What would you die for?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2012, 04:58 PM
RE: What would you die for?
(15-11-2012 04:30 PM)Vera Wrote:  
(15-11-2012 04:03 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Several questions were posted about "Humanity as a whole", so, it's not really a "shift" to address those questions accordingly.

But on a more individual level; I engage in things today that I would have despised myself for not too long ago. When you're in a world of animalistic disgust and debauchery, you have two choices: keep your hands clean and waste away in solitude, or abandon yourself and become a part of the revelry. The real joke of it all, of course, is when you abandon yourself, become part of the revelry...and still waste away in solitude.

But, that's another story for another time.

Yes, as a Human being, I possess the inherent ability to be an evil fuck. Sometimes that trait is acted upon. And the true evil of acting upon it? Not caring afterward. Now granted, not all people fail to give a shit. I've personally been involved with people who hurt me deeply, but professed regret through tear-filled eyes afterward. And yet, they continued to do it. Their brittle sense of morality meant nothing, because deep down, we are animals. We evolved from a primordial sludge and grew up to live in trees. The ONLY difference now is that we've traded the trees for apartments and condos. Then we invented advanced weaponry and a huge network of communication with which we can reach out and affect someone on the other side of this jungle we call Earth.

Even the most altruistic act is done in the name of self-satisfaction. When we give to charity or help a child in need, we feel a release of dopamine in our brains. It makes US feel good. THAT is why we do it. We help others because it feels good to do so.

If each of us felt the sensation of being burned with fire each time we comforted a crying child or helped someone in need; we'd never engage in altruism again.

We are self-serving, self-centered little creatures. Even animals act upon instinct. They do horrific things, but it's because they're hard-wired in some way to do it. Only in the Human world can a man tie an infant to a chair and insert red-hot steel into its flesh, simply for the pleasure of hearing it scream. Only in the Human world can a woman fuck her husband's best friend, videotape it, and send it to her husband, simply for the pleasure of hurting him in the deepest way.

Calling Humans "animals" is almost an insult to our quadrupedal cousins who live in the woods.

None of us is excempt from this. We are ALL a part of the infectious, multiplying and resource-devouring plague that is Humanity. To assume myself superior would be the height of arrogance. Which, by the way, is another uniquely Human trait.

Just a quick thing - there was a shift, mobs and humanity as a whole are two different things. Not that that's very important.

I really do not agree with you (or if I have moments when I feel like this, I fight them, but they are getting much less common with age), but I respect the fact that you do not set yourself apart. Because that's what really bugs me in discussions like this - people failing to see just how arrogant it is to claim that humankind is the worst thing that ever existed in the universe (which is crap imho) and yet exclude themselves from this disgusting mass of repulsive creatures.

So while I do believe that we are selfish and a lot of the things you claim we are, I also believe that there is a lot of good in people (as individuals and as a whole) and that we are moving forward and honestly trying.

I also do not agree about the lack of pure altruism, but that's been done to death. (Still, a very quick note - what about people working with kids with AIDS in Africa, where they see horrific deaths on a daily basis and do not get the self-congratulatory feeling of "Oh, I helped feed a child today. I'm great (I'm not even saying that this is how people who actually donate money feel, because this is diminishing their honest desire to help, but that's another story). So what do those people get out of what they do, other than the horrible pain of seeing unmitigated suffering, every single day? Or those who help mentally handicapped people; those who spend their whole lives alleviating the suffering of others? Don't tell me it's all about dopamine and feeling good about themselves, because it is much more than that.)

Also, what about compassion? What leads us to take pity on our enemies, people for whom we feel no love and showing kindness to whom may even hurt us later on, yet people still do it?

"If I am sick, there is no proof whatsoever that man is a healthy creature."

And yet, if I am bothered by the perceived evil of man, doesn't it mean that others are as well? And in turn - doesn't it mean that the evil is less than what we make it out to be?
With respect; I'll simply say that, in my view, this is all very naieve. But, to each their own reality. (Hence my header)

"(Still, a very quick note - what about people working with kids with AIDS in Africa, where they see horrific deaths on a daily basis and do not get the self-congratulatory feeling of "Oh, I helped feed a child today. I'm great (I'm not even saying that this is how people who actually donate money feel, because this is diminishing their honest desire to help, but that's another story). So what do those people get out of what they do, other than the horrible pain of seeing unmitigated suffering, every single day? Or those who help mentally handicapped people; those who spend their whole lives alleviating the suffering of others? Don't tell me it's all about dopamine and feeling good about themselves, because it is much more than that.)"

