Why are so many people so bad?

Everybodyknows

The good guys lost
Dec 19, 2016
796
763
Australia
✟45,191.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Maximizing social benefit is a problematic way to measure things. To take a page out of The Brothers Karamazov, if paradise is built upon the suffering of a single child, is the price worth it? Do we really want to base concepts of good and evil on a capitalist model: maximizing profits and minimizing costs?
I'm approaching it historically, in that I'm talking about the origins/foundations of human morality. I suppose 'maximising social benefit' is a rather cold way of putting it. I'm thinking way back to hunter gatherer society where the simple act of cooperation is sufficient to explain the foundation of morality in terms of benefit/harm without invoking some higher prefect good beyond ourselves.

With time these basic moral values became instilled in us and we no longer do them simply for the benefit (even though they are still beneficial) but rather because they have become ideals and feel right. Morality has become an abstraction, a complex collection of ideas and ideals, far less simple than the view I've been presenting. I'm merely going back in time to illustrate morality in it's simplest form.

I'm all about virtue ethics--that morality is something to be lived and that a moral life is determined by what is psychologically and socially healthier for the individual, most strongly tied into the concept of living authentically rather than simply being carried along in a cloud of excuses. That's much easier said than done, of course, which would be my answer to the thread.
What is you view of virtues? Are virtues objectively defined or are they measured by beneficial results? In saying that "what is psychologically and socially healthier for the individual" you still seem to be approaching morality in terms of well-being or benefit.
 
Upvote 0

Everybodyknows

The good guys lost
Dec 19, 2016
796
763
Australia
✟45,191.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oh what a relief! All this time I just figured I was having a rational discussion...and it's actually been my snaking spirit!

You're a really big help!

What about your weasely spirit though? The one that tries to weasel your viewpoint onto others?
Ana, just stop. Can't you see that you are objectively wrong? :)
 
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟147,506.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
There is nothing else in the universe that has yet been discovered, that is capable of evil like humans are.
Then again, there is nothing in the known universe that has yet been objectively discovered, that is capable of good either.
Maybe somewhere, deep in our prehistory, there have been other species that shared with us the possibility of being bad or good, but chances are, we killed them off long ago.
We still share the physiology of our distant mammalian cousins. Our instincts are still the instincts of the chimpanzees and the apes. Our primal fears still express themselves in our psyches and in our mental imagery as snakes and wild beast and creatures of the deep. Our flight or fight or remain still responses to dangers, real or perceived, remain rooted in our animal past, and are expressed in our actions and reactions against each other. We still compete and dominate other males in order to bey chosen by the females of the species, and the will to procreate is written so deeply in our genetic code that that will is much deeper than any conscious choice of free will that we can make.
Much of our behavior and thoughts and mental content are not consciously willed but are generated by our nervous system.
And that is what serves as the raw material for our choices between good and evil.
The quantum leap that humans have taken from that natural state of affairs is self-awareness and a recognition that we have a future. This is something that animals do not understand. They live very much in the here and now. We can project ourselves in to the future, understand where the predators will appear, grow crops for the tomorrows that we plan for. We can contemplate our own deaths. No other animal is aware of their own death. We know that we will die.
It is this self-knowledge and the ability to interpolate it onto others that make us capable of evil. We know where we are vulnerable and can project that vulnerability onto others. We can destroy others not just with spears and rocks, but with words and sarcasm, as we do all in social media all the time. It is because we know that words can destroy us that we can use those words to destroy others first, or just because their is a pleasure in doing so, exercising animal dominance over them.
Our instincts to dominate and to survive and flourish are the result of millions of years of evolution. Our ability to be good and evil derives from having uniquely evolved the ability of becoming self-aware. We are now as 'gods' capable of choosing, of going beyond our immediate appetites, and sacrificing for the future.
Those are the foundations for human evil.
 
Upvote 0

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,527
Jersey
✟778,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I suppose 'maximising social benefit' is a rather cold way of putting it. I'm thinking way back to hunter gatherer society where the simple act of cooperation is sufficient to explain the foundation of morality in terms of benefit/harm without invoking some higher prefect good beyond ourselves.

With time these basic moral values became instilled in us and we no longer do them simply for the benefit (even though they are still beneficial) but rather because they have become ideals and feel right.
But what 'Feels Right' hasn't defaulted to benefiting human society. Human society's top level of structure is government. Humans seem to have an evolutionary 'Feeling' that says "Gain control of authority and oppress." According to history!! I see evolutionary human feelings as benefiting sociopaths in the grand structures of human societies, not as benefiting the little guy.

Evolutionary feelings of other species don't seem to naturally lean towards dictatorship rule by an insane few (or even 1), in order to dominate the insane majority of their own species. That to me presents a problem. Our evolutionary feelings naturally lean towards a king being absolute ruler over an entire country, just because of his last name. That is evolutionary madness for the benefit of our species.

Humans actually had to fight tooth & nail AGAINST our evolutionary feelings towards oppressive domination to our own species...in order to reach things like the US Constitution. And look at us now, those innate feelings that always sends the sociopaths to the top of the ruling class, they still dominate, it's still all lying sociopaths ruling us to our detriment. The sociopaths just have to be more careful today, they have to LOOK like they care about the little people more than their own selfish greed. That is our nature. How was that nature placed into us for the good of us?
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
But what 'Feels Right' hasn't defaulted to benefiting human society. Human society's top level of structure is government. Humans seem to have an evolutionary 'Feeling' that says "Gain control of authority and oppress." According to history!! I see evolutionary human feelings as benefiting sociopaths in the grand structures of human societies, not as benefiting the little guy.

Evolutionary feelings of other species don't seem to naturally lean towards dictatorship rule by an insane few (or even 1), in order to dominate the insane majority of their own species. That to me presents a problem. Our evolutionary feelings naturally lean towards a king being absolute ruler over an entire country, just because of his last name. That is evolutionary madness for the benefit of our species.

Humans actually had to fight tooth & nail AGAINST our evolutionary feelings towards oppressive domination to our own species...in order to reach things like the US Constitution. And look at us now, those innate feelings that always sends the sociopaths to the top of the ruling class, they still dominate, it's still all lying sociopaths ruling us to our detriment. The sociopaths just have to be more careful today, they have to LOOK like they care about the little people more than their own selfish greed. That is our nature. How was that nature placed into us for the good of us?
I find it a bit odd to take 1% of the population and argue that their condition is the actual human nature.
 
Upvote 0

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,527
Jersey
✟778,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I find it a bit odd to take 1% of the population and argue that their condition is the actual human nature.
It is. It's literally the (evolutionary) nature of human social structure that I'm referring to. Why on Earth would that be ingrained in us? What do you mean 1%? In probably 99% of the ancient world innate human ruling structures had the impulse that if the king wanted to rape your wife that's the way it is, he's the king. The fact that humans innately honor that structure is crazy, and it does not benefit us.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
No, it isn´t. :D
It's literally the (evolutionary) nature of human social structure that I'm referring to.
It seems like you are missing that evolution is a process. "Evolutionary nature" (as a static diagnosis) is a bit of an oxymoron.
Why on Earth would that be ingrained in us?
Probably because at some point it was a succesful survival strategy.
What do you mean 1%?
Sociopaths - the very criteria you brought up.
In probably 99% of the ancient world innate human ruling structures had the impulse that if the king wanted to rape your wife that's the way it is, he's the king. The fact that humans innately honor that structure is crazy, and it does not benefit us.
Not sure why you would pick one past point in time of evolution and determine that what we observe there is the true human nature.

To me it looks more like humans are on their way to leave authoritarean thinking behind - and, ironically, on this way this authoritarean God you argue for is losing ground.[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,527
Jersey
✟778,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Probably because at some point it was a succesful survival strategy.
But this sounds like speculation for an imaginary prior human timeframe, to get out of the problem.

The fact that sociopaths are 1% actually stresses what I'm saying. I was responding to a 2 part claim. The claim was that 'History' tells us that the human species were given 'Feelings' that make humans feel like it's right to make moves that benefit humans.

