Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

[Zythus]

Preface: This thread was not meant to offend, discredit, target, or isolate any individual, group, clique in any way. This thread is purely for discussion and debate from a mild to a moderate degree.


Misanthropy -A general dislike, distrust, or hatred of the human species, or a disposition to dislike and/or distrust other people. (Wikipedia)

The definition does not step that far and absolute. One can also detest humankind and act normally. Its a personal preference and a philosophical approach that one believes in, not necessarily a religion. An more extreme believer takes it as a code in life, to never interact with other humans.
Misanthropy would be the discontent solely based on the savagery, primitivism, and ego of human instincts and characteristics. As it is substantially apparent that humans posses the natural characteristics of greed, hate, avarice, lust, and ego manifesting in many direct or indirect ways that are demonstrated and exercised, it may also be arguable that humans have light in them amidst the darkness. Stereotypically, humans are also compassionate, caring, empathic, and many other traits that illuminate the positivity of humans, that is to say, the impression that we ourselves like to endorse.
I myself is a misanthropist, seeing absolutely no good in the existence of humans. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer says that "There was some error in calculation for the existence of humans to have sprung up." Humans destroy, steal, kill, and all of the shenanigans that makes a human, human. It is a FACT that without the human race, the universe would be a much better place. Aside from the evil of humans, I justify the "goodness" of humans to be yet another part of "evil". Because of ego, humans build their infrastructures called societies. And because they have ego, it is needless to say that they want to portray themselves as something "nice". Thus, by a visage of being a "nice" organism by the refined rules of society, we blight ourselves to believe that humans are indeed compassionate creatures.
Does it sound pessimistic? Perhaps it only does if you feel that humans are some sort of revered existences. And yes, I do understand that I myself am human too. This isn't for the faint of heart.

My question would be:

Are humans fundamentally evil or good?

For some more enlightenment, I was reading an article about the 10 Myths of Reality. It basically talks about how the author thinks that our society's common acceptance of subjects is to be looked differently in various ways. He goes on to state his opinion of the 10 aspects of society which I found very interesting and true.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...orycode=401547

Note again that this is a moderate discussion, be composed and a bit more accepting than you normally are.

[devonin]

So as a misanthrope, would you be willing to support a plan to completely wipe out humanity, starting with you?

[Zythus]

Wholeheartedly, I would agree to an apocalypse starting with me if the demise of ALL humans can be guaranteed. Just to kill off one or two insignificant specks would accomplish nothing. As death can be a harsh thing, it would have been great if the existence never came to be.
As much as I hate humans, including myself, I do have a fair regard to life's value. If it was ended indiscriminately without a good cause, I think it would pretty stupid.
I'm a moderate Misanthropist. Its not a giant belief to me or whatsoever, I just believe that humans are indeed worthless and evil. It does not impair me socially or influence my actions or thoughts.

Ok...maybe a little on thoughts.

[devonin]

I would agree to an apocalypse starting with me if the demise of ALL humans can be guaranteed.

I do have a fair regard to life's value. If it was ended indiscriminately without a good cause, I think it would pretty stupid.

Er.......yeah.

I just believe that humans are indeed worthless and evil. It does not impair me socially or influence my actions or thoughts.

Then I would say that you don't actually believe that all humans are worthless and evil. I really can't understand any means by which you could truly and sincerely believe that, and NOT have it influence pretty much every aspect of your day to day life, unless you're simply choosing to ignore what you believe to be true, and act as though the opposite is true.

I would argue that the only alternative to suicide, murder, or actively trying to bring about the end of the world for someone who actually truly and genuinely believes that humanity is an evil worthless bane to existance is a very large amount of hypocrisy and self-denial.

I begin to suspect that you might just feel humans are worthless on the basis of the new social paradigm of blaming humanity for every problem facing the world as a whole.

I'm going to type out a fairly extensive quote here, from a talk given by David Brin, a science-fiction author.

Originally Posted by David Brin 'The Dogma of Otherness', 1986

The Doctrine of Otherness has had powerful propaganda over the last several decades. In particular, the animals have been getting awfully good press. "Man is the only animal that (take your choice) murders its own kind, kills its children, kills for sport, commits sexual assault, wages war, hurts the environment"

A generation has grown up having been told these things over and over. And in having humility and shame pounded into us, we have begun, indeed, to look upon ourselves differently. It isn't just because of teddy bears that we have started fitfully to treat the other creatures around us with more respect. It is also because we have had it driven home again and again that we had better shape up if we ever expect to live up to a standard of decency.

