420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
What is even evil? by Molly Fonkinspear - Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:54:17 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.208438 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1506549257864.png -(69205B / 67.58KB, 292x191) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 69205
So there's this discussion I've been having on /b/ about belief, and it naturally evolved to banter about the nature of evil.

So I'm pretty much a relativist, because firstly I think humanity embodies both sides of the dichotomy as a fact of nature i.e. how we're made and how we perceive the world, and secondly because I believe there's no meaning beyond what humans the ones humans apply to the universe.

Yet I do find myself agreeing to being on the "good" side.

Why is this?
>>
Lydia Blizzlewerk - Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:39:52 EST ID:48Cjvl14 No.208439 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Only you can know that, we don't know who you are, have been and will be. Also, you don't know if it's gonna be permanent.
>>
Shit Dottingshit - Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:41:39 EST ID:hAlFpoKZ No.208442 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i dunno man this is a huge fuckin topic with lots of layers and shit. like first you have to establish your frame of reference, what scale we are talking about. are we talking about good and evil at the subatomic level? at the level of our lives? the galactic level? assuming we aren't being pedantic and shit and we are just talking about as it relates to humans, i think the answer is intertwined with "self-actualization", living a life that is meaningful to the individual and contributes to society in some way, promoting as much happiness and contentment as possible. so maybe in a foggy sense we could say "good" is that which promotes the self-actualization of as much of society as possible, while "evil" is that which promotes self-actualization for as few as possible (dictatorships, murder, etc.). im sure you can poke holes in my premise but i think it's a good starter point.

however you can take it to crazy levels, like the plot of ender's game: is it good or evil to trick a young boy into committing genocide of an entire sentient species against his will and knowledge in order to save the human race?

or what if it turns out intergalactic society is thriving and peaceful, and they decide to destroy the earth to prevent our savage, violent ways from threatening the galaxies? is that good or evil?

what about "justice" or "revenge"? if i kill my brother's killer, is that good or evil?

hard to say man
>>
Barnaby Cungerbudge - Fri, 29 Sep 2017 01:18:58 EST ID:XypP1lD0 No.208443 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208438

A truer relativism rejects that there is a dichotomy between a supposed evil and good unless you mean that every action that is good or evil (or perhaps a little good, absolutely evil, etc.) is included in humanity. This would include notions good and evil across individuals, cultures, geography, and time. But we hardly understand every single notion of good and evil in that way.

It is true that there can be no human meaning beyond humanity but this is just a tautology. The way we are as subjects means that we can never have a meaning outside our subjecthood. But simply because we lack access to objective truth does not imply the absence of objective truth, only evidence of it.
>>
Barnaby Cungerbudge - Fri, 29 Sep 2017 01:18:58 EST ID:XypP1lD0 No.208444 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208438

A truer relativism rejects that there is a dichotomy between a supposed evil and good unless you mean that every action that is good or evil (or perhaps a little good, absolutely evil, etc.) is included in humanity. This would include notions good and evil across individuals, cultures, geography, and time. But we hardly understand every single notion of good and evil in that way.

It is true that there can be no human meaning beyond humanity but this is just a tautology. The way we are as subjects means that we can never have a meaning outside our subjecthood. But simply because we lack access to objective truth does not imply the absence of objective truth, only evidence of it.
>>
Martin Crobblesurk - Fri, 29 Sep 2017 17:23:10 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.208446 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1506720190988.jpg -(91908B / 89.75KB, 765x771) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208443

I guess I have to explain myself a bit further. Wasn't that clear in the OP.


I meant that "good" and "evil" are results of the basic way humans view the world, no matter the cultural matrix.

As social animals we have certain instincts which makes us social, such as don't fuck over your neighbor, and I believe the dichotomy of the two sides of typical morality is an abstraction of those instincts.

Perhaps I just answered my own question of why I support the "good" side. Maybe I'm just a well-adjusted guy with the correct general genetics?


My point is that it's fascinating that even without morality, be it Abrahamic divine authoritanism or Shinto animism, all humans finds themselves conforming to the same intersecting definitions of "good"; thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal and so on and so forth.

Why is this? Is it biology?
>>
Hugh Suckledone - Fri, 29 Sep 2017 17:51:06 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208447 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Evil is this concept around social behavior we inherited from our animal roots.

You ever laughed at videos of parrots fighting over peanuts or angry monkeys pissed about another monkey getting more food?

That's the basic form of what evil is. This ancient animal instinct that social animals use to regulate behavior in the group.

This basic animal instinct has over time morphed into a huge fucking concept in human society.
>>
Martin Crobblesurk - Fri, 29 Sep 2017 18:29:31 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.208448 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208447

>angry monkeys pissed about another monkey getting more food?

Not that I don't agree with you, I do, but religious or general dogmatic morality would call this jealousy and thus sin and/or evil.

Do you think such meta-view of unfairness is learned or inherent?
>>
Ebenezer Dellychit - Sat, 30 Sep 2017 14:36:11 EST ID:hAlFpoKZ No.208449 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208448

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/wolves-and-dogs-both-have-sense-fairness-180963638/

>But wolves seem to take inequity much more seriously than dogs
>>
Alice Binningbury - Sat, 30 Sep 2017 17:08:10 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.208450 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1506805690867.jpg -(61416B / 59.98KB, 500x378) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208449

Yeah, no shit jealousy is shared between species, but humans abstract these emotions beyond their natural limits.

Just take socialism, which is essentially about the inherent unfairness of our current order of civilization. Or Christianity declaring that it's fucking hard for rich people to get in heaven. Yet we have Christians having no problem with being rich af and other people being rich af.
>>
Jack Handermut - Mon, 02 Oct 2017 20:13:28 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208451 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208450
That's humans for you.

The universe is so simple.
>let's take this arrangement of atoms, and put it over there!

And then humans had to fuck it up with meaning and shit.
>but WHHYYYYYY am i putting this arrangement of atoms there?
>>
Oliver Billyway - Mon, 02 Oct 2017 21:05:39 EST ID:w9KFVcbk No.208452 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208447
Usually if a monkey gets more food it is the alpha. The alpha gets more privileges but it comes with a price. If the shit goes down, the alpha is expected to fight the rival group of monkeys or eliminate a threat. You can see this in humans. A good leader of a people would lead a charge and stuff like that. In feudalism the ruling class was expected to protect others. But some alpha groups like bankers actually screw over subordinates even. That is why they are hated. The rich or high class people that society generally approves something has either provided something great or protected society in general. Until recently it was almost a requirement for a presidential candidate to be involved in the military. Evil in this sense is power without responsibility.
>>
Polly Chenkinhood - Thu, 12 Oct 2017 16:42:53 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.208461 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1507840973380.jpg -(50399B / 49.22KB, 324x299) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208452

Interestingly there's no true "Alpha's" in nature. Most groups, including apes, are family groups. Parents, kids, uncles, aunts and cousins.

So what the biologists once described as alpha/beta dynamics was actually parents/offspring competition. Most "alphas" are in fact the real father and mother of the pack.

This is exactly the kind of social dynamics you usually see in human tribal societies as well.


>A good leader of a people would lead a charge and stuff like that. In feudalism the ruling class was expected to protect others.

Now feudal societies are far beyond this, being post-tribal dynamics or in other words a developed civilization. At this stage we have a certain group of humans, often family bound(!), having monopoly of force and everything force requires such as production of proper war tools. Feudalism is nothing but a group of people having power enough to extort some other group of people and call it protection from the other families of the land that threaten the local family's rule. In other words mafia rule.
>>
Polly Chenkinhood - Thu, 12 Oct 2017 16:46:47 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.208462 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208461

And to add, feudalism is still family-rule. Pure behavioral biology.


If anything, it's not before our modern civilization that something beyond family rule developed. And even now, we have issues with family dynasties in politics.
>>
Alice Blummerlun - Tue, 17 Oct 2017 01:16:06 EST ID:w9KFVcbk No.208463 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208462
I remember worrying about Bush the third and Clinton the second. But then we have professor chaos or something. nb so unrelated
>>
Lost Fellow - Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:17:04 EST ID:dIg1PQg5 No.208469 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208451
I KNOW RIGHT!!
How would the world be without the search for meaning tho?
Like, you do realise you have a smartphone and electricity because of meaning and shit?
>>
Hedda Soggledadge - Sat, 04 Nov 2017 16:05:46 EST ID:6K8aMVlj No.208496 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1509825946745.png -(193077B / 188.55KB, 600x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208438
>So I'm pretty much a relativist
See pic. But in all serious, evil should be understood as being counter-posed to virtue (i.e. virtue ethics). Virtue is good, evil is bad.
>>
Molly Blillerhog - Sat, 04 Nov 2017 17:11:09 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.208497 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1509829869726.jpg -(44497B / 43.45KB, 872x701) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208496

You may have a point with virtue I think. It's close to my own way of seeing reality. I don't apply some moral derivative of the divine to my actions, yet I do agree with a lot of religious morals of religious preachers, like Jesus, simply because what they essentially talk about is these human ideals which are usually something we all want to strive for. We all want to become better people than what we actually are, no?


But then what makes a virtue?
>>
Nathaniel Clublingworth - Sun, 05 Nov 2017 11:27:38 EST ID:pf1/qTT/ No.208498 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208469

It's actually mostly because of slavery. Which is pretty meaningless, for the slave.
>>
Martin Clagglebury - Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:04:56 EST ID:/iCKvJxT No.208541 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208438
First, establish what is commonly accepted as "good" and "evil".
The most popular human forms of evil have been established throughout the ages.
Murder, rape, thievery, lying, wrath, and hatred.
The most popular forms of good have also been established.
Charity, honor, truth, kindness, modesty and love.
These are highly prototypical expressions of what "good" and "evil" are.
Now the question, why do you believe yourself to be on the "good side"?
Is good and evil something we are born with? Something inherent in a soul? If a soul is a real thing?
Or are we products of environment? Would you be the same person if you were born and raised in a slum like downtown detroit? Would you be the same if you were raised by only one of your parents?
If an african american man was born in a nice suburb, would he still sell crack? #roasted
And how much does culture affect? Do the movies and stories you were told as a child and even now affect your perception, affect your morals? And when you finally do realize that your set of beliefs are manufactured by external stimuli, you will see yourself as nothing more than a collection of experiences and impulse responses, knee jerks that tweak your perceptions and affect how you understand and respond to future experiences. Seeing beyond the veil of subjectivity you discover that no objective truth is observable and that you are the ultimate judge of reality.
Enter the wild, wild, west. A cowboy riding a horse, a gun on his hip. He has written and signed his own constitution, of what is just, just for him. What is right and what is wrong when he stick his gun in your mouth? Will you die for a philosophy? As far as the cowboy sees its survival of the quickest..
So why are you "good"? Because life has been good to you? Because your life has shown you goodness so it exists within you? You obviously didn't make the choice to be good on a basis of logical axioms or you wouldn't asking why your good..And when you see through your own bullshit perhaps then you will discover what you really are. Nosce te ipsum.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.