After 10 years of Psychology study, I can tell you that yes, it IS about dopamine. They DO feel it; if not directly through their actions, then in the hope (that ever-present ball and chain) that what they do will eventually make a difference for someone, somewhere. Hope for reward will keep us pressing on, even when we're not being rewarded at the time. It's in our genes.

"Also, what about compassion? What leads us to take pity on our enemies, people for whom we feel no love and showing kindness to whom may even hurt us later on, yet people still do it?"

There can be many reasons. Some may still hold out that dreadful hope that their act of compassion will make a positive difference. Some may take solace (which feels good) in the belief that the possibility of positive change is worth the risk of a negative outcome. Some may be too naieve to know that there's a risk at all. It could be any, or all of these things. It depends on the person and the circumstance.

The thing is that these are not simply my opinions. I'm not just ranting a bunch of personal feelings about Humanity. No, these traits are demonstrable. That have been observed countless times throughout history, and continue to be today. There are internet websites dedicated purely to victimization, betrayal and malicious indulgence. And if pushed hard enough or far enough, each of us will break. I don't care how sturdy our personal morality: there is a point at which it will fail. This, again, is demonstrable.

"And yet, if I am bothered by the perceived evil of man, doesn't it mean that others are as well? And in turn - doesn't it mean that the evil is less than what we make it out to be?"

There are plenty of evil individuals who are bothered by the evils of others. Go to any news site and look for a story about a pedophile or serial murderer. Look at the comments section. You'll find hundreds of comments by "morally upstanding" people who wish for the criminal to be raped, tortured, killed, tied to a chair and set on fire (actual quote), all in the name of their supposedly superior morality. In the name of good, we wish for atrocity. I myself am a huge fan of the show Dexter. As are millions of other people. Is it because he captures criminals and sends them away for their crimes? No; it's because he does away with them by sawing them into pieces. It's that "poetic justice" that we've created as a species. We wish harm upon others in the name of "justice". This, again, is something that can be observed any day - every day.

Not everyone sees this for what it is. That's unfortunate, but perhaps it's a blessing. Because much of the time, one must truly feel: see, smell, taste and live the horror before he or she can become truly aware of it. To many, atrocities are a part of reality, but they're meerly a conceptual part of reality. Rape is something they know happens; but they've never seen or felt it. Genocide is something that occurs all the time, but they've never witnessed a village of women and children being butchered by machete-weilding soldiers first-hand. Most people have been spared the experience of holding a little girl in their arms while the hole that was once her face gurgles and spurts blood at them because she - who is still alive - is struggling to breathe after a stray bullet removed the majority of her face.

These things are concepts to most people, but they've never been etched into reality. In order to truly accept some of these things as reality, they must be experienced. "Through profound pain comes profound knowledge".

But, I will say that those who do not truly know the nature of Man are blessed. This is one of the few times that a religious expression is quite fitting. I'd give anything to not know some of the things that I know. I'd be a better person for it.

If it's all the same to you, I'd like to end this discussion here.

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2012, 05:15 PM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2012 05:22 PM by Vera.)
RE: What would you die for?
(15-11-2012 04:58 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  
(15-11-2012 04:30 PM)Vera Wrote:  Just a quick thing - there was a shift, mobs and humanity as a whole are two different things. Not that that's very important.

I really do not agree with you (or if I have moments when I feel like this, I fight them, but they are getting much less common with age), but I respect the fact that you do not set yourself apart. Because that's what really bugs me in discussions like this - people failing to see just how arrogant it is to claim that humankind is the worst thing that ever existed in the universe (which is crap imho) and yet exclude themselves from this disgusting mass of repulsive creatures.

So while I do believe that we are selfish and a lot of the things you claim we are, I also believe that there is a lot of good in people (as individuals and as a whole) and that we are moving forward and honestly trying.

I also do not agree about the lack of pure altruism, but that's been done to death. (Still, a very quick note - what about people working with kids with AIDS in Africa, where they see horrific deaths on a daily basis and do not get the self-congratulatory feeling of "Oh, I helped feed a child today. I'm great (I'm not even saying that this is how people who actually donate money feel, because this is diminishing their honest desire to help, but that's another story). So what do those people get out of what they do, other than the horrible pain of seeing unmitigated suffering, every single day? Or those who help mentally handicapped people; those who spend their whole lives alleviating the suffering of others? Don't tell me it's all about dopamine and feeling good about themselves, because it is much more than that.)

