Not rly, but they are greedy and greed leads to evil so in a way they sorta are but yet sorta not.
Are humans inherently evil?
- Thread starter number4096
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There is no such thing as evil. It all depends on a persons' point of view.
Hitler was evil to the Jewish, but to Germans, he was essentially a hero.
Hitler was evil to the Jewish, but to Germans, he was essentially a hero.
Being somewhat of a misanthrope myself, I don't believe humans are inherently evil, they are indifferent and awful.
Robert E. Howard said that 'barbarism was the natural state of humanity' and civilization was a thin, gossamer veil. Killing in videogames is generally just trying to survive against enemies, as is barbarism.
Also, when somebody is murdered on the news, being a cold bastard, I don't particularly care. People die anyway. We're dying as soon as we are concieved. It's simply speeding up an inevitable process.
Robert E. Howard said that 'barbarism was the natural state of humanity' and civilization was a thin, gossamer veil. Killing in videogames is generally just trying to survive against enemies, as is barbarism.
Also, when somebody is murdered on the news, being a cold bastard, I don't particularly care. People die anyway. We're dying as soon as we are concieved. It's simply speeding up an inevitable process.
See the problem is that regardless of whether humans are inherently good or evil, what I know they are is naturally selfish. So is there was no sense of morality and no consequence for evil actions, we probably would all act evil. This is because, at that point, the only thing we would know is that we need this, we want that. With no reason to restrain ourselves, if someone has something we want, we could take it.
It is, essentially, a society governed solely by logic, with no emotion or morality involved. And, in this case, the only logic is personal survival.
It would be chaos.
It is, essentially, a society governed solely by logic, with no emotion or morality involved. And, in this case, the only logic is personal survival.
It would be chaos.
From zetatalk:
Carnivores kill to live, and the instincts that allow true carnivores to survive include the killer instinct. This is more than lack of empathy for the prey, it is joy in the hunt. The thrashing agony of a dying gazelle in the mouth of a lion touches not the heart of the lion, who is focused on his hunger and what is known as the thrill of the hunt. Without this thrill, carnivores would be less likely to survive, as the fatigue that comes from relentless hunting trips, most often unsuccessful, would overcome hunger. Thus, for carnivores, the killer instinct is inborn, natural, and therefore more easily forgiven. Carnivores that hunt to live are unlikely to kill strictly for sport, as when satiated they lie about sunning themselves. However, the killer instinct adds excitement to the long and frustrating hunts, so once up on their feet and hunting, carnivores are motivated to keep going until they come home with the catch.
The killer instinct has often been ascribed to humans, to explain human behavior that most find shocking. Beyond sadism, some humans kill just to run up the numbers, casually, for trifling reasons, and without a backward glance or twinge of remorse. This is romanticized into something called the killer instinct, akin to the noble lion or savage stalking tiger. How else to explain a human who casually kills others? This is akin to suicide, developing a casual attitude toward life because there is a desire for death. Many who want to die lack the courage to enter into the final fray, not so much due to anticipation of the final agony, but fear of living through the attempt, maimed and out of control, unable to finish the job. Casual killers are simply hoping that someone will return the favor, and eventually, someone does.
This pretty much sums up what i was trying to say.
Carnivores kill to live, and the instincts that allow true carnivores to survive include the killer instinct. This is more than lack of empathy for the prey, it is joy in the hunt. The thrashing agony of a dying gazelle in the mouth of a lion touches not the heart of the lion, who is focused on his hunger and what is known as the thrill of the hunt. Without this thrill, carnivores would be less likely to survive, as the fatigue that comes from relentless hunting trips, most often unsuccessful, would overcome hunger. Thus, for carnivores, the killer instinct is inborn, natural, and therefore more easily forgiven. Carnivores that hunt to live are unlikely to kill strictly for sport, as when satiated they lie about sunning themselves. However, the killer instinct adds excitement to the long and frustrating hunts, so once up on their feet and hunting, carnivores are motivated to keep going until they come home with the catch.
The killer instinct has often been ascribed to humans, to explain human behavior that most find shocking. Beyond sadism, some humans kill just to run up the numbers, casually, for trifling reasons, and without a backward glance or twinge of remorse. This is romanticized into something called the killer instinct, akin to the noble lion or savage stalking tiger. How else to explain a human who casually kills others? This is akin to suicide, developing a casual attitude toward life because there is a desire for death. Many who want to die lack the courage to enter into the final fray, not so much due to anticipation of the final agony, but fear of living through the attempt, maimed and out of control, unable to finish the job. Casual killers are simply hoping that someone will return the favor, and eventually, someone does.
This pretty much sums up what i was trying to say.
Our fears, restraints, and (especially) survival instincts ARE the core of our nature as life forms (our fears and restraints are mostly specialized extensions of our survival instincts, we learn them to help us not die). Without them we would all be dead, not because we would be evil but because we wouldn't know how to stay alive.
I can't help feeling that the name "survival instincts" should have tipped the TC off as to what they were for.
For example, without your fears and instincts you wouldn't know not to jump off a cliff or shoot yourself in the head or get in a fist fight with a bear.
I can't help feeling that the name "survival instincts" should have tipped the TC off as to what they were for.
For example, without your fears and instincts you wouldn't know not to jump off a cliff or shoot yourself in the head or get in a fist fight with a bear.
Drunkards and people on the internet lose their personal restraints but keep their fears.If a dog barks at a drunkard the drunkard will visibly look scared despite being drunk and internet people are extremely defensive of their points of view and are afraid to have them
disproven.
So the internet,due to that,is not as good an example as one could think.
disproven.
So the internet,due to that,is not as good an example as one could think.
I FOUND YOU! [sub]the thread i mean[/sub]
here is my evidence that men suck
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/810558-rapist-13-locked-up-for-three-years
here is my evidence that men suck
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/810558-rapist-13-locked-up-for-three-years
Nope.
We aren't inherently good.
We aren't blank slates either.
We are one part emotional, one part rational, and one part result of our cultural training.
(Plus any extraneous genetic bits we have dragged out of the primordial soup.)
We aren't inherently good.
We aren't blank slates either.
We are one part emotional, one part rational, and one part result of our cultural training.
(Plus any extraneous genetic bits we have dragged out of the primordial soup.)
