" You know it's a Myth"

[-Origin]

Man, if I wasn't so lazy I'd totally photoshop a Unicorn-Walrus-glowing-pineapple-hybrid together.

 

[Avenger]

Yes because mothers drowning their babies is just chaos variables. So are pedophiles, or murderers of children. Hitler, he was just misunderstood, but he had capacity for greatness. Anyone who doesn't believe that there is evil in this world is more delusional that someone who believes in Avenger's Unicorn Walrus glowing pinapple hybrids. Humans are capable of horrible things. Perhaps it was hyperbole to call all of humanity monsters, but you seem to have a delusion of your own thinking that any kind of utopia will ever happen with mans capacity for hurting one another.

Good and evil are subjective terms that are based on social preconceptions. Hitler wasn't evil, and neither are pedophiles or childmurderers. They're people, and they're people shaped by their DNA and environment. A view that there is such a thing as objective morality is a view shaped purely by a single society's perceptions, and that would be just as erroneous as studying a coin from a top-down perspective, and deciding it's a 2D object.

 

[Rocky]

Hitler wasn't evil

...umm?

I get what you're saying that good and evil depends on which side you're looking from, but in the context of taking another life, or in this case, the lives of six million people, you can't justify that by saying it was because he grew up wrong or it was in his genes to kill. That's bull****. A hero in wartime is a murderer outside of war, but the funny thing is, he's still a murderer during wartime, that doesn't change.

 

[Zeonix]

...umm?

I get what you're saying that good and evil depends on which side you're looking from, but in the context of taking another life, or in this case, the lives of six million people, you can't justify that by saying it was because he grew up wrong or it was in his genes to kill. That's bull****. A hero in wartime is a murderer outside of war, but the funny thing is, he's still a murderer during wartime, that doesn't change.

Context is everything. Beware of absolutes.

 

[J-Dude]

Yes because mothers drowning their babies is just chaos variables.

They can be. Like Nix said, context is everything. Is this China during a famine, and another mouth to feed could make starvation worse? Have logic wires in her brain gotten crossed, and 2+2 now equals 3?

So are pedophiles, or murderers of children.

Pedophiles in the context of the people who actually rape or kill children are usually not pedosexuals, for which it IS merely a genetic outcome, or possibly a bad balance of hormones. These people are usually crazy, or lack certain social exposures, or feel a primeval need to dominate something. They're messed up, they're at the extreme of human selfishness, but they are not evil.

Hitler, he was just misunderstood, but he had capacity for greatness.

Hitler and his regime may not have ever happened if Germany had not become the scapegoat for the First World War, which itself was a domino effect. Hitler's ideals seem monstrous, but I'm sure in his mind, he was doing the right thing. He was ignorant, he was a xenophobe. Xenophobia itself is just the natural fear of difference we all possess. In nature, following the group is better than to be alone. Difference can be deadly. It is known that if a single member of a herd of wildebeest is painted red, that member is guaranteed to be singled in the next predator attack and killed.

We've chosen these days to embrace our differences and treat all men as equal. Growing up with such ideals, Hitler's way of doing things seems unthinkable. But do remember, Nazi Germany was full of people who believed in Hitler's ideals. Perspective can decide everything about situations like this. Again, messed up, but not truly evil.

Anyone who doesn't believe that there is evil in this world is more delusional that someone who believes in Avenger's Unicorn Walrus glowing pinapple hybrids.

Again, good and evil are relative. I'd say believing there is a black and white, unambiguous, Universal definition of right and wrong is an utter absurdity. It's true that you can take anyone in the world and have them agree that killing is wrong. But then you add circumstances to one man killing another. Was it in battle? Did this person kill a murder? A thief? Was it to save his family? Feed his family?

See, once you understand WHY someone did something, it becomes different. You'll get all kinds of differing opinions. The Devil didn't make him do it, circumstances led to it. REASONS led to it. Are the reasons good? Maybe, maybe not. But they are i fact, REASONS.

This is why all good villains are three dimensional. They have motivations to do what they do, and the moral ambiguity makes them interesting to behold, because they're REALISTIC. Nobody goes, "Oh hoho! I'm so EEEEEVIL! I shot that puppy and burned down little Timmy's treehouse! Teeheehee!" *twirls mustache*

And even WHEN you get people who apply themselves to the DEEPEST levels of schadenfreude, it's still the fact that they're making themselves feel better about THEIR pathetic lives by making others suffer more. Again, totally ****ed-up, but not evil.

Evil is a word. WE give it meaning by societal standards. Evil is, at best, a byproduct of actions. Not the CAUSE of them.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Now that I've read your second post, I have a clearer meaning of what your saying. For whatever reason, I read your first post as "Evil does not exist". You are saying that Evil is not a motivator. That's a different statement. I wholly agree that the world is not black and white, and have said so previously, Christianity only proposes it as closeness and distance from god (distance implies that it is not yes or no). Your acts are not motivated by evil, at the worst, selfishness, but are percieved by others to be evil. This I can agree with. Humanity has great capacity for evil, through selfishness generally. I never said evil was a motivation in and of itself. I said man is inherently evil, and what I should have said is:

Man is inherently selfish, we are hardwired this way, no matter what you believe in or don't believe in.

Any man will look to his own interests before he looks to another's, its in our very nature. The deeds we do when selfishness overides the well being of others (treating others, as we would not, ourselves, wish to be treated) is the very definition of distance from God's last known commands in my religion, and I would think most sane people would agree, evil by our societal standards. Perhaps a fantastically trivial evil, but evil none the less.

 

[J-Dude]

Now that I've read your second post, I have a clearer meaning of what your saying. For whatever reason, I read your first post as "Evil does not exist". You are saying that Evil is not a motivator. That's a different statement. I wholly agree that the world is not black and white, and have said so previously, Christianity only proposes it as closeness and distance from god (distance implies that it is not yes or no). Your acts are not motivated by evil, at the worst, selfishness, but are percieved by others to be evil. This I can agree with. Humanity has great capacity for evil, through selfishness generally. I never said evil was a motivation in and of itself. I said man is inherently evil, and what I should have said is:

Man is inherently selfish, we are hardwired this way, no matter what you believe in or don't believe in.

Any man will look to his own interests before he looks to another's, its in our very nature. The deeds we do when selfishness overides the well being of others (treating others, as we would not, ourselves, wish to be treated) is the very definition of distance from God's last known commands in my religion, and I would think most sane people would agree, evil by our societal standards. Perhaps a fantastically trivial evil, but evil none the less.

I'm glad we finally understand each other, though we still have disagreements.

I've dropped religion like the bad habit I perceive it as, so I now look at things from a place of total ambiguity. Believing that no governing force is in charge of you at the deepest levels does that to you.

Selfishness is considered a bad thing in modern society. To be considered "selfish" is never good. But it's only bad because we, social, super-intelligent creatures that we are, have reached a certain moral consensus.

You are entirely correct; we are inherently selfish...but then, so is just about every higher animal out there. The only ones that aren't inherently self-serving are the extraordinarily stupid ones, who are either driven by an evolved instinct that requires a sacrifice on their part, or live in colonies of thousands, like ants.

Being social animals, we counteract this by loyalty to the "tribe". That's how we're built; to live in groups and take care of each other to survive. That's why even today, we live as families.

But as we expanded, as we took control of our surroundings, found out how to improve our living conditions and exploded in number, we started learning that we needed to treat ourselves differently than a tribe. To this day we've tried to perfect just how best to do that. Some of us decided that the individual ought to recognize what it is deep down, and be able to compete for the best life it can attain. This is Capitalism, or at least the fundamental idea of it.

Others decided the group was more important than the individual, forgetting our primordial instincts in favor of an unrealistic idealism that behaves more like the colony of selfless ants we could never become. This is the more socialist/communist ideal.