Also, what about compassion? What leads us to take pity on our enemies, people for whom we feel no love and showing kindness to whom may even hurt us later on, yet people still do it?

"If I am sick, there is no proof whatsoever that man is a healthy creature."

And yet, if I am bothered by the perceived evil of man, doesn't it mean that others are as well? And in turn - doesn't it mean that the evil is less than what we make it out to be?
With respect; I'll simply say that, in my view, this is all very naieve. But, to each their own reality. (Hence my header)

"(Still, a very quick note - what about people working with kids with AIDS in Africa, where they see horrific deaths on a daily basis and do not get the self-congratulatory feeling of "Oh, I helped feed a child today. I'm great (I'm not even saying that this is how people who actually donate money feel, because this is diminishing their honest desire to help, but that's another story). So what do those people get out of what they do, other than the horrible pain of seeing unmitigated suffering, every single day? Or those who help mentally handicapped people; those who spend their whole lives alleviating the suffering of others? Don't tell me it's all about dopamine and feeling good about themselves, because it is much more than that.)"

After 10 years of Psychology study, I can tell you that yes, it IS about dopamine. They DO feel it; if not directly through their actions, then in the hope (that ever-present ball and chain) that what they do will eventually make a difference for someone, somewhere. Hope for reward will keep us pressing on, even when we're not being rewarded at the time. It's in our genes.

"Also, what about compassion? What leads us to take pity on our enemies, people for whom we feel no love and showing kindness to whom may even hurt us later on, yet people still do it?"

There can be many reasons. Some may still hold out that dreadful hope that their act of compassion will make a positive difference. Some may take solace (which feels good) in the belief that the possibility of positive change is worth the risk of a negative outcome. Some may be too naieve to know that there's a risk at all. It could be any, or all of these things. It depends on the person and the circumstance.

The thing is that these are not simply my opinions. I'm not just ranting a bunch of personal feelings about Humanity. No, these traits are demonstrable. That have been observed countless times throughout history, and continue to be today. There are internet websites dedicated purely to victimization, betrayal and malicious indulgence. And if pushed hard enough or far enough, each of us will break. I don't care how sturdy our personal morality: there is a point at which it will fail. This, again, is demonstrable.

"And yet, if I am bothered by the perceived evil of man, doesn't it mean that others are as well? And in turn - doesn't it mean that the evil is less than what we make it out to be?"

There are plenty of evil individuals who are bothered by the evils of others. Go to any news site and look for a story about a pedophile or serial murderer. Look at the comments section. You'll find hundreds of comments by "morally upstanding" people who wish for the criminal to be raped, tortured, killed, tied to a chair and set on fire (actual quote), all in the name of their supposedly superior morality. In the name of good, we wish for atrocity. I myself am a huge fan of the show Dexter. As are millions of other people. Is it because he captures criminals and sends them away for their crimes? No; it's because he does away with them by sawing them into pieces. It's that "poetic justice" that we've created as a species. We wish harm upon others in the name of "justice". This, again, is something that can be observed any day - every day.

Not everyone sees this for what it is. That's unfortunate, but perhaps it's a blessing. Because much of the time, one must truly feel: see, smell, taste and live the horror before he or she can become truly aware of it. To many, atrocities are a part of reality, but they're meerly a conceptual part of reality. Rape is something they know happens; but they've never seen or felt it. Genocide is something that occurs all the time, but they've never witnessed a village of women and children being butchered by machete-weilding soldiers first-hand. Most people have been spared the experience of holding a little girl in their arms while the hole that was once her face gurgles and spurts blood at them because she - who is still alive - is struggling to breathe after a stray bullet removed the majority of her face.

These things are concepts to most people, but they've never been etched into reality. In order to truly accept some of these things as reality, they must be experienced. "Through profound pain comes profound knowledge".

But, I will say that those who do not truly know the nature of Man are blessed. This is one of the few times that a religious expression is quite fitting. I'd give anything to not know some of the things that I know. I'd be a better person for it.

If it's all the same to you, I'd like to end this discussion here.

Sorry, but how is the argument it's all a chemical reaction a valid one? EVERYTHING we do and are is chemical reactions.

And saying that something's naive just because you do not agree would be the equivalent of me saying that a lot of what I just read is immature. Neither of which in any way resembles a valid argument.

No problem about ending the discussion - if you prefer to have the last word, be my guest.

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vera's post
15-11-2012, 09:07 PM
RE: What would you die for?
(15-11-2012 05:15 PM)Vera Wrote:  
(15-11-2012 04:58 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  With respect; I'll simply say that, in my view, this is all very naieve. But, to each their own reality. (Hence my header)

"(Still, a very quick note - what about people working with kids with AIDS in Africa, where they see horrific deaths on a daily basis and do not get the self-congratulatory feeling of "Oh, I helped feed a child today. I'm great (I'm not even saying that this is how people who actually donate money feel, because this is diminishing their honest desire to help, but that's another story). So what do those people get out of what they do, other than the horrible pain of seeing unmitigated suffering, every single day? Or those who help mentally handicapped people; those who spend their whole lives alleviating the suffering of others? Don't tell me it's all about dopamine and feeling good about themselves, because it is much more than that.)"

After 10 years of Psychology study, I can tell you that yes, it IS about dopamine. They DO feel it; if not directly through their actions, then in the hope (that ever-present ball and chain) that what they do will eventually make a difference for someone, somewhere. Hope for reward will keep us pressing on, even when we're not being rewarded at the time. It's in our genes.

"Also, what about compassion? What leads us to take pity on our enemies, people for whom we feel no love and showing kindness to whom may even hurt us later on, yet people still do it?"

There can be many reasons. Some may still hold out that dreadful hope that their act of compassion will make a positive difference. Some may take solace (which feels good) in the belief that the possibility of positive change is worth the risk of a negative outcome. Some may be too naieve to know that there's a risk at all. It could be any, or all of these things. It depends on the person and the circumstance.

The thing is that these are not simply my opinions. I'm not just ranting a bunch of personal feelings about Humanity. No, these traits are demonstrable. That have been observed countless times throughout history, and continue to be today. There are internet websites dedicated purely to victimization, betrayal and malicious indulgence. And if pushed hard enough or far enough, each of us will break. I don't care how sturdy our personal morality: there is a point at which it will fail. This, again, is demonstrable.

"And yet, if I am bothered by the perceived evil of man, doesn't it mean that others are as well? And in turn - doesn't it mean that the evil is less than what we make it out to be?"

There are plenty of evil individuals who are bothered by the evils of others. Go to any news site and look for a story about a pedophile or serial murderer. Look at the comments section. You'll find hundreds of comments by "morally upstanding" people who wish for the criminal to be raped, tortured, killed, tied to a chair and set on fire (actual quote), all in the name of their supposedly superior morality. In the name of good, we wish for atrocity. I myself am a huge fan of the show Dexter. As are millions of other people. Is it because he captures criminals and sends them away for their crimes? No; it's because he does away with them by sawing them into pieces. It's that "poetic justice" that we've created as a species. We wish harm upon others in the name of "justice". This, again, is something that can be observed any day - every day.

Not everyone sees this for what it is. That's unfortunate, but perhaps it's a blessing. Because much of the time, one must truly feel: see, smell, taste and live the horror before he or she can become truly aware of it. To many, atrocities are a part of reality, but they're meerly a conceptual part of reality. Rape is something they know happens; but they've never seen or felt it. Genocide is something that occurs all the time, but they've never witnessed a village of women and children being butchered by machete-weilding soldiers first-hand. Most people have been spared the experience of holding a little girl in their arms while the hole that was once her face gurgles and spurts blood at them because she - who is still alive - is struggling to breathe after a stray bullet removed the majority of her face.

These things are concepts to most people, but they've never been etched into reality. In order to truly accept some of these things as reality, they must be experienced. "Through profound pain comes profound knowledge".

But, I will say that those who do not truly know the nature of Man are blessed. This is one of the few times that a religious expression is quite fitting. I'd give anything to not know some of the things that I know. I'd be a better person for it.

If it's all the same to you, I'd like to end this discussion here.

Sorry, but how is the argument it's all a chemical reaction a valid one? EVERYTHING we do and are is chemical reactions.

And saying that something's naive just because you do not agree would be the equivalent of me saying that a lot of what I just read is immature. Neither of which in any way resembles a valid argument.

No problem about ending the discussion - if you prefer to have the last word, be my guest.
How is it relevant? You claimed: "Don't tell me it's all about dopamine and feeling good about themselves, because it is much more than that". No it's not. It's just a chemical reaction. Not anything more.

If you're wondering why THAT matters; well, I'm just not very impressed by animals acting according to their nature. This is just my personal cynicism, but it was worth mentioning. I'm not impressed by the "but look at how selfless we can be!" argument, because we're just doing what feels good, which defeats the notion of selflessness altogether.

As for you being naive, it's not because I don't agree. You're right, that would be ridiculous. That's why I never insinuated such a thing (nice strawman, btw). It's naive because you're denying the depraved roots of Humanity. You concede to some facts, yet retain an overall sense of solace in Mankind's goodness.

Sorry, but that's naieve. For reasons I've already explained.

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2012, 09:09 PM
RE: What would you die for?
I would die for nothing, because nothing is worth my life.

When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.

You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2012, 09:10 PM
RE: What would you die for?
(15-11-2012 09:09 PM)Xinoftruden Wrote:  I would die for nothing, because nothing is worth my life.
Not even your true love?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 02:31 AM
RE: What would you die for?
(15-11-2012 09:07 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  For reasons I've already explained.
Which are?

And if humans have such depraved roots, is the same true for animals? Are they the epitome of evil as well? If not, why?

If you're not impressed by people doing good because it's a chemical reaction, isn't the same true for when they commit atrocities? And if yes, isn't it hypocritical to call them evil just for acting according to their instincts?

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 03:20 AM
RE: What would you die for?
(16-11-2012 02:31 AM)Vera Wrote:  
(15-11-2012 09:07 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  For reasons I've already explained.
Which are?

And if humans have such depraved roots, is the same true for animals? Are they the epitome of evil as well? If not, why?

If you're not impressed by people doing good because it's a chemical reaction, isn't the same true for when they commit atrocities? And if yes, isn't it hypocritical to call them evil just for acting according to their instincts?

If I've already explained them, it stands to reason that one can go back and look at them.

As for animals, I've already stated that they act according to instinct. Humans, while slaves to baser drives and urges, can be "evil" simply for the sake of being evil. I gave examples of that as well. Humans have evolved to the point that we can be evil simply because we want to. A lion will attack and kill a baby gazell, but it will do so for the sake of sustenence. Chimps will invade, slaughter and even consume a neighboring group (not sure what groups of chimps are called), but they will do so for the sake of territory. A woman will cheat on her husband "Because he did it to me". A man will kidnap, rape and kill a woman "Because she happened to be there at the time".

At this point, we can and do commit evil deeds just because we can. I can forgive a robot just doing what it's designed to do, but I cannot forgive willful, sensless depravity.

"If you're not impressed by people doing good because it's a chemical reaction, isn't the same true for when they commit atrocities?"

I too am a human being. As such, I've evolved a sense of morality. "Good is good and bad is bad". But as has already been stated; Mankind seems to tend more toward the bad than the good. And even when they do tend toward the good, psychologically speaking, they are doing it only to benefit themselves (again, for reasons which have already been explained). For THAT reason, I am not impressed. Keep in mind, I don't discredit it (unless someone tries to bolster it up as "something more") - I'm glad there can be the occasional good deed - but I'm not impressed by it, precisely because deep down, I know the chemical reason behind it. So, when one does something good, you could say I'm rather neutral toward it.
When one does something bad, however, I am naturally opposed to it. Disgusted by it (although, over the years, I've become somewhat neutral to this as well). When a good thing is done, I nod my head and go about my day. When a bad thing is done, I view it with detest. Because while getting joy out of helping another - while selfish - is a good thing; gaining joy from harming another is a bad thing - in addition to being selfish. That is a sentiment that evolution has instilled within me. To love what is good and hate what is bad. I imagine you are much the same. The point is that no, good and bad deeds are not viewed in the same way.

"And if yes, isn't it hypocritical to call them evil just for acting according to their instincts?"

The answer was no, but I'll address this anyway.

Hypocrisy, while unsavory, does not render one's observations invalid. A serial killer can sit in his cell all day long and speak ill of a fellow serial killer nearby. But no matter what the actions of the first man may be; they in no way effect the nature of the second man. Whether person A is a stone-cold killer or the most lovable guy in the world; his sentiments regarding person B may still be valid.

As I said way back in my first message (the one which started this whole discussion), I am no better than any of the human cockroaches for whom I have such detest. "I do things today that I would have hated myself for just a few years ago". Does this make me a hypocrite? Sure. But that doesn't render anything I've said here today invalid or inaccurate. The kettle is still black, regardless of the pot's color.

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 03:34 AM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2012 03:53 AM by Vera.)
RE: What would you die for?
(16-11-2012 03:20 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  
(16-11-2012 02:31 AM)Vera Wrote:  Which are?

And if humans have such depraved roots, is the same true for animals? Are they the epitome of evil as well? If not, why?

If you're not impressed by people doing good because it's a chemical reaction, isn't the same true for when they commit atrocities? And if yes, isn't it hypocritical to call them evil just for acting according to their instincts?

If I've already explained them, it stands to reason that one can go back and look at them.

As for animals, I've already stated that they act according to instinct. Humans, while slaves to baser drives and urges, can be "evil" simply for the sake of being evil. I gave examples of that as well. Humans have evolved to the point that we can be evil simply because we want to. A lion will attack and kill a baby gazell, but it will do so for the sake of sustenence. Chimps will invade, slaughter and even consume a neighboring group (not sure what groups of chimps are called), but they will do so for the sake of territory. A woman will cheat on her husband "Because he did it to me". A man will kidnap, rape and kill a woman "Because she happened to be there at the time".

At this point, we can and do commit evil deeds just because we can. I can forgive a robot just doing what it's designed to do, but I cannot forgive willful, sensless depravity.

"If you're not impressed by people doing good because it's a chemical reaction, isn't the same true for when they commit atrocities?"

I too am a human being. As such, I've evolved a sense of morality. "Good is good and bad is bad". But as has already been stated; Mankind seems to tend more toward the bad than the good. And even when they do tend toward the good, psychologically speaking, they are doing it only to benefit themselves (again, for reasons which have already been explained). For THAT reason, I am not impressed. Keep in mind, I don't discredit it (unless someone tries to bolster it up as "something more") - I'm glad there can be the occasional good deed - but I'm not impressed by it, precisely because deep down, I know the chemical reason behind it. So, when one does something good, you could say I'm rather neutral toward it.
When one does something bad, however, I am naturally opposed to it. Disgusted by it (although, over the years, I've become somewhat neutral to this as well). When a good thing is done, I nod my head and go about my day. When a bad thing is done, I view it with detest. Because while getting joy out of helping another - while selfish - is a good thing; gaining joy from harming another is a bad thing - in addition to being selfish. That is a sentiment that evolution has instilled within me. To love what is good and hate what is bad. I imagine you are much the same. The point is that no, good and bad deeds are not viewed in the same way.

"And if yes, isn't it hypocritical to call them evil just for acting according to their instincts?"

The answer was no, but I'll address this anyway.

Hypocrisy, while unsavory, does not render one's observations invalid. A serial killer can sit in his cell all day long and speak ill of a fellow serial killer nearby. But no matter what the actions of the first man may be; they in no way effect the nature of the second man. Whether person A is a stone-cold killer or the most lovable guy in the world; his sentiments regarding person B may still be valid.

As I said way back in my first message (the one which started this whole discussion), I am no better than any of the human cockroaches for whom I have such detest. "I do things today that I would have hated myself for just a few years ago". Does this make me a hypocrite? Sure. But that doesn't render anything I've said here today invalid or inaccurate. The kettle is still black, regardless of the pot's color.

So we commit evil just because we can, but we do good because we're driven by the chemical processes of our brains to do so?

In other words - the good we do ultimately does not count, because it's selfish, but the bad counts because... wait, why does the bad we do count more than the good? (Speaking of which, what DOES go inside the heads of people who commit evil, no chemical reactions whatsoever?). Substitute the selfish/it's just a chemical reaction in the first part with God and retain the second part and what do we have - a semitic religion: everything good you do is because of God, everything bad you do is because you are a worthless evil piece of ****.

And if evil is something that you detest, what makes you think other people do not detest it, as well (not ALL, but some of them)? And if they do detest it and try to avoid (as much as possible) doing evil, are they still cockroaches? Are they somehow better than the ones who rape or just as bad?

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 04:02 AM
RE: What would you die for?
Oh, I would also die trying to figure out what porn Vera was in.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 04:06 AM
RE: What would you die for?
(16-11-2012 04:02 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Oh, I would also die trying to figure out what porn Vera was in.
Oh, I would also die if I figured out what porn Vera was in.
fixt.
There's only so much that one can take, before having a heart attack Cool

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: