What has Berserk done to shape the way you perceive reality?

[Istvan]

Good and evil are subjective from the moment they were made up by the human been. We are animals, and that’s a fact, no matter how intelligent we are, we moves trough our instincts. And for instinct there is not good or evil, instead, is more like good/bad for me or my interest.

To say that humans are animals and move through our instincts seems inacurate, since human society couldn't exist if we didn't surpress, deny, or otherwise act counter to our instincts. You mention later that society hides or disguises our instincts, but if humans were guided solely by instincts, we'd have no reason (or ability) to form societies in the first place, because of our instincts. Instincts may not have good or evil, but since humans are capable of higher thought that runs counter to instinct, it is an error to draw from that the claim that humans don't have a knowledge of good and evil.

[War Machine]

Forming a society is not out of the ordinary for animals, dogs form packs and follow a leader, humans are no different in that matter. So it doesn't counter our instincts.

As humans we are influenced by our instincts even in rational thought, for example, I could get really mad at something and then yell at someone else for some other thing, in which case my anger, which was a natural instinct to undesired stimuli caused me to be angry at someone else for something that normally wouldn't bother me.

You can see in Maslow's hierarchy of needs that humans won't even reach self-actualization until all its other needs are met:



For us to be able to objectively affirm good and evil, we have to be perfect, negating all instinct influences from rational thought. Good and evil can never be proven by us, but we do what we can and form some ideas of what they could be.

Some crazy people do claim to be doing evil simply for the sake of doing evil, and that's why we label them insane, because such behavior seems irrational to us. More concretely, name any evil act (for example, replace "doing evil" with "torturing innocent infants") and there will be people who engage in that act purely for the sake of it, or because it's enjoyable.

They claim they're doing evil, but if they're enjoying something like torturing infants, then isn't it good for them? All humans have problems, does this suggest that everyone is inherently evil? (as a little side note, there was one time when I felt the urge to crush a kitty, but I didn't do it cause damn! You might consider that thought to be evil, but if I say it's actually good, how can you prove me wrong?).

You also said earlier that it is possible for there to be a neutral between good and evil, but you're taking a mathematical side into this; for it to be possible we should be able to measure evil (as in I'm 50 evil units high).

Edit: This topic should definitely be in a different thread.
Edit2: I edited this message about 5 times, so be careful.

[psi29a]

So speakith the wikipedia:

Transcendence has been discounted by secular psychologists because they feel it belongs to the domain of religious belief. But Maslow himself believed that science and religion were both too narrowly conceived, too dichotomized, and too separated from each other. Non-peakers, as he would call them, characteristically think in logical, rational terms and look down on extreme spirituality as "insanity"[6] because it entails a loss of control and deviation from what is socially acceptable. They may even try to avoid such experiences because they are not materially productive—they "earn no money, bake no bread, and chop no wood".[7] Other non-peakers have the problem of immaturity in spiritual matters, and hence tend to view holy rituals and events in their most crude, external form, not appreciating them for any underlying spiritual implications. Maslow despised such people because they form a sort of idolatry that hinders religions[8] This creates a divide in every religion and social institution. It is important to note, however, that Maslow considered himself to be an atheist — thus, by his conceptualization of transcendence, any individual can have such experiences.[9]

Psychologist Edwin C. Nevis has also made charges that Maslow's hierarchy of needs are culturally specific and not universal and, in response, formulated his own hierarchy of needs as an improvement effort.

Other scholars have sought to contextualize Maslow's work in its socio-political, and historical context. In Maslow, Monkeys and Motivation Theory (1997), Dallas Cullen revealed the extent to which Maslow's hierarchy relied on his gendered, and factually unfounded assumptions about sexual domination among apes. Cooke, Mills and Kelley's (2005) Situating Maslow in Cold War America argued that Maslow's theorizing was a direct reflection of his position as an anti- new-left Cold War liberal, and his hierarchy a reflection of these values - a kind of secular religiosity which legitimized the US way of life.