So the problem I have is that 'History' proves that humans gravitate towards the 'Feeling' that domination by a dictatorship is the correct move, and this feeling has been absolutely disastrous for humans time & time again. Humans do not have innate feelings towards a checks & balance form of leadership being the propper move. We actually had to scratch & claw away from that innate feeling to start reaching things like Athens, Roman Republic...then we really fell back under...then we had Magna Carta, etc.

Nearly all of the human species is at the mercy of being under the umbrella that they are under, the governing authority. This was nearly 100% of the social fabric of the human species. So I wasn't referring to the percentage of sociopaths, I was referring to the percentage of humans who fall under the social structure of governments.
Not sure why you would pick one past point in time of evolution and determine that what we observe there is the true human nature.
That's our data though that's all we have to work with (as far as clues to instinctual social structure tendencies go). We have no clue if 100,000 years ago the impulse to be dominated by a king was just the impulse to be dominated by the local tribal ruler.

But I'm leery of getting too fancy with wild theories of hunter & gatherer humans being drastically different because basically humans are complete wimps in the wild. We're weak, we don't have claws, we're slow, etc. We need our human creative intelligence to be able to overcome our weakness. That's why I think there's a limit to how different we could have been. We pretty much have the identical special circumstances going on (as long as we were homo sapiens), so I would figure that social stucture can't drift TOO far away.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
But this sounds like speculation for an imaginary prior human timeframe, to get out of the problem.

The fact that sociopaths are 1% actually stresses what I'm saying. I was responding to a 2 part claim. The claim was that 'History' tells us that the human species were given 'Feelings' that make humans feel like it's right to make moves that benefit humans.

So the problem I have is that 'History' proves that humans gravitate towards the 'Feeling' that domination by a dictatorship is the correct move, and this feeling has been absolutely disastrous for humans time & time again. Humans do not have innate feelings towards a checks & balance form of leadership being the propper move. We actually had to scratch & claw away from that innate feeling to start reaching things like Athens, Roman Republic...then we really fell back under...then we had Magna Carta, etc.

Nearly all of the human species is at the mercy of being under the umbrella that they are under, the governing authority. This was nearly 100% of the social fabric of the human species. So I wasn't referring to the percentage of sociopaths, I was referring to the percentage of humans who fall under the social structure of governments.

That's our data though that's all we have to work with (as far as clues to instinctual social structure tendencies go). We have no clue if 100,000 years ago the impulse to be dominated by a king was just the impulse to be dominated by the local tribal ruler.

But I'm leery of getting too fancy with wild theories of hunter & gatherer humans being drastically different because basically humans are complete wimps in the wild. We're weak, we don't have claws, we're slow, etc. We need our human creative intelligence to be able to overcome our weakness. That's why I think there's a limit to how different we could have been. We pretty much have the identical special circumstances going on (as long as we were homo sapiens), so I would figure that social stucture can't drift TOO far away.
Well, it has drifted away.
So, even though we carry evolutionary heritages from the past with us, evolution has brought us where we are now. That´s our current nature. The human brain is a pretty complex thing, and reducing it to some leftovers from the past and claiming that this is or should be our nature, strikes me as absurd.
The presence indicates that humans currently gravitate to emancipation, individualism and cooperation rather than authoritareanism, dictatorship and sociopathy.
 
Upvote 0

Everybodyknows

The good guys lost
Dec 19, 2016
796
763
Australia
✟45,191.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You make an interesting point but I find you make some rather faulty assumptions. I'll address those first.

But what 'Feels Right' hasn't defaulted to benefiting human society.
No. Our feelings of right are based on benefits.

Human society's top level of structure is government. Humans seem to have an evolutionary 'Feeling' that says "Gain control of authority and oppress." According to history!! I see evolutionary human feelings as benefiting sociopaths in the grand structures of human societies, not as benefiting the little guy.
Assumption: all government is controlling and oppressive.

Don't you think there might be some benefits from having authority structures in place? Justice, welfare and law enforcement might be a few. Are you saying that anarchy is a more beneficial system?

Evolutionary feelings of other species don't seem to naturally lean towards dictatorship rule by an insane few (or even 1), in order to dominate the insane majority of their own species.
Nor do humans.

That to me presents a problem. Our evolutionary feelings naturally lean towards a king being absolute ruler over an entire country, just because of his last name. That is evolutionary madness for the benefit of our species.
I don't know anyone who wants a king to be an absolute ruler over the country.

Humans actually had to fight tooth & nail AGAINST our evolutionary feelings towards oppressive domination to our own species...in order to reach things like the US Constitution. And look at us now, those innate feelings that always sends the sociopaths to the top of the ruling class, they still dominate, it's still all lying sociopaths ruling us to our detriment. The sociopaths just have to be more careful today, they have to LOOK like they care about the little people more than their own selfish greed. That is our nature. How was that nature placed into us for the good of us?
Sometimes sociopaths make it to the top, but not all rulers are sociopaths. I think you'll find governments that bring benefits to the majority will typically have greater longevity that oppressive regimes. And I don't know where you are getting the idea of evolutionary tendencies toward oppressive domination. I've never met anyone who has said "gee, I wish this government would be a little more oppressive". How do you know it's not an evolutionary tendency to move away from authoritarian power structures towards more collaborative ones?
 
Upvote 0

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,527
Jersey
✟778,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The presence indicates that humans currently gravitate to emancipation, individualism and cooperation rather than authoritareanism, dictatorship and sociopathy.
I do believe that I caught your sleight of hand here! This new evolutionary gravitational pull that you speak of towards emancipation, individualism, and cooperation...this is one VERY FAST evolutionary change we have here!! In the previous posts I told you that I have a problem with a trait that humans have because it hurts us. Your reply was that I need to allow for a very long time (into the past) to have the change be in line with the rate at which evolutionary change takes place. But here you are arguing for evolutionary changes to take place way too fast (according to your own rules for the time needed for evolutionary change).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
I do believe that I caught your sleight of hand here! This new evolutionary gravitational pull that you speak of towards emancipation, individualism, and cooperation...this is one VERY FAST evolutionary change we have here!!
In the previous posts I told you that I have a problem with a trait that humans have because it hurts us. Your reply was that I need to allow for a very long time (into the past) to have the change be in line with the rate at which evolutionary change takes place.
Err, no. You must confuse me with someone else.
But here you are arguing for evolutionary changes to take place way too fast (according to your own rules for the time needed for evolutionary change).
No wait, it was you who brought up evolution, not me.
I am merely pointing out that humans have a lot of traits, capacities, faculties, brain parts and -functions - and they all are part of human nature (and, if you want to look at it from an evolutionary pov, brought to us by evolution).

If you personally feel an overwhelming urge towards authoritarianism and dictatorship etc., ok. But please don´t project it on all of us.
 
Upvote 0

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,527
Jersey
✟778,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Assumption: all government is controlling and oppressive.

Don't you think there might be some benefits from having authority structures in place? Justice, welfare and law enforcement might be a few. Are you saying that anarchy is a more beneficial system?
No these things are great, they benefit humans. What I find strange is that you look at ancient structures and humans are just brilliant when it comes to using analytical logic towards so many problem solving solutions, but that pattern is just gone when choosing leaders, and actually seems like an inner struggle against our own nature to fix/change it.

I would expect our rational side to naturally device structures that fairly set up the systems you mention above. I think it's strange for a tactically brilliant species to default to "Let's hope the aging king's son knows how to actually set up proper law enforcement because this one sucked at it!!" Lol. If anything I find that inconsistency (with ourself) puzzling. I like what you propose, I just think it looks like we have an innate 'Feeling' to throw out our logic in this scenario, and want to be blindly ruled instead (than HOPE that we get lucky that the ruler is a good one).
I don't know anyone who wants a king to be an absolute ruler over the country.
Historically speaking actions speak louder than words. But today it's different, humanity fought to get out of dictatorships. What puzzles me is that pulling out of dictatorship type rule was the 'Radical Innovative' step for humanity. It would make more sense to me if setting up a dictatorship was instead the radical and innovative move (possibly like a 'Trick' that was played by a power hungry person or group).

Sometimes sociopaths make it to the top, but not all rulers are sociopaths.
You are right, but they do say that sociopaths have a natural thirst for power. I think a great example of what your saying is the string of 5 great Emperors of Rome. But then you would have a Caligula or Nero. Then even when you lucked out with a good leader there were sociopaths plotting to take him down lol.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
With these words are not you also defining anything?
Err... no, I don't?

You are confounding Authority X Power.
Err... no, I don't? Quite the opposite. When I tell you to do or not do something, and expect to be obeyed, I do that from authority. When I can make you to do or not do something, I do that from power.
The Christian God expects to be obeyed, but doesn't enforce his commands. Obviously we are talking about authority here.

The true Christianity is a much more than a powerful moral system. Between what God says about morality and you say, hum.... nevermind.
Oh, Christianity is more than a moral system. I should have phrased it a little differently: The christian moral system is purely authoritarian. You cannot deny that.

There is only One God, the Most High and Almighty God. Thus, after the true Christian has known God, or rather he is known of God, he walks with God and does and obey what God has said by His powerful Word. There is not, in whole Universe, word more powerful than the Word of God. Who knows Him has power to speak as He speaks. God is God of the gods.
And humans are humans. Fallible, in the best case. Deceitful, at worst.
You said it for yourself: "the true Christian". Who is a true Christian? You can never know. Even in the best case, you can only claim that someone is a false Christian, because they do not conform to your image of what a true Christian should be. Even someone who seemingly conforms to your image of a true Christian can fail you tomorrow.
You cannot even be sure about yourself... self delusion is a thing with humans.

That's why I said what I said. It is always humans who interprete what they read, hear, think as "God's word". And all of them claim to "speak as he speaks". And neither of them has any "power". Only a claim of authority.

By the contrary, 100%.
Any system that is build on blind obedience is worse than any possible system that is build on understanding.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No these things are great, they benefit humans. What I find strange is that you look at ancient structures and humans are just brilliant when it comes to using analytical logic towards so many problem solving solutions, but that pattern is just gone when choosing leaders, and actually seems like an inner struggle against our own nature to fix/change it.

I would expect our rational side to naturally device structures that fairly set up the systems you mention above. I think it's strange for a tactically brilliant species to default to "Let's hope the aging king's son knows how to actually set up proper law enforcement because this one sucked at it!!" Lol. If anything I find that inconsistency (with ourself) puzzling. I like what you propose, I just think it looks like we have an innate 'Feeling' to throw out our logic in this scenario, and want to be blindly ruled instead (than HOPE that we get lucky that the ruler is a good one).

Historically speaking actions speak louder than words. But today it's different, humanity fought to get out of dictatorships. What puzzles me is that pulling out of dictatorship type rule was the 'Radical Innovative' step for humanity. It would make more sense to me if setting up a dictatorship was instead the radical and innovative move (possibly like a 'Trick' that was played by a power hungry person or group).


You are right, but they do say that sociopaths have a natural thirst for power. I think a great example of what your saying is the string of 5 great Emperors of Rome. But then you would have a Caligula or Nero. Then even when you lucked out with a good leader there were sociopaths plotting to take him down lol.

IMO there's a couple of situations which bring about dictatorships in the modern era...and those kind of offer a glimpse of why they came about in the past.

The first is a general sense of willingness to trade freedom for order. If you live in a fairly lawless place where people are constantly being victimized and there's a general lack of security...those people will often trade their freedoms for the order created by a dictatorship.

The second really is when an already established nation is facing a crisis which it cannot afford to react to slowly or at least the illusion of a crisis is maintained. Again, people will trade freedoms and participation in the process of politics for a dictatorship.

When you're talking about much older times however, you're simply talking about those figures capable of mobilizing large numbers of people towards violent ends. It's not so much that the average person gravitates towards such a person...but they lack any practical ability to resist them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums