it.


thank you for that utter lack of intellectual thoughts.
10312 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Just look behind...
Offline
Posted 8/1/13
To hell with it all!
4174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38
Offline
Posted 8/1/13

dyingsoon wrote:


KaosProphet wrote:


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...


1.)

A murdered B

C can't accept that A is evil. (murder is not evil according to C)

therefore A is not evil.


More likely is that C does not consider what A did to be 'murder.'


dyingsoon wrote:

2.)

your definition of evil

is survival or justice to another.


that's your own definition according to your OWN internal knowledge.

3.)

your definition of evil is questionable if you ask me.



That's sort of my point.

16596 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 8/1/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:What I've noticed is that most herbivorous animals (not all) tend to be gentle in nature, like sheep, cows, rabbits etc.
While carnivorous and omnivorous animals (humans) are fierce in nature.


Bulls are rather fierce, aren't they? I think just about all male mammals tend to have a few violent, competitive behaviors come naturally to them. Driving off outside threats and inside competition is just too valuable of a survival trait to not end up bred into all males.

As far as rape goes, it's pretty damn rude, about like trying to run down random guys with your horns and gore them to death. Humans are at the point of rejecting reality and substituting it with our own make believe reality, where murder and rape aren't naturally rewarding activities.

Which is all well and good, but the obvious way of creating that reality is to enforce it through goring people to death. So, now we're killing people for our ideals. Well, it's probably better than living like animals, at least.
3518 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / NJ
Offline
Posted 8/1/13
No, cause than it would be boring!
19981 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Massachusetts, Un...
Offline
Posted 8/1/13
Impossible. Human nature is drawn to violence. There's absolutely no way to make evil go away at all. Even the littlest things can be considered evil.
41618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 8/1/13

Rowan93 wrote:

If you're trying to paint a picture of a general tendency towards violence, I don't think intent to kill matters. Violently lashing out because you feel threatened by anything that moves, and not caring whether your victims die or not, is not "peaceful" just because there's technically no murderous intent.


I think you're taking my original statement out of context.
I said herbivores were gentle in nature, but that statement doesn't mean they're not prone to violence. Somebody can be gentle in nature, but that doesn't mean they're gentle 100% of the time, because there will always be an external stimulus that can make them become violent; for example, if you try to hurt a gentle person's children they will lash at you--this is pretty much a basic instinct instilled in all animals by evolution.


What I'm trying to get people to imagine is, what if humans evolved as a herbivorous species instead of an omnivorous species? What if we never hunted down other animals?
There will be quite a difference in terms of the existence of violence in general in today's society, what if women were the ones controlling the world instead of men?



my point is, how does this state of affairs come about? Once upon a time, in our evolutionary history, things like love and guilt were not things that existed in our ancestors' psyche. And now they are. If they are simply emotions that evolved because they're useful for passing on an individual's genes, that's super-simple and just how things work. If they're socially conditioned, then you have to explain a mysterious quantum leap between not having love and guilt and so on, to deluding ourselves into thinking we feel those emotions and brainwashing those delusions into our young.


Well this is treading on philosophy talk rather than scientific talk... so everything I said in this paragraph will be purely opinion-based.

Humans evolved higher intelligence, and with that capacity, we're able to manipulate each other's behaviour and ways of thinking.
Before higher intelligence, there was no guilt or love, yet there are sadness, fear and happiness, those are "real" emotions implanted on the genetic code.

With higher intelligence, human society can manipulate people to feel a certain way throughout their lives. Guilt and love being two of the examples. They're not "real" emotions.

What I'm trying to say is, a person can't feel guilty about something if he was never taught of the difference between right and wrong.
A person wouldn't know what "love" is unless he was exposed to romantic films, poems, stories and real life "lovers" walking on the street.


What a person learns in his childhood is what will stay with him. So if a child was conditioned to feel that not sharing is wrong, he would feel guilty for not sharing and so forth.
However, some people, even if conditioned this way, will not stay this way, because their primitive instinct overrides that social conditioning. Therefore even in adulthood, they will not feel guilty about not sharing with someone else.


Do I think social conditioning is beneficial in evolutionary terms? Yes. Because it allows a society dense with population to live in harmony. And it must be the right thing to do because there are 7 billion people on Earth right now, I would call that number successful survival growth.



People living on benefits in the United Kingdom aren't as poor as medieval peasants, except in relative terms. When there's no one living on a dollar a day, and the only thing that "poor" means is "not as rich as the rich", the kind of poverty we actually care about will have been eradicated.

And if just economic growth alone won't get things where they need to be, there are a few things we haven't tried yet, like a guaranteed minimum income.



The problem isn't about minimal wage. The problem lies with people themselves.

Some people are able to live a humble life and not complain, however some people get ambitious about things, but wants to take a shortcut way and thus they start doing things that society deem as wrong such as drug trafficking; and when you get into this sort of business, there's bound to be bloodshed.

41618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 8/1/13

Kavalion wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:What I've noticed is that most herbivorous animals (not all) tend to be gentle in nature, like sheep, cows, rabbits etc.
While carnivorous and omnivorous animals (humans) are fierce in nature.


Bulls are rather fierce, aren't they? I think just about all male mammals tend to have a few violent, competitive behaviors come naturally to them. Driving off outside threats and inside competition is just too valuable of a survival trait to not end up bred into all males.




I don't know why everyone keeps bringing up bull to counter my herbivore statement, but bulls are gentle creatures... how do you think farmers (in developing countries) use them to help farming? and as transports?

16596 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 8/1/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:I don't know why everyone keeps bringing up bull to counter my herbivore statement, but bulls are gentle creatures... how do you think farmers (in developing countries) use them to help farming? and as transports?


Well, it's no different from using a domestic dog for chores. Plus, if they're neutered, there is almost no danger of them ever fighting.

It's just more to do with being male than being carnivorous.
41618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 8/1/13 , edited 8/1/13

Kavalion wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:I don't know why everyone keeps bringing up bull to counter my herbivore statement, but bulls are gentle creatures... how do you think farmers (in developing countries) use them to help farming? and as transports?


Well, it's no different from using a domestic dog for chores. Plus, if they're neutered, there is almost no danger of them ever fighting.

It's just more to do with being male than being carnivorous.


The carnivorous thing links to the murderous traits that we see in humans today.

Being male will give any animal more susceptibility to violence because of strength and the need to dominate. But it's the issue that the primitive ancestors of humans went from herbivorous to omnivorous, that humans started to develop murderous traits and abilities (developing tools etc). And these traits remain in some modern humans, some is stronger than others.

That's my point, basically.
Whether bulls kill humans is another story. But you can't say herbivores and carnivores are the same in terms of violence.
159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / California
Offline
Posted 8/1/13

Rowan93 wrote:


otankun wrote:

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.


That sounds deep and meaningful when you're just talking about some abstract "evil" in general, but look at it in the specifics: replace "evil" with some specific evil:

"Just because we don't know the purpose of having serial killers, you shouldn't be thinking about trying to get rid of it. Maybe having serial killers is something that is needed or essential to us. To what degree we can only speculate, but we must always first ask if we should get rid of serial killers before seeing if we can."

Doesn't sound quite as wise, does it?


I think that you're made my point.
It wasn't that evil is necessary, but that we don't know it's purpose. I was simply speculating that it might be needed to human beings. It may not. It's whole purpose may well be to be destroyed. My point is that we don't know.
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.