The Origin of evil

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Socrateaze
Posts: 132
Joined: July 25th, 2017, 8:07 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Carlin

Re: The Origin of evil

Post by Socrateaze » July 26th, 2017, 4:40 am

Atreyu wrote:Man became capable of 'evil' once he lost his self-consciousness, i.e. when he became unconscious, i.e. when he became immersed in dreams and fantasies.

Evil is only possible for an unconscious man. A conscious man would never do anything he himself considers 'evil'. Only an unconscious automaton, i.e. modern man, could 'do' things that he himself regards as 'bad'.
No, it's just the opposite. It is when we move outside our social boundaries that we are self-aware, otherwise we just are sheep. There are two extremes, thinking goodness will win you all you ever wanted, protecting you from all the evils of others, or being evil yourself and like a fire consume so much until someone puts you out.

User avatar
GraphicsGuy
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: July 26th, 2017, 11:36 am

Re: The Origin of evil

Post by GraphicsGuy » July 26th, 2017, 1:06 pm

I tend to think that "good" and "evil" are simply subjective constructs that our society instructs us to classify into categories of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not acceptable behaviour.

Therefore, it is "evil" when a group of people fly planes into your buildings, but it's "good" to retaliate and bomb the hell out of their homeland.

Therefore, the world is "evil", but your church is "good".

As we grow and develop as individuals (and then collectively as a group) and become more "conscious", I feel that we all should look at these accepted "normals" and see if they continue to fit our own personal values.

User avatar
LuckyR
Posts: 2501
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: The Origin of evil

Post by LuckyR » July 26th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Socrateaze wrote:
LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


There is a difference between "hope for the best but prepare for the worst" as a strategy for avoiding the fallout from interacting with evil people as opposed to becoming a more aggressive evil person yourself to accomplish the same ends. One changes who you are and one does not (assuming you weren't inherently part of the problem to begin with).
And what problem would that be? How is it a problem to be evil? Hitler was evil, but he drew too much attention to himself. He kept going despite the ground he won in the war and caused a cry out when he killed six million Jews. That is evil, but it is sloppy, not the kind I am interested in.
Pray tell, exactly what sort of evil are you interested in?
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Socrateaze
Posts: 132
Joined: July 25th, 2017, 8:07 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Carlin

Re: The Origin of evil

Post by Socrateaze » July 27th, 2017, 3:12 am

LuckyR wrote:
Socrateaze wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


And what problem would that be? How is it a problem to be evil? Hitler was evil, but he drew too much attention to himself. He kept going despite the ground he won in the war and caused a cry out when he killed six million Jews. That is evil, but it is sloppy, not the kind I am interested in.
Pray tell, exactly what sort of evil are you interested in?
A girl doesn't give up her secrets. :wink:

User avatar
LuckyR
Posts: 2501
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: The Origin of evil

Post by LuckyR » July 28th, 2017, 3:16 am

Socrateaze wrote:
LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Pray tell, exactly what sort of evil are you interested in?
A girl doesn't give up her secrets. :wink:
I meant theoretically, of course.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Socrateaze
Posts: 132
Joined: July 25th, 2017, 8:07 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Carlin

Re: The Origin of evil

Post by Socrateaze » July 28th, 2017, 4:05 pm

LuckyR wrote:
Socrateaze wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


A girl doesn't give up her secrets. :wink:
I meant theoretically, of course.
Theories are secrets too and I won't reveal myself. But, I leave you with a number, if you can recon it:

... 418





But just so I don't go off topic, let me leave you with something pertinent too. If we want to understand good and bad, we must first do away with the idea of it. Good and bad was not considered so before we named them so. The conflict is in our wishes and beliefs, which works against reality.

Spectrum
Posts: 4638
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Origin of evil

Post by Spectrum » July 28th, 2017, 11:30 pm

Socrateaze wrote:If we want to understand good and bad, we must first do away with the idea of it. Good and bad was not considered so before we named them so. The conflict is in our wishes and beliefs, which works against reality.
"Socrateaze" that's a creative nick, would have been more interesting with "Socratease."

