Are Humans Stupid or Evil?

[Jackson - Deathclaw]

i think we are neither smart nor stupid
while individuals are capable of ranging from the the bottom of the idiotic trench to the heights intelligence, people as a whole can be surprisingly stupid (swine flu beatup)

and we are also capable of being evil, even though good and evil are just words, the subjective manner of these terms make it impossible to truly say if we are either of these things

 

[Razorback0z]

On the contrary I think this is perfectly part of the thread.

The origin of the notions of good and evil are very much part of this topic.

I think it is confusing to say the least to equate Dawkins statements on how genes can affect behaviours in ways that could be construde as morality, with concepts like good and evil.

Good and Evil are labels humans have used to describe a perspective issue. Nothing more.

If your country is invaded, the invaders are "evil" the defenders are "good". Except if the country you are invading can be presented to your populace as "evil" (or better yet an axis of evil) then you can be an invader and be good all at the same time. Except to the people you are invading, who see you as evil.

Intelligent people recognise this for the pure cynical deception of the populace that it is. Ignorant people confuse it with notions like Patriotism and Nationalism, which themselves are concepts borne of pure ignorance but thats another story.

Genetic morality,.........good and evil........... not even loosly related in any other conceptual environment other than descriptive language.

Fair enough, I'm just cautious of the near inevitable flamewar as soon as religion or evolution is mentioned.
I think we first need to define good and evil. Are good and evil what is acceptable and what is not or have they some higher connetations? Personally I think that it is the later but for the moment let's go for the former. What is acceptable is based on two things, knowledge and predisposition (i.e. evolutionary morality).
Taking your invasion example, the informed will know the real reason behind the invasion and who is the aggressor. However they will still have a casus belli, however weak or faked because they, or rather the population, know instinctively that unwarranted aggression is wrong, something that has been breed into social creatures. Thus an excuse, however weak provided it's not discredited, allows us to act without pangs of conscience because this rule is over-ridden by the others percieved aggression (i.e. knowledge over-rules predispotition in this case).

/agreed

And I know what you mean about the flamewar.

I think the point I am making is that if you understand the concept that we are vehicles for our DNA and that only a fraction of our concious thought is anything more than chemical triggers firing off.... then it really leaves little room for the concepts of good and evil. But I see you already get that.

So to me what has occured is ,that we have found convenient, perspective based labels for the inherent genetic triggers you and I are calling genetic morality.

For example, lions will generally allow an older non hunting pride member to remain with the pride and share the kill, even though there is no obvious gain for the pride (in some cases). Are the lions being good ? Would they be evil if they chased the old feeble pride member away when they outlive their hunting ability ? Or are we somewhat ignorant to the complex interactions in the pride that render the older lion still of genetic use to the pride ?

Who knows.... but one thing is for sure. People were living in communal situation long before they were able to espouse, conceptualise or communicate thier understanding of good or evil. At the same time they were probably killing each other too. Whether it was in greater or lesser numbers (ratio speaking) than today... again, I havnt read that widely.

I almost regard labels like good an evil in this modern age as lazy. Lazy in terms of the way they highlight our inability to rationalise the acts we commit in any way other than to paint a picture of demons or angels to parabalise it.

We really havnt come very far.

 

[Malkavian]

Certainly not evil. Evil is a meanigless term, defined by whatever set of morals that just so happens to exist in any given place.

Taking your invasion example, the informed will know the real reason behind the invasion and who is the aggressor. However they will still have a casus belli, however weak or faked because they, or rather the population, know instinctively that unwarranted aggression is wrong, something that has been breed into social creatures. Thus an excuse, however weak provided it's not discredited, allows us to act without pangs of conscience because this rule is over-ridden by the others percieved aggression (i.e. knowledge over-rules predispotition in this case).

Hardly. As I said above, evil is merely a matter of whatever system of morals is in place.
Take the colonisations, for instance. Even the informed thought that invading these undeveloped countries was the good thing. To them, they were bringing civilization to those that were uncivilized. It was the accepted belief that the white man was superior, and that he must learn the savage how to live civilized. Today, any such behaviour would be considered terrible and evil. Except if you exchange civilization with democracy. Then suddenly, we're all crazy happy about it again. Then fast forward a century. I'd wager aggresive export of democracy will be a terrible thing of the past.
Look throughout history. There's countless examples of behaviour we today think was "evil". Burning of witches, genocide, conquests, torture, etc.
Morals change, and as they do, so does the range of things that are evil.