6 ^ Maslow. "The 'Core-Religious' or 'Transcendent,' Experience", p. 22.
7 ^ Maslow, Transcendent, p. 23.
8 ^ Maslow, Transcendent, p. 24.
9 ^ Hoffman, E. 1999. The right to be human: A biography of Abraham Maslow.

I'm not a huge fan of Maslow, but they did teach it as part of first years gen-ed psych and interestingly enough, in MBA programs that focused on 'empowering' the worker (or in this case, the person beneath you in the company).

I think depending on what you value the most, the 'pyramid' will be re-ordered. Or in the case of the food pyramid, abandoned.

[War Machine]

Yeah, in regards to psychology, there is still much to be learned, so I won't push too much into that. But you can't truly follow one thing until it becomes your sole priority.

By the way, the food pyramid got re-organized into this:

http://www.thefeltsource.com/New-Food-Pyramid-Large.jpg

[psi29a]

By the way, the food pyramid got re-organized into this:

http://www.thefeltsource.com/New-Food-Pyramid-Large.jpg

That is so retarded I don't know what else to say other than "drop the god damn pyramid". It never worked, and this is worse.

edit: oh yeah... from 'thefeltsource.com'

Go to the FAQ page for more information on how they work and why ours are the best felt lessons and flannel board stories for teachers, churches and parents .

Yes, because teachers, churches, and parents know best.

[War Machine]

Ha ha ha, I only googled the picture, I did not see the home page. But that pyramid is currently the official system used by the government.

[psi29a]

Ha ha ha, I only googled the picture, I did not see the home page. But that pyramid is currently the official system used by the government.

*sigh* You are right, USDA approved... we are all doomed.

BTW, back on topic....

Evil is a GROWTH industry.

[Istvan]

Forming a society is not out of the ordinary for animals, dogs form packs and follow a leader, humans are no different in that matter. So it doesn't counter our instincts.

True, other species form societies, but you'll notice that their societies do not surpress, deny, or otherwise act counter to their instincts, forming the society is actually part of their instincts. For humans, a large part of the reason for society is to control our instincts, which (by its nature) is counter to those instincts. So your point still fails. I also note you ignored my point about other higher-intellect species, such as dolphins, whales, primates, etc.

As humans we are influenced by our instincts even in rational thought, for example, I could get really mad at something and then yell at someone else for some other thing, in which case my anger, which was a natural instinct to undesired stimuli caused me to be angry at someone else for something that normally wouldn't bother me.

This example is not in keeping with instincts, and in fact proves the opposite. If I'm mad at someone, instinctively I ought to lash out at that person. If said individual is too powerful for me to lash out at, I ought to either flee, submit myself utterly, or seek to destroy them. Doing something like continuing to work with them and directing my anger at another (i.e. displacement) is counter to instinct, but a big part of human society. Which is yet another reason to deny that humans are governed purely by instinct.

I personally don't care for/believe in Mazlows hierchy, but I don't feel like debating that (I think Psi did a fair job of casting doubt on it) so I'll ignore that particular point.

They claim they're doing evil, but if they're enjoying something like torturing infants, then isn't it good for them? All humans have problems, does this suggest that everyone is inherently evil? (as a little side note, there was one time when I felt the urge to crush a kitty, but I didn't do it cause damn! You might consider that thought to be evil, but if I say it's actually good, how can you prove me wrong?).

For your first question, no. The fact that a person enjoys doing something does not make that thing not evil, still less so if they themselves recognize it to be evil. Evil (or its lack) is not dependent on enjoyment save only that we may be more prone to commit evil actions that are pleasent then those that are not. The fact that we all have problems likewise does not make us all absolutely evil, I mentioned in an earier post that it is easy to identify evil deeds, it is much harder and rarer to find completely evil individuals because of the complexity of humans. You yourself recognized that thought as evil, or why didn't you crush the kity? You wanted to do it, so presumably you would have "enjoyed it", why didn't you? It's because despite your comments you do recognize that such an action would be evil. Or (if I'm misinterpreting you) at least most individuals would see killing the kity for no reason as evil.

You also said earlier that it is possible for there to be a neutral between good and evil, but you're taking a mathematical side into this; for it to be possible we should be able to measure evil (as in I'm 50 evil units high).

If I've identified what you are talking about correctly, what I said was it is possible for an action to be neither good nor evil, so evil is not simply the absence of good, but rather its opposite. Our own language would support this interpretation, in words like amoral as opposed to immoral.

[War Machine]

True, other species form societies, but you'll notice that their societies do not surpress, deny, or otherwise act counter to their instincts, forming the society is actually part of their instincts. For humans, a large part of the reason for society is to control our instincts, which (by its nature) is counter to those instincts. So your point still fails. I also note you ignored my point about other higher-intellect species, such as dolphins, whales, primates, etc.

Primates do murder, they kill to be the group leader, and the leader actually gets to decide which babies he wants or not (killing the undesired); I don't remember which primate though, sorry. As for dolphins and whales, they're not carnivores and they probably can't even hurt each other because of their physiology. Not all animals are the same, some are more violent than others.

Now, if the human's natural instinct is to form a society, how does it counter instinct? We are different from other animals, so we have our own set of biological needs to follow.

As humans we are influenced by our instincts even in rational thought, for example, I could get really mad at something and then yell at someone else for some other thing, in which case my anger, which was a natural instinct to undesired stimuli caused me to be angry at someone else for something that normally wouldn't bother me.

This example is not in keeping with instincts, and in fact proves the opposite. If I'm mad at someone, instinctively I ought to lash out at that person. If said individual is too powerful for me to lash out at, I ought to either flee, submit myself utterly, or seek to destroy them. Doing something like continuing to work with them and directing my anger at another (i.e. displacement) is counter to instinct, but a big part of human society. Which is yet another reason to deny that humans are governed purely by instinct.

Unlike other animals, we have a much more complicated life and we have an array of feelings working at one time. I might feel like lashing out at someone, but maybe he's my best friend and I wouldn't want to hurt him (the anger is suppressed by friendship, both normal feelings), but I didn't really get rid of the anger so as soon as someone else that I don't care about bothers me, I lash out at them. The problem is priority, since we are a lot smarter we do start getting feelings crossed and have to choose which one to follow (that's what I was trying to get to with the mention of Maslow's pyramid).

Also, displacement is normal in other animals as well. If you tease a dog so bad that it starts to get angry at you, it's very possible for the dog to attack other people even if he hasn't attacked you before.

They claim they're doing evil, but if they're enjoying something like torturing infants, then isn't it good for them? All humans have problems, does this suggest that everyone is inherently evil? (as a little side note, there was one time when I felt the urge to crush a kitty, but I didn't do it cause damn! You might consider that thought to be evil, but if I say it's actually good, how can you prove me wrong?).

For your first question, no. The fact that a person enjoys doing something does not make that thing not evil, still less so if they themselves recognize it to be evil. Evil (or its lack) is not dependent on enjoyment save only that we may be more prone to commit evil actions that are pleasant then those that are not. The fact that we all have problems likewise does not make us all absolutely evil, I mentioned in an earier post that it is easy to identify evil deeds, it is much harder and rarer to find completely evil individuals because of the complexity of humans. You yourself recognized that thought as evil, or why didn't you crush the kity? You wanted to do it, so presumably you would have "enjoyed it", why didn't you? It's because despite your comments you do recognize that such an action would be evil. Or (if I'm misinterpreting you) at least most individuals would see killing the kity for no reason as evil.

I apologize for sounding so cruel. I would have enjoyed killing that kitty, but not as much as having it in the house. It's not a choice of good or evil, but a question of preference and other influences in my life (family, friends, etc.). I have learned that kitties are cool to have around and that's what other people tell me, so I decided to keep it alive (do note that I wasn't that critical at the time, I was about 9 years old). A better example would be hunting, some people like hunting and teach that to their kids, while others dislike some characteristics of it and hate it (like walking through the woods or killing animals).

You say that the action itself is evil, then we shouldn't eat anything because we're taking the life of another living organism and is therefore evil. You can find an evil side to every single thing you can imagine: talking to you is evil because it's keeping me from doing my homework (actually true) and if I don't do it I might fail the class, then drop out of school and get a monotonous job where I'm so depressed that I kill myself. Talking is now evil. Dynamite is great for excavating caves and other useful purposes, but they can kill people, so its use is now evil.

The bottom line is, as has been expressed numerous times in this topic, that there is no way to measure evil or prove its existence, it's a concept that came out of our rationale and is therefore subjective. Unless I can throw chemicals into a glass to produce an result, then it doesn't exist. Plus, who's going to say what is evil and what isn't and how can they prove that they are right to anyone who disagrees? That is why we have disputes over matters like abortion: If we abort a baby then it's one less mouth to feed which warrants a better life to the rest (Good), but you prevent someone from living (Evil). Which one is correct?

You also said earlier that it is possible for there to be a neutral between good and evil, but you're taking a mathematical side into this; for it to be possible we should be able to measure evil (as in I'm 50 evil units high).

If I've identified what you are talking about correctly, what I said was it is possible for an action to be neither good nor evil, so evil is not simply the absence of good, but rather its opposite. Our own language would support this interpretation, in words like amoral as opposed to immoral.

If it's the opposite, then a good deed would negate an evil deed, so it would be ok for me to kill one person as long as I give birth to another. Antimatter explodes when it comes in contact with matter. Plus, morality is also a concept brought up by man, so it's also subjective (reason why you find a similarity).

[psi29a]

Need a vote, leave thread alone, or split off to Off-the-wall or 'current events and politics' ?

[Eldo]

Probably split it to another thread in the Berserk forum, since we are (well, more like 'were') using the characters from Berserk as an example.

But yeah, otherwise, split it in the off-the-wall or current affairs. The former fits a bit better, though, since we aren't really talking about politics or current affairs.

[War Machine]

I don't even think I can keep talking about this, my brain is swelling.

[Istvan]

Primates do murder, they kill to be the group leader, and the leader actually gets to decide which babies he wants or not (killing the undesired); I don't remember which primate though, sorry. As for dolphins and whales, they're not carnivores and they probably can't even hurt each other because of their physiology. Not all animals are the same, some are more violent than others.

If you figure out what species of primates acts that way, let me know I'd be interested. Regardless, no species of primate I'm aware of commits murder, and even if there's one exception, it wouldn't invalidate the point. To claim that dolphins can't murder each other because they don't is absurd, since dolphins can kill sharks (and vice versa, of course). They just don't kill their own species. Second, dolphins eat fish, they are predators. So the point about humans being the only intelligent species that commits murder stands.

Now, if the human's natural instinct is to form a society, how does it counter instinct? We are different from other animals, so we have our own set of biological needs to follow.

Because you yourself have admitted/stated that society causes us to act counter to our instincts. Instinct can not cause us to act counter to instinct, it wouldn't make sense. Ergo, we aren't governed solely by instinct, so to claim that instinct decides right and wrong is a logical fallacy. QED.

Unlike other animals, we have a much more complicated life and we have an array of feelings working at one time. I might feel like lashing out at someone, but maybe he's my best friend and I wouldn't want to hurt him (the anger is suppressed by friendship, both normal feelings), but I didn't really get rid of the anger so as soon as someone else that I don't care about bothers me, I lash out at them. The problem is priority, since we are a lot smarter we do start getting feelings crossed and have to choose which one to follow (that's what I was trying to get to with the mention of Maslow's pyramid).

I think I've already covered this by pointing out that we aren't fully governed by our instincts, and often act counter to them. Heck a perfect example is when an individual's instincts tell them one thing, but their reason tells them something else, and they choose to trust and follow their reason (which is sometimes a good thing, and others a bad) proves that we aren't slaves to our instincts, we can act counter to them. If this is true, then instinct cannot be used as an excuse to justify our actions, because we could have chosen to act otherwise.

I apologize for sounding so cruel. I would have enjoyed killing that kitty, but not as much as having it in the house. It's not a choice of good or evil, but a question of preference and other influences in my life (family, friends, etc.). I have learned that kitties are cool to have around and that's what other people tell me, so I decided to keep it alive (do note that I wasn't that critical at the time, I was about 9 years old).

