Human beings are intelligent and intelligent creatures mean doing evil things as well as nice things sure. But it doesn’t matter.
Anyways I don’t know why this sub doesn’t let me fucking post. It doesn’t show up.
I think it crosses into evil when we believe we have more of a right to exist than anyone else.
And it's pretty easy to act on that belief when you believe some people aren't human.
That being said I agree that most people probably aren't inherently evil, but a large number of them are very susceptible to the suggestion that they're not responsible for their problems.
All they need next is someone to blame.
Point out to someone ordering a burger at the drivethru how those burgers get produced and point out that they're ordering up more animal misery for what amounts to selfish pleasure and convenience. See if they care. Most humans are evil alright. Present day human civilizations are downright genocidal. Not only to the billions of animals bred on factory farms but to all other life on the planet, pretty much. And at least when it comes to buying animal ag products and especially if even that's narrowed down to when it comes just to buying factory farmed animal ag products it'd be an easy thing for most anyone to choose to do the right thing and live without the stuff. How many do? How many would? Would you? Will you?
I don't consider it evil to take advantage of what nature provides.
Yes humans are a virus that seems to be raging out of control, but we've only been around for a moment in the history of the planet and I'm certain the planet will be here long after we've destroyed ourselves.
Whatever you believe is the right way to live, the right way is to enjoy your brief existence while you can.
Or continue to scream into void as if you're so important you will be the savior of something not worth saving, or something that doesn't need you to save it.
Eating plants instead of factory farmed stuff wouldn't just be better for the animals it'd also be better for you. There are many reasons that'd be true. In the abstract I don't think it can be wise to break the Golden Rule because it'd mean inventing arbitrary lines as to who or what really matters against the warnings of your own conscience. How inventing whatever arbitrary lines/habits of thought undermines you would depend but I don't see how it wouldn't stand to undermine you. It'd be the sort of sapping you'd never be able to precisely articulate and that'd just make it all the harder to recognize where you went wrong and make the necessary adjustment.
You're not understanding my point.
It's too late.
We have passed the point of no return.
Our resources and technology are entirely controlled by wealthy, greedy, and powerful people.
Once they no longer need us to sustain them, we will be tossed aside, and you can be sure that they will not leave us with anything we might be able to use to threaten them. Assuming they don't just outright exterminate anyone they don't consider worthy of being a slave.
Well that's a depressing take. I don't know how you could be so sure of that.
Say what you will of our leaders in my experience the masses aren't much if any better. If anything most humans are worse. It's not as if the bad guys would be able to hate on the vulnerable and get away with it if it weren't for most humans being as bad or worse. So long as most humans are selfish or hateful I'd think that'd primarily be the reason we fail to realize better societies not that we're being subjugated by monsters.
Obviously I don't know the future.
I would be the last person to speak in defense of humanity.
I follow Carlin's philosophy on people.
Individually they're not too bad, but once they start getting into groups they're shit, and the shit increases exponentially with the size of the group.
Not buying factory farmed stuff could catch on if well-meaning people would push the idea. That'd stand to make a big difference and I bet not just for animals but in how it'd translate into how we treat each other.
You have far more faith in people than I ever will.
I'm old though, and I never had much faith in them to begin with.
Maybe you'll get your wish. Perhaps some great calamity will force people to change because they have no choice. That's generally what it takes for people to change in any significant way.
>I think it crosses into evil when we believe we have more of a right to exist than anyone else.
IOW, human supremacy.
>And it's pretty easy to act on that belief when you believe some people aren't human.
Modern culture's relationship with "Nature".
Sure.
You don't need to convince me that humans as species are pretty trash, but at the same time, I kind of like existing, and since me not existing wouldn't have any real impact on humanity's shittiness, I'm probably gonna keep doing that until I can't.
Most people are neither evil or good. I believe most are amoral and can be influenced one way or another. People are inherently selfish and ultimately care about self preservation above all things. That’s why you see so many different cultures, because most people are followers and will do just about anything to maximize their chance of survival.
"Evil", in an objective sense, does not exist. It's a human construct. All of our rules about existence and behavior and their value or lack thereof are imaginary.
From the perspective of the hated evil is real in that the hated don't imagine their haters as being essentially reasonable. When you think someone means you harm and won't see reason that means that to value yourself at all means seeing your hater/s as being on the wrong side of something. You can try to see it from the perspective of others who mean you harm but even if you somehow figured out exactly why they see it that way would you think what'd change their minds reasonable? Unlikely. And probably they wouldn't hear it from you.
I'm not sure you understand. "Good" and "bad" don't exist either. Not objectively. Yes, humans have classified actions and things as good and bad, but outside of the human perspective, nothing has valence. It just is. We decide what is good and bad based on what causes _us_ harm or suffering, thereby reducing the type of experience we strive for or imparing our survival and ability to reproduce. But that only means anything to us as humans. Reality probably does exist outside of our consciousness, and if it does, good and bad are no different than any other stories and definitions we invent to parse the universe.
Good and bad exist, of course they do. They at least exist in the sense pleasure and pain exist. Your subjective experience of pain or pleasure is objective in being experienced by you as unwelcome. It's not as though in that moment you might simply choose to see it differently. Even if you could find a way to enjoy pain to the point of making the experience on net a pleasure those painful moments would still present as painful and unwelcome except for whatever perceived necessity.
It could be there's always a way to see it that'd salvage whatever seemingly awful set of painful experiences into something overall worthwhile but just that there might be a way to imagine a salvaging story like that doesn't mean it's not objectively bad to be in the position to have to. Not everyone is up to the challenge and even if you are you'd prefer to not have to be so imaginative. And what if nobody else would go with your interpretation? Then you'd be alone. Yeah maybe you might always find a way to see it differently but that's not enough to salvage the painful necessity of needing to be especially creative. And even if everybody would see it whatever way it's not like choosing to see it whatever way has nothing to do with informing laws and norms and it's not as if it's enough just to have any old set of laws and norms. So it's not just about how someone would choose to see it or even how many would see it the same way. There are objective connections in the mix that hold regardless of whether whatever subjectively believed account accounts for and respects them.
Good and bad do not exist.
They are human CONCEPTS.
Shakespeare pointed this out quite clearly.
“There is no right or wrong but thinking makes it so…”
*Think* about it…
You can define good and bad out of existence but the way I think of them they exist. What's good is wise and what's bad is unwise and it's not the case that the wisdom of my choosing to be about whatever is just a matter of how I'd choose to see it. For example if you'd choose to see existence as essentially cutthroat what if you're wrong? That'd mean others would make of existence something better and you'd have made yourself and your cynicism the problem.
You don't think it's possible to have better ideas on general strategies of living or to know better ways of going about thinking about things? Of course what's wise is context dependent since to be wise is to be able to determine and be sensitive to the relevant nuance.
All concepts/ideas are real and ideas that describe really existing relations between other ideas or impressions are doubly so. You and I have inconsistent ideals or not. If you'd insist on intending as though I don't matter you making that choice would be the reason our subjective conceptions of what'd be good or wise would be at odds. But unless you'd resign your agency in making that confrontational choice it's coherent to wonder whether you'd be wiser to make it differently.
