Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:59 pm Life requires that you kill and eat other living things. Life itself is fundamentally brutish and thus so are we.

However, life also has an easygoing, amenable side to it when it's not killing and competing, and thus so do we.

Here I disagree. If humans are given an alternative (e.g. laboratory meat) where it's not necessary to kill to survive, then by nature I don't see humans as brutish on the whole. Even if laboratory meat isn't a reality yet, the very act of trying to bring it about I take as a sign that humans on the whole aren't brutish.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:18 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:59 pm Life requires that you kill and eat other living things. Life itself is fundamentally brutish and thus so are we.

However, life also has an easygoing, amenable side to it when it's not killing and competing, and thus so do we.

Here I disagree. If humans are given an alternative (e.g. laboratory meat) where it's not necessary to kill to survive, then by nature I don't see humans as brutish on the whole. Even if laboratory meat isn't a reality yet, the very act of trying to bring it about I take as a sign that humans on the whole aren't brutish.

Many people online have claimed that they would not eat laboratory meat, preferring the killed version.

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:32 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:18 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:59 pm Life requires that you kill and eat other living things. Life itself is fundamentally brutish and thus so are we.

However, life also has an easygoing, amenable side to it when it's not killing and competing, and thus so do we.

Here I disagree. If humans are given an alternative (e.g. laboratory meat) where it's not necessary to kill to survive, then by nature I don't see humans as brutish on the whole. Even if laboratory meat isn't a reality yet, the very act of trying to bring it about I take as a sign that humans on the whole aren't brutish.

Many people online have claimed that they would not eat laboratory meat, preferring the killed version.

Time will tell.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:34 am

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:32 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:18 pm

Here I disagree. If humans are given an alternative (e.g. laboratory meat) where it's not necessary to kill to survive, then by nature I don't see humans as brutish on the whole. Even if laboratory meat isn't a reality yet, the very act of trying to bring it about I take as a sign that humans on the whole aren't brutish.

Many people online have claimed that they would not eat laboratory meat, preferring the killed version.

Time will tell.

It will change, but it will take some time.

Greta

Wow!!
'Evil' is one topic I have researched very extensively and deeply.
It is one of my favorite subject because it is very critical to humanity. I was once threatened with a ban by an 'evil' moderator in another forum if I discuss too much about it.

philosopher wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:09 pm The Stanford Prison Experiment and The Milgram Experiments is clear evidence that humans are fundamentally evil.

There are only few good people amongst the entire human race. It is less than 1 %.

What is you stance? I agree. I've always said that humans are fundamentally evil.

Looking back at the entire history of humanity, it has done nothing good to the world. Humans love treating other animals including their own species like shit, because they think it is fun. It is also heavily polluting the planet.

Humans are evil. No doubt about it.

In general I agree with the OP.

Because the word 'evil' is such a loose term we need to define it.
The first thing is 'evil' for this purpose is NOT that theological-ontological evil, i.e. which is reducible to Satan or the Devil that exists somewhere.

Definition of Evil:
I define 'evil' as the essence/property/quality of all human acts and thoughts that are net-negative* to the well-being of the individual[s] and collectively, humanity.

• *net-negativity because some acts in certain very minor degrees and circumstance are not totally negative to the person.

Here is the critical point;
DNA wise ALL humans has the inherent/intrinsic potential to be evil.
A percentile of people are born with a range of active inclination to commit evil acts. e.g. from the psychopaths to those who commit petty crimes.

The inherent embedded potential to commit evil acts by the majority is only inhibited by very weak flimsy neural inhibitors which has evolved with humanity since, appx. 6 million years ago.
This is why it is so common to read of the most goody-two-shoes could suddenly flipped and commit the most heinous and terrible evil acts, e.g. a crime of passion or being suicide bomber of the blue.

Whoever is deemed 'good' morally is only because they have a slightly stronger inhibitors at any one time to suppress the inherent evil impulses but there is no guarantee for them they will not turned evil when the resistance of the inhibitors break down in certain circumstances.

In our current situation of evil acts being prevalent everywhere with greater intensity, humanity must give serious attention to the concept of evil.
Note this trend of rising interests in the concept of evil within the philosophy community;

Since World War II, moral, political, and legal philosophers have become increasingly interested in the concept of evil.
This interest has been partly motivated by ascriptions of ‘evil’ by laymen, social scientists, journalists, and politicians as they try to understand and respond to various atrocities and horrors, such as genocides, terrorist attacks, mass murders, and tortures and killing sprees by psychopathic serial killers.
It seems that we cannot capture the moral significance of these actions and their perpetrators by calling them ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ or even ‘very very wrong’ or ‘very very bad.’ We need the concept of evil.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:19 pm

philosopher wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:13 pm Please provide an argument against this definition, if you disagree.

I don't disagree with the existing definition. I'm saying let's give it a new definition so it no longer applies to us.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:31 am Wow!!
'Evil' is one topic I have researched very extensively and deeply.
It is one of my favorite subject because it is very critical to humanity. I was once threatened with a ban by an 'evil' moderator in another forum if I discuss too much about it.

Ah, another of my satisfied customers. I didn't ban this one, though. He just left in a huff.

Every day he'd be back on the forum, starting or bombing threads to whine about how very evil Muslims were. Day after day after day, and completely impervious to any alternative notions suggested to him by others.

I ignored his growing obsession with Muslims for well over a year, and I'd regularly deal with his reports against other members who'd overstepped in their annoyance at his constant campaigning, which was effectively just warmongering. In the end I saw him as a forum pollutant. So I asked him to tone down his repetitiveness to vaguely normal levels but he angrily refused.

I also criticised his mediaeval way of thinking about Muslims - "evil this" and "evil that" - he sounded like a damn witch doctor. Then he then started playing "civil disobedience" at me - and that is fatal. Mods working on a voluntary basis are not paid to put up with such games. I admit to having a special dislike of those who come to these forums to largely campaign on a single issue, so there is some bias, but logically such people tend to skew and limit forum content.

I see the concept of "evil" as being non-philosophical, just an attitude one garners before battle. Those who regularly use the word are invariably warmongers. A person is termed "evil" for two reasons:

1. as an emotional response to destructive entropic behaviour perpetrated by others
2. to dehumanise, after which disposal of "evil people" becomes less morally troublesome.

Rather than thinking in terms of "good and evil", I think more clarity can be had by reframing them in terms of "health and illness" and "maturity and immaturity".

Those who deny the concept of evil are infected with evil [as defined] to various degrees. Example, this is like people who are psychopaths who don't have any moral compass or conscience for evil acts.

The propensity towards morality is one of humanity greatest asset to ensure its well being.
The fundamental of morality is 'good' and its opposite is 'evil' which is the default and the common term.

There is definitely something wrong with anyone who would go such extreme to deny others the access to discuss [as much as we want to] the term 'evil' [as defined above].

What is wrong with single-mindedness on a particular subject when this is the typical norm of the highest level of knowledge, i.e. by PhDs who normally spent their whole academic lifetime on one single major topic.

There are wide range of humans acts that are against morality and we need a common term that will cover all these terrible acts from genocides to petty crimes.
The point there is a common root cause neural system that is responsible for the wide range of humans acts which we can termed as 'evil'.

It is very evident the ethos of Islam has very strong 'evil [as defined] elements.
Note this and the daily news of evil acts by SOME evil prone Muslims all around the world.



Because the above evil potential of Islam [btw not Muslims per se] is such a threat to humanity, it is critical for one to be constantly reminded of it so that the problem can be addressed to find solutions to prevent such evil acts at the root level.

To replace the term 'evil' with "health and illness" and "maturity and immaturity" is bordering on stupidity.
The point here is effectiveness and Occam's to reduce the problem to its most commonest denominator [root cause] so that when we find the solution to the problem it can resolve all the forms of the problem of evil [as defined above].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 3:04 am Those who deny the concept of evil are infected with evil [as defined] to various degrees. Example, this is like people who are psychopaths who don't have any moral compass or conscience for evil acts.

So if one does not believe in evil then they themselves must be evil psychopaths? Noted.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:What is wrong with single-mindedness on a particular subject when this is the typical norm of the highest level of knowledge, i.e. by PhDs who normally spent their whole academic lifetime on one single major topic.

Single-mindedness is one thing, nagging is another.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:... Islam .... very strong 'evil

Just keep posting this snippet and the effect will be exactly the same as your current approach. You have one message and you just keep repeating it and demand the right to do so with other people's property, and without criticism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:To replace the term 'evil' with "health and illness" and "maturity and immaturity" is bordering on stupidity.

Ok, you're a shallow little man who hasn't even tried to think morality through even to a small degree. I might leave it at that as you appear incapable of reason in this area.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 3:04 am Those who deny the concept of evil are infected with evil [as defined] to various degrees.

Are those who believe in evil, infected with evil? Such as all the theists who do things you would consider evil? According to you, then, everyone is infected with evil, so what difference does it make? You are attuned to evil, which some people don't believe in. That doesn't seem to be affecting them any more than anyone else, does it?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:27 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 3:04 am Those who deny the concept of evil are infected with evil [as defined] to various degrees.

Are those who believe in evil, infected with evil? Such as all the theists who do things you would consider evil? According to you, then, everyone is infected with evil, so what difference does it make? You are attuned to evil, which some people don't believe in. That doesn't seem to be affecting them any more than anyone else, does it?

I meant those who are very aggressive against people who want to discuss evil not those who are indifferent to the concept of evil.
If you are indifferent to the term 'evil' you can always ignore and avoid discussing it but not to the extent of condemning and trying to stop others from discussing it.

However note my assertion,

DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with the potential to commit evil [as defined] acts and a significant percentile of people are unfortunately born with an active propensity to commit a range and continuum of evil acts.

Note my definition of 'evil' is based on empirical human acts which I had defined as 'evil', e.g. genocides, mass murders, mass rapes, horrendous torture, chattel and modern slavery, sex abuse of children and the whole long list of evil acts that fit what I had defined as 'evil'. As such my definition of 'evil' in this case is very objective.

Note I am not associating 'evil' with theological evil which is reducible to some illusory entity labelled as Satan, Devil, Lucifer, and the likes.

My approach is wherever the term 'evil' is used, it must be an objective term, i.e. supported by evidences and sound morally-driven arguments.

My main objective is, humanity must addressed all forms of evil to find its root causes and find solutions to prevent evil acts to the optimal minimal levels.
I believe ALL humans [in practice at least up to a critical mass] must take on the responsibility to prevent objective evil [as defined].

You may personally dislike the term 'evil' but that is likely to be a personal subjective opinion unless you can demonstrate your view is objective and supported by evidence and argument.
Note the link I referred earlier;
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

In addition there are already tons of research done on the concept of evil within psychology, neuro-psychology, neurosciences, social, etc.

There is even this, i.e. Science!
The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty
https://www.amazon.com/Science-Evil-Emp ... 0465031420

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:47 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:27 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 3:04 am Those who deny the concept of evil are infected with evil [as defined] to various degrees.

Are those who believe in evil, infected with evil? Such as all the theists who do things you would consider evil? According to you, then, everyone is infected with evil, so what difference does it make? You are attuned to evil, which some people don't believe in. That doesn't seem to be affecting them any more than anyone else, does it?

I meant those who are very aggressive against people who want to discuss evil not those who are indifferent to the concept of evil.
If you are indifferent to the term 'evil' you can always ignore and avoid discussing it but not to the extent of condemning and trying to stop others from discussing it.

Stop rationalising. Your interest in "evil" is only as regards your accusations against Islam. Everyone has seen this in you for a long time - you can't sensibly feign a general interest in "evil".

A whole lot of us were tired of you fouling up the forum with repetition. I was the one to speak up.

Yes yes, we get it, there's a lot of problems with Islam and the west, effectively a war or sorts. During war the hottest protagonists of each side say very nasty things about each other. The idea is to objectify the other so as to feel no guilt about being very nasty to them. It's called "propaganda".

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:47 am I meant those who are very aggressive against people who want to discuss evil not those who are indifferent to the concept of evil.

Well, it appears that people who are inclined to obsess about evil, are, themselves, rather extreme. We can focus on all sorts of energies and qualities in the world. So it's reasonable to wonder about someone who focuses on "evil". Although you say that you're not talking about the theist version of evil, talking excessively about all the ways it exists could still be serving the self-righteous purpose of elevating those who make such a big deal about it. They are essentially claiming that they, themselves, are above evil, in order to be calling it out with such passion as they do.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:47 am However note my assertion, DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with the potential to commit evil [as defined] acts and a significant percentile of people are unfortunately born with an active propensity to commit a range and continuum of evil acts.

I think it's continually demonstrated that a significant percentile of people have an active propensity to be kind and selfless and very constructive. People love to love... just as there are those who love to hate. It's all out there. What draws you to focus on evil? Do you not worry about feeding/creating that which you're obsessed with?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 5:09 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:47 am I meant those who are very aggressive against people who want to discuss evil not those who are indifferent to the concept of evil.

Well, it appears that people who are inclined to obsess about evil, are, themselves, rather extreme. We can focus on all sorts of energies and qualities in the world. So it's reasonable to wonder about someone who focuses on "evil". Although you say that you're not talking about the theist version of evil, talking excessively about all the ways it exists could still be serving the self-righteous purpose of elevating those who make such a big deal about it. They are essentially claiming that they, themselves, are above evil, in order to be calling it out with such passion as they do.

I believe people who are obsessed with 'evil' i.e. objectively and persistently in trying to get rid, prevent and reduce evil [as defined] should be praised, appreciated and honored.

Personally I am not extreme with 'evil' as I am more very interested in promoting how to be good.

I do not claim to be above evil but as I had stated, all humans has the potential to be evil and one can turned evil out of the blue. I am no exception. I admit I am also vulnerable* to be triggered to commit evil out of my control but the point is I will strive my best to avoid this.
* I am no saint, at times I do have undeliberated/unwelcomed thoughts that qualify as evil [as defined] but fortunately I have the mindfulness not to commit them.

Those who ignore evil or the likes and do not do anything to prevent oneself to such a natural inherent potential is more likely to turn evil and they may even be not aware of it.

Note how easy the term 'evil' [when defined appropriately] is used here to facilitate me in covering all the negative human acts instead of listing the hundreds or thousand of human acts that can be grouped under the term 'evil.'

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:47 am However note my assertion, DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with the potential to commit evil [as defined] acts and a significant percentile of people are unfortunately born with an active propensity to commit a range and continuum of evil acts.

I think it's continually demonstrated that a significant percentile of people have an active propensity to be kind and selfless and very constructive. People love to love... just as there are those who love to hate. It's all out there. What draws you to focus on evil? Do you not worry about feeding/creating that which you're obsessed with?

Yes, it is true the majority of humans are driven towards the good, i.e. there is also an inherent moral drive to be good.

But the point is the inhibitors that are inhibiting the primal potential to evil in the brain is very weak relatively and restricted to a 'few' strand of neurons which can be overwhelmed easily.
Example a jealous impulse of passion can suddenly turned a goody-two-shoe into an instant murderer. There are so many such examples of 'evil' manifesting from the most unlikely people who are normally kind and compassionate.

What draws you to focus on evil? Do you not worry about feeding/creating that which you're obsessed with?

Evil [as defined] is so near to us and prevalent out there.
It would be irresponsible to ignore it and not do something about it.

Whilst not a Buddhist per-se, I have adopted one of the Boddhisattva vow to be compassionate to all human beings. When one is compassionate to other human beings one must have empathy for those who have suffered from the evil acts of the evil prone beings. Thus there is a need to get rid or prevent evil to alleviate the sufferings to others.

When we address the elements of evil morally and holistically, that will ensure there are no side effects that are evil.