Neither idea is bad, but Capitalism is more realistic in appealing to what we all are deep down. Men are not ants, however much we have learned from their clockwork efficiency.

Personally, I can't call this evil in any sense, not at it's core. I wouldn't call a toddler callously fighting another over a toy shouting "mine!" evil. Selfishness is rule number one in the wild. Preserve yourself and the species. It's saved billions, and trillions of lives in the past.

In our society, survival isn't commonly a factor. We've become safe and secure. And now we're bettering ourselves by learning to live together.

Our ability to use our intellect to outright ignore instinct is incredible. We've decided that equality is important for us, that we should try to live peacefully with each other. That one life is more important than any commodity. That we are all entitled to what we earn, and that the strong should not have dominion over the weak. We're even trying to believe that we ought to consider others ABOVE ourselves.

This shouldn't be of course. Men are not ants. To be entirely selfless is to not be entirely human. A machine would call us inefficient and illogical for not taking the socialist route, but any man knows deep down why that machine is wrong, even if they can't put it into words.

But what I find so noble about us, is how humble we can make ourselves feel as a rule. We always feel we could be better, should be better, for others, for ourselves, for the world. Animals though we are, we feel we can become so much more than we are healthily capable of. It's incredibly endearing at times.

Selfishness is like everything else in life: a matter of balance. We SHOULD care about ourselves, but we should also care about others. Light, darkness. Yin, Yang. It's not good to be too much of either. Finding that happy medium is what I think we're all trying to do.

Atheist? Maybe. Logical and reasonable? Sure.

But here's the thing I always worried about when I was a Christian. I always worried that being an atheist would mean surrendering entirely to logic. I've seen people claiming there is no such thing as love. What I didn't realize, is that Atheists can believe in being human, as much as they believe in logic and reason.

And make no mistake, I love logic and reason, but for all it's faults, I love being human. I wouldn't have our state of being any other way. While I have to fight some of my instincts and regulate others, I treasure my humanity, warts and all.

 

[Zeonix]

I've been awake for a good 60 hours, so this is probably going to jump around a lot, but bear with me:

As was touched on, religion isn't inherently a bad idea. But to say it's the root of all evil (I know these aren't anyone's exact words, but the sentiment is definitely there) is to go a tad too far. Religion had an important role to play in our early history. The way I see it, you could have gone three ways in the early days: a religion, a secular government (based on logic and reason), or a marriage of the two. Had you tried something else, a civilization wouldn't have sprouted from the soil because you'd be far too busy moving around, foraging for food, trying not to get killed. Civilization rises from a certain level of comfort and stability. If you have time to relax, you have time to think. Time to think breeds ideas, and ideas move us toward progress. But for that stability to exist, you have to first have a reason to live amongst fellow humans. Religion, for many, provided such a reason. A belief or fear of something outside of your control, and an ideology that would help bring order to the chaos. Once rules and regulations were established, behaviors that were detrimental to the whole were no longer tolerated. And so they learned to work together. Why? Because what benefits me, benefits you. Alone, I am no match against many, but together, we can face the agents of chaos and win.

This isn't different from government whatsoever. In the beginning, we needed something to control us to a degree. We were wild, and undisciplined. Government makes laws, religions makes laws. They both served to control our behavior. In the beginning, it wasn't meant to manipulate us into obeying these laws, but to convince us to obey these laws. Because, again, we are stronger, and better if we work together. Some agreed, others didn't. Those who did founded civilizations. Those who didn't were conquered and either destroyed or assimilated. The multitudes generally win against the few.

But a problem arises. Though I disagree that humans are inherently selfish and, in a word, evil (rather than focus on the word as a conceptual force, focus on the characteristics it implies of an individual or thing), there are certainly people out there who are. And these people are generally attracted to the illusion of power. Why? Because if you wield that illusion of power, you can strike down those who are either incapable of using it, or unwilling to use it, and take whatever it is that strokes your ego. Those who deny the existence of said power are a different story altogether, however, and they are usually the only people said agents of chaos fear. And so slowly but surely, these sociopaths made their way into the highest echelons of power, manipulating the system that was meant to protect us from the likes of them. The one thing we do better than most is evolve, however, and so no one strategy is successful for long. We change, they change. Forever warring against each other in our little way, forever failing to overcome the other. And probably for the best, because we need each other. We keep each other strong. We keep each other sharp.

The problem isn't so much one system or another, but our unwillingness to keep balance as a result of manipulations of our counterpart. I present to you exhibit A. Keep in mind I've simplified this to the point of absurdity, but the general idea is still sound:

Center is balanced, sides represent the same extreme. I didn't bother addressing opposing ideologies, but should someone decide to bring them up, I'll be sure to follow through.

Any who, in the center represents a nice-sounding, extremely naive idea. On the extremes, we see what could become of such an idea in the hands of someone who would prefer to benefit the few, rather than the many. Provided the few are the ones benefiting, said person is somehow always part of that group. Throw in something about race and creed, and you have a simplistic view of the not-so-Third Reich. This explains why Hitler, who didn't match any of the criteria he set forth for the master race, was still somehow totally qualified to lead in said endeavor.

What's my point? Stray too far to either extreme, and you end up ******* everything up. The many will definitely pay the price, everyone suffers, a few make out pretty damn well, and, in the long run, we as a species probably lose.

So a degree of selflessness, to me, is similar to a degree of selfishness, in that what benefits you, benefits me provided we maintain a certain level of balance. I may not know this consciously, but I guarantee it crosses my mind on some level. When you go to the extreme, as in the case of the rich vs. poor, what benefits the rich, the few, does not necessarily benefit the poor, the many.

Moving on.

So it's the year 2010. Do we still need religion? Some do, some don't. But if we are to agree that religion, as a controlling force, is no longer needed, can we get rid of government as well? It serves the same purpose, and is generally more destructive, so why put up with it?

"But the Crusades and Jihads and all the religious wars of all time!"

Right, were perpetrated by governments who manipulated the religious beliefs of its people in order to achieve an aim or goal. So what do we do? Are we ready to rid ourselves of both? Are we mature enough as a species to live in a state of anarchy (as the actual concept entails, not the "blow everything up" mentality shared by idiots who don't understand anarchy)?

Personally, I don't think so. The balance has shifted so far to both extremes, that the idea of getting rid of either wouldn't even cross the minds of the vast majority of our species. We cling onto both, because they both tell us we need them, and our social structure reinforces that notion. On the one extreme, you have political and religious leaders controlling people through their religion, and on the other, you have secular governments controlling their people through the law. Both sides think they're better than the other, neither side really works on a large scale.

@J-Dude: Being logical and reasonable doesn't mean you ignore your emotions. You simply learn to observe them, and control them when the necessity arises. Also, going from a devout Christian to atheism is, to me, the difference between having an obsession with lollipops and having an obsession with jolly ranchers, in that there really is no difference. Different candy, sure, but still candy. The two views are the same, existing on opposite extremes. I'm sure there will be those who will rabidly deny this, but until you know, you don't, and so that's the approach I take. Not saying one is better than the other. Just posting an observation.

 

[Synth]

The whole purpose of government/religion was to make society idiot-proof, but somehow idiots have gained control of it.

I refer to idiots as people who refuse to gain knowledge and find solace in ignorance.

 

[Zeonix]

And if idiots can gain control of it, what does that make the people who put them in that position in the first place, and then allow them to remain in power once said idiocy is made evident?

 

[Synth]

I do not appreciate the obvious disconnect that has been created by politicians, whether they're maintained by government or motivated by religion.

At this point they've basically made their profession the sport of manipulating currency.

I suppose they do serve a purpose, but that purpose is hardly consistent.