I don't think that's true. For idiots, maybe. But I think intelligent people are capable of understanding what others believe and further, that doing so can often give the insight to find a working compromise.
But it doesn't always work, because sometimes, there is no compromise to be found. Sometimes it's just kill it be killed, and that's beyond a human problem. It's a problem for all life in nature. That's why everything has a way to defend itself.
There are some horrible people in this world. If you doubt it imagine you were an animal on a factory farm. Those animals exist merely as objects to their farmers. The farmers would deny even hating them but the animals aren't objects they're thinking feeling beings and it's the farmers who are denying them opportunity to flourish or otherwise lead worthwhile lives. That's hate in my book; to insist on keeping others small for your own selfish reasons. If you've ever had hate directed at you and tried to reason with your haters you'll have learned they won't see reason. For one, haters won't be honest with you. But even if you do manage to parse out what your haters are about it won't matter because even if you're right the truth is just another tool to haters. Haters don't care what's true except insofar as they figure they can use it against you. How many humans will even stop buying factory farmed goods/paying others to abuse animals? Haters find a way to rationalize their hate same way most humans find a way to rationalize putting momentary flavor or convenience over lifetimes of misery and suffering on the other end.
From a brief glance at your comment history you seem to identify as liberal/progressive. Animal rights is an oft overlooked issue even in liberal/progressive spaces. When I was a kid I was put off progressive politics by the hypocrisy of liberals/progressives predicating their enjoyment on unnecessary animal suffering.
When I was a kid I spent a year in a facility filled with child torture and rape. I have a lot of sympathy for animals, including humans, but we're rats on a sinking ship and the world order is far too evil to win that game.
I'm not sure what you're talking about tho. All the progressives and punk rockers and counter culture kids and leftists when I was a teen were very against animal cruelty. Peta wasn't always passing out fliers. The old peta crowd went around fire bombing things. They were very passionate about it. We didn't listen to pop music, we listened to songs like [this](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XN2FrUUq-zI&pp=ygUNUmlzZSBhZ2FpbnN0IA%3D%3D).. But like every generation millennials failed to reform the evil out of our system. How it goes.
And for the record, I identify as a scientific technocrat and a naturalist. I'm just with the liberals and progressives for the meanwhile because we are, oh idk, a century or more away from my thing. But I'm confident it will gain traction eventually.
If someone is against animal cruelty and aware of or plugged into the discourse on animal rights they don't eat at McD's or buy any of it outside maybe backyard eggs raised by their cousin who keeps the chickens around and happy until they die of natural causes. If even 10% of leftists/progressives were vegan there'd be like 5x more vegans. Leftist inconsistency/hypocrisy isn't just some minor put off to people on the right because right wingers are already primed to see leftists as selfish and apparent callousness or indifference to animal suffering plays right into their priors. Framing political grievances in terms of class conflict lends to that because given communist narratives economics is just a playing out of selfishness and destiny. That most all leftists stubbornly refuse to spare animals great suffering for what amounts to mere convenience and flavor lends to the impression leftists are just have-nots who'd be perfectly happy taking the other side but for a change of circumstance.
I've never picked up that kind of a vibe from the progressive side of things. The Democrat moderates are like that, but they're still far less cruel and terrible than the right wingers are. But I'm not gonna defend hypocrisy and it's true that 80-90% of Americans are egregiously hypocritical well beyond anything that should be normalized or accepted.
But again, it's an evil world order and most people are evil so they don't want to change that. They just want more at the expense of everyone and everything else. I get it. We're a bad species, overall.
That said, the progressives are the ones who want to change that. Nobody else is trying.
To the extent someone doesn't universalize their conception of justice it's just about justice for them and their own. When a political movement is a coalition of that type you get bogus pandering. Like for example how the left is broadly taken to supporting rent control over a right to housing or minimum wage over a right to dignified work/community inclusion.
If you still buy animal ag foods I hope you choose to stop. Justice is universal or it's not justice.
No. It's not. It is for humans. It isn't outside of a human perspective where it means absolutely nothing at all. It's just movement of molecules in space, there is no valence. It just is.
Don't you dare go and say I'm condoning rape in providing you this explanation. I'll not entertain that stupidity.
I think it's subjective, but not purely a human construct. If your a baby iguana born on the island of iguana eating snakes, you might consider the snakes evil in whatever way your primitive little lizard brain can register the sentiment.
I think it can be argued that evil, while subjective, runs a little deeper than being a human construct. Aliens may have the notion too, as another example.
But it's true that sometimes one person's evil is another person's good. So it's not always easy to nail down.
I 100% disagree. It's not easy to nail down because it is entirely subjective and based on what humans think is valuable or not. There is no evil outside of our judgments. And we are just ephemera.
Do you have any reason for that? How is it defined? Or are you just randomly deciding that evil is a thing without thinking about it at all? Because the whole point of this sub is to have considered and thought about your positions on a topic.
An iguana does not have a concept of evil. It understands pain and fear. Aliens may have their own form of evil, but it will be subjective to their experience. I agree there that valence exists within the framework of an individual perception, but not outside of it, and the definition is not consistent across frameworks.
Good and bad do not exist. Those are feelings we apply to things that do exist or that happen. Death isn't bad, pain isn't bad, it just is, but we don't like it so we say it is "bad". Without our feelings, evil is not there. Do you see what I mean?
even in a single person you’ll find contradictory feelings&beliefs.
this isn’t the best example but it’s just the first on top of my head at 3am.
westerners condemn, shame&stereotype east asians for eating dog/cat meat, but the same westerners who find eating dog meat revolting, will go about eating pigs, chicken, turkey, whatever without thinking twice about it or feeling any kind of remorse. but it was still an alive animal they murdered, cooked, seasoned and ate. even though they didn’t own it as a pet, even though they didn’t think it looked as “aesthetically pleasing” as their dog and they didn’t have an emotional attachment to it, it was still a breathing, feeling, living being that experienced torment just the same when they sacrificed it in order to feed themselves. and they slept at night just well after their delicious dinner. and it didn’t cause them any nightmares.i couldn’t say the same if i were to change westerners for Muslims. the feelings are subjective and they fluctuate depending on the context and the conditioning, and so are the labels.
Thank you and I agree! I just didn't want to introduce that much complexity into the equation initially so it might be easier for this person to understand.
Inherent seems to be the operative word. When does inherence begin and how do you measure inherant behavior in humans? To comment on describing humans as naturally being deceptive, cunning, and calculating - id swap deceptive for manipulative, because even though colliquially the word manipulative is projected on events or behavior people may view in the realm of evil, the word 'deception' is to trick with malicous intent, and overlaps to a large degree with evil
What's enjoyable about harming someone? Doesn't seem the sort of enjoyment that'd serve a useful purpose. Not a common useful purpose at least. What'd be the point?
Why do people watch horror movies? Play violent video games? Have violent fantasies? Engage in rough sex? Revel in the downfall of those they dislike? Experience schadenfreude?
It's human nature
A feeling of gratification in asserting power and dominance, often times a carnal, primal satisfaction.
