The “world citizen” will be longing for longer.
Norms, morality, ethics are not based on DNA, but the learning of what norms, morality, ethics mean (note: they change) is based on DNA. Learning, which is mainly based on DNA, is not the same as norms, morality, ethics, which are not based on DNA but on culture, education, learning.
I defined “evil” as any act that is of net-negative to the well being of the individual and therefore collectively to humanity. Generally what is not good is ‘evil.’
I quoted the following to Phyllo, but there was no response to this;
To ensure full coverage of those negative acts, including ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ or even ‘very very wrong’ or ‘very very bad,’ vile, abominable, evil, etc., I find it effective to generalize all these acts as into one general term i.e. ‘evil’ with a qualification in term of degrees for the various range of evil from Low [1/100] to very high [99/100].
In addition, I believe the term ‘evil’ [which is appropriate anyway] do trigger greater attention than those wide varieties of words represent the various types of negative acts by humans.
Any thing wrong with the above views?
Btw, the above is not related to any ontological evil such as the existence of Satan, the devil and other beings who seduced vulnerable humans into committing evil and sins.
What is the POTENTIAL for evil, and how it came about?
This POTENTIAL embedded within the DNA i.e. nature drives the following;
- The physical anatomy to enable the act of evil
- The mental propensity to commit the act of evil.
1. The physical anatomy to enable the act of evil
The physical anatomy that enable a person to act out evil is the neurons and their specific pattern of connectivity as determined and driven by the DNA and RNA.
All humans has inherent neural connectivity with the brain for the following;
2. The mental propensity to commit the act of evil.
To ensure basic survival, all humans are encoded to be endowed with the following neural patterns within their brain;
- The fight or flight response.
- The kill living things program.
- The harm program.
- Others.
For food, all human has the potential-to-kill embedded in their brain.
The above is my argument how all humans has the POTENTIAL to be evil.
While all humans has the above physical and mental POTENTIAL, this potential is not activated in all humans.
In the course of humanity’s progress in time from over 6 millions years ago, the above potentials are modulate by inhibitors in various degrees depending on various circumstances and conditions.
This is why the majority of human do not kill on instincts like most animals as the majority of human has strong inhibitors to modulate the inherent impulse to kill when exposed to certain triggers.
However a percentage of humans are born with various degrees of weak inhibitors to suppress the above inherent potential evil impulses within them. An extreme example is the serial killer who has very loose and weak inhibitors to suppress its “kill” program is activated by certain stimuli.
Killing is one type of the most evil. There are a wide range of evils [low to high] and they are acted out by the 20% of human who has weak inhibitors which are triggered by various stimuli.
Even those outside the 20% of human who are prone to evil are not guaranteed to be good at all times. Their ‘strong’ inhibitors could suddenly turned weak if there are serious damage due to disease, accidents, stress, chemical [drugs] etc.
Why Evil?
All human [in contrast to animals] are also endowed with a potential for basis good moral, e.g. those like the Ten Commandments.
What is sense as evil is when human acts contradict what is deemed good.
Note cheating, petty crimes, stealing a pencil, bribery, lying [black or white] are evil, albeit low level ones.
Any counter to my above argument to support the OP?
What is critical is, as a human being you must understand the above potential is in your brain!
Thus one must take extra ordinary care to manage one inhibitors less they go haywire and lead one to commit evil.
There is a ‘Nature’ and ‘Nurture’ aspect to Morality [What is Good and What is Evil].
DNA wise, all humans are born with the POTENTIAL with basic morality.
There has been lots of studies relating to inherent morality within humans via the study of babies which are less than one year old, i.e. to discount the ‘Nurture’ element.
Here is one article from Scientific American to lend greater credibility of my point;
scientificamerican.com/artic … of-babies/
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU[/youtube]
If one is highly perceptive one would have noted this fact from observations within humanity.
The Nurture factors [learning, improving, etc.] merely enhanced the Morality that is innate [Nature] within humans.
Animals follow their instincts to kill, fight, injure and they do not has any strong potential for morality like humans and high level of self-consciousness to contrast what is good against what is evil from the moral perspective.
