Humans are fundamentally evil - according to Science

[philosopher]

But if you do it to PROTECT another from harm, that is to prevent harmful actions to another, and you in turn inflict harm on the aggressor, that is not evil. But that is only applicable in situations of the aggression taking place at that moment of aggression.

It is known as self-defense. Death penalty or vengeful actions are not self-defense.

Self-defence is the clear-cut case. It is not interesting.

You are using the word 'aggressor' which implies intentional harm. I explicitly said that I will end your life even if you bring upon my loved ones ignorant harm. At that particular moment of ignorance.

In the American legal system this is the distinction between Manslaughter and Homicide. And so I will DELIBERATELY harm you to prevent manslaughter.

You asked whether it was evil, and I replied 'yes' - if not self-defense/protecting others. Vengeful actions = evil.

[TimeSeeker]

But if you do it to PROTECT another from harm, that is to prevent harmful actions to another, and you in turn inflict harm on the aggressor, that is not evil. But that is only applicable in situations of the aggression taking place at that moment of aggression.

It is known as self-defense. Death penalty or vengeful actions are not self-defense.

Self-defence is the clear-cut case. It is not interesting.

You are using the word 'aggressor' which implies intentional harm. I explicitly said that I will end your life even if you bring upon my loved ones ignorant harm. At that particular moment of ignorance.

In the American legal system this is the distinction between Manslaughter and Homicide. And so I will DELIBERATELY harm you to prevent manslaughter.

You asked whether it was evil, and I replied 'yes' - if not self-defense/protecting others. Vengeful actions = evil.

You are missing the point.
1. My action is not vengeful, but it is purposeful.
2. It is protecting others - those that I love BUT at your expense.
3. YOUR actions are not deliberate - merely ignorant, but that distinction is immaterial to my decision-making and so I kill you anyway.

I am CHOOSING my loved ones over you.

Is that evil?

[philosopher]

Self-defence is the clear-cut case. It is not interesting.

You are using the word 'aggressor' which implies intentional harm. I explicitly said that I will end your life even if you bring upon my loved ones ignorant harm. At that particular moment of ignorance.

In the American legal system this is the distinction between Manslaughter and Homicide. And so I will DELIBERATELY harm you to prevent manslaughter.

You asked whether it was evil, and I replied 'yes' - if not self-defense/protecting others. Vengeful actions = evil.

You are missing the point.
1. It is not vengeful, but it is purposeful.
2. It is protecting others - those that I love BUT at your expense.
3. YOUR actions are not deliberate, but merely ignorant, but that distinction is immaterial to my decision-making.

Is that evil?

That is still evil, if less harm could protect them.

To kill anyone because they pose a danger to anyone is still evil, unless killing them is the ONLY way to protect them.
Wether it is your loved ones or anyone else, it doesn't matter.

[TimeSeeker]

That is still evil, if less harm could protect them.

To kill anyone because they pose a danger to anyone is still evil, unless killing them is the ONLY way to protect them.

Well, it may not be the ONLY way, but it its the most EFFECTIVE way I thought of in the 3 seconds I had to DECIDE and ACT.
At what time-interval would you say "no - you had other options". 3 seconds? 5 seconds? 10 seconds?

Where does necessity and immediacy fit in?

[philosopher]

That is still evil, if less harm could protect them.

To kill anyone because they pose a danger to anyone is still evil, unless killing them is the ONLY way to protect them.

Well, it may not be the ONLY way - its the most EFFECTIVE way I thought of in the 3 seconds I had to DECIDE and ACT.
At what time-interval would you say "no - you had other options". 3 seconds? 5 seconds? 10 seconds?

Where does necessity and immediacy fit in?

In the immidiacy of aggression, killing - if thought of as the only option, is not evil, but still not acceptable.

Like a psychotic/insane murderer is not neccessarily evil, and hence should not be judged as such.
(that doesn't leave out consequences though).

Besides, you completely ignore the Stanford Prison Experiment, which I'd like to discuss, because it shows real evilness in action.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_ ... nt#Results

According to Science, humans are fundamentally evil.

This has been proven over and over again. It unfolds just before our eyes in the news every day.

For example, whenever Trump is acting like an egomaniac psychopath, the vast majority of Americans applause.

When war broke out in 1914, the vast majority of people went to the streets, celebrating the outbreak of The Great War.

It was also the ordinary average working class German citizen, who voted for Hitler.

It was the majority of the Turks who voted for Turkish dictatorship (giving Erdogan far more power than a democracy would usually allow) and in countries like Denmark, Germany, France, Netherlands etc. turks attacked other turks who disagreed with Erdogan.

Also do remember that Assad in Syria is a very popular president, not despite of gassing his own population, but BECAUSE he gasses them.

Putin is popular, because he is imitating Stalin.

The list goes on and on forever.

My question is:

Why do humans favor evilness over goodness?

Showing your bias. There is no evidence that Assad gasses his own population. You are full of shit. He was popular because he ran the country well. The US wanted to be rid of him because he wasn't their puppet.

[TimeSeeker]

In the immidiacy of aggression, killing - if thought of as the only option, is not evil, but still not acceptable.

OK, but - I carry a gun on my person 24/7. And so aggression is DEFINITELY my most immediate AND my most effective option. Aggression is my plan A - it is the first thing that comes to my mind. If I don't think of a Plan B then aggression is (by definition) my only option.

So - how much time should I spend considering a Plan B if I already have a Plan A? And what is the difference between 'evil' and 'unacceptable' ?

Besides, you completely ignore the Stanford Prison Experiment, which I'd like to discuss, because it shows real evilness in action.

This is an appeal to purity. I don't know what 'evil' is. Never mind 'real evil'

[philosopher]

Showing your bias. There is no evidence that Assad gasses his own population. You are full of shit. He was popular because he ran the country well. The US wanted to be rid of him because he wasn't their puppet.

You are a Pro-Russian troll, paid by Putin himself!

There is plenty of evidence:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... ns-say-us/

Next time, you will try and pursuade me that the annexation of Crimea was completely legal and just...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_web_brigades

[TimeSeeker]

Showing your bias. There is no evidence that Assad gasses his own population. You are full of shit. He was popular because he ran the country well. The US wanted to be rid of him because he wasn't their puppet.

You are a Pro-Russian troll, paid by Putin himself!

There is plenty of evidence:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... ns-say-us/

Next time, you will try and pursuade me that the annexation of Crimea was completely legal and just...

Evidence also showed WMDs in Iraq.

[philosopher]

Showing your bias. There is no evidence that Assad gasses his own population. You are full of shit. He was popular because he ran the country well. The US wanted to be rid of him because he wasn't their puppet.

You are a Pro-Russian troll, paid by Putin himself!

There is plenty of evidence:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... ns-say-us/

Next time, you will try and pursuade me that the annexation of Crimea was completely legal and just...

Evidence also showed WMDs in Iraq.

No. There was no evidence for this.

[TimeSeeker]

No. There was no evidence for this.

Is this an a priori or an a posteriori assertion? The war in Iraq was sold to the public on the premises of WMDs.

[philosopher]

No. There was no evidence for this.

Is this an a priori or an a posteriori assertion? The war in Iraq was sold to the public on the premises of WMDs.

Yes, but it was a lie. Bush never presented the said "evidence". He just pursuaded governments around the western world to participate in the war.

But no evidence was given.

The syrian gas attacks however, there is plenty of evidence for that!

And Russia is protecting Syria's Assad.

Btw. I will warn you all that vegetariantaxidermy is most probably a russian troll.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_web_brigades

The web brigades (Russian: Веб-бригады), also known as Russia's troll army, Russian bots, Kremlinbots, troll factory, or troll farms are state-sponsored anonymous Internet political commentators and trolls linked to the Russian government. Participants report that they are organized into teams and groups of commentators that participate in Russian and international political blogs and Internet forums using sockpuppets and large-scale orchestrated trolling and disinformation campaigns to promote pro-Putin and pro-Russian propaganda.

[Lacewing]

Is it evil to be willfully stupid in a way that negatively affects all of humankind?

[TimeSeeker]

Yes, but it was a lie. Bush never presented the said "evidence".

So, given that no evidence has actually been shown here either could this be a lie too?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... ns-say-us/

[TimeSeeker]

Is it evil to be willfully stupid in a way that negatively affects all of humankind?

While this is a BEAUTIFUL question from the perspective of somebody who accepts their own ignorance, it is probably not very conducive for discussion with people who still think they are "always right" (e.g oblivious to their own ignorance).

I will gladly play the role of the ignorant if you want to test it out