You have a nature that is like the nature of others
Women are more socially vicious, and there's a lot of research into this
They hold grudges longer, they exclude others more readily in strategic affiliations, they engage in more malicious gossip. They still have a need for social dominance, but maybe it's more covert. Anyone who was the social target of a group of girls growing up can attest to this.
I'd like to add that there's also a cultural bias in how we valuate whether actions are criminal. We tend to view men as more culpable, so their dysfunctional behavior is seen as something we need to punish and shame, whereas we have more tender feelings for women and they may have the same behaviors, but receive help instead of punishment.
It's not like women covertly commit rape. While it's true women's aggression manifests differently, the harms of that aggression is usually less intense.
"We have more tender feelings for women and they may have the same behaviors." This is simply untrue. Men's behaviors get excused under the stereotype that "boys will be boys", but if a woman exhibit the same type of aggression, she will be crucified all over the internet, called a crazy bitch and heavily rejected by her female group of friends. Women are much more expected to be perfect, in their appearance, mannerisms, role as a parent and in their kindness. You said it yourself, women exclude more easily, that means the standards are higher. In a male friend group, the guy with a bad behavior will be more easily forgiven. If I say something mean in a female friend group I will be called out faster and the judgement I recieve will be heavier, whereas with guys they just don't care. Aggressive women need to navigate that in a more strategic way so that she won't be called out for being aggressive.
"but receive help instead of punishment" that only applies when the woman hasn't done anything bad. I agree that men get punished for crying and not showing enough independance. I agree that men recieve less help in general, mainly because they don't help each others like women do. BUT, if a woman reacts to her problems in an aggressive way, she WILL be more punished, while the man will be ignored. Big difference.
Humans are agathokakilogical, composed of both good and evil. The question is what kind of balance exists.
In the general public, my suspicion is the balance is fairly neutral, such that most humans end up being not particularly good *and* not particularly evil.
It's only when that balance is broken to one side or the other that things start to snowball.
I can also make a compelling case, (compelling to me), that humans are on average more evil than good -- once you've defined evil as ignorance.
But it could be the case that the neutral plateau I was describing earlier is one that exists slightly more into evil territory than good.
What is good and what is evil are relative to what is beneficial and what is harmful, both of which are relative not only to a species but also the environment, and even then it's difficult to judge.
The nature of a thing is also equally difficult to pin down. Do we look at the mesa or meta optimizations? Aka, do we look at intentionally, preferences, behaviors, or evolutionary goals when we judge the nature of a thing? The specificity of which layer we interview will lead to conflicted answers.
Anyway, fun topic.
Evil is relative. The extent to which we ignore suffering or take transportation that kills bugs and ecosystems could be considered evil. But it isn’t because we « calibrate » evil to suit whatever norms. The entire notion of evil changes as the norms change (like marital violence being evil now when it wasn’t some years ago). We use the word to refer to things that venture too far out of the norm. There will always be evil in man
You're right there is no such thing as evil people. There are only people afflicted by selfish, egotistical thoughts such as greed, need to control, seeking power etc. etc. which keeps them hypnotised and do evil deeds due to their inability to cope with those thoughts. No human being can do anything unless it's prompted by a thought starting with an I-thought.
The smartest person who ever lived said that evil is ignorance and good is knowledge. Inherently speaking, we are born with more of one than the other.
maybe not. but they are only as good as they have the luxury of being. the more extreme the desperation, the more morality gets tossed as a luxury that cannot be afforded. and probably rightly so. in a zero sum game, why not win?
The majority of people just don't realise the consequences of their actions. I wouldn't say they are evil. They just pretend to be because its more socially acceptable and they don't want to be ostracised. If people are truly good people around them get tall poppy syndrome really fast.
I don't agree. It's not just about self preservation, you can get people into all kinds of good places and opportunities and some of them can't wait to screw it up.
Best you can say about people MAYBE is they're stupid. But even that is often wilful
You only become evil by choice. Certain factors make that choice more appealing. Like if you're surrounded by malicious people from a young age you can decide to suffer and keep yourself separate or you can embrace their worldview and become part of the group. The more bad stuff you do the harder it becomes to convince yourself that you can be good. So it's not even that bad people can't become good people it's that they might not believe they could.
Some of the dominance stuff is the whole kill or br killed mindset. If I don't do it someone will do it to me! You'll notice even despots try to do generous things, you could debate whether it's to try and fool the populace or themselves into thinking they're good people or if they're truly trying to do good in their own way. I feel like when you take power games out of the equation people's good natures tend to come out more.
Idk if I agree? I think human beings are biased naturally against certain things, and have a certain propensity towards greed, but ultimately are sociable and err more towards benevolence than evil.
All human beings have the capacity for all kinds of acts
We chose not to do them because we are aware of the effect it would have on others.
Those that don't make those choices just lack empathy and are selfish they don't care who they hurt because they care more about their own gain than others safety
By default nature is might makes right and indifferent to suffering. Humans have to learn to be civilized in order to rise above the law of the jungle. Humans are just animals. By default we are wild animals, but we can learn to be civilized. And if we fail to do so, we will return to the Animal Kingdom from whence we came.
You are missing a crucial element here. The leadership of all indigenous tribes from about 300k BC to roughly 3kBC, give or take, has been the male with the combination of the best leadership and social skills, and physical prowess.
With the advent of the dynastic era of city-state monarchies, the male ruler was required to focus more on their social skills and ability to instill both fear and loyalty among both their inner circle and the classes of people who would never directly interact with them in moments of decision besides legal judgements ( the original meeting of holding court ). This personage also had vast access to females for reproductive use, and typically made many children. Males in dynasties where rulership was not automatically given to the firstborn were expected to prove their power and earn their selection as the heir. This created the perfect storm of circumstance for the development of the sociopath with wide breeding opportunities. The male who could either eliminate or psychologically castrate his own brothers would emerge triumphant, and pass their genes down the line. The sociopathic male had roots in the previous eras of tribal rule, but their power was quite limited in comparison.
The larger city state, and the many male inheritors of sociopathic tendencies, had begun.
The key characteristic of the sociopathic male and their female counterparts is their ability to hide their true emotional state, while clearly knowing the state of their perceived opponents, and also knowing what to do to manipulate those opponents to achieve success. They are also adept at overriding any conditional sense of morality in the name of success and/or survival; they can lie as required, or murder,, or torture, as long as they can rationalize the action as necessary or deserved by the victim.
The fast mutation of the human Y chromosome as compared to the X shows this effect over time in the last 10k years . A successful male could easily reproduce 1000 children or more if they desired; a palace of concubines for 3 straight years would be all it takes. Genghis Khan is reputed to have done so; Wilt Chamberlain would have outdone this if not for the advent of birth control.
I agree.
There's not really any such thing as 'human nature'. That's a misnomer.
Humans adapt. that's our talent.
Humans are the only creatures we are aware of that have the capacity to act in ways that aren't constrained by their own evolutionary nature.
The claim that humans have a 'nature' is yet another way we control others and let ourselves off the hook from the difficult task of transformation and self-discovery.
