Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

[zergovermind2006]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

If you even want to go into the "purpose of life" area, you really have to speak about religion. Some of the things you say don't even make much sense to someone reasonable... I mean really, how can there be no "good" or "evil"? If there isn't, you can't hate or despise anyone... how could you if they aren't evil? Also... humans can't just be a mistake... Maybe god did create us, just not seeing us this way. I believe differently. God created us like this, even the part of us having anger and pride. But that is what makes life hard. "Evil" people give into the part with lazyness and sins. The people who find their way though, they still find it hard. But that is what seperates people. Not everyone is "evil". Lots are. But, not all. I know a lot of good people. But, even though we aren't perfect, we can still be "good". If you can't understand this, this whole thing is pointless.

Stop being pessemistic. How will that help anything? Enjoy life. Help others. Try to be "good". Others might even take it as an example.

Hope I have helped. If not, sorry.

[devonin]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

Well the answer to your appeals to religion can only be "can you prove any of that?"

When you're talking about existentialism and you say something like "There's no such thing as good or evil" what people mean isn't that there are no such concepts, but that humans have invented those concepts from scratch and that there is no actual truth to them to appeal to. What I mean is: We may invent the label "tree" for trees, but trees already existed and all we've done is apply a name to a pre-existing thing. Conversely, "money" is an entirely human construction. The idea of creating a fixed-value intermediary to bartering has no previous basis in objective reality, we aren't just naming an existing process, we're making up a new one ourselves.

If there is a god and god did create the world and instill rules in us to follow or not follow, then good and evil are a pre-existing thing: Doing what god wants is good, not doing what god wants is evil. If however there is no god, then god did not create the world and did not instill rules in us to follow or not, and we've decided entirely on our own to just arbitrarily call some actions "good" and some actions "bad' usually by deciding whether those actions benefit us or not.

[FictionJunction]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

Adding on to what Devonin has argued, as an existentialist, I'll go out of my way to prove that even the existence of a god who has set a universal code is absolutely irrelevant to our daily lives. His existence shouldn't make a difference.

The subjectivity of morality, good and evil, ethics, etc, is present, but that doesn't mean human's do not operate under a general set of standards. I found this hard to believe since it pretty much implies that human nature actually exists - but what I failed to realize was that that was human nature as God's creation. God's human nature dictates that all humans suffer from negative qualities: greed, avarice, dishonesty, rebelliousness, etc. Christianity makes it easy for people to simply accept themselves as 'who they have been conceived to be.' I find this attitude to be absolutely disgusting. As I said in my previous post arguing against Zythus' misanthropy, a coward will always be a coward, accept his cowardice as innate, and never improve or change. Again, our existence is set prior to our essence. So, how is it possible to act upon a general set of standards if everyone is born without purpose or knowledge of what 'good' and 'evil' really are? Simple: we operate based on what we enjoy and what we do not. Not everyone enjoys and dislikes the same things, but I have yet to find a group of people who find greed to be an attractive feature. Anyhow, this varies from culture to culture, etc.

Now that that's out of the way, our experiences mold our perception allowing for our values to be defined. If there was a god and my values matched his 'universal law' then so much the better! I just might be rewarded for living a virtuous life! Awesome. But let's assume they don't. I don't consider the threat of judgment to be a variable that cannot influence decision making. This is the flaw with Christiniaty: you can't act against universal law or you'll be condemned; however, if you choose to repent, then so much the better. But, would anyone really rebel against Universal Law and really think they can get away with it? Of course not. I would, though, I may not get away with it. It wouldn't matter if I did or not. Living a virtuous life isn't bound to following instructions set by god, or acting upon knowledge of judgment. The 'virtuosity' of living a virtuous life is absolutely subjective. If there isn't a god we have no one but ourselves to rely on. We are responsible for our actions, regardless of consequence. If we can't serve a god we should serve ourselves; if we serve ourselves we prosper as a society. God's law is meaningless as we should be working to improve our society regardless, just like it dictates. There's a reason why Christian doctrine depicts what it does; it's all a basic opinion most people reach and conclude at an early age. Did you like getting your stuff stolen? I didn't think so.

If a god came to me and told me what his rules of play were, I'd read them, acknowledge them, and shunned them if I disagreed. Screw Pascal's Wager. And even if they did fit my views and opinions I wouldn't act in his name and law but in my own and society's. Gods are easy to argue against - physics isn't. But that's a whole new battleground, hehe.