Humans are not evil, but instead can perform evil (not good) actions; where evil actions are defined as anything that is contrary to the specific social norms (moral system) of a particular collection of individuals.
False!
FALSE !
NONSENSE !
You are speaking of adult humans. So this of your statements is FALSE too !
They were merely noting the natural propensity for intelligence to discern between what to love and what to hate. All surviving creatures have such instincts born within, else they could not survive as a species (even insects).
Psychologists (just barely on rare occasion fitting into the category of “scientists”) most certainly cannot be trusted to experiment and attempt to analyze complex systems or creatures more intelligent than their own cognitive comprehension skills. Infants fit into that category, as do almost all animals. The cognitive comprehension skills of the average psychologists are embarrassingly low. More to the exact point, none of those psychologists in that video actually understand what “morality” is. That is an issue for philosophers to decide. And no science can be conducted without proper definition. Ask any of them to exactly define “morality” in an unambiguous way. They would probably tell you that such isn’t necessary, which is largely why they are (still) not really qualified to be referred to as “scientists”.
Anyone can trump up what superficially appears to be a scientific experiment with all of the buzz words in place: “this was a double blind study”, “81% of the non-control group responded positively”,… The sad fact is that most people doing such things are very, very sloppy and often have ulterior motives.
Ask what the scientific definition of “morality” is. Without such a precise definition, no measure of it can be scientifically made.
And all of that is not to discount Arminius’ point that the very concept of morality, and thus good and evil, does not apply to animal behavior, and that includes human infants. Homosapians aren’t all that much different than other animals. What doesn’t apply to other animals only might barely apply to homosapians.
Your psychologist references are off mark for the same reason that you are - a complete lack of understanding of what morality and evil actually is and is actually all about.
Absolutely right.
The video is absolutely ridiculous, ragged, full of errors.
You missed my point in the OP.
I did not state “Human are Evil” period.
I stated
“DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil”
Note the word “POTENTIAL.”
This potential is the critical element.
The fact is this potential cannot be got rid of within the DNA and in the brain at least in the present and for a long time to come.
As humans evolved through 6 million years, this potential to commit ‘evil’ acts has been suppressed by inhibitors in the brain.
Unfortunately as a characteristic of Normal Distribution [Re Bell Curve] is in natural there are a percentile of human who has weak inhibitors that are unable to control their ‘evil’ impulses.
The above is the reason why there is so much evil [of a range of degrees] in the world at present and will be in the future.
Therefore the effective action for humanity to manage the levels of evil existing at present and in the future is to focus on the ultimate root cause [the potential and the inhibitors] instead of fire-fighting the non-critical causes.
Your views are very constipated and merely hand waving.
In contrast note James S Saint who at least gave some explanations to justify his views [which I do not agree and countered].
Note I mentioned;
Attacking this one example I gave is not effective.
I suggest you research on this topic and reflect on the conclusions instead of giving these very unhealthy “constipated” views.
The one example [amongst many researches done] was to counter Arminius’ point that ‘no one is born with moral competency, rather moral is learned’.
If you want to give a credible counter you will need to have some idea of the other research done [do a literature review] on this point.
Note most people can understand basic morality and those psychologists who has done research on it are surely capable of understanding what is morality at the basic level.
When I refer to those research I am backing it with my knowledge of the Philosophy of Morality.
One of my forte is on Philosophy of Moral & Ethics with emphasis of Kant and in general. Such research as the above will substantiate many of Kant’s fundamentals on his Philosophy of Morality, e.g. his Categorical Imperative and his full Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
I wonder what is your credibility and strength on this topic of morality and Ethics? Give me some references or anything to support your claim your have any reasonable knowledge on the Philosophy of Morality. I predict your idea of Morality may be grounded on a delusion??
It doesn’t matter how many. 1000 idiots still think like idiots.
If you want any “study” to gain actual scientific credibility, you must provide their exact, precise, scientific definition of the concepts they are trying to measure. Saying “well everyone knows what morality is”, is NOT scientific. And any study that claims to be scientific yet didn’t even know that one fact, isn’t worth anything at all, no matter how many such ignorant people attempt the same task.
I haven’t seen that you have any special knowledge of the “Philosophy of Morality”. The fact that you haven’t given a precise definition for “Moral Behavior” and for “Evil” (only a vague one), implies that your standard for “knowledge” is pretty low. As a philosopher wanting to deal with science, you should be far more pedantic. You cannot ask the scientists to do your job for you or even understand why you do it.
Perhaps it is just me but I tend to go with the motto of Science, “Nullius in Verbe” (take no one’s word). I don’t really care what Kant might have said or anyone else from 100s of years ago. The question is whether you can present the case yourself.
First, what my credentials might be is completely irrelevant because I am not the one making the claim, but rather merely checking your logic. Secondly, as I stated, “Nullius in Verbe”, so who cares what my credentials or anyone else’s might be? I don’t care what your “credentials” might be. Philosophy is NOT about worshiping idols and props.
If you want to convince me personally, you absolutely must provide an unambiguous, precise definition of the critical words and concepts you are using. After that, it is usually merely an issue of coherently maintaining your language (aka “Logic”) . It doesn’t matter what the subject is.
In case you are wondering, morality is a code of ethics established as a base standard of behavior to be expected from all members of a selected group. “Universal morality” doesn’t make a whole lot of sense because the grouping implies that all living creaturs are to be expected to obey a code of ethics.
Infants, as Arminius has pointed out, are not part of the specified group for which morals and evilness would apply.
I understand for you to explain your understanding of Morality and Ethic [“Nullius in Verbe”] would be tedious within a forum like this. That is why I asked you to quote some references on your coverage of the subject.
Since this is a philosophy forum, a study of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics is necessary. To discount Kant [one of the greatest philosopher ever] on ethics exposed your ignorance in the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
One may not agree with every philosopher on Morality and Ethics but one should at least understand [not necessary agree] the theories and principles propounded by the various reputable philosophers on the subject of Morality and Ethics. Something like a Literature Review.
If you cannot quote or mention any of the reputable philosophers you are ignorant of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
The above are childish views.
On a more refined basis there is a difference between Morality and Ethics.
Morality deals with the theory and principles whereas Ethics is applied Morality, like Pure and Applied Mathematics, Physics, etc.
As with Kant I agree with “Universal morality” which should be unconditional absolute moral principles [as the Categorical Imperatives] but not a set from a personal God which is delusional.
Perhaps so, but you haven’t provided anything better, hardly anything at all.
And my apologies … I mistakenly typed “does make sense…” when I meant “doesn’t make sense…”.
I didn’t miss your point of the OP but instead am pointing out that no humans are evil or can become (to be) evil but their actions can (depending on definition).
Since this is a philosophy forum, a study of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics is necessary. To discount Kant [one of the greatest philosopher ever] on ethics exposed your ignorance in the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
One may not agree with every philosopher on Morality and Ethics but one should at least understand [not necessary agree] the theories and principles propounded by the various reputable philosophers on the subject of Morality and Ethics. Something like a Literature Review.
If you cannot quote or mention any of the reputable philosophers you are ignorant of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
I have not started with anything serious yet, but from the above proposals I am opening a big door and inviting you into a whole vista of philosophical knowledge.
Instead of inventing the wheels, if you point to any of these
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
1 Defining ethics
2 Meta-ethics
3 Normative ethics
3.1 Virtue ethics
3.1.1 Stoicism
3.1.2 Contemporary virtue ethics
3.2 Hedonism
3.2.1 Cyrenaic hedonism
3.2.2 Epicureanism
3.3 State consequentialism
3.4 Consequentialism/Teleology
3.4.1 Utilitarianism
3.5 Deontology
3.6 Pragmatic ethics
3.7 Role ethics
3.8 Anarchist ethics
3.9 Postmodern ethics
It would definitely save a lot of hassles and enable us to zoom into the specific differences rather than trying to establish our basic positions.
If your morality and ethics principles do not fit into any of the above, then yours are likely to be ineffective unless you can demonstrate otherwise.