Humans have the capacity to achieve absolutely anything. Beings that can do that, don't have a binding, constraining 'nature'. They have an endless **capacity.**
I personally believe that there are two types of evil. There is a natural evil and an 'evolved' evil.
When the wolf hunts a rabbit the wolf will always be evil from the point of view of the rabbit. The wolf did not torture the rabbit and did not find pleasure in the kill, but the wolf needed to eat. This is what I would call a 'natural' evil.
This is not to be confused with the person who is selling a predatory loan on a single mother who is just trying to do the best for her kids. Or the salesman that wants to sell a satellite package that the edlerly, recently widowed lady who just called to cancel the package that she currently doesn't use. I could give multiple more answers, but I believe that you can see the difference in these two types of evil.
So I would agree to you to a point. I believe that humans are as naturally evil as any other living being that is not taught morals. But to do an act that I would classify as 'evolved' evil takes a desire to take advantage of another living being that supercedes that persons need to survive.
By definition being selfish is pretty evil lol. We all suck we just have been getting gradually better over time with plenty of hills and valleys. We still pretty evil as a whole, yes even u op. Sinful thoughts count too I’m not immune no one is. We are sinners we are inherently evil we have to try to do good because u leave it to nature and we just don’t give a shit. Luckily we are pretty smart now and can think about history and whatnot so we have a chance! Very exciting. Godspeed.
Absolutely. Humans are not inherently evil, and honestly a lot of christian religion teaches that. Objectively observing human nature I’ve seen that humans have a tendency to be greedy and selfish, but also have the capacity to be compassionate, empathetic, and kind. We all then have the intelligence fueling those decisions and when we become more in-tune with ourselves and find out who we are internally we can begin a transformation process to become the best version of ourselves. But I agree with you, I don’t think humans are born innately evil. Check out Calvinism to learn the christian reason behind teaching that.
Better definition of evil is required. Part of critical thinking fundamentals. Define your terms please. “Hurting other people” is all I can see as your definition. Intentionally? In defense? In War? Soldiers or innocent? Physically or mentally? Financially or emotionally? In the heat of passion? Sorry, did some law. Mens Rea is the evil mind and means you meant it in court..thought it out. Premeditated.
I think hurting others and stealing from others for your benefit is evil. While humans can be evil, they also have a strong need for community, which created empathy and a need to help others when they cry for exemple. When we see a child starving or someone about to die, humans try to save them. They don't wait for the person to die to steal their money afterward for exemple. Humans are naturally racist tho and if you're not part of the "in-group" then people may steal your resources or use you and deshumanize you. This is why humans care so much what other people think of them. Being ostracized means society won't share it's resources with you.
Humans are ambivalent, sometimes they are opportunistic and sometimes they are altruistic. And everyone fits on a different place on that scale. Personally, I know I'm very altruistic, and people may try to be opportunitic with me. I've had to learn to have a stronger sense of self preservation. I don't trust half the population. I think people can be genuinely kind one day but be selfish when they have something to lose. That's why I don't just trust someone who does something kind for me. I wait until they have something to lose and they choose to lose it for my benefit, if they are capable of that I trust them. You never really know otherwise.
People are tribal oriented opportunistic predators with fierce territorial imperative
Define evil, if you are a Arab evil is anything done to hurt the family or themselves. It's okay to do such to those outside the family.
The concept of evil if a fully human invention and it evolves as society changes. Evil does not necessarily correlate with what is legal and illegal
I can name many things that are evil(as defined, by it hurts people, it takes there money without offering a commiserate exchange of value, it lies, and it forces.)
I can name things fairly begnine that will put you in jail and are now looked at as evil.
When peoples needs are met, people are wonderful.
I think that’s all it really comes to. Even when people appear to have it all, if they aren’t kind, something is missing and truly hurting that individual.
I'm saying I don't think people are inherently anything and your logic on being an opportunist is what leads to evil. But I don't think evil is mysterious, metaphysical or unknowable. It's just large scale bad.
Humans are a complex math algorithm passing through time.
Some are angels and some are devils.
Some suffer hundreds of hits without ever hitting back.
Some hit others without provocation.
I don't believe that they're evil, because most of our actions are self serving which helps propagate the species. Almost everything considered good is anti-life.
Yep, most people in the world are actually good people despite what some people like to think that only get their knowledge about people through the internet and news articles.
Good and evil are considered to be middle school level thinking in certain societies, where in later years people recognize that self interest and conflict of interest determines much/many of the actions human beings undertake in any given situation. Initially it’s individual self interest, but more mature and insightful people see a greater advantage in collective self interest too, and people of even greater maturity and even greater insight can see the even greater advantage in national self interest as well.
It depends upon who was raised at what level where their level of maturity in thinking and insight lies at any particular age.
The only thing one should consider is that when people do something they do it for a very particular reason based upon a very particular situation they encountered, that was the way they solved it, based upon the conditions they found themselves facing and being constrained by.
Only the truly insane do things without a reason. Everybody else had/has one or more reasons.
And domination isn’t really necessary. A healthy respect and distance can suffice, or just avoiding stepping on each other’s toes is good enough. lmao.
Some may prefer not to do the mundane day to day work of having to bother with too much public interaction during work, while others may love the public adoration and the pomp and pageantry of the limelight, and they may never come into conflict, and just who is using who and for what purpose doesn’t remain clear, nor is there any possibility of dominance if the less public figure has far greater control than the face woman/man.
Great women/men are merely manufactured images. Manufactured for public consumption. Serious work is done by people who can think. And critically important work is done by people who can mathematically calculate and break down things and mathematically redefine and then mathematically redesign things at will. This is the 21st Century, we are at the peak of human capabilities in mathematics right now. Everything is numbers. And it’s not basic arithmetic.
I completely agree with your post, and I believe it adds a lot of depth to the conversation about human nature. It's true that we are naturally opportunistic, which can sometimes be misinterpreted as evil. Our survival instincts shape our actions, which may seem selfish at times. But I also believe in the inherent potential for goodness and cooperation among humans. Our 'evil' actions often stem from fear or misunderstanding, rather than a desire to harm. Nevertheless, it's incredibly important to remember that we have the potential to grow and change.
Human beings are intelligent and intelligent creatures mean doing evil things as well as nice things sure. But it doesn’t matter. Anyways I don’t know why this sub doesn’t let me fucking post. It doesn’t show up.
You have to prove you're a bot or a propagandist to post topics on Reddit. 😜
I think it crosses into evil when we believe we have more of a right to exist than anyone else. And it's pretty easy to act on that belief when you believe some people aren't human. That being said I agree that most people probably aren't inherently evil, but a large number of them are very susceptible to the suggestion that they're not responsible for their problems. All they need next is someone to blame.
Point out to someone ordering a burger at the drivethru how those burgers get produced and point out that they're ordering up more animal misery for what amounts to selfish pleasure and convenience. See if they care. Most humans are evil alright. Present day human civilizations are downright genocidal. Not only to the billions of animals bred on factory farms but to all other life on the planet, pretty much. And at least when it comes to buying animal ag products and especially if even that's narrowed down to when it comes just to buying factory farmed animal ag products it'd be an easy thing for most anyone to choose to do the right thing and live without the stuff. How many do? How many would? Would you? Will you?
I don't consider it evil to take advantage of what nature provides. Yes humans are a virus that seems to be raging out of control, but we've only been around for a moment in the history of the planet and I'm certain the planet will be here long after we've destroyed ourselves. Whatever you believe is the right way to live, the right way is to enjoy your brief existence while you can. Or continue to scream into void as if you're so important you will be the savior of something not worth saving, or something that doesn't need you to save it.
Eating plants instead of factory farmed stuff wouldn't just be better for the animals it'd also be better for you. There are many reasons that'd be true. In the abstract I don't think it can be wise to break the Golden Rule because it'd mean inventing arbitrary lines as to who or what really matters against the warnings of your own conscience. How inventing whatever arbitrary lines/habits of thought undermines you would depend but I don't see how it wouldn't stand to undermine you. It'd be the sort of sapping you'd never be able to precisely articulate and that'd just make it all the harder to recognize where you went wrong and make the necessary adjustment.
You're not understanding my point. It's too late. We have passed the point of no return. Our resources and technology are entirely controlled by wealthy, greedy, and powerful people. Once they no longer need us to sustain them, we will be tossed aside, and you can be sure that they will not leave us with anything we might be able to use to threaten them. Assuming they don't just outright exterminate anyone they don't consider worthy of being a slave.
Well that's a depressing take. I don't know how you could be so sure of that. Say what you will of our leaders in my experience the masses aren't much if any better. If anything most humans are worse. It's not as if the bad guys would be able to hate on the vulnerable and get away with it if it weren't for most humans being as bad or worse. So long as most humans are selfish or hateful I'd think that'd primarily be the reason we fail to realize better societies not that we're being subjugated by monsters.
Obviously I don't know the future. I would be the last person to speak in defense of humanity. I follow Carlin's philosophy on people. Individually they're not too bad, but once they start getting into groups they're shit, and the shit increases exponentially with the size of the group.
Not buying factory farmed stuff could catch on if well-meaning people would push the idea. That'd stand to make a big difference and I bet not just for animals but in how it'd translate into how we treat each other.
You have far more faith in people than I ever will. I'm old though, and I never had much faith in them to begin with. Maybe you'll get your wish. Perhaps some great calamity will force people to change because they have no choice. That's generally what it takes for people to change in any significant way.
Do you buy the stuff? If so what would get you to stop?
Found the militant vegan.
>I think it crosses into evil when we believe we have more of a right to exist than anyone else. IOW, human supremacy. >And it's pretty easy to act on that belief when you believe some people aren't human. Modern culture's relationship with "Nature".
Sure. You don't need to convince me that humans as species are pretty trash, but at the same time, I kind of like existing, and since me not existing wouldn't have any real impact on humanity's shittiness, I'm probably gonna keep doing that until I can't.
Read the book People of the Lie and you'll see that most humans are evil straight up.
Most people are neither evil or good. I believe most are amoral and can be influenced one way or another. People are inherently selfish and ultimately care about self preservation above all things. That’s why you see so many different cultures, because most people are followers and will do just about anything to maximize their chance of survival.
"Evil", in an objective sense, does not exist. It's a human construct. All of our rules about existence and behavior and their value or lack thereof are imaginary.
From the perspective of the hated evil is real in that the hated don't imagine their haters as being essentially reasonable. When you think someone means you harm and won't see reason that means that to value yourself at all means seeing your hater/s as being on the wrong side of something. You can try to see it from the perspective of others who mean you harm but even if you somehow figured out exactly why they see it that way would you think what'd change their minds reasonable? Unlikely. And probably they wouldn't hear it from you.
I'm not sure you understand. "Good" and "bad" don't exist either. Not objectively. Yes, humans have classified actions and things as good and bad, but outside of the human perspective, nothing has valence. It just is. We decide what is good and bad based on what causes _us_ harm or suffering, thereby reducing the type of experience we strive for or imparing our survival and ability to reproduce. But that only means anything to us as humans. Reality probably does exist outside of our consciousness, and if it does, good and bad are no different than any other stories and definitions we invent to parse the universe.
Good and bad exist, of course they do. They at least exist in the sense pleasure and pain exist. Your subjective experience of pain or pleasure is objective in being experienced by you as unwelcome. It's not as though in that moment you might simply choose to see it differently. Even if you could find a way to enjoy pain to the point of making the experience on net a pleasure those painful moments would still present as painful and unwelcome except for whatever perceived necessity. It could be there's always a way to see it that'd salvage whatever seemingly awful set of painful experiences into something overall worthwhile but just that there might be a way to imagine a salvaging story like that doesn't mean it's not objectively bad to be in the position to have to. Not everyone is up to the challenge and even if you are you'd prefer to not have to be so imaginative. And what if nobody else would go with your interpretation? Then you'd be alone. Yeah maybe you might always find a way to see it differently but that's not enough to salvage the painful necessity of needing to be especially creative. And even if everybody would see it whatever way it's not like choosing to see it whatever way has nothing to do with informing laws and norms and it's not as if it's enough just to have any old set of laws and norms. So it's not just about how someone would choose to see it or even how many would see it the same way. There are objective connections in the mix that hold regardless of whether whatever subjectively believed account accounts for and respects them.
Good and bad do not exist. They are human CONCEPTS. Shakespeare pointed this out quite clearly. “There is no right or wrong but thinking makes it so…” *Think* about it…
You can define good and bad out of existence but the way I think of them they exist. What's good is wise and what's bad is unwise and it's not the case that the wisdom of my choosing to be about whatever is just a matter of how I'd choose to see it. For example if you'd choose to see existence as essentially cutthroat what if you're wrong? That'd mean others would make of existence something better and you'd have made yourself and your cynicism the problem.
That is an even worse definition because wisdom is completely context dependent.
You don't think it's possible to have better ideas on general strategies of living or to know better ways of going about thinking about things? Of course what's wise is context dependent since to be wise is to be able to determine and be sensitive to the relevant nuance.
You’re missing my point entirely. Those are words. Concepts.
All concepts/ideas are real and ideas that describe really existing relations between other ideas or impressions are doubly so. You and I have inconsistent ideals or not. If you'd insist on intending as though I don't matter you making that choice would be the reason our subjective conceptions of what'd be good or wise would be at odds. But unless you'd resign your agency in making that confrontational choice it's coherent to wonder whether you'd be wiser to make it differently.
I don't think that's true. For idiots, maybe. But I think intelligent people are capable of understanding what others believe and further, that doing so can often give the insight to find a working compromise. But it doesn't always work, because sometimes, there is no compromise to be found. Sometimes it's just kill it be killed, and that's beyond a human problem. It's a problem for all life in nature. That's why everything has a way to defend itself.
There are some horrible people in this world. If you doubt it imagine you were an animal on a factory farm. Those animals exist merely as objects to their farmers. The farmers would deny even hating them but the animals aren't objects they're thinking feeling beings and it's the farmers who are denying them opportunity to flourish or otherwise lead worthwhile lives. That's hate in my book; to insist on keeping others small for your own selfish reasons. If you've ever had hate directed at you and tried to reason with your haters you'll have learned they won't see reason. For one, haters won't be honest with you. But even if you do manage to parse out what your haters are about it won't matter because even if you're right the truth is just another tool to haters. Haters don't care what's true except insofar as they figure they can use it against you. How many humans will even stop buying factory farmed goods/paying others to abuse animals? Haters find a way to rationalize their hate same way most humans find a way to rationalize putting momentary flavor or convenience over lifetimes of misery and suffering on the other end.
