Are humans by nature evil

ENOAH

If we're, by nature, evil (or, even sinful, violent, hostile or aggressive), why do we express it with contempt, as though we ought not be? Or why would we raise that as a topic to debate, if it was, like hunger, our nature?

Bonding is real, natural to humans. As a species, by nature, we are not driven to bring unnecessary harm to one another, but rather, the contrary, to co-operate, and share useful memories, not to mention intimacy. That bonding is the real source of our so called ethics. But our so called ethics are made up. So too, the inevitable transgression of our so called ethics. Good and evil are not real, they’re made up out of a dialectical process (mind/history) which necessarily proceeds by synthesizing images into structures, out of competing binary forms, for functional expression (into nature/the body and the real world). Natural bonding has been displaced by narratives of good and evil, and those narratives trigger actions which, transcending our natures, are played out in the fictional theatre we construct and call history.

We’ve been wrong. It’s not that humans are at nature homicidal but history has devised a way to make the face say, “don’t kill me.” It’s that the human face says, by nature, to the other human, “I’m human, don’t [just] kill me,” but history has devised ways to make us homicidal.

T Clark

Natural bonding has been displaced by narratives of good and evil, and those narratives trigger actions which, transcending our natures, are played out in the fictional theatre we construct and call history. — ENOAH

Can’t we say something similar about what happens in all human thought, not just that related to morality?

ENOAH

Can’t we say something similar about what happens in all human thought, not just that related to morality? — T Clark

I believe that, yes.

ProtagoranSocratist

Human behavior is shaped by situations: for example, there are people who derive pleasure from killing, and kill for no other purpose than the pleasure it gives them. However, if such an individual doesn't have an opportunity to kill for pleasure (like what may happen if they constantly rely on their community and play a role in it), would that person develop a taste for killing? What if that situation leads this same person to be a hunter, benefiting their community? Who knows...

Humans are manipulative by nature, that can't be avoided. The world we live in is a violent one in part based on a need to eat other animals in order to survive.

That bonding is the real source of our so called ethics. But our so called ethics are made up. — ENOAH

It's not just a product of bonding, but a result of creativity and memory; perhaps remembering what happens when people violate certain ethics. Of course they're made up, because people are creative, and use their imaginations to survive because we are fairly weak and slow compared to some other animal species.

ENOAH

↪ProtagoranSocratist

Not to dispute your statements, but to clarify mine. All of what you refer to, I suggest is "made ip" by that process, so called History. By bonding being the "real" source of ethics (and the conditions you refer to), I mean in nature, "before" history proceeds, where "evil" does not yet exist.

Our characterizations like "manipulative" and "violent" displace our nature, and that's the "domain' where ethics steps in.

Are we by nature hostile or evil? I think no, not by Nature. By history.

ProtagoranSocratist

Are we by nature hostile or evil? I think no, not by Nature. By history. — ENOAH

are you making a primitivist argument, where historical development unlocked our capability for evil?

ENOAH

primitivist argument, where historical development unlocked our capability for evil? — ProtagoranSocratist

That might be an angle. But not unlocking as if it was already there. Constructed.

Im saying the human mind, collectively, "history," by way of constructing everything humans perceive and conceive, constructed ethics, and its counterpart evil.

The point being evil does not play into humans by nature, only by the unfolding of history.

Punshhh

↪ENOAH

Are we by nature hostile or evil? I think no, not by Nature. By history.

We evolved on the African plains, have you watched a nature documentary about what happens there in a natural setting? Everything is competing to eat each other.
Maybe if we had evolved in the forest like the mountain gorilla we would be different.

I like sushi

↪ENOAH

I can recommend something to read?

Popper's 'The Open Society and Its Enemies'. I think you would find it an interesting read judging by what you are questioning here.

LuckyR

↪ENOAH

In my experience, you're looking at the issue incorrectly. Humans are not "evil", as a label. Rather all humans will, on occasion, perform "evil" acts. Think about it statistically. If a (as it happens, nonexistent) person chose to do 0% evil acts in their lifetime, everyone would not disagree with labeling that individual "good" ie not "evil". But if the average human makes say 1% evil choices, we should call those folks "average" ie not "evil". If they make 0.01% evil choices, they're likely felt to be "good", whereas those choosing to perform 10% evil, are in fact "evil". Bottom line, no one does zero evil, thus in order to deserve the label one should consider the amount of evil, not merely the presence of evil.