We do have certain dispositions towards certain things, that comes from our very being, our DNA. Concepts of right and wrong that we were born with. But these are easily greyed out or overruled by local moral.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Stupid enough to create and believe in the concept of evil.
Just ignorant and selfish.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

This thread poses an excellent question good sir. Reading the title I thought you were just talking about humanity in general, instead of humanity assuming the role of leaders of the Earth. But, sticking to humanity in general, the answer, at least for the majority of humanity, is they are stupid. Perhaps I do not see much, but so far, the only community I have ever been in where the intelligent out-number the stupid would have to be this one.

Everywhere else you go there is an abundance of jokes about mothers, an absence of witty repartee, atrocious crimes committed against the English language, and fanatical fanboyism. It saddens me to see so many unreasonable and unreceptive people still exist.

 

[PyroZombie]

If you want me to answer with any swivel of hope for the human race, I'll preach the middle. Both evil and stupid, and some within the same people.

 

[Shock and Awe]

I would say it would be closer to Ignorant and Selfish

 

[Vern]

Stupid and evil are ideas developed by humans, so are intelligent and caring. These concepts wouldn't exist without humans, and without human displaying both ends of the spectrum between bad and good. Humans can be stupid, evil, intelligent, caring, loving, hate-filled, apathetic, anywhere in between. I don't really think that humans can be evil; malicious and vengeful certainly, but I'm not quite convinced on the 'evil' part. Even Hitler or Stalin I wouldn't call evil, they were malicious, violent, and mentally unstable. But not evil. Evil seems to connotate a being who was simply born to create death and destruction and nothing else. They all had families that loved them, they just had extreme convictions coupled with mental disorders and illusions of grandeur that led them to attain power at any cost. At the very least, they were perverted geniuses.
I wouldn't call humans stupid, so much as I would call them ignorant. And being ignorant is more damaging than any amount of retardation. Not knowing that the man who filmed John Fitzgerald Kennedy's assassination was named Zapruder, or knowing that Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon, or that the assassintion of Franz Ferdinand by Gavrilo Princip was the major catalyst for WWI, or that Louis Pasteur created Pasteurization, or that Magellan circumnavigated the globe is an issue. Hell, not knowing who Mao Zedong or Vladmir Lenin, or Ho Chi Min is sad, but it's increasingly common. Ignorance is killing the human race, not remembering the past, or at the very least knowing what the past is and acknowledging it. Humans are by no means stupid, we have the greatest capacity for knowledge and application of any species. Our evil is only relative to what people think is evil, and we can do terrible things, but the people usually only gain the position to commit these crimes because people forget the past.

 

[akIceman]

Three imutable laws of human nature, as said by Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) : "Selfishness, horniness, and stupidity." I think that most people have some weakness in all three of said areas, it is just the degree of those errors that varies from person to person.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Given the only thing we have to go on is our own conscience, we'll say we are stupid and evil, but generally we're just confused.

Think about it: Who would honestly go out to do something stupid and/or evil without having a reason for it?

And if there's a reason, it's not stupid - and to you, it's never really evil.

Humanity is just far too hard on itself at times.

 

[The Sage Gr33n]

I don't find humans stupid or evil. We're just like other animals, just with brillant brain. If any other specie had our brain power, they would probroly be doing the same exact thing. And like animals our rivalry agaisnt the same specie is nearly the same. A little extreme yes but if any other specie could drop bombs, they would probroly do it too. Lets say you have a pet dog and that dog has its toys and its pet bed. If you bring in another dog the original dog will defend its things first with a threat bark and if the opposing dog comes any closer to the bed, they will begin fighting claw and tooth. Now put humans in the same situation. A man has his house and his things and if another human comes in and tries to steal it, a threat would be said(usually) and then fighting would start up, probroly with guns. And if a dog could use a gun, would'nt it use it?

The thing is, all animals would do the same thing if they had the same brain as us. We are not stupid, but not really evil. The best thing to call us mentioned by a couple people before me would be selfish. And if we're selfish, so is every other living organism on the planet. Everything every organism does is based off its instinct. And our brain can hinder our instinct if we notice it. But we don't. And even if you tried to think everything you do through, opposing your instincts, odds are the other person is not and your going to be used,ass kicked,etc. You could really call every organism the same thing cause give that organism everything you had gotten, brain, life experiences, their going to do the same exact thing.

People don't realize this and end up calling humans, evil, stupid, heartless, ignorant while they call other creatures innocent, good while give them what you had, they wouldn't be any less evil, stupid, heartless, or ignorant as you.

Of course some things can override this but I cant think of any(its nearly 4 am where im at)But think about it hard, drag and drop situations and, 85% of the time you will get the same solution as i have here=

Every organism would do the same thing in the same situation if they had recieved everything(and i mean everything) the compared organism had recieved. The only thing that makes sure that every organism isn't the same blood-thirsty selfish creature is the brain, situations in life, and DNA makeup and the latter part which i will explain latter(never).

If you have read to the end of this. Congratulations,pat yourself on the back, and you are now my friend(for now).

 

[theklng]

Many people suggest that humans are stupid or evil beings, but are we not vastly more intelligent than any other animal on Earth? Does harming the Earth or other humans make us evil or perhaps just what any other animal in our position would do? Would a carnivore devour a human if it had the chance? Does that make the carnivore evil?

Or perhaps our sense of morality has made us believe that given our position we are, in fact stupid and evil. Acting out against other humans and the Earth out of sheer selfishness, is that not what today's standards considers evil? Or perhaps are standards are nothing more than a sense of morality warped by peers and media?

What do you think? Are humans stupid and evil in their position as rulers of Earth, or are we just acting the way anything else would in our position?

i hope you realize that the concept of morality is man-made. nature didn't conceive the perception that something may be more benevolent or malevolent. nature isn't evil; nature is natural. as a result, carnivores aren't evil, because they occur naturally.

i'm not sure to what extent humans are natural, because that comes dangerously close to questioning where we come from. also, if ignorance is bliss; then stupid people cannot become evil as the lack the raw mind power to turn their backs on their own.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Evil. I'm evil, you're evil, we're all evil. Because what standard do we measure "good" by? Anything you or I do or say is "evil" to somebody. There are no "good people." I hate the phrase "He/She is a good person." Why whose standards? What measurement? What makes a man a "patriot," or a person "good?" These are shifting sands of morality, here. One hundred years ago a "good" white man was racist.

I don't think humanity is stupid, though. Individuals are stupid, humanity as a collective is evil, but hardly unintelligent. I don't want to get all preachy about environmentalism or anything, I'm talking about mankind measuring its own actions by a sliding scale of what's "good" or "bad" dependent on what the folks with the most power have to say at the time.

 

[akIceman]

Stupid and evil are just words.

And no, you can't fucking label a whole group evil or stupid. Especially when it contains multiple cultures and versions of morality or lack of thereof to judge what's evil and what's not and has more then 6 fucking billion members.

And all the neo-enviromentalists (I'd add something more, but don't want to face more probations from someone's overzealous finger despite the intended insults are directed at a stereotype and not an actual person/persons) who think that you can just snap your fingers and "stop harming Earth"... Just bloody think.

There is a whole fucking system that we all rely on as a society. And we have relied on similar systems for centuries before, pretty much since ever considering how we're social animals that tend to live in groups. Sure, you can blow up or close down all the factories and everything that supposedly pollutes or kills off certain species. Then what? It's like breaking a gear in a complex mechanism. Where would you get stuff? How much would people, even self-righteous ones like you, are willing to give up?

Would you give up heating or electricity for all but the basic needs (considering how the process of making electricity is either by burning shit, which pollutes the air, or using hydro and air electricity, both of which methods are for the most part inefficient. Or, of course, good old nuclear energy but then you've gotta think of recycling the radioactive water.

Would you give up your car because the car industry continuously uses up metals and gas? Some might, but a lot of people won't - some people even need one just to get on with their lives/jobs.

And so on.

Fuck, even if 90% of all the population would agree to give up most of their current benefits just for the sake of somehow reforming the whole system to be more eco-friendly, would it be fair to force the other 10% to do it as well? And in reality, a whole lot of people wouldn't agree with that sort of thing. Would you take their property away from them or even send them to concentration camps just for the sake of your ideals? Hell, it's not even likely that anything remotely close would even work, considering how many different countries there are, some clearly waging a political or ideological war between each other.

Don't forget that we still need petroleum products for PLASTIC! I dare anyone to say bio-plastics can replace petro-plastics, because they can't. So the question would be: is it better to lower everyones' standard of living to "save the Earth" by force, or mainatin the standards of living but possibly ruin the environment as a result? Depending on your personal view, one side is "wrong: and the other "right". Thus, what is "stupid" for one opinion is "reasonable" for the other, and what is "evil" for one side is "good" or "acceptable" for the other. This would suggest that "stupid" and "evil" are arbitrary. Kind of like a "midget being a giant among dwarfs."

 

[Mykjartan]

Humans are stupid and that leads them to doing 'evil'.

Morality is loosely based on treating others as you would want others to treat you.

People are too stupid however to oversee the consequences of their actions, especially on a larger scale. A fine example is global warming. Using other power sources would definitely reduce the problem to a managable level but people are too stupid to see that the small prices they pay now save them from a huge shitstorm in the future.

Human impact on the world is too big for our own good, we can't sustain the people living on this planet right now... let alone sustain them 30 years into the future when theres another 4 billion running around all wanting gas for their cars, food on the table and a big TV. The problem could be solved by limiting the number of children to 2 per person (1 kid counting for both parents ofcourse). That way the population will decrease thanks to people who cant have children, are gay, die before they reach maturity or choose to have 1 or no children.

The solution is simple and not that big of a deal but for some reason people have a 'we'll cross that bridge when we come to it' attitude. This is mostly due to two reasons:

- Science is being thought of by some as the ultimate answer to everything given enough time. However there are a limited ammount of resources even science can get hold of so at some point we will have to decrease population because resources are not infinite.

- The second reason is religion, christianity being the one of choice for most people reading these forums. Written 200+ years after the actual events for most of the new testament and having been censored and rewritten by roman emperors, popes and other people who had special interests in controlling the masses for personal gain, these unlikely fairytailings have been wrapping up the minds of people in a state of ignorant bliss telling them that everything will be okay as long as you believe in jesus. Thing is, NOT everything will be okay. Your god most likely does not exist and even if he did he has not shown any signs of willingness to help us out. So we have to fix shit for ourselves.


tl;dr -> people are dumb shits whos sense of morality only reaches as far as their ability to oversee the consequences, wich is staggeringly low.

Wise words in a funny jacket: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw George Carlin on saving the planet.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Name any other animal(or plant) that chooses not to eat something it could. Therefore we're not evil.

Name any other animal(or plant) that chooses to improve ourselves. Therefore we're not stupid.

Seriously, enough with the martyrdom already.

 

[lostclause]

Certainly not evil. Evil is a meanigless term, defined by whatever set of morals that just so happens to exist in any given place.
Quote snip
Hardly. As I said above, evil is merely a matter of whatever system of morals is in place.
Take the colonisations, for instance. Even the informed thought that invading these undeveloped countries was the good thing. To them, they were bringing civilization to those that were uncivilized. It was the accepted belief that the white man was superior, and that he must learn the savage how to live civilized. Today, any such behaviour would be considered terrible and evil. Except if you exchange civilization with democracy. Then suddenly, we're all crazy happy about it again. Then fast forward a century. I'd wager aggresive export of democracy will be a terrible thing of the past.
Look throughout history. There's countless examples of behaviour we today think was "evil". Burning of witches, genocide, conquests, torture, etc.
Morals change, and as they do, so does the range of things that are evil.

We do have certain dispositions towards certain things, that comes from our very being, our DNA. Concepts of right and wrong that we were born with. But these are easily greyed out or overruled by local moral.

I think what you're saying here is morality is relative, and with that I agree to a point. There are both regionally and universally accepted moral codes to which I attribute evolution. This is modified by place and time (such as the oriental attitude to suicide) but many can be at least partially explained by evolution.
The exploitation of colonials is a good example as people are uncomfortable with others outside their own race, in other words we are naturally racist (unless, like with all natural feelings, you become desensitised to it by exposure). This is because we will always try and keep the genetic similarities between us (although there is a slight exception with siblings, that's why most animals prefer their cousins). But I acknowledge this is only part of the reason, the others were to justify exploitation, annexation and slavery. It's questionable whether people came to this belief through their environments or whether it came out of human nature (which as I said is racist) or a combination of the two, and I believe that herein lies our difference of opinion. Not all things are based on natural instincts (such as the earlier mentioned suicides or witch burnings) but many are at least to a degree.