But whose standard?

Why, our own of course. And here's where that paradox comes in again. Species have always gone extinct. That is how evolution works. The pity comes in when we see nature's creations as beautiful, and when we feel shame over wiping out something as unique and irreplacable as a blue whale, or a manatee, or even a dodo.

...

This view of Man the Destroyer - a beast within ourselves that must be constantly watched- may be the very fairy tale needed to frighten us into our senses. Cartmill put it aptly: There is no way to tell for sure whether this mythmaking has contributed to our survival thus far. I suspect it has. I doubt the world would have ended if Muir or Twain or Freud or Jeffers had never lived...But I think it might perhaps have ended by now if we hadn't learned to be afraid of ourselves long before that fear was entirely reasonable.

The propaganda we grew up with was a Good Thing, no question about it. It appears to have saved the otter, the dolphin, the gorilla, and perhaps, the whales. Maybe even ourselves.

But is it true?

Bad-mouthing humankind has been important drama. But once we're in the habit of protectingf nature for its own sake, do we have to keep it up? It's all a big fat lot of hype. Nice hype, but hype nonetheless. All over the natural world there is an almost infinite variety of animals that (take your choice) murders their own kind, kills their children, kills for sport, commits sexual assault, wages war, hurts the environment.

Apes use tools in the wild and can be taught sign language. They are also prone to simpler versions of every type of human mental illness (including infanticide and deadly 'organized' warfare). Male lions will kill the cubs of their predecessors, after winning cunning "wars" of eviction. Stallions will deliberately kill one another. Historically a large part of the deforestation of the Middle East seems to have been performed not just by man, but by goats as well. Elephants are a primary cause of the deforestation of East Africa.

Mallard ducks have been observed to commit gang rape on mated females. In more and more supposedly 'monogamous' species of birds, we are discovering that the males commit philandery. Even dolphins, almost alone with humankind in being capable of altruism outside their own species, have been observed murdering their own kind.

All three of the old worldviews lie in shambles around us. Only an old traditionalist fool would say that man is the 'Paragon of animals' and nature our playground. Only a Pollyanna would contend that the clockwork spins majestically on, in harmony whatever we do. And it is also romantic nonsense to say that we are a pimple on creation...that the world would be somehow far better off without us.

Where does that leave us then?
It leaves us, I hope, uncomfortable and thoughtful.

[Zythus]

I would argue that the only alternative to suicide, murder, or actively trying to bring about the end of the world for someone who actually truly and genuinely believes that humanity is an evil worthless bane to existence is a very large amount of hypocrisy and self-denial.

Thing is, like all organisms and existences, we have the mission to survive and live. From a logical point of view, I don't see how suiciding would apparently solve anything. Therefore, I believe misanthropy, yet as an existence as well, I am obligated to continue living and survive. The point is that out of all organisms in this world, humans are the ones I hate most among others. I do genuinely believe this, yet I also believe that any organism would value life.
Its also moderation, I don't necessarily have to act upon what I believe just to make the point that I believe it. The sole reason why I wouldn't go on the streets and endorse this is because humans are insignificant. One have no power as an individual. We are all society's slaves, it is society who dictates our actions and categorize us as whatever we may be. There is no point to try and act all radical(from society's viewpoint) for you will just be rebuked by the world around you.

I begin to suspect that you might just feel humans are worthless on the basis of the new social paradigm of blaming humanity for every problem facing the world as a whole.

That is only one of the many criteria met for my hatred to evolve into hatred. Aside from the hype about the deleterious actions of humans, humans themselves as the essence, is horrid and corrupt. Humans may not be the only existence that posses such a vile nature, but surely, they are the most dominant and destructive.
I hate humanity, but I don't revere and respect the existence of animals either. Misanthropy is just one thread in my theology that the world and all we know is the embodiment of nothingness. A world of nothing, consisting of nothing. I hope this did not go off track.

The article depicted basically how stupid it is to be offended by the evil of humans, additionally stating that humans aren't so special to the many other organisms that also have the attribute of instinctive evil. I agree to the fact that "we" is the most villainous to please. Humans set the standards, and humans try to achieve them, leaving the path they strode on in shambles. What we see here is the amplification of the destructiveness of humans. By who? Themselves.

[Cyanite]

I'm generally a pessimist in most matters, but hating humans due to our faults seems a bit extreme.

Honestly, your comment that you'd gladly support a complete extinction of the human race is extremely disturbing. You talk about logically dealing with your thoughts, but how can one possibly think something like that would be a logical response to what's little more than a viewpoint? There are people out there that enjoy life's better moments while trying to ignore the obvious faults. They do that for the same reasons you listed -- individuals are, on a worldwide basis, powerless. For that reason I don't see why anyone would choose inevitable disgust and hatred over something like that.

I'm never one to classify anyone as "evil", since the adjective doesn't seem to be very applicable to any more than a few people, but those kinds of ideas seem to be more evil than anything else I've heard out of people. If you truly believe and endorse things of those nature, then I can only think you're projecting your own negative ideology and self-hatred to the species as a whole to rationalize your thoughts.

[Zythus]

"Where does that leave us then?
It leaves us, I hope, uncomfortable and thoughtful."

And so, you would argue that humans are indeed the embodiment of something kind?
No, it would not be extreme to have a preference of humans as "humans should not exist"
The only reason why you believe it to be extreme is that you are human yourself, just as I am. However, I feel that it is entirely deceiving how humans are portrayed in a beautiful manner, as if , it amends the sins of our evil. Portraying the goodness of humans, by humans.

You talk about logically dealing with your thoughts, but how can one possibly think something like that would be a logical response to what's little more than a viewpoint?

See, this is what I find absurd about humans and their self denial (From my viewpoint). My preference is my viewpoint, correct. It does not make it false just because others do not agree or find it uncomprehending. It is indeed logical if you would even begin to think the essence of human nature rather than indulge yourself on the "good points" of humans. It is a fact that humans have the vile nature they are born with. But you are standing on shaky grounds if you merely point the finger at me saying, "Well, thats wrong because its extreme and all humans have some good in their life."

those kinds of ideas seem to be more evil than anything else I've heard out of people

And this judgment is from what perspective? The society's.

then I can only think you're projecting your own negative ideology and self-hatred to the species as a whole to rationalize your thoughts.

My ideology regardless of any perspective viewed from, has legitimacy. You hate mosquitoes because they are an eyesore and they bite, because mosquitoes are something else that you judge. You would think Misanthropy is radical because in this case, you are judging yourself. This is a simple display of ego, the fact that you think that seeing the horrid human nature as bad, is deemed unthinkable and evil.

Maybe I should reword my opinion. Rather than evil, I find it sad that humans exist, blighted by their egotistical nature to feel that they are something significant. While mortal by the ephemeral existence that humans have, like with all organisms, humans feel that they are superior to each other. Hence, you see the amplification of humans' destruction, through the multitude of malevolent things that humans ,consciously or subliminally, do. And it is exactly so why there are such things as wars, because one party wants to boost their ego and exercise their superiority over another.

[Magic187]

Good and evil are all a matter of perspective.
Humans are humans, we rely on instinct.
That instinct cannot be classified as "good" or "evil" because there really is no set definition to either of those terms.

[Zythus]

Ok, so every malice of humankind can be justified with, "Oh its instinct, nothing we can do about it." ? Put it simply, are human actions destructive and belligerent, or are they nice and composed and peaceful?

[Lipidman]

Originally Posted by Zythus

Maybe I should reword my opinion. Rather than evil, I find it sad that humans exist, blighted by their egotistical nature to feel that they are something significant.

Define "significant". Do you mean relative to each other or do you mean as a spieces?

Because you know, we are significantly smarter than any other spieces on the planet. Monkey's didn't reach space on their own.

[Zythus]

Significant in both senses, as to each other and as a species.
But look at it from a species point of view. How is our existence so different from an ants or a monkey's? You are born, you live a duration, you die. The point isn't that we have the intelligence to think, it is that fundamentally, we feel we are because of this intelligence, we have transcended the ranks of being like any other mortal species and that it authorizes and justifies our deleterious nature.
And no, I don't have an answer to what we should do as humans, but I think humans should get their heads down from the clouds and know the position they are in. It is because of this ego, it corrupts mankind and escalates to disastrous events.

