First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Is it possible to wear off evil from Humanity?
10028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 8/1/13
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Remembered I heard it somewhere. Sounds inspirational
15998 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Aberystwyth, Wale...
Offline
Posted 8/1/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:


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?


I suspect that human-herbivores' brains would be different to us in ways that make them more violent as well, and this "murderous instinct" if it exists at all would probably not have much of an effect one way or another in the grand scheme of things. I'm finding it hard to come up with specific examples of possible effects, because it's hard to see how we even could evolve intelligence if we subsisted on a herbivorous diet. I know I shouldn't fight the hypothetical, so don't treat that like I expect it to be an actual counterargument, but it does seem like it would be a tremendous handicap to not have to outsmart your lunch.

As for women/men, I think the reason men ran everything for most of human history is directly related to our being more violent. For women to have controlled the world through history, military castes throughout history would have to have been made up of women instead of men, and for military castes to have been made up of women instead of men, women would have to tend to be more violent than men, in which case things just become a mirror image of our world and stay exactly as violent.

That is of course, assuming that sexist stereotypes of both genders are more or less correct.



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.


Are you saying that if you feel empathy for someone, and you find you've caused them to feel pain or sorrow, but you haven't been "taught" what's right and wrong by anyone, you won't actually care about what you've done?


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.


Group selectionism is hokum.

A piece of genetic code will become more abundant if the traits it causes in individuals of one generation make it more likely that members of the next generation will have that piece of code; this doesn't even necessarily benefit the individual, let alone the larger group.

Also, you kind of skipped over the real sticking-point anyway - you didn't even come up with a hypothesis for how it started. There supposedly was a time when there was no love, and then there was a time when we pretended to have love, but what happened inbetween?



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.



I didn't say minimum wage, past a certain point those just push anyone whose work isn't worth the minimum wage out of the workforce. I said guaranteed minimum income.

...and after a quick check on wikipedia, I suppose the terminology I should have been using to avoid confusion is "basic income". My bad;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Is this assertion based on evidence? Can you name anywhere that's rich enough that even the relatively-poorest of the relatively-poor are actually completely fine and just living a "humble existence", but some of them are ambitious and turn to violent crime?
18698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Online
Posted 8/1/13

GayAsianBoy wrote: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.


It's just that a large portion of our murderous traits and abilities are useless in terms of hunting, but exceptionally effective in terms of social aggression, which begs the question of whether or not it really mattered that we needed to hunt at all in the first place.
18916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Pennsylvania
Offline
Posted 8/1/13


i can believe it hahah, its a lot to take in. explaining it would be the worst part. you nailed it, my math teacher isnt very creative so i get so bored and doodle >.<

well aren't we just awesome? we could build one 0.0. ah man, is life pulling you down as well? :/

same! although horror i'm not too good with x) i'm easily frightened. but i still like watching them Friggin' right man! that is a nice phrase to live by xD

wow you do have some serious talent, whenever i look at your avi it just looks so pro. xP i'm trying to. if i can i want to take two this year x3 because even if im not so great at it i still like it a lot. did you take a lot of art classes? hahah wooh, i like free days where you can just do whatever but thats fine too, hbu? do you like to draw what they ask you to? woot, playing with color is great, i wish we were able to perceive more colors though
2991 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 8/1/13
Nope."Evil" will forever exist...
15258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
http://myanimelis...
Offline
Posted 8/1/13

dyingsoon wrote:

here is the definition of evil

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

I'm literally fed up with the news about murder, rape, robberies, etc.... etc... etc...

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




NEVER. you should seek life in an alternate universe because this world is bound by certain rules. there always has to be evil.
2395 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / In Rainbows
Offline
Posted 8/1/13

Compl3te wrote:


dyingsoon wrote:

here is the definition of evil

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

I'm literally fed up with the news about murder, rape, robberies, etc.... etc... etc...

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




NEVER. you should seek life in an alternate universe because this world is bound by certain rules. there always has to be evil.


no one is born evil

so where did evil come from?
2395 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / In Rainbows
Offline
Posted 8/1/13 , edited 8/1/13

KaosProphet wrote:


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.




ham is beef because that's what i believe.
10577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / chicagoland
Offline
Posted 8/1/13

Srtg wrote:

I personally think no because there is always some A-hole taking advantage of other people.


thats called capitalism
23784 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/1/13
But, if the world is to know peace, what fear shall drive them? Should we be satisfied by our position, what improvement can be made? Where, then, does the human spirit lie?
6174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39
Offline
Posted 8/1/13

dyingsoon wrote:


KaosProphet wrote:


dyingsoon wrote:

your definition of evil is questionable if you ask me.



That's sort of my point.



ham is beef because that's what i believe.


That is unquestionably silly.

I do hope you weren't expecting me to concede based on some false equivocation premise though?
49820 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 8/2/13 , edited 8/2/13

Shy-Anime-Guy wrote:






49820 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 8/2/13 , edited 8/2/13

Rowan93 wrote:

I suspect that human-herbivores' brains would be different to us in ways that make them more violent as well, and this "murderous instinct" if it exists at all would probably not have much of an effect one way or another in the grand scheme of things. I'm finding it hard to come up with specific examples of possible effects, because it's hard to see how we even could evolve intelligence if we subsisted on a herbivorous diet. I know I shouldn't fight the hypothetical, so don't treat that like I expect it to be an actual counterargument, but it does seem like it would be a tremendous handicap to not have to outsmart your lunch.


In my opinion, I think that herbivorous humans are more likely to be peaceful civilisation. Of course sexual dominance and territorial dominance will still be the triggers for violence because these traits are instilled in all animals, but I just have a feeling that it will be less bloody than omnivorous humans that we have now.
(Though this is pretty much purely a thought experiment without any objective basis) they could be just as violent.


You're actually right in that regards. Biologists are already theorizing that human high intelligence was due to the fact that its primitive ancestors ate a lot of fish which contained omega 3 protein responsible for brain development. (Though I suspect that there were other factors that lead to high intelligence in humans, otherwise bears and other fish-eating animals would have evolved the same way)



As for women/men, I think the reason men ran everything for most of human history is directly related to our being more violent. For women to have controlled the world through history, military castes throughout history would have to have been made up of women instead of men, and for military castes to have been made up of women instead of men, women would have to tend to be more violent than men, in which case things just become a mirror image of our world and stay exactly as violent.

That is of course, assuming that sexist stereotypes of both genders are more or less correct.


Yeah, it's just a hypothetical question. It's not possible for human females to dominate since they are physically smaller in size, but the point was if human females were given something that allowed them to dominate over their counterparts, things might have been different.
(It doesn't even have to be about militarism, it could be something simple as males being made more loyal to their female counterparts, as seen in ant and bee colonies).

Human males aren't genetically loyal to their female counterparts. Mammal males use females for sexual reproduction and to look after offspring.




Are you saying that if you feel empathy for someone, and you find you've caused them to feel pain or sorrow, but you haven't been "taught" what's right and wrong by anyone, you won't actually care about what you've done?


Yes, that's basically what I'm saying. That's why I brought up the thought experiment before of person living in the jungle and happened to kill another human.

You can't feel guilty about something if you truly believe what you're doing isn't right or wrong.




Group selectionism is hokum.

A piece of genetic code will become more abundant if the traits it causes in individuals of one generation make it more likely that members of the next generation will have that piece of code; this doesn't even necessarily benefit the individual, let alone the larger group.

Also, you kind of skipped over the real sticking-point anyway - you didn't even come up with a hypothesis for how it started. There supposedly was a time when there was no love, and then there was a time when we pretended to have love, but what happened inbetween?


Well, in the past, the definition of love is different to the definition of love in modern society. If you look at historical contexts, back then, men were allowed to wed/bed as many women as they want... it was seen as the "norm" of the past. There was not much romantic gibberish back then, it was about one man/many women/reproduction, it was sort of like a primitive mating ritual; men work, women stay home look after children... pretty much really similar to what other mammals do.


IN MODERN society (modern including even in Shakespeares times to now), people hail "monogamy" as the norm. You will be shunned if you have multiple partners. Romantic gestures such as writing poetry and giving flowers to the opposite sex.

THe definition of "love" changes with society. Who knows what it will be like the future?

My point is, love didn't just appear out of nowhere, it was based on sexual desire which turned into something more based on the society of that particular point in time--it's an ideal, not a REAL emotion.


(But if you want to think that it's a real emotion, I'm not stopping you, I'm just using my own beliefs to back up my original statement)




Is this assertion based on evidence? Can you name anywhere that's rich enough that even the relatively-poorest of the relatively-poor are actually completely fine and just living a "humble existence", but some of them are ambitious and turn to violent crime?


The assertion is based on anecdote, on my personal experience.

I've come from a low minimal income family in Australia. There was enough money to buy school uniforms and food on the table, but I couldn't have anything else. If I weren't happy with the humble life, I might have turned into a thief or drug dealer.

I know people in my situation who take shortcuts and go into the wrong business because they aren't humble with their "basic" income life. Because they desire materialistic things that higher income families have.

In Australia.
15998 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Aberystwyth, Wale...
Offline
Posted 8/2/13
Well, if the difference regarding the hypotheticals is a matter of opinion, there's no arguing to be done.


GayAsianBoy wrote:


Rowan93 wrote:
Are you saying that if you feel empathy for someone, and you find you've caused them to feel pain or sorrow, but you haven't been "taught" what's right and wrong by anyone, you won't actually care about what you've done?


