ALL Human Beings are Potentially Beastly and Evil (eastern, life, western)

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Bonnie Jean McGee

I don't seem to have a Mean gene - nor did my own father.
Neither does my son - "kind" was on every school report he ever had.

Not every one have a 'mean' gene nor a 'warrior' gene. These are the later superficial genes.


What I was referring to are the generic primary and fundamental instincts and emotions embedded in the human DNA that are necessary for human survival and thus preservation of the specie.


There is the fight or flight response, the kill or be killed instinct, the us versus them instinct and other primal impulses. In addition there is the primary emotions of anger. The neural circuits of these instincts and emotions are fundamental in every human [i.e. it human nature] but may or may not be active in all humans.
Because these potentially violent instincts and emotions are inherent in all human, the are potential for evil if these circuits happened to be triggered.


You can never know how your brain and instincts can be spontaneously triggered in various circumstances.
If your toddler is under mortal threat, your killer instinct may likely to be triggered if necessary because they are embedded and ready to be applied.
You may be fortunate to have good impulse controls but if 10% of the 7++ billion has lack of impulse controls we are dealing with 700 millions potential evil prone humans around the world.


This is why there is so much terrible evils and violence being committed around the world because all humans are naturally beastly DNA wise and prone to evil.
If 10% [conservatively] lack control of their instinctual impulse then we have havoc on earth which is a fact from the glaring evidence we hear and read about.

[Anomaly75]

This is why there is somuch terrible evils and violence being committed around the world because allhumans are naturally beastly DNA wise and prone to evil.

Except that on closer inspection, Hume's 'no is from ought' still stands today as strongly as ever. There is no biological connection to morality on the deepest level other than the fact that humans as biological animals have moral apprehension. [There've been recent claims that moral awareness and abstraction takes place inanimals, but 1) science is populated in large part by materialists whose professional interests naturally steer them to conclusions like those in Continuum's posts, and, 2) despite findings that have taken many decades to reach, the vaunted 'morality' of lower animals seems to have surfaced in more force recently at least in part by redefining terms like"moral" and "ethical", granting researchers ability to placeanimal behaviors within those definitions, for example:
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cg...hicsandanimals


Potential for evil is defined traditionally in Christianity from correspondences between the Biblical texts and observed human behavior as a function of spirit or animating principle. And the theological explanation can be further clarified metaphysically in Avicenna’s framework for truth, where truth is an ontological property of essence, a natural condition of existence. Essence would seem the more likely source ofmorality than matter since aside from observed correspondences between biological functions, expressions of beliefs and behavior no logical connection exists between matter and morality, rendering materialist accounts as reificatory in nature as the theological.


For instance, Avicenna’s idea of truth as found in essence can be expanded to a broader, more inclusive “value”, which includes both truth and falsity and their admixture (combined in a state of multiplicity)in essence. Second, both matter in timeand space and ethereal essence are moved to an inclusive “information” To existis to inform (i.e., being is information; both thing and attribute have incommon that they ‘inform’ the intellect). From this, a case can be made when coupled with certain Biblical principlesthat the ‘mechanics’ of morality is a spiritual, not material, function. Like the materialist’s evolutionaryinterpretive scheme, this system of ‘spiritual mechanics’ provides degrees ofpredictive capability to explain not only moral apprehension and the formationof moral principles in humans but the psychology of human behavior in general.


All have heard the term “the truth hurts”. Truth divided into twoaspects or kinds—factual and normative or descriptive and prescriptive—suggeststhat the latter (consistent with Hume’s axiom) has no power to incite a dynamicin intellectual operation, while the former is, in contradistinction to theinert feature of factual truth, vital and vigorous. The dynamic is produced by the natural discordbetween true and false elements that endue the informational structure of essence. In other words, human spirit or essence as a multiplicityof competing value components (analogous to a single body made up of somebillions of cells) could explain the basis for most human behavior and allhuman moral and ethical thinking.


For example, cancer cells as a form of descriptive falsity in the body interacts with healthy cells to produce sickness or lack of the perfection of health. False elements in essence could similarly cause the sickness we recognize as antisocial behaviors, and which most theists would recognize as sin. The point of reference is universal: the perfection of whole or pure truth. Sickness denies the perfection of health, and to be perfect is to be wholly true. And though this view is,like all views, unable to overcome the thing/quality difficulty, it appears to allow one to trace the path of defect as value from essence to cognitive function to act—using the Biblical principle of deviation from perfection[absolute truth] as the sole standard to determine degrees of value in physical, psychological and moral realms.


This is obviously shortened to fit a message board venue and excludes fleshing out of most of the logical details. I’ll leave it to the judgment of moderators as to whether this, as a combined metaphysical/theological view, belongs in thePhilosophy area. The point is biological explanations don’t own the explanation for morality.

[Yabbhadou]

Originally Posted by Continuum

DNA wise all human beings are potentially beastly and thus evil.
Human babies are born as necessarily narcissistic to facilitate their survival and this tendency is weaned off as they grow older.
Some toddlers kill and injure their younger baby siblings out of jealousy and aggression.
ZERO TO THREE: Aggressive Behavior in Toddlers
11-Year-Old Allegedly Kills Baby Brother, Camden Johnson, Out Of 'Jealousy'


Surely those toddlers who had injured or kill their baby sibling did not learn it from any one other than from their inherent potential of evil manifesting from their DNA.


I think more examples of the above will be more convincing to indicate All human beings are potentially beastly and thus evil.


The other supporting point is DNA wise human beings are 96-98% beasts [nearest the primates].


In addition, neural wise, the human brain contain [via evolution] the features of all the brain of every creature since the first one-cell animal emerged on Earth.


The above are the inherent beastly and evil potential in ALL human beings as embedded in the human DNA.



Most humans beings naturally grow up [as programmed] to be good people and a percentile has to be strongly guided to be good.
However there is a natural percentile say 20% who cannot develop sufficient inhibitors to control their aggressive and violent impulses.


This is the 20% [conservatively] of evil prone human beings that are critical as an ultimate cause to most of the evils that has been committed since humanity emerged.


Views?

How do you formulate this opinion. The root cause of societies woes is one word, selfishness. Most only care about themselves and their own little world.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Anomaly75

Except that on closer inspection, Hume's 'no is from ought' still stands today as strongly as ever. There is no biological connection to morality on the deepest level other than the fact that humans as biological animals have moral apprehension. [There've been recent claims that moral awareness and abstraction takes place inanimals, but 1) science is populated in large part by materialists whose professional interests naturally steer them to conclusions like those in Continuum's posts, and, 2) despite findings that have taken many decades to reach, the vaunted 'morality' of lower animals seems to have surfaced in more force recently at least in part by redefining terms like"moral" and "ethical", granting researchers ability to placeanimal behaviors within those definitions, for example:
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cg...hicsandanimals

I agree one cannot convert "is" to "ought" in the absolute sense.


However there is nothing wrong in extracting "ought" from "is" by inferences for common practical applications because all humans share the same DNA.
We observe in most cases, what happened when a person jumps [without parachute] from the top of a 10-storey building directly on to the pavement, is, the person will die with 99.99% certainty.
Therefore it is practical to establish an 'ought' i.e. humans ought not to jump from the top of a 10-storey building without a parachute.


Now are you saying that no one should raise such an 'ought' statement because Hume said so. Such an insistence would be immoral and evil.


I agree "is" cannot be "ought" in the absolute sense, but humans must be wise [applied philosophy] to establish "ought" statements to guide practical situations without being dogmatic [like theists] on it.


Btw, your accusation that my philosophical views re morality and ethics is scientifically biased is wrong.
My moral and ethical views are based on the Kantian approach which blend the Pure [ought] with Applied [is] on a complementarity basis.


I am not too sure of the point of your whole post.


My OP 'ALL Human Beings are Potential Beastly and Evil' can be proven and demonstrated by scientific experiments and philosophical justifications.


Note here is one clue;

EBS could elicit the ritualistic, motor responses of sham rage in cats by stimulation of the anterior hypothalamus, as well as more complex emotional and behavioral components of "true rage" in both experimental animals by stimulation of the lateral hypothalamus, and in human subjects by stimulating various deep areas of the brain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...in_stimulation

Therefore even if you are a calm person, one can use EBS to trigger rage in you beyond your will and you cannot control it.
Above is merely a clue, if you have done extensive and relevant research in this area [like I did] you will understand the truth of my OP.


Note I have defined 'evil' in the secular [not theological] somewhere.


My main point is;
ALL Humans are inherently beastly and has the potential to be evil and violent.
Thus the caution is to ensure we do not introduce stimuli, e.g. evils and violence in movies, media, public sphere, religious texts [*especially], etc., to trigger this potential in the vulnerable.
* that is my main concern and it is happening in reality with Islam and the evil laden elements in the Quran.


Btw, do you agree with the OP?
That humans commit evil acts of genocide, mass rapes, murders, killings, oppression, other basic evils and violence are driven by double-edged instincts we have inherited from our animal ancestors.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Yabbhadou

How do you formulate this opinion. The root cause of societies woes is one word, selfishness. Most only care about themselves and their own little world.

If you reflect further almost all animals are in fact 'selfish', i.e. most only care about themselves and their own little world, except in rare cases during parenting and other exceptions in the higher animals.


Because we recognize the acts of animals as instinctual we do not label them as selfish, murder, rape, steal, cheat or as any other immoral acts.


Human selfishness is one type of evil [secular and not theological] and humans have inherited such impulses from our beastly ancestors and it is embedded in the human brain via the DNA.
One difference is humans has the ability to modulate such impulses and thus not all humans are selfish all the time.

[Anomaly75]

However there is nothing wrong in extracting "ought" from "is" by inferences

I agree. Inferences are what complex belief systems operate on.

Now are you saying that no one should raise such an 'ought' statement because Hume said so. Such an insistence would be immoral and evil.

No, not saying that. Only saying that Hume identified a philosophical principle that appears so far to have withstood the test of time and that any attempt to build a case for morality out of biological sufficiency runs into this problem just as the theist runs into problems explaining the spirit/body (or its cousin, mind/body) relationship.

My OP 'ALL Human Beings are Potential Beastly and Evil' can be proven and demonstrated by scientific experiments and philosophical justifications.

Understood, though I think you mean to say they can be demonstrated, not proven...assuming proven is defined as having certitude. I wouldn't argue against these conclusions. They can be affirmed without damage to the beliefs of a substance dualist. Such experiments show natural correlations between biological [brain] function and behavior. That's not in dispute.

Therefore even if you are a calm person, one can use EBS to trigger rage in you beyond your will and you cannot control it. Above is merely a clue, if you have done extensive and relevant research in this area [like I did] you will understand the truth of my OP.

So now we've arrived at that place at which only someone who has conducted the in-depth research you have can understand the truth of your position? By truth do you mean your assertion that...

humans commit evil acts of genocide, mass rapes, murders, killings, oppression, other basic evils and violence are driven by double-edged instincts we have inherited from our animal ancestors

...has reached the level of certitude by which all opposing positions are demonstrably false?


I think all you're really proving is that there are correlations between behaviors and biology. And yes, I understand you're using a secular notion of 'evil'. But it remains counter intuitive to apparently still a majority of humans that the apprehension of good and evil is a moral feature of humans as biological creatures which is still starkly distinguishable in kind from the behaviors of higher animals. Secular science commits the category error of draping the mechanistic behavior of animals over human behavior like a blanket and calling them the same. This makes me wonder, when was the last time you heard a discussion between a human and a chimpanzee or dog about ethics? This very behavior [desire to escape by intellectual eradication the source of moral power, prescriptive truth] has a rational explanation in the same realm or category of existence as morality itself. I don't believe the reverse is true.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Anomaly75

No, not saying that. Only saying that Hume identified a philosophical principle that appears so far to have withstood the test of time and that any attempt to build a case for morality out of biological sufficiency runs into this problem just as the theist runs into problems explaining the spirit/body (or its cousin, mind/body) relationship.

I agree Hume's principle of 'customs' and 'habits' are true in one perspective.


However, Kant was awoke from philosophical slumber from Hume's dilemma and Kant reconciled "is" with "ought" within his philosophical system of morality and ethics.

I think all you're really proving is that there are correlations between behaviors and biology. And yes, I understand you're using a secular notion of 'evil'. But it remains counter intuitive to apparently still a majority of humans that the apprehension of good and evil is a moral feature of humans as biological creatures which is still starkly distinguishable in kind from the behaviors of higher animals. Secular science commits the category error of draping the mechanistic behavior of animals over human behavior like a blanket and calling them the same. This makes me wonder, when was the last time you heard a discussion between a human and a chimpanzee or dog about ethics?

This very behavior [desire to escape by intellectual eradication the source of moral power, prescriptive truth] has a rational explanation in the same realm or category of existence as morality itself. I don't believe the reverse is true.

I suggest you read up Kant to understand [not necessary agree] how Kant resolved the issue to extract objective morality from experience and apply it in the practical world.
It is tedious for me to explain and it took me 3 years of continuous full time study to grasp, understand then agree with the full range of Kant's philosophies from metaphysics, epistemology to morality/ethics.

[Anomaly75]

I suggest you read up Kant to understand [not necessary agree] how Kant resolved the issue to extract objective morality from experience and apply it in the practical world.
It is tedious for me to explain and it took me 3 years of continuous full time study to grasp, understand then agree with the full range of Kant's philosophies from metaphysics, epistemology to morality/ethics.

You're right, I should read Kant. I've tried, having recognized years ago that he's considered one of the greats, but found him hard to read Not impossible like Hegel, just not my cup of tea.

Kant aside, my response has been directed to what seems a pretty standard materialist explanation for human behavior. Your posts identified this and your rejection of the idea of the idea of absolute standards. I concede the wonder of modern science and the doors of understanding it's opening into ties between behavior and brain, and understand there's warrant for belief from the biological angle. You make it sound as though biology offers the only sufficient explanation for human behavior. Just pointing out that this is certainly not a done deal...in the end it seems everyone runs into the categorical brick wall, theist and non-theist alike.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Anomaly75

You're right, I should read Kant. I've tried, having recognized years ago that he's considered one of the greats, but found him hard to read Not impossible like Hegel, just not my cup of tea.

Kant aside, my response has been directed to what seems a pretty standard materialist explanation for human behavior. Your posts identified this and your rejection of the idea of the idea of absolute standards. I concede the wonder of modern science and the doors of understanding it's opening into ties between behavior and brain, and understand there's warrant for belief from the biological angle. You make it sound as though biology offers the only sufficient explanation for human behavior. Just pointing out that this is certainly not a done deal...in the end it seems everyone runs into the categorical brick wall, theist and non-theist alike.

My approach to morality & ethics is based on a Critical Philosophical Framework & System of Morality and Ethics.

The neuro-scientific basis I mentioned is merely a piece of the jigsaw of the whole framework.
As pointed out by Hume, Science has serious limitations but such limitations are recognized and are well covered within my framework.
What is critical is the System must work on a progressive path with continual improvements.


My approach is anti-materialism and Philosophical anti-realism.

[kinkytoes]

That is BS. Some people are meek and humble by nature. Some people are prone to want to force others to violently submit, to some extent also by nature. To claim that everyone is this way is a big insult to those of us (puts on halo) who are peace-loving.