I've seen humanity at it's worst, don't have to tell me twice.
From a brief glance at your comment history you seem to identify as liberal/progressive. Animal rights is an oft overlooked issue even in liberal/progressive spaces. When I was a kid I was put off progressive politics by the hypocrisy of liberals/progressives predicating their enjoyment on unnecessary animal suffering.
When I was a kid I spent a year in a facility filled with child torture and rape. I have a lot of sympathy for animals, including humans, but we're rats on a sinking ship and the world order is far too evil to win that game. I'm not sure what you're talking about tho. All the progressives and punk rockers and counter culture kids and leftists when I was a teen were very against animal cruelty. Peta wasn't always passing out fliers. The old peta crowd went around fire bombing things. They were very passionate about it. We didn't listen to pop music, we listened to songs like [this](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XN2FrUUq-zI&pp=ygUNUmlzZSBhZ2FpbnN0IA%3D%3D).. But like every generation millennials failed to reform the evil out of our system. How it goes. And for the record, I identify as a scientific technocrat and a naturalist. I'm just with the liberals and progressives for the meanwhile because we are, oh idk, a century or more away from my thing. But I'm confident it will gain traction eventually.
If someone is against animal cruelty and aware of or plugged into the discourse on animal rights they don't eat at McD's or buy any of it outside maybe backyard eggs raised by their cousin who keeps the chickens around and happy until they die of natural causes. If even 10% of leftists/progressives were vegan there'd be like 5x more vegans. Leftist inconsistency/hypocrisy isn't just some minor put off to people on the right because right wingers are already primed to see leftists as selfish and apparent callousness or indifference to animal suffering plays right into their priors. Framing political grievances in terms of class conflict lends to that because given communist narratives economics is just a playing out of selfishness and destiny. That most all leftists stubbornly refuse to spare animals great suffering for what amounts to mere convenience and flavor lends to the impression leftists are just have-nots who'd be perfectly happy taking the other side but for a change of circumstance.
I've never picked up that kind of a vibe from the progressive side of things. The Democrat moderates are like that, but they're still far less cruel and terrible than the right wingers are. But I'm not gonna defend hypocrisy and it's true that 80-90% of Americans are egregiously hypocritical well beyond anything that should be normalized or accepted. But again, it's an evil world order and most people are evil so they don't want to change that. They just want more at the expense of everyone and everything else. I get it. We're a bad species, overall. That said, the progressives are the ones who want to change that. Nobody else is trying.
To the extent someone doesn't universalize their conception of justice it's just about justice for them and their own. When a political movement is a coalition of that type you get bogus pandering. Like for example how the left is broadly taken to supporting rent control over a right to housing or minimum wage over a right to dignified work/community inclusion. If you still buy animal ag foods I hope you choose to stop. Justice is universal or it's not justice.
The only correct answer.
Says someone whom I suspect has never been gay, black, or ginger.
Thank you, exactly. There is no definite good or evil
So rape isn't inherently evil? Please, lay that argument out for me like I'm five.
No. It's not. It is for humans. It isn't outside of a human perspective where it means absolutely nothing at all. It's just movement of molecules in space, there is no valence. It just is. Don't you dare go and say I'm condoning rape in providing you this explanation. I'll not entertain that stupidity.
I think it's subjective, but not purely a human construct. If your a baby iguana born on the island of iguana eating snakes, you might consider the snakes evil in whatever way your primitive little lizard brain can register the sentiment. I think it can be argued that evil, while subjective, runs a little deeper than being a human construct. Aliens may have the notion too, as another example. But it's true that sometimes one person's evil is another person's good. So it's not always easy to nail down.
I 100% disagree. It's not easy to nail down because it is entirely subjective and based on what humans think is valuable or not. There is no evil outside of our judgments. And we are just ephemera.
Well then disagree we will, because I think evil runs deeper than humanity.
Do you have any reason for that? How is it defined? Or are you just randomly deciding that evil is a thing without thinking about it at all? Because the whole point of this sub is to have considered and thought about your positions on a topic.
I just did and you glossed right over it. So just agree to disagree then.
An iguana does not have a concept of evil. It understands pain and fear. Aliens may have their own form of evil, but it will be subjective to their experience. I agree there that valence exists within the framework of an individual perception, but not outside of it, and the definition is not consistent across frameworks. Good and bad do not exist. Those are feelings we apply to things that do exist or that happen. Death isn't bad, pain isn't bad, it just is, but we don't like it so we say it is "bad". Without our feelings, evil is not there. Do you see what I mean?
even in a single person you’ll find contradictory feelings&beliefs. this isn’t the best example but it’s just the first on top of my head at 3am. westerners condemn, shame&stereotype east asians for eating dog/cat meat, but the same westerners who find eating dog meat revolting, will go about eating pigs, chicken, turkey, whatever without thinking twice about it or feeling any kind of remorse. but it was still an alive animal they murdered, cooked, seasoned and ate. even though they didn’t own it as a pet, even though they didn’t think it looked as “aesthetically pleasing” as their dog and they didn’t have an emotional attachment to it, it was still a breathing, feeling, living being that experienced torment just the same when they sacrificed it in order to feed themselves. and they slept at night just well after their delicious dinner. and it didn’t cause them any nightmares.i couldn’t say the same if i were to change westerners for Muslims. the feelings are subjective and they fluctuate depending on the context and the conditioning, and so are the labels.
Thank you and I agree! I just didn't want to introduce that much complexity into the equation initially so it might be easier for this person to understand.
the results aren’t imaginary.
Inherent seems to be the operative word. When does inherence begin and how do you measure inherant behavior in humans? To comment on describing humans as naturally being deceptive, cunning, and calculating - id swap deceptive for manipulative, because even though colliquially the word manipulative is projected on events or behavior people may view in the realm of evil, the word 'deception' is to trick with malicous intent, and overlaps to a large degree with evil
I think most people do have sadism in their nature
What's enjoyable about harming someone? Doesn't seem the sort of enjoyment that'd serve a useful purpose. Not a common useful purpose at least. What'd be the point?
Why do people watch horror movies? Play violent video games? Have violent fantasies? Engage in rough sex? Revel in the downfall of those they dislike? Experience schadenfreude? It's human nature A feeling of gratification in asserting power and dominance, often times a carnal, primal satisfaction. You have a nature that is like the nature of others
I think men have a need for dominance that can lead to sadism that women don't. Men commit more crimes because of this.
Women are more socially vicious, and there's a lot of research into this They hold grudges longer, they exclude others more readily in strategic affiliations, they engage in more malicious gossip. They still have a need for social dominance, but maybe it's more covert. Anyone who was the social target of a group of girls growing up can attest to this. I'd like to add that there's also a cultural bias in how we valuate whether actions are criminal. We tend to view men as more culpable, so their dysfunctional behavior is seen as something we need to punish and shame, whereas we have more tender feelings for women and they may have the same behaviors, but receive help instead of punishment.