T Clark

That bonding is the real source of our so called ethics. But our so called ethics are made up. — ENOAH

I think there is truth in this but I think it might hide the fact that, although what you call bonding may be the source of ethics, they are completely different things. Bonding, empathy, is something personal while ethics is social. Bonding deals with emotions while ethics deals with rules. Bonding is done without premeditation or expectation but ethics is done with the expectation of reward or punishment.

I was thinking about saying even a society without bonding would need social rules, ethics. But then I realized such a society might not even be possible.

ENOAH

although what you call bonding may be the source of ethics, they are completely different things. — T Clark

Yes. I agree. So completely that the latter has virtually displaced the former, alienating the human animal from our nature

ENOAH

↪Punshhh

↪LuckyR

While I do not dispute your points, I should clarify. As we inevitably have violence in our conditioning, the violence is not in our natures. Killing for food or territory, though evident in nature, is not the same as war, or murder. We cannot say lion's are murderous or evil. We alone have transcended nature

ENOAH

↪I like sushi

Thank you. I will look into this.

T Clark

So completely that the latter has virtually displaced the former, alienating the human animal from our nature — ENOAH

When you get into larger groups of people, I think that's inevitable. When that happens, you need rules to keep the wheels of social discourse lubricated.

Metaphysician Undercover

By bonding being the "real" source of ethics (and the conditions you refer to), I mean in nature, "before" history proceeds, where "evil" does not yet exist. — ENOAH

I'm trying to make sense of this. Are you suggesting that "good" existed before "evil"?

ENOAH

you need rules to keep the wheels of social discourse lubricated. — T Clark

Yes, and while they serve a positive function, they are made up, and they inevitably give rise to their antitheses, yhe breaking of rules, and evil. So, ethics, etc., albeit functional, yranscend our nature, creating a "fictional" domain in which only humans operate and experience.

If there is a God, this domain is outside of the one created for us; outside of "Eden," so to speak.

ENOAH

↪Metaphysician Undercover

Im suggesting both are constructions. Our inherent nature requires/permits no judgement. So saying we are inherently evil or have a nature incapable of avoiding evil, is inaccurate.

IF we must appoint a judgement of our nature, it is more accurate to choose "good," especially since we commonly recognize it as preferable.

ENOAH

↪Metaphysician Undercover

Im saying that because bonding is inherent, we recognize the so called "good" as preferable. So if anything, we are inherently [so called] good

T Clark

So, ethics, etc., albeit functional, yranscend our nature, creating a "fictional" domain in which only humans operate and experience. — ENOAH

This makes sense, although I don’t see it as a negative thing as much as you do.

ENOAH

↪T Clark

I agree it is not negative. I likely present it as "negative" when it is posed beside the common view that we humans are a violent, aggressive, inherently evil species.

To expand into the functional ethics of it, such a perspective gives an excuse to continue being "evil."

ENOAH

↪T Clark

Ethics are necessary and functional, but not to civilize the evil out; rather, because mind/history has alienated us from our nature

T Clark

Ethics are necessary and functional, but not to civilize the evil out; rather, because mind/history has alienated us from our nature — ENOAH

This is from Gia-Fu Feng’s translation of Verse 57 of the Tao Te Ching.

The more laws and restrictions there are,
The poorer people become.
The sharper men's weapons,
The more trouble in the land.
The more ingenious and clever men are,
The more strange things happen.
The more rules and regulations,
The more thieves and robbers.

ENOAH

Tao Te Ching — T Clark

:ok:

Metaphysician Undercover

Im suggesting both are constructions. Our inherent nature requires/permits no judgement. So saying we are inherently evil or have a nature incapable of avoiding evil, is inaccurate. — ENOAH

But isn't judging inherent within or nature? It's just what we do, we judge all sorts of things.