[Zythus]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

Retort.

The subjectivity of morality, good and evil, ethics, etc, is present, but that doesn't mean human's do not operate under a general set of standards. I found this hard to believe since it pretty much implies that human nature actually exists - but what I failed to realize was that that was human nature as God's creation. God's human nature dictates that all humans suffer from negative qualities: greed, avarice, dishonesty, rebelliousness, etc. Christianity makes it easy for people to simply accept themselves as 'who they have been conceived to be.' I find this attitude to be absolutely disgusting. As I said in my previous post arguing against Zythus' misanthropy, a coward will always be a coward, accept his cowardice as innate, and never improve or change. Again, our existence is set prior to our essence. So, how is it possible to act upon a general set of standards if everyone is born without purpose or knowledge of what 'good' and 'evil' really are? Simple: we operate based on what we enjoy and what we do not. Not everyone enjoys and dislikes the same things, but I have yet to find a group of people who find greed to be an attractive feature. Anyhow, this varies from culture to culture, etc.

You say there is a human nature, and you acknowledge the avarice, greed, and the atrocities of human nature. Now you tell us to live and be responsible for ourselves and society, telling us to build it in a way that we can live virtuously?
Regardless on the subjectivity of Good and Evil, and regardless of whatever plane and proportions we are talking about, its called fundamentalism for a legitimate reason. You want us to change and uphold responsibility, built on the frameworks of our deleterious human nature? If the foundation is so corrupt, exactly how do we change something that is innate? We can't transcend the boundaries of our instincts, hence such a Utopian idea would be a simple reverie, like religion. Cowardice be the label you put in the realization of innateness? I don't think so.

Not to be offensive.

Right?

[FictionJunction]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

No. I claimed if we are products of god then human nature would be as dictated by religions such a Christianity. I do not advocate such beliefs. People are greedy because they choose to be, not because they can't help but being so. There's no 'human nature,' just common reactions that vary from setting to setting. Who knows, someone somewhere might not have a problem with having a family member brutally killed by a bear or something! Maybe being killed by a bear holds great significance and isn't such a big deal.

[Quiztolin]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

Humans are animals and all animals have the same exact purpose, to gather resources to reproduce successfully. The entire concept of evolution revolves around the ability of certain species and adaptations to be better at achieving this objective than others, thus being more successful.

This creates an interesting problem. Greed is an adaptation that has been around forever. The more you have the better your chance of living to maturity and finding a mate to reproduce and the better the chance your offspring have to live. Humans have evolved to have an extremely high level of thinking, and this interferes with our extremely high level of greed.

There is no morality. Any act that is 'good' or 'evil' has the same ulterior motive, to fulfill the greed that each and every human has.

Greed itself is seen as an 'evil' but it was necessary for our species to arrive at this point. Logic says that in a society as advanced as ours that greed is mostly needless and we would advance further and quicker without. There is no need for anyone to be a billionaire, why not share the wealth? As a human the instinct for greed is far greater than logic.

And that is why I hate humans. I feel that if we were really as intelligent as a species as we claim then our logic would defeat and CHANGE the instinct of greed.

I realized several years ago that our own greed is either going to lead to changes in society which are driven by logic, not instinct, or our species is going to consume itself and die out.

You can say "Well, if you hate humans so much just go kill yourself!" but it is rather pointless. Even the misanthropist is a human in the end, ruled by greed and the need to survive. Personally I am just waiting for society to change one way or the other.

[devonin]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

I realized several years ago that our own greed is either going to lead to changes in society which are driven by logic, not instinct, or our species is going to consume itself and die out.

Of course, how many of the incredibly useful and positive developments we've come up with over the centuries have also been because of that selfsame greed and drive for the success of individual and tribe? I'm sure once we asserted our dominance over most forms of predator, we could have become very complacent, but I rather suspect our overall quality of life, including lifespan, would be much worse than they are.

[tupacodaman]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

I would like to say that I myself am as far from misanthropic as possible. A "proanthrope", if you will? not sure what to call myself, but the original poster in this thread I saw responded that he would gladly have every human killed in order to make the universe better. I had a discussion with my roomate about this actually and I came up with the "cage in a volcano" scenario. Recognize that it is physically impossible and would never happen and is only applicable to show my utmost respect for the human race.

There are two massively big volcanoes. On top of one is a cage with a random human being. On top of the other is a cage filled with every single animal on Earth (mammals, birds, insects, you name it). You have to choose one cage to drop into the volcano or else the entire planet will explode.

As I said, this would never happen. It physically makes no sense. I know it would be impossible to find a volcano big enough to lower every single animal into. But whatever. Just making my point that I would lower the cage with all the animals into the volcano to save any human being

Now before you dismiss me as "retarded, stupid, idiot, etc", as many of my friends said when I asked them the question, realize that I know the world would end if there weren't any animals. The point is simply emphasizing whether or not you are a proanthrope like me. Also I must define what I consider to be a human being, which is also a controversial topic

What I define as a human being, and also the reason why I consider humans so superior to anything else on this planet is that
1) They are conscious, intelligent, and able to reason logically because they are both conscious and intelligent
2) They change the environment instead of letting the environment change them

Consciousness is a hot topic of debate as well. Many people argue that an adult monkey is more valuable than a year old child because adult monkeys pass the so-called mirror test and recognize themselves in a mirror while the child cannot. Also, a study by Sue Savauge-Rambaugh (spelling?) showed that bonobos are capable of expressing their desires through electronic pads that are filled with hundreds of symbols. They were also capable of learning how pet a dog and various other pretty complex tasks that I myself must admit impressed me

However, no animal on this planet is as intelligent as us. I don't wanna argue which ones are conscious, because it may result that most animals are somewhat conscious. The fact that we are conscious AND intelligent, however, means that we are capable of reason, something no other animal can. If other animals had this combination, they would have formed societies and developed advanced technologies. Alas, the most impressive feats done by animals include a raven being able to use its environment to make makeshift tools to get hard-to-reach food and monkeys learning how to "fish" (recent yahoo article lol). o yea, and the bonobos I mentioned earlier

Which now leads to the second point: in addition to being able to reason, human beings can manipulate nature through their intelligence. While obviously we can't completely contradict nature by making water flow upstream magically, we have developed rocket ships and have harnessed the power of electricity, amongst countless other breakthrough technologies. What animal knows what the hell gravity is, or how far away stars are, or even what a light year is? What animal has posited a theory about the complex nature of light or even understands what "time" is or is even able to argue, for or against, time travel?


In sum, yes, humans are supreme with their intelligence. Now, the most controversial point you may have already noticed about my definition of human beings is that it excludes mentally retarded species of homo sapiens and babies. Sadly, I don't consider them "humans", per se. That is to say, I still respect them because they are alive. I respect anything that is alive, it's just that I have more respect for those who fit my definition of human beings. In addition, under social contract theory, mentally retarded people and babies should be cared for because society as a whole wants them to do well. That is, babies will develop into competent (varying levels of course lol) human beings and while mentally retarded people may not advance much in their intellectual competence, they are still of our species and are important to us. I have a cousin who has muscular dystrophy and autism. He is 11 and will die within the next 4 years. He cannot speak and now can barely walk and is still in a stroller. I love him because it is due to genetic flaws that he is this way. He is still a member of our species, but does not fit my definition of a human being, sadly.

Once more, I want to state that I have respect for ALL human beings, it's just that my definition gives utmost priority of interests to human beings.

Now, two more topics: evil things done by those who fit the category of human beings and criminals

First off, I don't believe that criminals are human beings. This can obviously be debated, but I feel that, while they fit the second part of my definition of a human in that they can manipulate their environments intelligently (serial killers can be very intelligent and plan out their murders very well), they are not able to reason logically. They can reason indeed, since they convince themselves of the justice behind their actions. However, it is not logical to believe that causing harm in any way to any other human beings for no reason whatsoever could be beneficial. Clearly, they are flawed in, at the very least, this way, in thinking that any type of suffering by innocent people can be good.

That is to say, if President Bush were in the cage, I would pick the animals . War should only be fought if it is in response to an aggressor and there is no other way to stop the aggressor than through physical force. Use of physical force without reason is savage, primitive, and animal-like.

Any way, as far as normal humans doing things that we consider "wrong" or "evil". Sure, everyone does something morally wrong from time to time. Sure, I'd say over half of humans are morally flawed to the point that they do not notice. However, I do not think as a whole we are evil. Society shapes us to be one way or another, and unfortunately, society will never preach good morals or else it would be a utopia and we all know utopias are impossible for any species. If humans as a whole were evil, wouldn't we all be dead by now? There is plenty of pain and suffering in the world, but there is also plenty of joy. There are some messed up people out there that abuse people for no reason. Those people are criminals, deranged, or both. I, however, believe that every human has more good than evil within them without outside forces and that it is these outside forces that cause them to be bad.

Dictionary.com has this to say about misanthrope:A person who expects only the worst from people.

Clearly I am the complete opposite. Right now I am in Colombia interning at a clinical psychology lab. Many of the people who have aphasias/dementias/other mental problems are extremely poor and will make less than $1000 in a year. Working in college 9 hours a week for $8 an hour gave me just over $1000 and that's excluding my fourth month summer in which I am instead spending here interning. You may be biased and think that everyone in this country, along with other 3rd world countries, is evil. But these people are stronger than most people I have ever met. Through hardship their children are learning that they must try hard, very hard, to succeed in life. It's not like my life in which my father moved from Colombia, knowing this lesson he learned here living in a poor family of 8 children, and is now working here making plenty of money for me to have anything I want, including going to Duke (Go Blue Devils!), having a car, having more musical instruments than most people know and being able to play them, and so forth and so forth. Many of these adults did not get past elementary school and don't have fridges. Yet they continue to work hard every day of their lives to provide for their children so that they can lead better lives. Unfortunately, some of these children are corrupted by a small group made up of some of the worst people on this planet, the FARC, the main terrorist group in the country. Nothing makes me madder than the people who joke around about cocaine, dealers, terrorists, asking me if my dad is one, etc. Once again, these people who joke around about death and suffering expect the worst of people. They are misanthropes. I'd have to say that, unfortunately, most people are misanthropes. Not I. I have learned and seen too much to truly believe that there is more evil in humans than good and that our race is bad for this planet. The actions of a select few deranged individuals should not dictate your views on our human race. I refuse to expect the worst in people and instead believe that people are living for some good cause, be it simply to provide their children with food, shelter, and clothing.

If you honestly expect the worst out of people, go to a third-world country or the poorest place you know. If you see hope in any one of these people, even if it's one child or one senile old man or a housewife with 10 children, you will know you are wrong. You will be surprised at how much hope and good there is in people's hearts.

[Zythus]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

Your examples only relate to the impaired or the poor. The fundamentals of survival for humans include teamwork as a staple. Of course they are going to be motivated to help each other to survive, because this benefits every individual who takes part in this display of mere instincts. Justifying good using this poor pretension does not truly shed the light on the nefariousness of humans.

With power comes corruption, indifferent with luxury and wealth. This is pretty blatant, with obvious examples. Of course, humans, as instinct, possess the wickedness to do their deeds. Condition is the dependent factor. Being poor, one cannot possibly indulging on greed while their life is unsustainable. But with wealth, power, and luxury, one is able to use the auspicious resources to truly exercise their deleterious nature, without worry of the basic needs of life. Your batch of flea-ridden vagrants in Africa work hard and strive to live because they are one step away from death. Once they become wealthy like us, a few hundred steps away from death, their needs and wants are saturated with greed and lust. This is the difference between the rich and poor. They have the same evil fundamentals, but not the conditions that the rich have.

Overly, you are pretty much bending the definition of humans. A criminal who commits transgression is not human. Using your definition, humans are of course glorious, because none of them, on the outside, has committed anything against the law. Using my definition, there wouldn't be a single human left. It seems to me that only good can be tagged to humans while the bad can be lowered into the volcano. Logically? Such prideful subjectiveness to say such a thing. I can easily provide you with examples why the criminal justifies as logic. This is the discretion of the judger, to say if its logic or not, but something that could not be changed is the fact that the prosecuted is, in fact, a human.

We talk of variables and definitions while they are the same thing.

[darkness1477]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

Well the answer to your appeals to religion can only be "can you prove any of that?"

well devonin cant you disprove any of it beyond a shadow of a doubt? the reason you can't absolutly prove religion was because if you could there would be no reason for faith and that also proves why our whole excestance isnt dictated by religion because people are contrary and if some people think one way there is always going to be people who think the oppisite. if there was no god the probability of this would excisting how it is today would be astronomically small. if the world was tilted one more degree on it's axis then all life would be wiped out. if there was a little more oxygen or hydrogen all life would be wiped out. if we were moved a little closer to the sun all life on earth would be wiped out. i didnt read the last few post because my cousin is annoying me but i will comment on them later

[rising crescent]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

there are 3 dimension in humans' life holistic depend each other as one unity:
1. Physical dimension/Outer Shell Dimension, 5 senses, or Biological dimension
nothing here except perception. the problems only have/have not sensory within/have problem or no problems
2. Mind dimension/Insider Layer/outer hidden knowledge/secondary inteligent . there are 2 process in here : rational and intuitive. it is just matter about which one more dominate on other.
This Minds actually can exceed physical dimension to learn hidden knowledge inside physical-biological things which animals cannot do it.
for example : the invention of fire, which animal can utilize things to produce fire other than human except termite who eat wood?
the process of actuation is to Think (Recall in Brain,as blood core constitusion whoi have rational capablities),Direct Read on nature,not in abstraction of books.
Minds dimension actually can be mention as faith of someone,their believing on something.

3. spiritual dimension/substance-content dimension/inside hidden knowledge/tersier inteligent
this dimension is soul-selves values teritory, it have different languange. heart languange to be precise.
the actuation is dzikr/Mention the Names.Which NAmes they choose as they put faith in it in their heart (to recall in heart) and they choose which God they are prayed for. Strong believing in their heart will make and arrange formation-structure spiritiual as values of souls.

for example : in Islam, dimensional spiritual are doing by sufi,they do it with The NAmes of their God in their heart to produce spiritual powers step by step,bit b bit

in Buddhis, they do it in meditation procersss to purify the minds while they sing the story and path buddha who achieve Liberation from tied conditon by sensory worlds

in christian, you know about gnostic peoples,arent you

in judaism , you now about cabbala,arent you.

[FictionJunction]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

please leave =|

[devonin]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

Rising Crescent, learn to obey the rules of the FFR forums and the CT forum specifically with regards to proper spelling and grammar.

If you can't do so, your posts will simply be deleted in the name of keeping these threads cogent, and understandable.

[rising crescent]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

Rising Crescent, learn to obey the rules of the FFR forums and the CT forum specifically with regards to proper spelling and grammar.

If you can't do so, your posts will simply be deleted in the name of keeping these threads cogent, and understandable.

some knowledge cannot be thrown away just because improper spelling and grammar.it will lost vital force within the words.

it prove..inside it reside intuitive knowledges and minds.
don think its not intuitive when the problem is within yourself which dont understand it yet.
the knowledge needs time.

if you kick me out or delete it or other ...
it prove you dont have adult minds yet which appreciate no matter what other opinion is.
and you and others here shut completely your ownself and others to learn new knowledge from eastern like me.

how can you and others become good thinker if you are like that?
your minds will always narrow living inside,reject to access and excange with others especially completely different civilization and styles of life..except only one kinds among yourself.your 'genetics" of knowledge is limited because of yourself...

[Skeleton-GotW]

Re: Misanthropy. "Are humans fundamentally good or evil?"

Humans collectively have and do drain the Earth of much of its resources for their gain, and are generally self-centered and egotistical, like all creatures. We are no different than the other animals in terms of instinct. We're just far more efficient at getting what we want and observing and learning from our surroundings.

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

Why would you do that, Zythus?

Despite our power and negative changes to the environment, species will still fall inevitably.

What you fail to realize is that morality doesn't matter when you're dead. Most if not all of the other animals are far too unintelligent to figure anything significant out, and if any of them are going to live (extremely long-term) they need us.

We are the key to survival in the universe. They NEED us no matter how "good" or "evil" we may be (whatever those two quoted words mean).

Hopefully, assuming the less objective among us don't destroy all mankind prior to our reaching of this technological stage, we will be able to travel to, terraform, and inhabit other planets in our own or other solar systems. And who's going to figure it out? I think we're the ones with the lights on upstairs. (Monkeys are way behind and dolphins have no hands.)

So are we really evil? We're the species that will potentially save ourselves and ideally other species if possible.