Yes, that's basically what I'm saying. That's why I brought up the thought experiment before of person living in the jungle and happened to kill another human.

You can't feel guilty about something if you truly believe what you're doing isn't right or wrong.


But why would you truly believe what you're doing isn't wrong, if you have empathy and can see that you've caused someone to suffer?




Group selectionism is hokum.

A piece of genetic code will become more abundant if the traits it causes in individuals of one generation make it more likely that members of the next generation will have that piece of code; this doesn't even necessarily benefit the individual, let alone the larger group.

Also, you kind of skipped over the real sticking-point anyway - you didn't even come up with a hypothesis for how it started. There supposedly was a time when there was no love, and then there was a time when we pretended to have love, but what happened inbetween?


Well, in the past, the definition of love is different to the definition of love in modern society. If you look at historical contexts, back then, men were allowed to wed/bed as many women as they want... it was seen as the "norm" of the past. There was not much romantic gibberish back then, it was about one man/many women/reproduction, it was sort of like a primitive mating ritual; men work, women stay home look after children... pretty much really similar to what other mammals do.


IN MODERN society (modern including even in Shakespeares times to now), people hail "monogamy" as the norm. You will be shunned if you have multiple partners. Romantic gestures such as writing poetry and giving flowers to the opposite sex.

THe definition of "love" changes with society. Who knows what it will be like the future?


The number of people society will shun you for loving at the same time seems completely unrelated to whether or not love is a social construct. A lot of societies hail heterosexuality as the norm and will shun people for having partners of the same sex, does that mean that a gay couple in such a society is defined as not being in love?




Is this assertion based on evidence? Can you name anywhere that's rich enough that even the relatively-poorest of the relatively-poor are actually completely fine and just living a "humble existence", but some of them are ambitious and turn to violent crime?


The assertion is based on anecdote, on my personal experience.

I've come from a low minimal income family in Australia. There was enough money to buy school uniforms and food on the table, but I couldn't have anything else. If I weren't happy with the humble life, I might have turned into a thief or drug dealer.

I know people in my situation who take shortcuts and go into the wrong business because they aren't humble with their "basic" income life. Because they desire materialistic things that higher income families have.

In Australia.


Maybe a little more than just enough to have clothes on backs/roofs over heads/food on the table is needed, then?

Or less consumer culture pumping everyone to be materialistic...

...or a stronger sense of community in the places where people live...

...or more respect for the law/better laws that deserve respect...

...or less income disparity...

Point being, I'm not sure if it's worth writing off as a lost cause just yet.
49820 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 8/2/13

Rowan93 wrote:
But why would you truly believe what you're doing isn't wrong, if you have empathy and can see that you've caused someone to suffer?


???

Because that person weren't taught on what is wrong. They might do things that hurt another person, but if they've never been taught it was wrong, they wouldn't feel guilty.

Human intellects give humans the ability to empathise, but unless it was conditioned by society first, the empathy we see today wouldn't come to that person so easily.

Analogy: Human intellects give humans the ability to solve mathematical equations, but if they're never taught maths, they wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Having the intellect and having the required instruction are two separate things.



The number of people society will shun you for loving at the same time seems completely unrelated to whether or not love is a social construct. A lot of societies hail heterosexuality as the norm and will shun people for having partners of the same sex, does that mean that a gay couple in such a society is defined as not being in love?



Well, you asked me how "love" progressed from being non-existent to becoming prevalent in human society, and I gave you the examples.
In Viking periods, "love" between humans were similar to primitive humans, they breed, they have children, breed some more etc.
This love during Viking periods were mirroring the sexual desire and instincts from evolution.

However, over time it evolved into something more than just sexual desire due to continuous social condition of the meaning of love.

I answered your question of how it progressed from nothing to first stages of love to what love is today. I wasn't comparing them. It was a chronological timeline of "love".


Well, since you've brought up the homosexuality romances, did you know it was classified by The American Psychologists in the 70's as a mental disorder? Did you know that anyone caught having sex with the same sex were sent off to jail?
Do you still think people think homosexual romance is "love"? Did you know in some parts of the Middle East, homosexuals get sentenced to death if found out?
And in some parts of USA, gay marriage isn't even recognised legally?




Maybe a little more than just enough to have clothes on backs/roofs over heads/food on the table is needed, then?

Or less consumer culture pumping everyone to be materialistic...

...or a stronger sense of community in the places where people live...

...or more respect for the law/better laws that deserve respect...

...or less income disparity...

Point being, I'm not sure if it's worth writing off as a lost cause just yet.


The problem with this ideal is that you assume humans have the capacity to be philosophically uniformed.

Even you and I have different philosophical stances. You can't expect a whole community to agree with one another so easily.

And, without a capitalist system, people are not going to be as innovative in their thinking. As much as I hate to admit it, money does drive innovation to some level.
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.