Are humans evil?

[benhur]

Please don't answer with a one-liner. Give reasons as to why you feel the way you do. It could blossom into a nice discussion.:)

As for me, I believe that humans are evil, because:

#1 History is evidence.
#2 Our daily lives are also evidence.
#3 If people argue that social conditions made them evil, who created such conditions in the first place?:(
#4 Since man has evolved from lower life forms, it's possible that he's still retained the animal instincts and traits:crying:, which explains why most people are cruel, violent, and insensitive.
#5 Why does capitalism succeed despite its cruelty? Because cruel people (not just the ones in power, btw, even the common man votes for his fav. bourgeois leader, thinking he's gonna change the world, lol) make it possible. Do you think if people were compassionate, we'd still have exploitation, mass murder, poverty etc. in this world?

There you go...history, science, as well as our subjective experiences point in this direction.:ohmy:

Now it's your turn...

[Comrade B]

Humans are what they are taught to be.
If they see evil all around them and have no guidance away from it, they will most likely be evil.
If they are encouraged to help society, they will help society.

[LOLseph Stalin]

This was hard to answer, but I have mixed feelings. It's our nature to be savage, but we have the rules of society keeping us from losing control(usually). We're taught pretty much from birth about what's right and what's wrong. We pretty much go by that. Of course there are exceptions as there has been some pretty horrific atrocities in the past such as the holocaust.

This also brings up the topic about whether Communism is "against human nature". I always ponder that. Are we greedy because of our nature or because Capitalism teaches us to be that way? I'm kinda thinking it's Capitalism because I know that some people can be very selfless and donate money and such.

[redguard2009]

Primitivist! Get him!

A more poignant question: is evil evil?

What is "evil"? Evil is a product of religion and the concept of immaterial "good and evil", which itself is a byproduct of "right and wrong". Someone who is "evil" is therefore someone who is "wrong", or in other words, someone who commits a wrong act, knowing it is wrong.

But how do we know what is right and wrong? These themselves are notions which have much to do with our individual experiences with the world around us as socially-accepted universal beliefs. One of the oldest notions of right and wrong, the Bible, commands that theft is wrong. But is it? If I steal a loaf of bread from a corporation to feed my family and save us from starvation, is it wrong? If I beat up a homeless man and steal his change, is it wrong? Official state-sanctioned law would say it is, but law has about as much to do with notions of correct and incorrect, justice and injustice, as religion. Law is merely an interpretation of right and wrong made by the current ruling classes -- 50 years ago it was their interpretation that it was wrong for people of colour to vote. We now "know" that this interpretation of wrong was infact wrong itself, but it was law, and it was an interpretation.

So I propose that the concept of right and wrong, good and evil, is one of interpretation. My personal belief of what is right and wrong may not apply to someone else, however much I think my version is the most correct interpretation. I believe, for instance, that subtle exploitation is as wrong as direct oppression; others see subtle exploitation as something correct.

Humanity is not "evil". Human beings are driven by electic and chemical impulses firing off in our brain which dictate our actions and reactions with our surroundings. Every act, every word I've chosen to type in this senseless post is a decision based on these electrochemical reactions, which themselves are a development of 25 years of biological evolution. Your view that humanity evil could be interpreted as wrong, and therefore as evil itself. I therefore propose that you are evil.

[redguard2009]

This also brings up the topic about whether Communism is "against human nature". I always ponder that. Are we greedy because of our nature or because Capitalism teaches us to be that way? I'm kinda thinking it's Capitalism because I know that some people can be very selfless and donate money and such.

There are two contending lines of thought concerning this topic that I am aware of.

1) It is in human nature to be greedy and selfish -- biological evolution over millions of years has programmed all life to pursue its own self-interests above the interests of other life. A lion does not consider that it may be wrong to rob a gazelle of life; it needs to eat, and it must eat a gazelle. If left to its own devices, a lion will slaughter every gazelle it sees until there are none left, and will then die, literally killing itself with its own self-interest. Communism, which proposes to do away with greed, with the biological impulses of basic intelligent life to pursue its own self-interests, is thus against human nature.

2) Humans, though they are simply another of billions of forms of life, have evolved to such a point as to attain consciousness, or in short, the ability to overcome base biological impulses through choice. As an example, the biological impulse to procreate is a very powerful one among life; it is common for males (and often females) of various species of life to attempt to procreate as much as possible in order to advance the species. Humans, on the other hand, are capable of choosing to do this; some people remain faithful to a single partner and avoid procreation, while others have mad libidos and want to fuck people all over the place and make babies everywhere. Likewise, humanity has evolved to the point that selfish self-interest can be overcome by human interaction and co-operation -- indeed, all of society would not be what it is if humanity as a whole did not evolve to this point and develop what we know as civilization together (albeit with lots of selfish conflict and still-living effects of greed). Therefore, communism may be against the biological nature of humanity, but as humans we are capable of rising above basic instincts to apply critical logic to our actions. Alternatively, it is quite possible that selfishness and greed can be atleast partially eradicated and co-operation become our biological imperitive. Many species of animal throughout the planet form into groups of collective, co-operating members for their collective self-interests; the aforementioned lion operates in packs, and ants have developed to a point where selective breeding dictates the co-operative function of a member of their society (imagine if your lot in life was decided the moment you were born, whether you were a worker, a leader, etc? It would perhaps be easier, but for my purpose, it is an example of how co-operation can be a very, very powerful biological imperitive). Some could thus argue that while selfishness does remain to a degree, co-operation is in itself a seperate and powerful biological imperitive.

