What is evil? (2 Viewers)

[Scientician 0.8]

 

[snakybus]

How serious have you been before?

Are you suggesting I'm a messer, egg? I'm no messer. I'm a very serious guy. I wear corduroy!

 

[snakybus]

Is this a serious question, snaky?

My ma and my father-in-law think there's some kind of "force" of evil that exists independently of people. Mad

There's some interesting stuff on cross-cultural convergence on "kind" and "mean" in The God Delusion. For real - you should check it out. It suggests that basic ideas of right and wrong are hard-wired (via evolution rather than god obviously) rather than socially constructed

So yeah - kind of like ideas of music, art, logic, etc are sort of hardwired? By that reasoning, do these things also not exist--or....what does that even mean? Does music as a "force" exist independently of people's brains? And does this matter? Does it matter simply in terms of the significance it has on people's lives, and regardless of the fact that it's simply a social construction, an abstract thing, does it not have a significance that is greater than (an individual's experience) X (the number of individuals it reaches), by virtue of the fact that it's a shared experience? And, though there's no doubt that, say, a concrete block exists, and exists independently of people, is it not the case that the experience of concrete-blockness is less significant than, the experience of, say, Townes-Van-Zandtness (as an example of music) and as such there's a greater argument for the existence of Townes-Van-Zandtness than concrete-blockness? Extrapolating from this, is it not the case that experiences of "goodness" and "evilness" are the most significant experiences in our lives--or at least are for most people?

So many questions.

 

[egg_]

Does music as a "force" exist independently of people's brains? And does this matter?

No and no

Does "colour" exist independently of eyes and brains that can perceive it? Of course not. Obviously there are different wavelengths of visible light, but what we think of "colour" refers to a perception that's a result of interactions of different visible light wavelengths with our light sensing and sensory processing equipment

You can't even say a rock exists independently of organisms that can perceive it as an object. If there was no life (as we know it) in the universe it wouldn't be a rock, it'd be just a big bunch of protons, neutrons and electrons, similar to all the other protons, neutrons and electrons knocking about

That's not to say that we need to exist for the universe to exist - the universe is the real thing and the model of "reality" that we use to interact with it (that contains things like "evil" and "music" and "rocks") is an illusion. But that doesn't mean it doesn't matter, because our selves are illusions too (as is the concept of something "mattering")

The above opinions are of the author only, and should not be construed as necessarily containing any real insight into What's What

 

[the strange guy]

Music, art and logic are frameworks of creativity that can result
in either tangible objects or a new understanding of things.

Evil is a concept that can be explained away through brute
survivalism, mental instability or an otherwise inability to
empathise with the 'evil-doer'.

Where humans do not exist, evil cannot exist; 'evilness' requires
a human to recognise it- it does not exist outside our minds unlike music and art.

'Goodness' and 'evilness' don't exist any more than 'soundness'
or 'prickness', they're just frameworks to explain your subjective
experience of a scenario.

 

[egg_]

Where humans do not exist, evil cannot exist; 'evilness' requires a human to recognise it - it does not exist outside our minds unlike music and art.

Unlike music and art? Don't think so dude. Did music and art exist before life evolved?

Logic, now, that does seem to have some kind of existence outside our minds - I'd say it's an intrusion of some of the substance of actual reality into our minds

 

[the strange guy]

I meant art and music can exist outside our minds; paintings and
sculptures exist as does vibrating air.
You can't package evilness.

 

[Reets]

I meant art and music can exist outside our minds; paintings and
sculptures exist as does vibrating air.
You can't package evilness.

its meaning that seperates noise from music. without humans there is no music or art.

 

[the strange guy]

Yeh, art and music can't be appreciated without people around but
they can still exist. A book is still a book even if nobody is around
to read it. Art and music must exist in some physical form, even if
it is just letters scratched in the dirt or magnetic polarisations on
a USB stick. Evil has no physical form; it's a concept that can never
be incarnated so it cannot exist.

The concept of evilness is that there is some form of energy that
possesses people, animals and the earth that is there specifically
to fuck you up.

It requires inanimate objects (like a dark forest) to have the
intention to act the bollocks. 'If I can just arch my branches in a
way that can be interpreted like a human's bony arm then maybe
my secrets will never be found. MWAHAHAHAHAHA!'

It also requires animals (like sharks) to have a full understanding
of its actions. ' If I eat this delicious toddler, its mother will be
very upset. Fuck the two of them, I'm hungry.' Their survival can
be interpreted as cold and evil but nobody can seriously argue that
because they 'don't care' that they are evil.

And it needs people (like serial killers) to be fully sane, intelligent and
be capable to comprehend the results of their actions. Modern
medicine and cognitive science has pretty much disproved that - there's
always something wrong with their brain chemistry or their own form of
logic is unique but these have nothing to do with being 'evil'.

 

[righteous harmony]

You can't package evilness.

try telling danzig that!

 

[snakybus]

Yeh, art and music can't be appreciated without people around but
they can still exist. A book is still a book even if nobody is around
to read it.

The concept of evilness is that there is some form of energy that
possesses people, animals and the earth that is there specifically
to fuck you up.

It requires inanimate objects (like a dark forest) to have the
intention to act the bollocks.

It also requires animals (like sharks) to have a full understanding
of its actions. ' If I eat this delicious toddler, its mother will be
very upset. Fuck the two of them, I'm hungry.'

And it needs people (like serial killers) to be fully sane and intelligent
with an insatiable desire to hurt everyone and everything. Modern
medicine and cognitive science has pretty much disproved that - there's
always something wrong with their brain chemistry and nothing to do
with being 'evil'.

Medicine and cognitive science have something to say about brain chemistry, no doubt. But mental illness or the lack thereof is a different thing to what we might popularly perceive as "good and evil". The invasion of Iraq by the US, for example, might be perceived as, say, a "very bad thing", or even an "evil thing". Not a "mental" or "psychopathic", or even "misguided" thing, because it's justified and supported by sane people, and it was very much guided. Is there any other way of defining it?

Take nature: The brutal attack of a chimpanzee on another, and the pleasure taken in this, is regarded as an act of nature, pure and brutal--and neither good nor evil.

You could say "what's the difference?" That is the attitude of the neocons: "We are a warlike people", i.e., we may as well accept it, that's nature. I'm sure you'd agree that this is an unacceptable attitude. And if this is the case, if there's an explanation or a motivation beyond nature, what is it? As long as you have an opinion about the actions of another individual, such as George Bush, an approval or a disapproval, isn't this a moral choice? Isn't this choosing between good and evil?

 

[the strange guy]

Medicine and cognitive science have something to say about brain chemistry, no doubt. But mental illness or the lack thereof is a different thing to what we might popularly perceive as "good and evil". The invasion of Iraq by the US, for example, might be perceived as, say, a "very bad thing", or even an "evil thing". Not a "mental" or "psychopathic", or even "misguided" thing, because it's justified and supported by sane people, and it was very much guided. Is there any other way of defining it?

I definitely wouldn't say that the Iraq war was evil.
There have been wars over resources since the beginning
of humanity, survivalism is hard wired into us and these
wars are an emerging property of that instinct.
For a democracy to go to war there needs to be a public
consensus (or at least enough consensus to not warrant
an overthrow of the government), so there were plenty of
lies (or genuine mistakes) over going to Iraq. Dishonesty,
short-sightedness, bullying, but not evil.

You could say "what's the difference?" That is the attitude of the neocons: "We are a warlike people", i.e., we may as well accept it, that's nature. I'm sure you'd agree that this is an unacceptable attitude. And if this is the case, if there's an explanation or a motivation beyond nature, what is it? As long as you have an opinion about the actions of another individual, such as George Bush, an approval or a disapproval, isn't this a moral choice? Isn't this choosing between good and evil?

Bush did what he thought would maintain the USA's standing
in the world as political, economic and military leaders.
There's a logic to that war and to all wars, regardless of how
distasteful they are.

Morals are gut feelings, instinctual and hardwired. 'Good'
morals transcend time and cultures as they are by and
large the same; they are the basis of all religions. But to
go against them doesn't mean you are evil. Independent
thought and acting the bollocks are necessary for humanity!

 

[Shorty]

We don't understand music, it understands us. - Adorno

Anyway,

And evolutionary psychology, pwah pwah.

 

[the strange guy]

Anarchists and their namedropping of books and authors!
It drives me mad! MAD!

 

[Shorty]

Nah, I'm going to contribute.
I could have just left the quote without the attribution, you'd have been none the wiser. Plagiarisation is punk as fuck right?

 

[the strange guy]

Plagiarisation is punk as fuck right?

D-Beat isn't plagiarism - it's a style of drumming, dude.

 

[snakybus]

Bush did what he thought would maintain the USA's standing
in the world as political, economic and military leaders.
There's a logic to that war and to all wars, regardless of how distasteful they are.

Yes, of course--so what you're saying is that, effectively, (and from a purely scientific standpoint) war is logically justifiable, understandable in some way, sensible in the long run for people--if and when they are the victors; something to be expected, a by-product of circumstance and people's basic need for increased comfort and sustenance; a result of our animal instincts; a means to an end.

I can't disagree. If I were an anthropologist, looking at humans as a separate species, standing outside the moral framework, as it were, to which we all cling in some way, I would say 100%, yes, I agree. But I'm not, and I don't.

And you would have to say that it's more than just distasteful. The film "Elizabethtown" is distasteful. Warts are distasteful. Some tuna I had the other day was distasteful.

Morals are gut feelings, instinctual and hardwired.

People use this term "hardwired" a lot, as some kind of comfort, either for justifying something heinous they've done or for providing an explanation for the various quirks of human behaviour: "Oh, it's hardwired in our genes, it's hardwired in our brain cells". It's as if we take some comfort in the fact that it can all be explained, somehow, and all will be explained. That there's no mystery, just a puzzle that's waiting to be solved by science. And here's what I think: until the puzzle is solved, it's a mystery. But...okay, if that makes you feel better, then yes, there are no mysteries, and we're all just cyborgs who have these moral chips that help us to all get along. Fair enough.

But my point is: what does it matter, if it's hardwired in our brains? (And anyway, where the hell else would it be hardwired?) My point is that this is a very profound thing , regardless. My computer here has the folder "Windows" hardwired (I guess, I'm no computer guy) into its folder structure. Does this mean it doesn't exist, or isn't meaningful? And if I deleted it, would it not have a profound and devastating effect on the functioning, ability, and identity of the computer?

But to
go against them doesn't mean you are evil. Independent
thought and acting the bollocks are necessary for humanity!

You mean "fucking shit up"? I agree. I would argue that morality is at the root of this, though--i.e., "fucking shit up for the right reasons". Being destructive for the sake of creating a better world is a positive thing. And people mostly don't do it consciously, which I find very interesting.

 

[the strange guy]

And you would have to say that it's more than just distasteful. The film "Elizabethtown" is distasteful. Warts are distasteful. Some tuna I had the other day was distasteful.

Have you tasted war? Have you walked onto a battlefield,
kneeled down, slipped off your leather glove, dabbed a
finger into that scorched dust and truly tasted it?
Believe me, once you let that metallic, greasy, gritty
flavour roll around your tongue, you'll know what I mean.
!ninjaaaa

People use this term "hardwired" a lot, as some kind of comfort, either for justifying something heinous they've done or for providing an explanation for the various quirks of human behaviour: "Oh, it's hardwired in our genes, it's hardwired in our brain cells". It's as if we take some comfort in the fact that it can all be explained, somehow, and all will be explained. That there's no mystery, just a puzzle that's waiting to be solved by science. And here's what I think: until the puzzle is solved, it's a mystery. But...okay, if that makes you feel better, then yes, there are no mysteries, and we're all just cyborgs who have these moral chips that help us to all get along. Fair enough.

Maybe innate is a better word, because the electric circuitry
analogy of a behaviour being 'hardwired' can be taken too far.

You mean "fucking shit up"? I agree. I would argue that morality is at the root of this, though--i.e., "fucking shit up for the right reasons". Being destructive for the sake of creating a better world is a positive thing. And people mostly don't do it consciously, which I find very interesting.

Kinda going off topic but staying with your point, I'm convinced
that Bush, the neocons and the Iraq War will have saved
the earth in the long run, although it wasn't their intention.
It took a prick of mammoth proportions to make everyone
realise that aggressive harvesting and mindless consumption
of natural resources is unsustainable. Were it not for Bush
becoming president and no Iraq War the current boom in
research and development of alternative energy supplies
may not have happened for decades.
This 'evil' war probably ensured the survival of the earth.

 

[snakybus]

haha George Bush: punk rocker

We'll see, I suppose!

 

[MDR]

This is evil

http://www.independent.ie/national-...r-act-of-extreme-cruelty-1481464.html?start=1