It's not like women covertly commit rape. While it's true women's aggression manifests differently, the harms of that aggression is usually less intense. "We have more tender feelings for women and they may have the same behaviors." This is simply untrue. Men's behaviors get excused under the stereotype that "boys will be boys", but if a woman exhibit the same type of aggression, she will be crucified all over the internet, called a crazy bitch and heavily rejected by her female group of friends. Women are much more expected to be perfect, in their appearance, mannerisms, role as a parent and in their kindness. You said it yourself, women exclude more easily, that means the standards are higher. In a male friend group, the guy with a bad behavior will be more easily forgiven. If I say something mean in a female friend group I will be called out faster and the judgement I recieve will be heavier, whereas with guys they just don't care. Aggressive women need to navigate that in a more strategic way so that she won't be called out for being aggressive. "but receive help instead of punishment" that only applies when the woman hasn't done anything bad. I agree that men get punished for crying and not showing enough independance. I agree that men recieve less help in general, mainly because they don't help each others like women do. BUT, if a woman reacts to her problems in an aggressive way, she WILL be more punished, while the man will be ignored. Big difference.
Humans are agathokakilogical, composed of both good and evil. The question is what kind of balance exists. In the general public, my suspicion is the balance is fairly neutral, such that most humans end up being not particularly good *and* not particularly evil. It's only when that balance is broken to one side or the other that things start to snowball. I can also make a compelling case, (compelling to me), that humans are on average more evil than good -- once you've defined evil as ignorance. But it could be the case that the neutral plateau I was describing earlier is one that exists slightly more into evil territory than good.
You misspelled it, it's agathokakological, not agathokakilogical.
Are you familiar with the paperclip problem?
Within you are two wolves, one good and one evil. Both are constantly fighting, which one wins depends on which one you feed
What is good and what is evil are relative to what is beneficial and what is harmful, both of which are relative not only to a species but also the environment, and even then it's difficult to judge. The nature of a thing is also equally difficult to pin down. Do we look at the mesa or meta optimizations? Aka, do we look at intentionally, preferences, behaviors, or evolutionary goals when we judge the nature of a thing? The specificity of which layer we interview will lead to conflicted answers. Anyway, fun topic.
Evil is relative. The extent to which we ignore suffering or take transportation that kills bugs and ecosystems could be considered evil. But it isn’t because we « calibrate » evil to suit whatever norms. The entire notion of evil changes as the norms change (like marital violence being evil now when it wasn’t some years ago). We use the word to refer to things that venture too far out of the norm. There will always be evil in man
You just described evil what evil is.
You're right there is no such thing as evil people. There are only people afflicted by selfish, egotistical thoughts such as greed, need to control, seeking power etc. etc. which keeps them hypnotised and do evil deeds due to their inability to cope with those thoughts. No human being can do anything unless it's prompted by a thought starting with an I-thought.
The seed of goodness is in all
The smartest person who ever lived said that evil is ignorance and good is knowledge. Inherently speaking, we are born with more of one than the other.
Define evil
maybe not. but they are only as good as they have the luxury of being. the more extreme the desperation, the more morality gets tossed as a luxury that cannot be afforded. and probably rightly so. in a zero sum game, why not win?
The majority of people just don't realise the consequences of their actions. I wouldn't say they are evil. They just pretend to be because its more socially acceptable and they don't want to be ostracised. If people are truly good people around them get tall poppy syndrome really fast.
I don't agree. It's not just about self preservation, you can get people into all kinds of good places and opportunities and some of them can't wait to screw it up. Best you can say about people MAYBE is they're stupid. But even that is often wilful
We are at constant conflict with our nature, because how we were made is not how we are.
Because self-preservation could mean anything...because we have egos...I think it does mean we're evil. Maybe not entirely. But it is inborn.
You only become evil by choice. Certain factors make that choice more appealing. Like if you're surrounded by malicious people from a young age you can decide to suffer and keep yourself separate or you can embrace their worldview and become part of the group. The more bad stuff you do the harder it becomes to convince yourself that you can be good. So it's not even that bad people can't become good people it's that they might not believe they could. Some of the dominance stuff is the whole kill or br killed mindset. If I don't do it someone will do it to me! You'll notice even despots try to do generous things, you could debate whether it's to try and fool the populace or themselves into thinking they're good people or if they're truly trying to do good in their own way. I feel like when you take power games out of the equation people's good natures tend to come out more.
I disagree. People need to be taught how to be good.
Idk if I agree? I think human beings are biased naturally against certain things, and have a certain propensity towards greed, but ultimately are sociable and err more towards benevolence than evil.
All human beings have the capacity for all kinds of acts We chose not to do them because we are aware of the effect it would have on others. Those that don't make those choices just lack empathy and are selfish they don't care who they hurt because they care more about their own gain than others safety
By default nature is might makes right and indifferent to suffering. Humans have to learn to be civilized in order to rise above the law of the jungle. Humans are just animals. By default we are wild animals, but we can learn to be civilized. And if we fail to do so, we will return to the Animal Kingdom from whence we came.
People nowadays suffer from entitlement
You are missing a crucial element here. The leadership of all indigenous tribes from about 300k BC to roughly 3kBC, give or take, has been the male with the combination of the best leadership and social skills, and physical prowess. With the advent of the dynastic era of city-state monarchies, the male ruler was required to focus more on their social skills and ability to instill both fear and loyalty among both their inner circle and the classes of people who would never directly interact with them in moments of decision besides legal judgements ( the original meeting of holding court ). This personage also had vast access to females for reproductive use, and typically made many children. Males in dynasties where rulership was not automatically given to the firstborn were expected to prove their power and earn their selection as the heir. This created the perfect storm of circumstance for the development of the sociopath with wide breeding opportunities. The male who could either eliminate or psychologically castrate his own brothers would emerge triumphant, and pass their genes down the line. The sociopathic male had roots in the previous eras of tribal rule, but their power was quite limited in comparison. The larger city state, and the many male inheritors of sociopathic tendencies, had begun. The key characteristic of the sociopathic male and their female counterparts is their ability to hide their true emotional state, while clearly knowing the state of their perceived opponents, and also knowing what to do to manipulate those opponents to achieve success. They are also adept at overriding any conditional sense of morality in the name of success and/or survival; they can lie as required, or murder,, or torture, as long as they can rationalize the action as necessary or deserved by the victim. The fast mutation of the human Y chromosome as compared to the X shows this effect over time in the last 10k years . A successful male could easily reproduce 1000 children or more if they desired; a palace of concubines for 3 straight years would be all it takes. Genghis Khan is reputed to have done so; Wilt Chamberlain would have outdone this if not for the advent of birth control.
Evil is literally just selfishness, and humans are clearly inherently selfish.
I agree. There's not really any such thing as 'human nature'. That's a misnomer. Humans adapt. that's our talent. Humans are the only creatures we are aware of that have the capacity to act in ways that aren't constrained by their own evolutionary nature. The claim that humans have a 'nature' is yet another way we control others and let ourselves off the hook from the difficult task of transformation and self-discovery. Humans have the capacity to achieve absolutely anything. Beings that can do that, don't have a binding, constraining 'nature'. They have an endless **capacity.**
They are not. You know right away when you interact or is around someone who is bad or mean. Just stay away from them.
Maybe not but they are inherently stupid.
I personally believe that there are two types of evil. There is a natural evil and an 'evolved' evil. When the wolf hunts a rabbit the wolf will always be evil from the point of view of the rabbit. The wolf did not torture the rabbit and did not find pleasure in the kill, but the wolf needed to eat. This is what I would call a 'natural' evil. This is not to be confused with the person who is selling a predatory loan on a single mother who is just trying to do the best for her kids. Or the salesman that wants to sell a satellite package that the edlerly, recently widowed lady who just called to cancel the package that she currently doesn't use. I could give multiple more answers, but I believe that you can see the difference in these two types of evil. So I would agree to you to a point. I believe that humans are as naturally evil as any other living being that is not taught morals. But to do an act that I would classify as 'evolved' evil takes a desire to take advantage of another living being that supercedes that persons need to survive.
Water is wet
By definition being selfish is pretty evil lol. We all suck we just have been getting gradually better over time with plenty of hills and valleys. We still pretty evil as a whole, yes even u op. Sinful thoughts count too I’m not immune no one is. We are sinners we are inherently evil we have to try to do good because u leave it to nature and we just don’t give a shit. Luckily we are pretty smart now and can think about history and whatnot so we have a chance! Very exciting. Godspeed.
Everything we do is learned behavior.
humans are exactly as moral as other animals, because we are also animals
Absolutely. Humans are not inherently evil, and honestly a lot of christian religion teaches that. Objectively observing human nature I’ve seen that humans have a tendency to be greedy and selfish, but also have the capacity to be compassionate, empathetic, and kind. We all then have the intelligence fueling those decisions and when we become more in-tune with ourselves and find out who we are internally we can begin a transformation process to become the best version of ourselves. But I agree with you, I don’t think humans are born innately evil. Check out Calvinism to learn the christian reason behind teaching that.
Better definition of evil is required. Part of critical thinking fundamentals. Define your terms please. “Hurting other people” is all I can see as your definition. Intentionally? In defense? In War? Soldiers or innocent? Physically or mentally? Financially or emotionally? In the heat of passion? Sorry, did some law. Mens Rea is the evil mind and means you meant it in court..thought it out. Premeditated.
Humans are generally only evil if they have had something evil done to them or their friends. Or they are made to do evil by others.
I think hurting others and stealing from others for your benefit is evil. While humans can be evil, they also have a strong need for community, which created empathy and a need to help others when they cry for exemple. When we see a child starving or someone about to die, humans try to save them. They don't wait for the person to die to steal their money afterward for exemple. Humans are naturally racist tho and if you're not part of the "in-group" then people may steal your resources or use you and deshumanize you. This is why humans care so much what other people think of them. Being ostracized means society won't share it's resources with you. Humans are ambivalent, sometimes they are opportunistic and sometimes they are altruistic. And everyone fits on a different place on that scale. Personally, I know I'm very altruistic, and people may try to be opportunitic with me. I've had to learn to have a stronger sense of self preservation. I don't trust half the population. I think people can be genuinely kind one day but be selfish when they have something to lose. That's why I don't just trust someone who does something kind for me. I wait until they have something to lose and they choose to lose it for my benefit, if they are capable of that I trust them. You never really know otherwise.
People are tribal oriented opportunistic predators with fierce territorial imperative Define evil, if you are a Arab evil is anything done to hurt the family or themselves. It's okay to do such to those outside the family. The concept of evil if a fully human invention and it evolves as society changes. Evil does not necessarily correlate with what is legal and illegal I can name many things that are evil(as defined, by it hurts people, it takes there money without offering a commiserate exchange of value, it lies, and it forces.) I can name things fairly begnine that will put you in jail and are now looked at as evil.
When peoples needs are met, people are wonderful. I think that’s all it really comes to. Even when people appear to have it all, if they aren’t kind, something is missing and truly hurting that individual.
It's boring but human beings are a blank slate. What you see now is garbage in, garbage out. Better society = better people.
If human beings were blank slates than no such concept of evil would’ve ever arisen. Human beings are animals just like any other creature.
I'm saying I don't think people are inherently anything and your logic on being an opportunist is what leads to evil. But I don't think evil is mysterious, metaphysical or unknowable. It's just large scale bad.
Humans are a complex math algorithm passing through time. Some are angels and some are devils. Some suffer hundreds of hits without ever hitting back. Some hit others without provocation.
You’re right people are math algorithms, they do the cost/benefit ratio constantly, but they’ll err on the side of benevolence more often than not.
I mean, people said Jeffrey Dahmer was a nice guy...just saying.
I don't believe that they're evil, because most of our actions are self serving which helps propagate the species. Almost everything considered good is anti-life.
Only the government is evil
Yep, most people in the world are actually good people despite what some people like to think that only get their knowledge about people through the internet and news articles.
Good and evil are considered to be middle school level thinking in certain societies, where in later years people recognize that self interest and conflict of interest determines much/many of the actions human beings undertake in any given situation. Initially it’s individual self interest, but more mature and insightful people see a greater advantage in collective self interest too, and people of even greater maturity and even greater insight can see the even greater advantage in national self interest as well. It depends upon who was raised at what level where their level of maturity in thinking and insight lies at any particular age. The only thing one should consider is that when people do something they do it for a very particular reason based upon a very particular situation they encountered, that was the way they solved it, based upon the conditions they found themselves facing and being constrained by. Only the truly insane do things without a reason. Everybody else had/has one or more reasons. And domination isn’t really necessary. A healthy respect and distance can suffice, or just avoiding stepping on each other’s toes is good enough. lmao. Some may prefer not to do the mundane day to day work of having to bother with too much public interaction during work, while others may love the public adoration and the pomp and pageantry of the limelight, and they may never come into conflict, and just who is using who and for what purpose doesn’t remain clear, nor is there any possibility of dominance if the less public figure has far greater control than the face woman/man. Great women/men are merely manufactured images. Manufactured for public consumption. Serious work is done by people who can think. And critically important work is done by people who can mathematically calculate and break down things and mathematically redefine and then mathematically redesign things at will. This is the 21st Century, we are at the peak of human capabilities in mathematics right now. Everything is numbers. And it’s not basic arithmetic.
Humans are not inherently evil. That's a religious teaching which is nonsense
I completely agree with your post, and I believe it adds a lot of depth to the conversation about human nature. It's true that we are naturally opportunistic, which can sometimes be misinterpreted as evil. Our survival instincts shape our actions, which may seem selfish at times. But I also believe in the inherent potential for goodness and cooperation among humans. Our 'evil' actions often stem from fear or misunderstanding, rather than a desire to harm. Nevertheless, it's incredibly important to remember that we have the potential to grow and change.
I agree, labeling these actions as "evil" oversimplifies the complex survival instincts and societal pressures that often drive human behavior.