[benhur]

The problem with the moral relativist position is: how will they explain their fight against capitalism, if the latter isn't evil? If they say they're fighting capitalism due to the inequality it creates, then such answers are simply a substitute for the word 'evil.'

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As for me, I believe that humans are evil, because:

#1 History is evidence.

Look more closely. You'll see that human savagery shows a decrease as history goes by. In Roman times, men were made to fight each other to death for mass entertainment. Medieval laws prescribed mutilation and torture for what are now considered petty crimes. Cat burning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_burning) was practiced in 16th century Paris. We may have killed more people in absolute terms in the 20th century, but consider also the vastly greater population of the 20th century, and you will realise that proportionally we have killed a lot less of each other than in previous centuries.


#2 Our daily lives are also evidence.Despite the impression the media seem fond of giving, modern society is not more violent or getting more violent, and in fact is less violent than in previous eras.

We seem to be getting better at this "civilisation" thing.


#3 If people argue that social conditions made them evil, who created such conditions in the first place?:(Short-sighted people, mistaken people, deluded people, nature, the environment, and any other variable you care to name.


#4 Since man has evolved from lower life forms, it's possible that he's still retained the animal instincts and traits:crying:, which explains why most people are cruel, violent, and insensitive.Most people are not "cruel, violent and insensitive". If that were the case, then society would cease to function, as such traits rapidly erode trust which is the cornerstone of civilised society.


#5 Why does capitalism succeed despite its cruelty? Because cruel people (not just the ones in power, btw, even the common man votes for his fav. bourgeois leader, thinking he's gonna change the world, lol) make it possible. Do you think if people were compassionate, we'd still have exploitation, mass murder, poverty etc. in this world?"Evil" exists because of ignorance, short-sightedness, delusion (both personal and religious), mental illness, apathy, hopelessness, desperation and other stuff I've probably missed.

In short, humans are flawed beings who are all-too-easily shaped by their material conditions, yet are showing the potential to be better.


The problem with the moral relativist position is: how will they explain their fight against capitalism, if the latter isn't evil? If they say they're fighting capitalism due to the inequality it creates, then such answers are simply a substitute for the word 'evil.'Inequality creates human suffering. Human suffering can be measured. In the act of measuring human suffering, you discover it's causes, and from there you can investigate ways of mitigating or abolishing it.

Capitalism requires gross inequality in order to function, so the natural response is to call for it's abolition.

[gla22]

Good and Evil are subjective. From a Christian Morality, humans are evil. But I don't think we should rely on that at all.

[apathy maybe]

I define evil as "not flying without aids". Therefore, by definition, all humans are evil. I define good as "not being able to survive in a vacuum unaided". Therefore, by definition, all humans are good.

All humans are both good and evil by the definitions I provided.

Also, NoXion gave a good post.

[Lynx]

If we believe the premise of the "is-ought" brigade, then humans are not evil or good. They simply are what they are. In light of our ability to imagine a greater human potential, this attitude is defeatist. Thus, we should struggle against it.
That being said, we need to avoid romanticising the human condition, as if humans are somehow 'above' our evolutionary heritage. Consider Pavlov's experiments or this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

You might draw the conclusion that humans are pathetic, slaves to their social conditioning, etc. You might decide that this experiment was a load of crap. A more productive response would be to conduct more experiments and learn from them. Living up to our potential, designing a better society won't come simply from well-wishing.


1) It is in human nature to be greedy and selfish -- biological evolution over millions of years has programmed all life to pursue its own self-interests above the interests of other life. A lion does not consider that it may be wrong to rob a gazelle of life; it needs to eat, and it must eat a gazelle. If left to its own devices, a lion will slaughter every gazelle it sees until there are none left, and will then die, literally killing itself with its own self-interest. Communism, which proposes to do away with greed, with the biological impulses of basic intelligent life to pursue its own self-interests, is thus against human nature.
Although I have heard of lions indiscrimately killing or becoming man-eaters, my understanding is that individual lions and prides only kill to meet their immediate needs. They don't maintain a larder.
Humans do like to maintain larders, if not to the degree that squirrels and chipmunks do. So we consume to meet our immediate needs, and replenish the larder, no more. In times of increased scarcity, we may resort to hoarding behavior. If conditions worsen, we steal, we fight, we kill other people, as part of our struggle for survival. We may even resort to cannabilism. Ergo, selfishness as a matter of perspective, and behavior as one of degree (in response to external conditions).

[AAFCE]

No, Evil only exists if you strive to create it.

[redguard2009]

Is the lion's incapability or decision not to larder based on natural unecessity, or is it because lions lack the ability to larder fresh meat, which would spoil and rot within hours or perhaps a day? Chipmunks horde non-perishables like nuts and grains while humans have developed refrigerators and freezing to preserve food. A rotting carcass in the hot desert sun precludes preservation I'd think...

But again, if left to their own devices, a pride of lions would butcher a population of gazelle (if the population of gazelle was low enough that breeding could not replenish lost numbers, and if no other food sources were available, and and and.. you get the point).

Of the two examples of conclusion I gave in my previous post, I would agree with the second -- that human beings, being animals, have biological impulses for selfishness and the pursuit of self-interest, but that the evolution of our intelligence and consciousness has given us the ability to comprehend different perceptions of self-interest and go against our natural instincts, to the point that co-operation may possibly replace self-interest as a biological imperitive. Civilization is in and of itself a powerful evolutionary force and has existed for many thousands of years. Our biology may need some catching up, but I believe we are no longer mere animals of instinct.

[INDK]

I'd be inclined to think that the nature of humans (whether it be evil or whatever else) is defined by social conditioning, situational and external conditions, etc. that surround the humans. I said this in another thread on the topic of human nature;


As an advocate of 'Situationism', my personal idea is that 'human nature', if you must insist that this does indeed exist, is a flexible and situational factor. That is to say, it is based on external, situational conditions -- such as the socio-economic structure prevalent in society.

Usually, the argument put forward by Capitalists and other skeptics of the possibility of a Communist or Anarchist or whatever society is that these Socialist economies go against the nature of humans, which is along the lines of selfish. However, with a Situationist perspective you can observe that Capitalism makes people economically aggressive (.. selfish ...) because of the competitive nature of the socio-economic conditions that Capitalism creates. You can't live without this aggressiveness. Adversely, a post-revolutionary society working on a Socialist socio-economic basis would create more or less "human nature" to work with the system.

Humans inherently work towards the fulfillment of their various needs (like any animal), thus the way they achieve these needs is defined by social structures surrounding the human, especially since our societies and methods of meeting needs is to heavily based on civilized politics now -- so even if it is a more technologically advanced inherent 'need-meeting' system then a hunter-gatherer kind of society, it can still be analyzed as an environment that can alter human conditions.

I won't vote, since there is no 'neither' option.

[Lynx]

Is the lion's incapability or decision not to larder based on natural unecessity, or is it because lions lack the ability to larder fresh meat, which would spoil and rot within hours or perhaps a day? Chipmunks horde non-perishables like nuts and grains while humans have developed refrigerators and freezing to preserve food. A rotting carcass in the hot desert sun precludes preservation I'd think...
A jaguar is said to haul its prey onto trees to protect it from scavengers, probably for short term storage only. If the food source is uneven, an alternative to larder is metabolism. Like fattening up for migration or hibernation. There is a tribe of American Indians who suffer from diabetes due to their bodies ability to store energy from their traditional diet/starvation cycle.


But again, if left to their own devices, a pride of lions would butcher a population of gazelle (if the population of gazelle was low enough that breeding could not replenish lost numbers, and if no other food sources were available, and and and.. you get the point).
This would be an ecosystem in disequilibrium.


Of the two examples of conclusion I gave in my previous post, I would agree with the second -- that human beings, being animals, have biological impulses for selfishness and the pursuit of self-interest, but that the evolution of our intelligence and consciousness has given us the ability to comprehend different perceptions of self-interest and go against our natural instincts, to the point that co-operation may possibly replace self-interest as a biological imperitive. Civilization is in and of itself a powerful evolutionary force and has existed for many thousands of years. Our biology may need some catching up, but I believe we are no longer mere animals of instinct.
We have potential and the general improvement in civilization we see today may just be a glimpse.

Mazlow's Heirarchy of Needs may be worth taking a look at.

[Apeiron]

The problem with the moral relativist position is: how will they explain their fight against capitalism, if the latter isn't evil? If they say they're fighting capitalism due to the inequality it creates, then such answers are simply a substitute for the word 'evil.' No. I think a substantive distinction can be made between evil and inequality or injustice, or even just 'bad.' Evil, as Nietzsche tells us, is rooted in resentment; my opposition to capitalism is not. If we're to have a productive opposition to existing relations of power, it must not be a moralizing one; hence, we must not characterize the enemy as evil.

Evil also has deep religious connotations, particularly Christian. This is not relevant to political struggle. Though that's not to say it doesn't often find its way into it... I just find this to be immensely problematic.

I voted yes because I'd classify 'evil' with all other normative constructs - as delineated to human experience. Humans are as 'evil' as they are 'good,' I suppose.

[Decolonize The Left]

Humans are neither "good" nor "evil" as a whole, as humans are simply beings - animals. We just are.

It is only when we assess our actions from an individual perspective and judge them according to the prevalent morality that we decide whether or not they are good or evil. We give this decision the name "human nature." It is fabricated - invented by our desire to have solidity in the changing. But we cling to it none-the-less in hopes that it will provide us a starting point for assessing the rest of humanity.

Humans are not evil. Humans are not good. You are what you do.

- August

[Dimentio]

Humans cannot be evil since evil does'nt exist.

[Decolonize The Left]

Humans cannot be evil since evil does'nt exist.

Not in any material sense of course. But I believe the overall thrust of this discussion is whether or not humans can be qualified as evil. I have submitted my thoughts on this issue.

- August

[ernie]

As others have pointed out, "evil" is an idea whose definition depends on one's morality; it's a subjective concept. From that perspective, evil does not exist.

I just want to add that, from a materialist perspective, humans must, before anything, fulfill their material needs. That is, humans must feed themselves and put clothes on their back, first and foremost. By liberal standards, this is an evil behavior (selfishness). From an objective perspective, it's neither evil nor good; it simply is what it is.