Im saying that because bonding is inherent, we recognize the so called "good" as preferable. So if anything, we are inherently [so called] good — ENOAH

Are you saying that we have a natural tendency to judge things as good, and judging things as bad is artificial, or unnatural?

ENOAH

But isn't judging inherent within or nature? — Metaphysician Undercover

I think whatever it is that is inherent, stops being that once we apply "judging."

Are you saying that we have a natural tendency to judge things as good, — Metaphysician Undercover

Im saying we don't have a natural tendency to judge period.

You might say we "judge" apples as good to eat and shit as bad. But that is the natural functioning of drives, which become naturally conditioned. Once names and forms arise [and they only do in history] that drive/conditioning becomes displaced by judging, so that its is conceivable one might judge apples as bad and shit as good. (very oversimplifying but to illustrate)

T Clark

But isn't judging inherent within or nature? It's just what we do, we judge all sorts of things. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think valuing, choosing, and liking are inevitable, but those are not the same as judging. If I choose brussels sprouts over eggplant, that doesn’t say anything about eggplant except that I prefer brussels sprouts. It doesn’t mean that eggplant is bad, although it is, as a matter of fact, very very bad.

Metaphysician Undercover

I think whatever it is that is inherent, stops being that once we apply "judging." — ENOAH

What do you mean? I don't understand this. If judging itself is inherent, then we have to account for this or else our assumption of what is natural is wrong.

Im saying we don't have a natural tendency to judge period. — ENOAH

How can you say that? Even other animals judge. It's the essence of decision making. And other animal species clearly judge just as much as human beings do, though we might say that their capacity for judgement is not as highly developed.

Once names and forms arise [and they only do in history] that drive/conditioning becomes displaced by judging, so that its is conceivable one might judge apples as bad and shit as good. (very oversimplifying but to illustrate) — ENOAH

I think you are making an arbitrary division between judging and not judging, within acts which are all forms of judging. This appears to be misleading you. I suggest that you start with the assumption that all decisions making involves judgement.

If I choose brussels sprouts over eggplant, that doesn’t say anything about eggplant except that I prefer brussels sprouts. — T Clark

That is clearly an act of judgement. Judgement is generally defined as discernment. If you differentiate between brussels sprouts and eggplants, then you have judged.

ENOAH

↪Metaphysician Undercover

I think you might not accept my premise, which is that all of the points you raise in your last post apply to the human acting in history, i.e., the processes taking place in human mind.

In nature/human nature, there is neither judgement nor decision making. There is drives and response which, if functional become conditioned.

In accordance with that premise,* when you observe decisions and judgements in humans and animals, you are doing so in history, that is filtered through the representations autonomously functioning in/as [what we call] mind. Of course, we see a squirrel stop and turn around at on- coming traffic as having made the right decision. It was her body functioning to survive. The reason it is "decision" for us is because that concept evolved into history n millennia ago, and we have all commonly received that data input so to speak.

T Clark

That is clearly an act of judgement. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, not in the context we’re using here. It says nothing about brussels sprouts or eggplant. It only says something about me. I am not judging eggplant. If I said “eggplant is bad,” that would be a judgment about eggplant.

Metaphysician Undercover

I think you might not accept my premise, which is that all of the points you raise in your last post apply to the human acting in history, i.e., the processes taking place in human mind.

In nature/human nature, there is neither judgement nor decision making. There is drives and response which, if functional become conditioned. — ENOAH

I do not understand how you can make this division, the separation between "the human acting in history", and, "In nature/human nature". Isn't it the case that it is human nature to have a history? If so, then to separate "human nature" from the human acting in history, is a mistaken approach. They are one and the same thing, human history is human nature.

No, not in the context we’re using here. It says nothing about brussels sprouts or eggplant. It only says something about me. I am not judging eggplant. If I said “eggplant is bad,” that would be a judgment about eggplant. — T Clark

I can't grasp what you are trying to say about the context. To differentiate between this object, as a brussels sprout and that object, as an eggplant, is to make a judgement. This is regardless of whether you are saying that you prefer one to the other.

Are humans by nature evil

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions