Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
we are 1/2 a step away from a monkey. I wouldn't call that evil. stupid maybe, not evil.
I forget to include my usual definition of 'what is evil.'
Evil = any acts and thoughts that are net-negative to the well being of the individual, other[s] and humanity. [excluding psychiatric cases].
The usual classification of negative acts are ugly, bad, very bad, vile, abominable, etc. Note I have a list of 500 terms that are synonymous with 'evil' in various degrees.
To put all into a common denominator, I classify them all as 'evil' is on the basis of a continuum from the least evil [1/100] to the most evil [100/100].
The least evil would cover those like lying, theft, petty crimes and immorality
The most evil would be genocide, mass rapes, mass beheadings, mass tortures, serial killers, child sex crimes, infanticide, very cruel acts and the likes.
The average evil are those rated in between least and most evil.
Animals commit most of the acts that humans would regard as 'most' evil e.g. genocide, mass killings, infanticide, rapes, serial killings, etc. but we do not classify such extreme acts as 'evil' because we understand the animals are doing it based on natural instincts without a high degree of the capacity for impulse control.
When humans commit the same type of extreme cruel acts and other net-negative acts we put some degrees of blame on the culprit because humans has the inherent capacity for impulse control, sense of morality and conscience. For these acts [except psychiatric cases] by humans we can classify them as evil.
Note my point is All humans has the potential to be beastly and evil as embedded in the human DNA.
Note, there is a big difference between 'evil' and 'stupidity'.
Many psychopaths who are killer serial has been tested to have high IQ.
Note Ted Bundy is one famous serial killer and an evil person who is very intelligent but cannot control his beastly impulses.
Another is the Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber;
I think we are borne of a particular code. I could never hurt another human, and yet I am astounded at how many murder cases detectives across the globe have to deal with. So yes, some humans, it is innate.
Most though, I think are good hearted. It's the ones who seek power and money who herd the rest of the sheeples, who are actually good people, but don't wish to fight that hard.
Serial killers are an entire other category....or are they?
Let's talk war, and who starts it.
Very good post OP.
But, one can argue that when we were cavemen, we had to hunt. And the two leggers won. Does that make us evil? No, it makes us top of the food chain. Our brains made the pyscology that made the changes that creates true evil, which I don't think another animal is capable of, lest a virus attacks it's brain.
I think we are borne of a particular code. I could never hurt another human, and yet I am astounded at how many murder cases detectives across the globe have to deal with. So yes, some humans, it is innate.
Most though, I think are good hearted. It's the ones who seek power and money who herd the rest of the sheeples, who are actually good people, but don't wish to fight that hard.
Serial killers are an entire other category....or are they?
Because humans are fundamentally and potentially beastly and evil, we can never be certain any one [me or you] could be good permanently.
For many a shot of brandy could loosen the relevant inhibitor and turn a goody-two-shoe into a devil. Most of the time many do not drink merely one shot of brandy but more than one thus increasing their behavior beyond good and advancing to evil in degrees.
Stress is another culprit that could some one to become evil [of various degrees] and excess stress is a very common thing in our modern era.
The other is drugs of various kinds.
Another is religion that is inherently violent. The most obvious is SOME Muslims being inspired by evil laden verses from the Quran. Many family members are shocked when their goody-two-shoes child or friend are suddenly posted in the front page of every News media as a suicide bomber or killer in the name of Islam.
There are many other elements that can trigger to loosen the neurons that inhibit and modulate the beastly impulses in humans.
War itself is basically the worst immoral act by humans but unfortunately we do not have the capacity yet to prevent wars.
Quote:
But, one can argue that when we were cavemen, we had to hunt. And the two leggers won. Does that make us evil? No, it makes us top of the food chain. Our brains made the pyscology that made the changes that creates true evil, which I don't think another animal is capable of, lest a virus attacks it's brain.
When we were cavemen, we were more beastly than the present humans as then the human capacity for impulse control was weak. The moral compass was then very bad and weak and thus then there is no sense and philosophical reflection of evilness.
Animals are capable of the most extreme and cruelest acts, e.g. genocides, infanticides, eating prey while they are alive, but we do not label them 'evil' because there are no consideration of morality within the animals. We just used the term 'natural' for all animal acts [with exceptions].
It is only within morality [note Philosophy of Morality] that we deliberate between what is good and what is evil.
Humans has the capacity to progress and evolve positively. One of the progressive faculty within humans is the faculty of morality. As our moral quotient increase the awareness of the degrees of evilness increases. This is accompanied by a greater sense of conscience.
Last edited by Continuum; 01-05-2016 at 10:26 PM..
Because humans are fundamentally and potentially beastly and evil, we can never be certain any one [me or you] could be good permanently.
For many a shot of brandy could loosen the relevant inhibitor and turn a goody-two-shoe into a devil. Most of the time many do not drink merely one shot of brandy but more than one thus increasing their behavior beyond good.
Stress is another culprit that could some one to become evil [of various degrees] and excess stress is a very common thing in our modern era.
The other is drugs of various kinds.
Another is religion that is inherently violent. The most obvious is SOME Muslims being inspired by evil laden verses from the Quran. Many family members are shocked when their goody-two-shoes child or friend are suddenly posted in the front page of every News media as a suicide bomber or killer in the name of Islam.
There are many other elements that can trigger to loosen the neurons that inhibit and module the beastly impulses in humans.
War itself is basically the worst immoral act by humans but unfortunately we do not have the capacity yet to prevent wars.
When we were cavemen, we were more beastly than the present humans as then the human capacity for impulse control was weak. The moral compass was then very bad and weak and thus then there is no sense and philosophical reflection of evilness.
Animals are capable of the most extreme and cruelest acts, e.g. genocides, infanticides, eating prey while they are alive, but we do not label them 'evil' because there are no consideration of morality within the animals. We just used the term 'natural' for all animal acts [with exceptions].
It is only within morality [note Philosophy of Morality] that we deliberate between what is good and what is evil.
Humans has the capacity to progress and evolved positively. One of the progressive faculty within humans is the faculty of morality. As our moral quotient increase the awareness of the degrees of evilness increases. This is accompanied by a greater sense of conscience.
I agree with a lot of your points. But I still think most of mankind is good.
I agree that liquor can screw up some people's minds, as well as stress.
But what I meant about genetic code, is I still believe most of the human race is good, and seeks to help their fellow man. Like ants or honeybees...
That's why we have police, laws, and ambulances. We inherently want to save ourselves and our fellow man.
How many of us have grown up in a bad environment and still become good adults? I'd say 90 to 95% percent. So I'm not one to argue much for environmental causation. But as you mention, in some cases; (alcohol, drugs) it can make a man act in a way he normally would not. But that is not normal, imho.
I also agree with you about animals being considered by us as vicious, but they have no moral code, (conscience as you say) and only kill to eat, guard their territory, or sometimes, the right to mate.
We are the only animals I have studied (besides rats) that kill for thrill. So that's why I include them from the argument you are making. Yes, some of us are inherently evil, (genetic) but I still believe most of us are good.
I agree with a lot of your points. But I still think most of mankind is good.
I agree that liquor can screw up some people's minds, as well as stress.
But what I meant about genetic code, is I still believe most of the human race is good, and seeks to help their fellow man. Like ants or honeybees...
That's why we have police, laws, and ambulances. We inherently want to save ourselves and our fellow man.
I also agree with you about animals being considered by us as vicious, but they have no moral code, (conscience as you say) and only kill to eat, guard their territory, or sometimes, the right to mate.
We are the only animals I have studied (besides rats) that kill for thrill. So that's why I include them from the argument you are making. Yes, some of us are inherently evil, but I still believe most of us are good.
I think you are conflating two issues of nature versus nurture.
1. Humans are by nature [DNA wise] hardwired with neural programs that has the potential and capable of the most cruelest acts like what other animals are doing.
Note these programs and potentials are hardwired inside the brain.
Hardwired meant we cannot remove these neural connectivity at will.
What had been done within human evolution is the brain [via a progressive module] has establish additional inhibiting neurons to suppress these primal evil impulses.
Analogy:
It is like a major powerful river and building a dam to modulate its forces.
The controlling of the power of a river [prevent flooding and promote irrigation] does not mean we have got rid of the potential catastrophic dangers from the river.
If the dam weaken and burst, then there will be continual catastrophic disasters from flooding as in the past.
Similarly the generic beastly potential hardwired in all humans over many billions of years [since the first one cell animal emerged] is like the major powerful river with its potential catastrophic dangers.
Human beings have been evolving with inhibitors [like dams] only since the last 100,000 years to progressively modulate these primal beastly impulses. As such these inhibitors [like dams] are actually very flimsy and can weaken and loosen any time.
You stated 'most of us are good,' this has to be qualified and cannot stand on its own.
Most of us are not fundamentally good.
We, say 80% of humans, are good because we have just sufficient inhibitors to suppress the beastly impulses we inherited over many billions of years to allow the relatively weak moral faculty to be active.
This is why most humans are vulnerable to relapse into evils and violence due to the various factors mentioned above.
There is another 20% of humans who are born with weak inhibitors to start with and thus lack strong impulse control programs. These are the ones who are born to be evil of various degrees.
Another example is the very strong sexual impulse [instincts] in human beings which is inherited from our ancestors who started with sexual reproduction.
Many humans are capable of controlling their sexual lusts but most find it difficult to control their lusts under certain circumstances [note Bill Clinton then as a notable example].
My point;
There are two elements i.e. of nature and of nurture variables.
Nature: The generic evil potential of all humans are hardwired in their brain and can be triggered any time when the necessary inhibitors are weakened.
Nurture: We have a weaker program to be good [moral] and has to rely on nurture to train the necessary inhibitors to suppress the much older and strong primal instincts which can be potentially evil.
Therefore being good do not mean we have got rid of the suppressed inherent potential to be evil, thus the OP [rephrased] - all human beings has the potential to be beastly and evil.
We have to deal with the 'nature' and 'nurture' elements separately and should not conflate them.
I believe that most people who willingly participate in a civil society are rewarded for making it MORE rather than less civil. On this basis, most people, given half a chance, mean well and try their best to do well. It often goes wildly off the rails, because good intentions don't guarantee good outcomes or even a valid assessment of the possible courses of action. But if persons in such societies were predominantly "beastly" and self-centered and/or clueless, there would be no surviving examples of civil societies to discuss, much less live in.
Societies do rise and fall; Rome is no longer with us, the British Empire is a shadow of its former self, and America may even be past its "best used by" date. But the prevalence of reasonably stable societies that people choose to live in worldwide at any given time has increased. Violent urban crime has decreased. Various forms of intolerance have been tamped down, even conquered. The probability of any one person dying in war is down. It's uneven, and definitely a two-steps forward, one step back kinda thing. But it seems to me to be headed in the right direction over the long haul.
So yes, any one person in theory could be a bad actor. The potential exists. Where poverty, disease, want and ignorance are dominant, the potential increases precipitously, because such things strip away the things that regulate us and make us something more than some rutting, head-butting animal. Things like social reciprocity and empathy.
This study is epistemological rather than metaphysical/ontological. Thus in this case we need to qualify 'evil' which has to be differentiated from the common use of 'evil' from the theological perspective.
Here we are blending Philosophy of Morals [Good and Evil] and Epistemology.
I have done VERY extensive research on this concept of evil from the philosophical perspective. I intend to develop a taxonomy of all acts that is within the range of evil.
The use of the term 'evil' in the epistemological perspective will deliver greater impact and 'bite' on the range of negatives [bad, very bad, ugly, abominable, vile, etc.] acts committed by certain people. Note I have invented the statements, 'evil acts committed by evil prone people when inspired by evil laden elements' which any average person should get the idea and point.
Thus when a religion has is inherently evil [not ontological] with evil laden elements we have to give it extra attention instead of brushing it aside.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