[benhur]

Thanks for the insights.

If evil is just a moral concept, then why do we want to change things, why do we want to punish rapists etc.? Is it because we perceive their actions to be evil? If not, why do we want them punished?

If capitalism is based on exploitation, why do we have a problem with it, unless we perceive exploitation as evil? Sure, we can always replace the word 'evil' with another word such as 'social inequality' etc. etc., but behind different words is essentially the same concept.

[ernie]

If evil is just a moral concept, then why do we want to change things, why do we want to punish rapists etc.? Is it because we perceive their actions to be evil? If not, why do we want them punished?
Well I, for one, don't want to see rapists punished. I just want to see them removed from society. But I understand your point.

Just because we recognize that evil is a subjective moral concept, it doesn't mean that we don't feel some things are evil. We are humans, after all, and are shaped by the conditions in which we lived. Personally, I try to limit the amount of moral judgments I make, replacing them with objective analyses as much as possible. It's not easy, though.


If capitalism is based on exploitation, why do we have a problem with it, unless we perceive exploitation as evil? Sure, we can always replace the word 'evil' with another word such as 'social inequality' etc. etc., but behind different words is essentially the same concept.
Proletarians (will) have a problem with it because their living conditions are crap! Because they have to work shitty jobs for eight hours a day for shit pay. Because they have to take orders from their bosses. All these things are objective realities, and have nothing to do with morals.

Some members of the middle class are anti-capitalist based on morality, I agree. I believe that is why the middle class is so unpredictable when it comes to their support for revolutionary ideas.

[ashaman1324]

human's aren't born good or evil.
most "evil" acts are commited in hopes of self- preservation.
to preserve their culture, to prevent a future conflict, hoarding resources, etc...
so no, human's are not inherently evil.

[Apeiron]

Thanks for the insights.

If evil is just a moral concept, then why do we want to change things, why do we want to punish rapists etc.? Is it because we perceive their actions to be evil? If not, why do we want them punished?

If capitalism is based on exploitation, why do we have a problem with it, unless we perceive exploitation as evil? Sure, we can always replace the word 'evil' with another word such as 'social inequality' etc. etc., but behind different words is essentially the same concept. I think you're missing the point. To put it crudely: not everything that is 'bad' is evil. Our political struggle, - if it truly seeks to overturn existing relations of power, and by proxy the dominant modes of consciousness, - should not be a moral one.

Is it even reasonable to subject structural exploitation and oppression to moral scrutiny? Marx seems to answer in the negative, and I would agree.

[Hit The North]

I've decided (belatedly, I admit) that this is really a religious question not a philosophical one. Indeed the conception of "evil" is purely theistic. I'm therefore moving this thread to religion, allowing those in OI, who might have a more religious/conservative/cynical view of human beings, their say.

[humanitynow]

All humans have the light of love truth and humanity burning within them. we just need to find it and show it more often. there are so many figures that have shown this light brightly. ex. Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., Henry David Theoure, Tolstoy, many more.:):D:):thumbup1:

[Rosa Provokateur]

People have the choice to be good or evil, it's not set in stone whether they're one or the other. No one is born with any kind of belief or action pre-determined for them. They choose.

[Hit The North]

People have the choice to be good or evil, it's not set in stone whether they're one or the other. No one is born with any kind of belief or action pre-determined for them. They choose.

Not according to the Calvinists. For them, because "God" is the creator of all things and therefore exists outside time and space, "he" already knows what path we will take. Individual human destiny is thus predetermined.

[PostAnarchy]

Humans are most definitely not evil. Much of what we associate "evil" humans to be is a direct result of their material conditions ie capitalism which forces man to involve himself in a rat race for survival more befitting animal than human.

[Anti Freedom]

Not according to the Calvinists. For them, because "God" is the creator of all things and therefore exists outside time and space, "he" already knows what path we will take. Individual human destiny is thus predetermined.
Actually, I think the Calvinist stance is not based upon divine foreknowledge so much as the notion that all people are evil (Total Depravity, the T in TULIP). Calvinists actually tend to hold to a compatibilist stance on free will, and argue that people are all guilty for rejecting God, it is just that the elect are the few that God has mercy upon. Most theologically minded Christians, except for those few open theists, tend to argue that God, being outside of time, has timeless knowledge.

[Anti Freedom]

The term "evil" is meaningless. It refers to nothing, and all it *could* refer to is a subjective squeal of delight.

[FuckYoCouch]

Humans Arent Inherently Good Or Evil, But We ARE Prone to Sin, but have moral capacity to see what we do/did was wrong.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Humans Arent Inherently Good Or Evil, But We ARE Prone to Sin, but have moral capacity to see what we do/did was wrong.

The "ARE" makes it sound like you're convinced. You have any evidence for the existence of sin?

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

As for me, I believe that humans are evil, because:

#4 Since man has evolved from lower life forms, it's possible that he's still retained the animal instincts and traits:crying:, which explains why most people are cruel, violent, and insensitive.

We are animals, we have animal instincts and traits:

http://anonym.to/?http://www.youtube...?v=qCL63d66frs (http://www.anonym.to/?http://anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCL63d66frs)

[FuckYoCouch]

The "ARE" makes it sound like you're convinced. You have any evidence for the existence of sin?


Thou Shall Not Kill.

WE all know that never happens.

THou Shall Not Steal.

damn capitalists and stealing labour? NEVAR!!

Keep the Sabbath Holy? Catholics changed it from saturday to sunday for christsake.

Note: Refuting the existence of Sin is Like trying to refute the existence Gravity

[casper]

humans are what they are. we created morality, its just a tool, so humans are amoral. also, self-interest/ selfishness is the base of all sacrifice, philanthropy and whatever. selfishness isn't the problem, its what is called I and what is important to that "I".

[FuckYoCouch]

humans are what they are. we created morality, its just a tool, so humans are amoral. also, self-interest/ selfishness is the base of all sacrifice, philanthropy and whatever. selfishness isn't the problem, its what is called I and what is important to that "I".


contrary to popular Belief, we are Not All., Selfish. Ghandi, Marx, Jesus for a few Examples.

[casper]

you should add an "other" or "amoral" in the poll answer options if you can.

[casper]

contrary to popular Belief, we are Not All., Selfish. Ghandi, Marx, Jesus for a few Examples.
what was important to them? what was more important to them and would cause greater anguish to them then death or another popular fear? they were as selfish as the rest of us, they just had different values, goals and different sensitivities.

[FuckYoCouch]

what was important to them? what was more important to them and would cause greater anguish to them then death or another popular fear? they were as selfish as the rest of us, they just had different values, goals and different sensitivities.

i was referring to the Fact that all three of their entire lives was dedicated Solely to Humanity as a whole, more specifically the advancement of.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Thou Shall Not Kill.

WE all know that never happens.

THou Shall Not Steal.

damn capitalists and stealing labour? NEVAR!!

Keep the Sabbath Holy? Catholics changed it from saturday to sunday for christsake.


That is not evidence for the existence of "sin", if anything it's just evidence that the people mentioned above haven't followed ten rules mentioned in a centuries old book. Most people don't kill or steal (watch the video mentioned in one of my earlier posts) and the last rule doesn't have any significant consequences if broken...




Note: Refuting the existence of Sin is Like trying to refute the existence GravityGravity has scientific evidence, "sin" does not. Refuting the existence of "sin" is like refuting the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Both have no evidence, both most likely don't exist.

[Mister X]

What the hell? Who voted yes? (I guess non-socialists/anarchists)

Humans are not evil , their behavior is a product of material conditions.
Under capitalism they live in a society where they might not have enough resources to get by so they are forced to steal etc.
Also under capitalism the system encourages to get more and more wealth. So they might do some things for money that are worse than exploiting workers .
Also exploitation of the workforce is an feature of capitalism not of humans. That goes for every exploitation of humans by another human.
There was no exploitation like that in primitive communism , nor such "evil".

The original poster views history from an idealist point of view rather than a materialist.

[FuckYoCouch]

That is not evidence for the existence of "sin", if anything it's just evidence that the people mentioned above haven't followed ten rules mentioned in a centuries old book. Most people don't kill or steal (watch the video mentioned in one of my earlier posts) and the last rule doesn't have any significant consequences if broken...

Gravity has scientific evidence, "sin" does not. Refuting the existence of "sin" is like refuting the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Both have no evidence, both most likely don't exist.


Sin, is a Religious word. it does not have basis in science, because it doesnt need to be proven with science. and it is not reading the good book that caused all the sin in the world, it is the lack of properly reading it.

[FuckYoCouch]

That is not evidence for the existence of "sin", if anything it's just evidence that the people mentioned above haven't followed ten rules mentioned in a centuries old book. Most people don't kill or steal (watch the video mentioned in one of my earlier posts) and the last rule doesn't have any significant consequences if broken...

Gravity has scientific evidence, "sin" does not. Refuting the existence of "sin" is like refuting the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Both have no evidence, both most likely don't exist.


Alright, so ill make sure when the revolution comes, you dont have any rights, because you cant scientifically prove they exist.:thumbup1:

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Sin, is a Religious word. it does not have basis in science, because it doesnt need to be proven with science. and it is not reading the good book that caused all the sin in the world, it is the lack of properly reading it.

Well if it is supposed to exist then it does have basis in science. Unless it is some kind of metaphor - but for what? Can you give me evidence of what it represents then?

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Alright, so ill make sure when the revolution comes, you dont have any rights, because you cant scientifically prove they exist.:thumbup1:

I have already explained, and showed scientifically where the our ideas or right and wrong come from, in biology. Did you watch the video I posted earlier? It is from there that our ideas against murder etc. have developed.

[Bilan]

No.

[FuckYoCouch]

I have already explained, and showed scientifically where the our ideas or right and wrong come from, in biology. Did you watch the video I posted earlier? It is from there that our ideas against murder etc. have developed.

science proved that you have the right to say what you want?

[FuckYoCouch]

Well if it is supposed to exist then it does have basis in science. Unless it is some kind of metaphor - but for what? Can you give me evidence of what it represents then?


how do you know our rights are supposed to exist?

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

how do you know our rights are supposed to exist?

I actually said if it is supposed to exist, but it is good to see that you are taking the scientific approach by asking such a question. :)

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

science proved that you have the right to say what you want?

Not directly, but yes. Altruism is explained by science like in the video. Yet limitations on freedom of speech is used to control, and comes into conflict with this altruism. Our freedoms developed over a long time but the basics come from biology.

[FuckYoCouch]

I actually said if it is supposed to exist, but it is good to see that you are taking the scientific approach by asking such a question. :)


i know wy my rights exist. i was just giving you the benefit of the doubt. SO basically, your rights exist because.......?

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

i know wy my rights exist. i was just giving you the benefit of the doubt. SO basically, your rights exist because.......?

Well, the universal laws of right and right were founded in biology, as explained in the video. Don't think of it as something like the Ten Commandments, because A) they exist for the benefit of our genes and B) they develop over time, yet the principal stays the same - for the benefit of our genes.

Now there are a variety of rights, and I used freedom of speech as an example in the previous post. Our rights exists because of altruism, which was part of that development I mentioned, and exists in many animals. But because we are highly intelligent animals, we have put this into rights on paper.

[FuckYoCouch]

Well, the universal laws of right and right were founded in biology, as explained in the video. Don't think of it as something like the Ten Commandments, because A) they exist for the benefit of our genes and B) they develop over time, yet the principal stays the same - for the benefit of our genes.

Now there are a variety of rights, and I used freedom of speech as an example in the previous post. Our rights exists because of altruism, which was part of that development I mentioned, and exists in many animals. But because we are highly intelligent animals, we have put this into rights on paper.

Id like to think even if you don't believe in God, the morals still existed before science said we had them

[casper]

science is a tool that can explains things that already exist for the most part. biology and environmental conditions are good bases for "rights". technically rights are agreements. but "natural rights" are more basic and inherent then that.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Id like to think even if you don't believe in God, the morals still existed before science said we had them
The scientific method shows that "morals" (if we call it that) came into existence for the benefit of our genes. Which means, before humans even existed.

[FuckYoCouch]

The scientific method shows that "morals" (if we call it that) came into existence for the benefit of our genes. Which means, before humans even existed.

how does something that was made by/for us exist before us?

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

how does something that was made by/for us exist before us?

It wasn't made by us. It wasn't made for us, but for the benefit of our (animal's) genes. It was created as altruism in earlier life, and we are a part of the later stages of evolution.

[JimmyJazz]

What a meaningless question.

[Vahanian]

I believe that humans aren't simply evil or simpily good its based on your actions.

O sorry to rain on anyones parade but rights dont exist, We made them up like we made up to tooth fairy. You can tell we made them up because some people in the world dont have any rights.

[ZeroNowhere]

People can't be evil.


I believe that humans aren't simply evil or simpily good its based on your actions. but it does appear most people are evil to some degree
But people don't have free will, and therefore saying that they are 'evil' makes no sense, regardless of their actions. After all, anybody who had lived their lives would have been the exact same. How, then, does it make sense to call them 'evil'?


If evil is just a moral concept, then why do we want to change things, why do we want to punish rapists etc.? Is it because we perceive their actions to be evil? If not, why do we want them punished?
The only defensible reason for punishing rapists is as a pragmatic way of reducing rape. No one deserves to be punished.


Note: Refuting the existence of Sin is Like trying to refute the existence Gravity
There's a difference. There is no evidence for the existence of 'sin', there is proof for the existence of gravity.

[Revolutionary Youth]

People can't be evil.

Ah, anti-dualist, you and I are in the same world!:lol:


But people don't have free will...blah blah blah
I'm sure that you're gonna make our "New Consciousness" buddy really upset! But again, you and I are in the same world!:lol:

The only defensible reason for punishing rapists is as a pragmatic way of reducing rape. No one deserves to be punished.
Capital punishment, either you die or you don't! (Just kiddin'!)

There is no evidence for the existence of 'sin'...blah blah blah
O Lord, please forgive this lost one, O Holy Shepherd, please guide this sheep to rightousness!Amen!:laugh:

[Kassad]

When people are conditioned and raised in a society that does not provide fundamental necessities for those who require it, they are often going to be bred in an environment based solely on monetary gain. Humans are conditioned into crime, drugs and other problems in society due to the lack of resources provided for them. When society forges a 'rise or fall' or 'dog eat dog' scenario for people, humanity will naturally become ruthless. If people are, instead, raised in a revolutionary socialist society, the social problems that exist today will become irrelevant. People steal because they cannot meet their needs. People distribute and sell drugs because it is an easy way to make money in a society where making money is incredibly difficult for the vast majority. If everyone was housed, fed, educated and taken care of, these problems would not exist.

The nations of the world often focus on crime and forge wars on drugs, crime and murder. What they fail to realize is that all of these things are a product of capitalism and the failure to provide necessities in the profit system.

[benhur]

When people are conditioned and raised in a society that does not provide fundamental necessities for those who require it, they are often going to be bred in an environment based solely on monetary gain. Humans are conditioned into crime, drugs and other problems in society due to the lack of resources provided for them.

Then how about people born in rich families resorting to such behavior? I know many rich people (born rich, they have no cares in the world) abusing people just for the heck of it, for no reason whatsoever. And they enjoy doing it. And there are others who bully people, yell at them for no reason, and so on. What I am trying to say is, in all these and many other cases, there's no material/monetary benefit at all. They act like this, even when they have absolutely nothing to gain.

So you can't relate everything to socioeconomic factors alone. There's something intrinsic about certain people that make them evil, maybe it's genetic, or maybe, it's something else. But we can't brush it aside by rationalizing that there's no evil, when we see and hear evil things in this world on a daily basis.

[Decolonize The Left]

Then how about people born in rich families resorting to such behavior? I know many rich people (born rich, they have no cares in the world) abusing people just for the heck of it, for no reason whatsoever. And they enjoy doing it. And there are others who bully people, yell at them for no reason, and so on. What I am trying to say is, in all these and many other cases, there's no material/monetary benefit at all. They act like this, even when they have absolutely nothing to gain.

To understand the violent, masochistic, disrespectful tendencies of these people would require a bit of psychological and sociological analysis.

The explanations for such behavior often lie in upbringing, parenting, exposure to X or Y as a child, abuse, etc...


So you can't relate everything to socioeconomic factors alone. There's something intrinsic about certain people that make them evil, maybe it's genetic, or maybe, it's something else. But we can't brush it aside by rationalizing that there's no evil, when we see and hear evil things in this world on a daily basis.

We are not discussing the existence of an 'inherent evil' in anything. This is obviously false.

We are discussing how individuals can act in ways which may be termed as 'evil.' For example, Hitler was not "born evil." He was conditioned and taught to act and believe certain things, and he proceeded to form new ideas/theories based upon this conditioning. His acts could be, and often are, qualified as "evil." This is fine. But he was not 'inherently evil' in any sense.

In fact, if you took Hitler's genes, and bore him into, say, an Argentinian family in our current year, the results would be determined by his upbringing, etc... We wouldn't have an Argentinian genocidal antisemitic killer on our hands.

- August

[Kassad]

Then how about people born in rich families resorting to such behavior? I know many rich people (born rich, they have no cares in the world) abusing people just for the heck of it, for no reason whatsoever. And they enjoy doing it. And there are others who bully people, yell at them for no reason, and so on. What I am trying to say is, in all these and many other cases, there's no material/monetary benefit at all. They act like this, even when they have absolutely nothing to gain.

So you can't relate everything to socioeconomic factors alone. There's something intrinsic about certain people that make them evil, maybe it's genetic, or maybe, it's something else. But we can't brush it aside by rationalizing that there's no evil, when we see and hear evil things in this world on a daily basis.

Of course they're going to be petty and arrogant. They're wealthy bourgeoisie. They are conditioned in a world where their exploitation of the profit and enterprise system has allowed them to gain financial clout. They're going to continue doing what they have always done. You can't say that these people were naturally evil, since as you said, they came out of the womb with everything handed to them. Were they evil when they were born or did the conditioning of manipulation and wealth make them arrogant?

[Glorious Union]

What does it mean to be evil? It is a word placed upon certain actions, policies, and people or things used to create an undesirable aura about them. There is no difference between good and bad besides our own existance, the existance of human nature.

[ZeroNowhere]

Then how about people born in rich families resorting to such behavior? I know many rich people (born rich, they have no cares in the world) abusing people just for the heck of it, for no reason whatsoever.
For no reason whatsoever, or just no apparent reason? For example, a coin toss appears to be completely random. In actuality, it is determined by so many different factors that it is impossible to pick out any one, but it's not random at all.
I mean, if they do it for no reason whatsoever, this would be something of a scientific breakthrough, as it would basically show that quantum indeterminacies can percolate upwards. The results of this being true would be somewhat disturbing. Then again, it's probably not.

[Decolonize The Left]

What does it mean to be evil? It is a word placed upon certain actions, policies, and people or things used to create an undesirable aura about them.

Well... no.

You have imposed your interpretation of what it 'means to be evil' onto the action of declaring something evil ("create an undesirable aura"). "Evil" is a moral term used to signify something "morally corrupt."

It is a judgment. The fact that it may produce "an undesirable aura" is secondary and superfluous.


There is no difference between good and bad besides our own existance, the existance of human nature.

What, exactly, does this mean?

- August

[Glorious Union]

Well... no.

You have imposed your interpretation of what it 'means to be evil' onto the action of declaring something evil ("create an undesirable aura"). "Evil" is a moral term used to signify something "morally corrupt."

It is a judgment. The fact that it may produce "an undesirable aura" is secondary and superfluous.


The word evil may mean that it is morally corrupt, but think of the word's actual aplication. Communism, in all its forms, has the label of "evil" slapped on it by pro-capitalist Americans. In fact, in my US history class today we were watching a documentary that directly said communism and socialism were "evil methods of corrupt, total control, and subjugation of the people in a nation". The thing in itself may not be evil and, in most cases, is not evil. Yet people place such a label on it to make such a thing undesirable and rally others to their cause. Have you ever noticed how often people label the other canidate/faction as bad while never actually highlighting their own good qualities?




"There is no difference between good and bad besides our own existance, the existance of human nature."



What, exactly, does this mean?

- August

Evil things are decided by human beings, we call something evil and it becomes so. It is our nature to do this, since the dawn of humanity we have been able to distinguish good and evil and place labels on such things. Therefor, the only way to get rid of evil is to get rid of humans or, alternatively, human nature.

[Comrade Anarchist]

no i dont think we are evil. i think all the evil in the world is nothing more than our primal insticts playing themselves out.

[Glorious Union]

i think all the evil in the world is nothing more than our primal insticts playing themselves out.
You reminded me of this:

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPoqTZIO4rg)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPoqTZIO4rg
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPoqTZIO4rg)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPoqTZIO4rg)
This is the part I thought sounded like what you said:

I find it helpful at times like these to remind myself that our true enemy is Instinct. Instinct was our mother when we were an infant species. Instinct coddled us and kept us safe in those hardscrabble years when we hardened our sticks and cooked our first meals above a meager fire
and started at the shadows that leapt upon the cavern's walls.

But inseparable from Instinct is its dark twin, Superstition. Instinct is inextricably bound to unreasoning impulses, and today we clearly see its true nature. Instinct has just become aware of its irrelevance, and like a cornered beast, it will not go down without a bloody fight.

Instinct would inflict a fatal injury on our species. Instinct creates its own oppressors, and bids us rise up against them. Instinct tells us that the unknown is a threat, rather than an opportunity. Instinct slyly and covertly compels us away from change and progress. Instinct, therefore, must be expunged.

[ZeroNowhere]

The thing in itself may not be evil and, in most cases, is not evil.
Are you implying that something can be objectively evil?
In fact, the above seems to contradict this:


Evil things are decided by human beings, we call something evil and it becomes so

[Revolutionary Youth]

Are you implying that something can be objectively evil?

You are going to contradict with the Confucious people, friend!
They said that human nature is good, not evil.:rolleyes:

[casper]

there is no you, no i, no it, there simply is.
free will is nonsensical.
morality is man made
man is amoral, for he creates morality.

[NecroCommie]

I do not believe in the existence of good and evil. Different people have their own oppinion on "good" and "evil", but none of those views can be backed up or disproved.

Humanitys cruelty is not due to cruelty of man in general, but a result of capitalist cruelty. Humanity is divided into Left-wing (humane, compassionate, caring) and to right wing (selfish/ignorant, idealist, unempathetic)

[eisidisirock]

Fuck yeah, The earth belongs to the animals. We should die.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fuck yeah, The earth belongs to the animals. We should die.

You'd best be joking bud.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Please don't answer with a one-liner. Give reasons as to why you feel the way you do. It could blossom into a nice discussion.:)

As for me, I believe that humans are evil, because:

#1 History is evidence.
#2 Our daily lives are also evidence.
#3 If people argue that social conditions made them evil, who created such conditions in the first place?:(
#4 Since man has evolved from lower life forms, it's possible that he's still retained the animal instincts and traits:crying:, which explains why most people are cruel, violent, and insensitive.
#5 Why does capitalism succeed despite its cruelty? Because cruel people (not just the ones in power, btw, even the common man votes for his fav. bourgeois leader, thinking he's gonna change the world, lol) make it possible. Do you think if people were compassionate, we'd still have exploitation, mass murder, poverty etc. in this world?

There you go...history, science, as well as our subjective experiences point in this direction.:ohmy:

Now it's your turn...

Well it all depends:cool: I dont believe in Evil. So no humans are not evil what we are, is really selfish little brats cuz our capitalistic world taught us to be this way.

[ibn Bruce]

There are no evil people, only evil actions. Evil as a word is stunningly subjective, intrinsically moral and thus those who are evil will be whomever one does not agree with or does not know well enough.

Its an expansion of the fundamental attribution error, if you are late to work, it is because your bus was late, if Jimmy is late to work, it is because he is lazy. We assign labels like that, outside of situation, as though situation doesn't impact on anyone else the way it does upon us.

If Hitler had died in 1918 from wounds, we would never have considered him evil. I believe the Christians say 'hate the sin, not the sinner', there is a separation between a person's intrinsic nature and their actions.

[political_animal]

Are humans evil? No.

'Evil' is a religious construct with tenets in hell. There are good and bad actions, or if you wish moral/immoral but of course, they will be judged by the standards of the day and these standards may change over time.

What I can't understand having read all the responses on this thread, is that most appear to accept/believe that humans are inherently selfish or have 'been conditioned by the capitalist system to be selfish'. I simply can't agree with this. More than anything, we are social beings. We crave contact with others and gain enjoyment from doing so. I would suggest that we are in fact a very altruistic species. We may have developed in a supposedly selfish way of 'survival of the fittest' but the very nature of surviving and procreating, involved social constructs and networks.

Take a look at babies. They depend on their parents for life. Is it selfish of the baby to take milk from it's mother? Of course not, it's a matter of survival, of life. And the mother will have maternal instincts towards the baby of protection and care.

Have you ever watched a baby when it spots another baby? Their instinct is to be inquisitive and to be social with the other baby. It brings joy to the baby. It doesn't bring out an inherent selfishness and competition to see which one rules the day care centre. Of course, kids may squabble and fight over toys but I feel this is more to do with the natural inquisitiveness of the growing child as opposed to any inate selfishness.

The vast majority of people go through their lives committing no crimes, or crimes that are so minor as to not be considered immoral by the present day standards. So how does that sit with the notion that people are selfish beings?

In all honesty, if we don't recognise the social nature of the human condition and the co-operation that exists to make our lives better, we might as well give up now, accept the capitalist system and fight each other to the death. It is precisely because we are inherently NOT selfish, that we can have hope for our future and hope for a better society.