I believe 'good' and 'evil' are inherent and arose into concepts from our biology and are critical necessities for survival.
What is roughly 'good' [trigger pleasure] will facilitate survival thus preservation and continuation of the species and what is evil is the reverse.

"Killing" another human is 'evil' [trigger pains] [not morally good] because if all humans are given permission to kill, then the human species will be extinct. This is theoretical but it is an absolute moral ground.
As with nature, there will be exceptions where killing is unavoidable but it has to be managed and modulated by the individual and society.

Now if we rate "killing of another human being" at 100/100 of evilness and petty crimes at 5/100, then we can estimate roughly [subject to improvements] the various range of evilness in between.

Thus the concept of 'evil' emerged to facilitate survival and preservation of the species.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
Socrateaze
Posts: 132
Joined: July 25th, 2017, 8:07 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Carlin

Re: The Origin of evil

Post by Socrateaze » July 29th, 2017, 2:30 am

Spectrum wrote:
Socrateaze wrote:If we want to understand good and bad, we must first do away with the idea of it. Good and bad was not considered so before we named them so. The conflict is in our wishes and beliefs, which works against reality.
"Socrateaze" that's a creative nick, would have been more interesting with "Socratease."

I believe 'good' and 'evil' are inherent and arose into concepts from our biology and are critical necessities for survival.
What is roughly 'good' [trigger pleasure] will facilitate survival thus preservation and continuation of the species and what is evil is the reverse.

"Killing" another human is 'evil' [trigger pains] [not morally good] because if all humans are given permission to kill, then the human species will be extinct. This is theoretical but it is an absolute moral ground.
As with nature, there will be exceptions where killing is unavoidable but it has to be managed and modulated by the individual and society.

Now if we rate "killing of another human being" at 100/100 of evilness and petty crimes at 5/100, then we can estimate roughly [subject to improvements] the various range of evilness in between.

Thus the concept of 'evil' emerged to facilitate survival and preservation of the species.
And it is as simple as that.

Socialism that brought forth laws against anarchy ensures the survival of the species as much as the necessity for killing, both are necessary. But the perceiving of evil exists in our mind and how we react to, in this example of killing. Sometimes the feeling is accurate and sometimes it is not. It helps us either detaching ourselves from our victims or empathizing with others, but it can be misplaced an inaccurate.

Spectrum
Posts: 4638
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Origin of evil

Post by Spectrum » July 29th, 2017, 11:20 pm

Socrateaze wrote:And it is as simple as that.

Socialism that brought forth laws against anarchy ensures the survival of the species as much as the necessity for killing, both are necessary. But the perceiving of evil exists in our mind and how we react to, in this example of killing. Sometimes the feeling is accurate and sometimes it is not. It helps us either detaching ourselves from our victims or empathizing with others, but it can be misplaced an inaccurate.
It is not that simple when it comes to implementation of the principles re moral and ethics.

Killing [non-humans] for food is still necessary, perhaps killing another human was necessary but at the present it should not be necessary given that humans has the freewill, conscience and empathy for other human beings.

DNA wise all humans has the potential for evil [full range]. Example if humans do not have the "killing" program [as evolved], we will not be able to kill anything [for food, security, etc.] to have survive as we are to the present.
The problem is this evolved 'killing program' is very active and its impulse control in SOME humans are very loose, thus the existence of murderers.
It is the same for other 'evil' impulses where the controls is very low or loose in a percentile [say 20%] of humans.

The solution is, if so many humans are able to modulate their evil impulses [killing to stealing] then it is possible to improve the impulse controls of the minority who are prone to commit violence and the whole range of evils.

I don't foresee this possibility of improvement in the present, given the neural and psychological states of humans at present. However if we start now, we can increase and improve [suppression and modulation] the impulse controls of those who are evil prone to prevent them from committing violence and evils in the future [next 75-100 years].

Note improvements can only be achieved when there is a quantum increase in the neural and psychological states of humans, .e.g. average IQ, Emotional Intelligence [EQ], Spiritual intelligence [SQ], Moral Quotient, and various other psychological measurements.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
LuckyR
Posts: 2501
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: The Origin of evil

Post by LuckyR » July 29th, 2017, 11:38 pm

Socrateaze wrote:
Spectrum wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

"Socrateaze" that's a creative nick, would have been more interesting with "Socratease."

I believe 'good' and 'evil' are inherent and arose into concepts from our biology and are critical necessities for survival.
What is roughly 'good' [trigger pleasure] will facilitate survival thus preservation and continuation of the species and what is evil is the reverse.

"Killing" another human is 'evil' [trigger pains] [not morally good] because if all humans are given permission to kill, then the human species will be extinct. This is theoretical but it is an absolute moral ground.
As with nature, there will be exceptions where killing is unavoidable but it has to be managed and modulated by the individual and society.

Now if we rate "killing of another human being" at 100/100 of evilness and petty crimes at 5/100, then we can estimate roughly [subject to improvements] the various range of evilness in between.

Thus the concept of 'evil' emerged to facilitate survival and preservation of the species.
And it is as simple as that.

Socialism that brought forth laws against anarchy ensures the survival of the species as much as the necessity for killing, both are necessary. But the perceiving of evil exists in our mind and how we react to, in this example of killing. Sometimes the feeling is accurate and sometimes it is not. It helps us either detaching ourselves from our victims or empathizing with others, but it can be misplaced an inaccurate.
Well, many think of evil as a label for an action that is the opposite of good. Others think evil is a specific force, perhaps wielded by an entity, say the Devil, that causes or encourages individual humans to do acts that are evil by the first definition. By this second definition evil can be "fought" by the forces of good, whereas by the first definition evil isn't really counteracted, you just personally do good acts and encourage others to do the same and hope in the final analysis the world is a better place than it was before.
"As usual... it depends."

Spectrum
Posts: 4638
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Origin of evil

Post by Spectrum » July 30th, 2017, 12:37 am

LuckyR wrote:Well, many think of evil as a label for an action that is the opposite of good. Others think evil is a specific force, perhaps wielded by an entity, say the Devil, that causes or encourages individual humans to do acts that are evil by the first definition.
By this second definition evil can be "fought" by the forces of good, whereas by the first definition evil isn't really counteracted, you just personally do good acts and encourage others to do the same and hope in the final analysis the world is a better place than it was before.
Not exactly, evil is not "fought" by the forces of good.
The potential for evil is inherent within the human [ALL] brain and this cannot be got rid of because it is embedded in the human DNA inherited from our past ancestors back to the first human and first one-cell living things.

It is like the inherent program for the sex impulse which is actively triggered actively when one reaches puberty by hormones and external stimuli.

Like the inherent sexual impulse, the inherent evil impulse can only be inhibited, suppressed and modulated. This is why the majority of humans are not driven to have sex like animals with their uncontrollable instincts. But a minority of humans do have a problem with their lack of control of their sexual impulses, thus the rapes, sex additions, etc.
It is the same for the evil impulse that is inherent within all humans where there are SOME humans who are unfortunately born with an active tendency for evil and they have lack of control over their evil impulses.

So with humans, the objective is for all humans to inhibit, suppress and modulate the inherent evil potential within their brain/mind and activate the impulses that are supposedly good [morally] for the individual and therefrom the collective.

It is not likely that humanity will be able to get rid of the evil potential within all humans since it is too complex biologically and some elements of it in a controlled way are necessary. So the only way is to inhibit, suppress and modulate the evil impulses.

Evil from a external Devil is an illusory idea.
The potential for evil is within all humans.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
Socrateaze
Posts: 132
Joined: July 25th, 2017, 8:07 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Carlin

Re: The Origin of evil

Post by Socrateaze » July 31st, 2017, 3:25 pm

Note improvements can only be achieved when there is a quantum increase in the neural and psychological states of humans, .e.g. average IQ, Emotional Intelligence [EQ], Spiritual intelligence [SQ], Moral Quotient, and various other psychological measurements.
Sorry, haven't figured out this quoting yet.

You make it sound like you want to completely pacify the human race. I seriously doubt that we will change human impulses in 75 to 100 years, seeing that, like you say, it's in our DNA. You are imagining a complete overhaul of the human mind, reminds me of a movie I once saw where the human race were so hopelessly docile that they had to take someone out of stasis when a real criminal arrived on the scene. Then they found the underground, the humans that refused to bend to the new order of not killing animals for food. The guy served him a rat burger, which was all that they could get their hands on in this wonderfully new improved world.

User avatar
Socrateaze
Posts: 132
Joined: July 25th, 2017, 8:07 am
Favorite Philosopher: George Carlin

Re: The Origin of evil

Post by Socrateaze » July 31st, 2017, 3:35 pm

Well, many think of evil as a label for an action that is the opposite of good. Others think evil is a specific force, perhaps wielded by an entity, say the Devil, that causes or encourages individual humans to do acts that are evil by the first definition. By this second definition evil can be "fought" by the forces of good, whereas by the first definition evil isn't really counteracted, you just personally do good acts and encourage others to do the same and hope in the final analysis the world is a better place than it was before.
No, I think the Devil has better things in mind than his typical stereotype. Since I'm from the left hand path, I should know. Why would the devil want to destroy the world, what would he have to come home to then? But, before I go off topic here, the world will never be a place where there is only good, since to achieve good we often have to take bad measures. How much blood has paved the road to a better world? The wars, the killings for tribal god-images. Sure the world seems better on the surface, but there is still slavery in this world and much of it. There are murders everyday and in the end it seems humanity just doesn't know any other way. Perhaps it's just part and parcel of life. There may come a time when the globe starts working together to achieve higher goals, like in some of the science fiction movies we have, but then there were still wars in these movies, no matter how perfect the ideals of the characters.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6039
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: The Origin of evil

Post by Greta » July 31st, 2017, 8:04 pm

I see "badness" as unwanted entropy applied to us and "evil" as unwanted entropy that is purposely applied by a being with at least approximate human level awareness.

We live in a world that renews itself constantly, that must destroy itself in order to make way for the new. Each of us play a role in that destruction, with attitudes towards our own destructiveness ranging from acceptance to denial to obliviousness to relish. It's the latter that is usually associated with "evil".

If an alien David Attenborough was observing humanity, he would note the different types - leaders, hangers on, soldiers, workers, predators, parasites, intermediaries and so forth, and he notice that the groups are all in various states of turmoil both from within and without. While the individuals and families embroiled in their lives would think of some events as as evil, the alien naturalist would see no evil at all, just the competition of nature.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 712
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: The Origin of evil

Post by -1- » July 31st, 2017, 10:03 pm

Evil, on one hand, is extremely relative. To the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks were evil. To the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks were evil. To the USA, ISIS is evil. To ISIS, the USA is evil. To Hitler, Jews were evil; to Jews, Hitler was evil.

I often used to shudder how to get out of urging voices' influence to become more involved in Amnesty International. They pray, sign petitions, and act actively to free one or another continuously tortured (physically tortured, by his enemies who keep him or her captive in forcible confinement) person from bondage and prison. I finally found the cure to how to ignore my guilty conscience and not do this, and not feel burdened by guilt. The cure was easy: just imagine, that if the imprisoned person had his or her way, then his or her captors would be tortured by him or her and kept in inhumane conditions.

Evil. A mirror you never think to show to yourself.
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."

Post Reply