[Jerry DB]

I heard humans are the only species on earth that understands it will die someday. This could be part of the reason that humans have an evil side. We want to make the best out of our lives or live the way we see other people living. If some people cant do that they might give up and became "evil" in societies eyes. If any other animal lived in our shoes and understood death and was the species that rules the planet, do you think they would be any different?

The main thing I want to say is theres always going to be "good and evil" but you shouldnt hate humans because of a few people who are corrupt.

[devonin]

Morality is a construct with no objective basis in reality. There is no such thing as a right or wrong action, except insofar as we tell ourselves by mutual agreement that we're going to call such-and-such right and such-and-such wrong. We have no real basis for any of those definitions, and a contrary definition is just as arbitrary and subjective as the accepted status quo, except that fewer people believe it, and thus have their will subordinated to the majority. But that doesn't make it any more or any less likely to be valid, since all such judgements are wholly subjective and without universal or objective meaning.

If, as it sounds, you are a nihilist, I find your misanthrophy even more surprising and confusing. If there is no point to existence, no greater purpose for life to be, then how could you possibly call anything good or bad, good or evil, since those judgements only make any kind of sense in the context of working for or against the purpose of existence that you don't seem to believe exists.

Let me put it this way: Something can only be evil if it works in opposition to something that is good. The terms as they apply in western religion (say Christianity) for example, hold that evil acts are those which are in opposition to God's divine plan and stated purpose for humanity. And acts which are good are those that are in alignment with God's divine plan and stated purpose for humanity.

No plan means no purpose to work for or against, means no basis by which to call things good or evil. The closest we can come to trying to craft a suitable definition for Good/Evil or Good/Bad without appealing to a higher purpose (Since you don't believe in a higher purpose) would be best reflected in Nietzsche. He says that there are only two kinds of people in the world: The Strong and the Weak (It might be more accurate to say Stong and Not-Strong but close enough)

Good/Bad, to Nietzsche, is a paradigm used by the strong, where the strong are good and the weak are bad. This is not a moral judgement. The strong are Good because they are capable of exercising their will to power, and the weak are bad for not being able to stand up to the strong. Eagles are strong, rabbits are weak, because the eagle can exercise its will to eat the rabbit, and the rabbit is unable to stop it. Once again, this is not a moral judgement, it is simply an observation of the way the paradigm functions. The weak, in this view, have only two options: Acknowledge their weakness and simply submit to the strong, or Assert that they are in fact also strong.

Good/Evil in this view, is a paradigm used by the weak, where the weak are good and the strong are evil. Unable to actually resist the will of the strong, the weak try to justify their weakness by attaching moral labels to things. By calling the actions of the strong "Evil" the weak are able to justify being weak by appealing to the moral standards they've invented. This is the case of "Humans are evil because by humanity's standards they are evil" The weak generate a construct of God and Religion, where they tell themselves that they are -supposed- to submit to the will of the strong, because by remaining weak, they will be rewarded later. By turning weakness into a virtue, they convince themselves that they aren't weak, that they are Good and doing the Right Thing.

In Nietzsche's view, this Good/Evil paradigm is complete hogwash, and just further proof that the weak are weak. So weak in fact that they aren't even strong enough to just -admit- that they are weak, and instead with much wringing of hands and upward looks, convince themselves that it is GOOD to be weak.

Without some greater moral scheme to appeal to, how can you possibly conclude humans are evil simply for doing what has been done millions of times before? Like the article said: Species become extinct, that's how evolution works. Attaching moral significance to it without also appealing to a greater purpose or meaning makes no rational sense to me.

[Zythus]

If, as it sounds, you are a nihilist, I find your misanthrophy even more surprising and confusing. If there is no point to existence, no greater purpose for life to be, then how could you possibly call anything good or bad, good or evil, since those judgements only make any kind of sense in the context of working for or against the purpose of existence that you don't seem to believe exists.

Yet, it is because of human intelligence that I am able to conclude (In my perspective), that humans are harmful rather than peaceful. I believe in human existence, as minimal and indifferent from any other species that stalk this world. What my judgment is based upon is the induction of effects by the human existence on other coexisting species, even worse, humans themselves. On the basic level, its life, or death. In other words, Good and Evil. My point is that humans, being insignificant as any other primitive species, are more evil than the scanty goodness they will ever be.

Without some greater moral scheme to appeal to, how can you possibly conclude humans are evil simply for doing what has been done millions of times before? Like the article said: Species become extinct, that's how evolution works. Attaching moral significance to it without also appealing to a greater purpose or meaning makes no rational sense to me.

Moral? What moral? If humanity had even a shred of moral to apply to, we wouldn't be humanity anymore. Indeed, it has been done million of times but aside from self judgment from a human perspective, on the larger picture, humans, needless to say insignificant, have caused much harm and disorder to themselves and other species. As the last resort, extinction would be the only way to solve this problem. You say instincts cannot be judged good or evil, but having intelligence, should we exercise our instincts without a second thought sole because it is out instinct? Not to mention thinking is also an instinct.

Nietzsche's view I also agree to, but weak and strong should be more appropriately named Fortunate and Unfortunate. Only the sore loser would complain, hence proving that they are indeed weak. It is a privileged and luxury to exercise superiority. On shaky grounds I say this, but as an insignificant race, we are all deemed faceless in the passing of time. And so, I'm quite pessimistic to say that the unfortunate should be forsaken, it is by proximity and chance they were born into the lives that they lead, live with it. Fortunate is being , quite frankly, stupid to fuel a lost cause. I can understand if one said, "well, I think they deserve a chance for revival or renewal?". The framework of the unfortunate is poverty, vagrancy, and what not. Fortunate ones help them, this dependency that the unfortunate has cannot be shaken off now. Without unending support, how do we suppose the unfortunate would be ever have a chance? And with unending support, it tolls the fortunate ones a lot of money to keep it up. Africa would be a good example.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Zythus

Yet, it is because of human intelligence that I am able to conclude (In my perspective), that humans are harmful rather than peaceful. I believe in human existence, as minimal and indifferent from any other species that stalk this world. What my judgment is based upon is the induction of effects by the human existence on other coexisting species, even worse, humans themselves. On the basic level, its life, or death. In other words, Good and Evil. My point is that humans, being insignificant as any other primitive species, are more evil than the scanty goodness they will ever be.

Let's try this again: What is the purpose of human existance? Why are we here, what is the meaning of life?

Nihilist says: There isn't one. We're a cosmic accident like everything else, there is no intrinsic meaning to human existence, we're no different from any other animal that happened to have developed.

If there is no purpose or meaning to life, then there can be no morality, because in order for something to be morally good or morally bad, you need an objective definition of what is good and what is bad to appeal to. Having an objective definition of what is good and what is bad to appeal to means that you are describing a purpose for humanity: To live according to that definition. As a Nihilist, you deny that there is such a definition, thus you deny that there is any morality, thus you deny that anything can be good or evil.

And yet -you- say that there -is- such a thing as evil, because humans are evil. This is what I want you to reconcile for me.

Moral? What moral? If humanity had even a shred of moral to apply to, we wouldn't be humanity anymore. Indeed, it has been done million of times but aside from self judgment from a human perspective, on the larger picture, humans, needless to say insignificant, have caused much harm and disorder to themselves and other species.

Disorder? You suggest that there is an order to life then, that we can disrupt that order? But you're a nihilist, there's no meaning or order to the universe, everything is random occurance with no meaning whatsoever.

As the last resort, extinction would be the only way to solve this problem. You say instincts cannot be judged good or evil, but having intelligence, should we exercise our instincts without a second thought sole because it is out instinct? Not to mention thinking is also an instinct.

Something is instinctive if the reaction to the stimulus is automatic without a routing of a decision making process. Anything you stop and think about before making a decision is not instinctive. Pulling your hand away from something hot is instinct because you do not deliberate about pulling your hand away or not, it simply happens. Intelligence is fundamentally the ability to force reason and decision making between instinctive responses to stimuli.

I don't say that "instincts cannot be judged as good or evil" I said as a nihilist, you MUST -yourself- argue that NOTHING is good or evil, because morality is a construct with no basis in reality. Some people one time decided "We're going to harm people who do this certain thing that we've decided harms us" nothing more. It has no objective value, it has no outside validity.

]quote]Nietzsche's view I also agree to, but weak and strong should be more appropriately named Fortunate and Unfortunate. Only the sore loser would complain, hence proving that they are indeed weak. It is a privileged and luxury to exercise superiority.[/quote]Unfortunately, quite an inaccurate comparison. Nietzsche would completely deny the existance of "fortune" as a concept. You are not fortunate or unfortunate. If you lack for things it is because you are too weak to take them. If you have things, it is because you were strong enough to take and hold them. There's no luck, there's no fortune, there's no serendipity, there is only the exercise of strength and the will to resist the attempts of those weaker than you to remove the things that you've taken for yourself.

On shaky grounds I say this, but as an insignificant race, we are all deemed faceless in the passing of time. And so, I'm quite pessimistic to say that the unfortunate should be forsaken, it is by proximity and chance they were born into the lives that they lead, live with it. Fortunate is being , quite frankly, stupid to fuel a lost cause. I can understand if one said, "well, I think they deserve a chance for revival or renewal?". The framework of the unfortunate is poverty, vagrancy, and what not.

No again. There is no "born into" to Nietzsche. I mean, your starting position might be necessarily dictated by the position occupied by your parents, but if you are strong, you will very quickly move out of that position. Anyone who says "But I was born into _____ (poverty, slavery, whatever)" is just a weakling making excuses for the fact that they aren't strong enough to change their situation.

Fortunate ones help them, this dependency that the unfortunate has cannot be shaken off now.

Someone who helps those "less fortunate" than they are is not strong. Why should I want to help you weakling? If you manage to convince me to part with something of mine and give it to you, you've simply proven that you are stronger than I am. Though by failing to simply take it, and having to convince me to do it, you're showing that you're pretty weak too in the grand scheme.

If you depend on handouts from others, you're simply weak, no way around it. If you were strong, you'd simply take what you wanted from people.

Without unending support, how do we suppose the unfortunate would be ever have a chance? And with unending support, it tolls the fortunate ones a lot of money to keep it up. Africa would be a good example.

The unfortunate are weak, let them starve, or let them fight among themselves for what they have available. The strong need not concern themselves with the weak, because since morality is a construct and life has no intrinsic purpose except to be lived, the strong should be concerned primarily with simply exercising their will to power and acquiring things that they want.

[Corbin Wells]

Humans are not fundamentally "evil or fundamentally "good" because these were just words that describe actions that appeal either positively or negatively to someone or to some majority and because of this (and with the invention of morals through religion) we humans have used good and evil simply to describe what we think fits us or most of us in terms of what's to like and not like.

Without the words good or evil we would merely have action. And that is what all people do, no matter what it is, it is just an action(if you are willing to void yourself of any emotion and void the act of any symbolism or meaning).

Nietzsche.

[Zythus]

The unfortunate are weak, let them starve, or let them fight among themselves for what they have available. The strong need not concern themselves with the weak, because since morality is a construct and life has no intrinsic purpose except to be lived, the strong should be concerned primarily with simply exercising their will to power and acquiring things that they want.

Thank you Devonin, this basically sums up my opinion on Africa and the poor countries who deserves to be forsaken.

Let's try this again: What is the purpose of human existance? Why are we here, what is the meaning of life?

Nihilist says: There isn't one. We're a cosmic accident like everything else, there is no intrinsic meaning to human existence, we're no different from any other animal that happened to have developed.

If there is no purpose or meaning to life, then there can be no morality, because in order for something to be morally good or morally bad, you need an objective definition of what is good and what is bad to appeal to. Having an objective definition of what is good and what is bad to appeal to means that you are describing a purpose for humanity: To live according to that definition. As a Nihilist, you deny that there is such a definition, thus you deny that there is any morality, thus you deny that anything can be good or evil.

And yet -you- say that there -is- such a thing as evil, because humans are evil. This is what I want you to reconcile for me.

I'll leave it to you to come up with the term for partial Nihilist. You say that existence has no meaning and we are no different from any other animal. I agree. But to be existing, a common goal is to keep on existing, in other words, to live. So in my opinion, the purpose for existence? There is none. What is our goal then if theres no purpose? To continue to survive, just like any other animal out there. So to speak in the context of having a morality or not, simply, do you destroy life? or do you preserve it? which is the basic fundamentals of defining good and bad. One doesn't need to have a profound existence to be able to distinguish between the good and bad.

[devonin]

To continue to survive, just like any other animal out there. So to speak in the context of having a morality or not, simply, do you destroy life? or do you preserve it? which is the basic fundamentals of defining good and bad. One doesn't need to have a profound existence to be able to distinguish between the good and bad.

How moral and emotional of you to give a crap about the life of anything else.

You've misquoted the purpose of life by speaking too generally. The purpose of MY life is to ensure the success of MY life. I destroy all life it is in my interests to destroy, and preserve all life it is in my interests to preserve.

If you insist on applying the words "good" and "bad" to actions in spite of claiming there is no such thing as a moral scale on which to evaluate actions, then "Good" actions are ones which lead to the betterment and prolonging of my own life, personally, and "bad" actions are ones which do not lead to a betterment and prolonging of my own life, or actively worsen my life.

Giving money to charity is a bad action by these standards, because it means I have less resources with which to provide for myself, unless by giving money to charity, I gain the respect and admiration of those around me to the extent that my social gains improve my life more than my fiscal loss.

If you truly believe that there is no greater purpose to life, and appeal solely to the drive of all life to survive and perpetuate ITSELF then you have even -less- of a care for those things that don't impact your life than anybody else would.

It's a foolish and utopian idea to try and claim that "all life" as a community is driven to perpetuate the existance of "all life" as a community. A lion is going to kill and eat you if you are there and it is hungry. It cares only about the survival of a) itself and b) those around it that contribute to the life of itself. Everything else is a resource to be expended as much or as little as needs to be to make your life better.

According to the "Life cares only about the drive to 'keep on existing'" line of reasoning, if I presented you with the means by which every 100 people you killed, you would live one more year of healthy successful life, you should unabashedly start bringing about the deaths of everyone around you that wasn't contributing to the quality of your life.

[rising crescent]

Hi, Nice to meet you here.
Since I am newbie here.

Hope to find goods here from you all..


First, your avatar is beautiful, @zythus..
I am stunned.



Let me representative from religious side.

I am a moslem.

If you ask "are humans fundamentally good and evil?"

the answer is : "They are BOTH EXIST WITHIN HUMANS"

but first, we must define what GOODS and Whats EVIL/BAD here...

GOODS, in ISlam, are all qualities follow guidance from GOd, they are Blessed from Gentle Light of God.

Evil/BAds are all qualities selves (nafs in arabic word) who wants other than God, or conflict or reject.

Speaking about human, what is Human anyway?
The Journey of all human .. in this world, is QUEST.... Quest for knowledge...
Thats "THe Answer of "Your Life"

[rising crescent]

I myself is a misanthropist, seeing absolutely no good in the existence of humans.

dont follow lucifer path who reject humans and wants to destroy them, you might be blame God for His creation of man even do you still dont know the Hidden Real value behind human.

Not even angels dont know real value of human at first "Testing"

holeheartedly, I would agree to an apocalypse starting with me if the demise of ALL humans can be guaranteed. Just to kill off one or two insignificant specks would accomplish nothing

dont get blinded by anger

Therefore, I believe misanthropy,

is misantriophy new religion?

What we see here is the amplification of the destructiveness of humans. By who? Themselves.

yes,all of it come from dark souls within human as beast of knowledge and/or beast of religion.

Ok, so every malice of humankind can be justified with, "Oh its instinct, nothing we can do about it." ? Put it simply, are human actions destructive and belligerent, or are they nice and composed and peaceful?

And no, I don't have an answer to what we should do as humans, but I think humans should get their heads down from the clouds and know the position they are in. It is because of this ego, it corrupts mankind and escalates to disastrous events.

then you must made Long Journey to Find the True Answer, and obviuously...misantropy is wrong way ... based on the fact you dont know your true values as purpose life on this planet

You've misquoted the purpose of life by speaking too generally. The purpose of MY life is to ensure the success of MY life. I destroy all life it is in my interests to destroy, and preserve all life it is in my interests to preserve.

If you insist on applying the words "good" and "bad" to actions in spite of claiming there is no such thing as a moral scale on which to evaluate actions, then "Good" actions are ones which lead to the betterment and prolonging of my own life, personally, and "bad" actions are ones which do not lead to a betterment and prolonging of my own life, or actively worsen my life.

thats alright devonin.

@Zythus still have her/his true voice in heart to find the truth

Nietzsche's view I also agree to, but weak and strong should be more appropriately named Fortunate and Unfortunate. Only the sore loser would complain, hence proving that they are indeed weak. It is a privileged and luxury to exercise superiority

this is how the beast of knowledge thinks. they see prey the weal is natural..but in beautiful value that is beast act where stroing eat weak not protect them,help them.

even nietze lost in his way .