Right, you were nine, and didn't think all of that out. You didn't decide that you'd miss the cat more then you'd enjoy killing it, you knew that killing the cat would be wrong. It's that simple.

You say that the action itself is evil, then we shouldn't eat anything because we're taking the life of another living organism and is therefore evil.

I did not say that. Killing something simply for fun (and for no other reason, but only because it is fun) is evil. That holds true no matter what you're killing. Killing animals for food to feed people who need food, or to save your life (i.e. it's attacking something) isn't evil, and I never claimed it was.

You can find an evil side to every single thing you can imagine: talking to you is evil because it's keeping me from doing my homework (actually true) and if I don't do it I might fail the class, then drop out of school and get a monotonous job where I'm so depressed that I kill myself.

Still not evil. You can find a negative side, is not the same thing as it being evil. You aren't hurting anyone else. Maybe not even negative, since perhaps the philosophical discussion here will help to expand your mind, ultimately leading you to have a better, more fulfilling life. Who knows?

Talking is now evil. Dynamite is great for excavating caves and other useful purposes, but they can kill people, so its use is now evil.

Dynamite is just a tool, tools are neither good nor evil. It's the use to which a tool is put that is either good or evil. Dynamite simply is. Lacking a will of its own, it can't be called evil in and of itself.

The bottom line is, as has been expressed numerous times in this topic, that there is no way to measure evil or prove its existence, it's a concept that came out of our rationale and is therefore subjective. Unless I can throw chemicals into a glass to produce an result, then it doesn't exist.

Taking you litterally, that means that anything not composed of chemicals, or that can't be contained by a glass, doesn't exist (i.e. most of reality). So I'll assume you were talking figuratively, saying that unless it could be scientifically measured it didn't exist. This is also absurd, since there are a number of aspects of human society that can't be scientifically measured, but nonetheless are quite real. Is there a scientific test to determine the difference between the truth and a lie? As with good and evil, the border between those two can often be fuzzy, and hard to determine, but few doubt that they are in fact real concepts, with real meanings. How about the concept of will power? There's no genetic sequence for it, and it can shift even in a given individual based on circumstance, so it can't really be measured, but it certainly exists. It's manifested in circumstances such as one individual having way more native talent then another, but the second doing way better then the first, because they have more will to succeed. It's real, it exists, even if science can't accurately measure it. Good and evil are the same way.

If it's the opposite, then a good deed would negate an evil deed, so it would be ok for me to kill one person as long as I give birth to another. Antimatter explodes when it comes in contact with matter. Plus, morality is also a concept brought up by man, so it's also subjective (reason why you find a similarity).

Not completely accurate. Going back to an earlier example, truth and lies are opposites. If I lie about one subject, and tell the truth about another, does that mean the lie is gone? Of course not. The two can't be in different subjects. We do however have the concept of atonement, which if it doesn't cause the evil action to vanish, basically involves doing good in order to make up for some evil act that one regrets. So there's no logical problem with saying that good and evil are opposites.

P.S. I don't mind switching to a new thread, or just staying in this one, either is fine with me.

[War Machine]

Primates do murder, they kill to be the group leader, and the leader actually gets to decide which babies he wants or not (killing the undesired); I don't remember which primate though, sorry. As for dolphins and whales, they're not carnivores and they probably can't even hurt each other because of their physiology. Not all animals are the same, some are more violent than others.

If you figure out what species of primates acts that way, let me know I'd be interested. Regardless, no species of primate I'm aware of commits murder[...]

Oh, becuase you don't know about it, it isn't true? I was really hoping that you would believe me on this because this was something I saw in the Animal Planet and it would be hard for me to find that information again. Anyway, here's some interesting reading on chimpanzees:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... peqa.shtml

Now, if the human's natural instinct is to form a society, how does it counter instinct? We are different from other animals, so we have our own set of biological needs to follow.

Because you yourself have admitted/stated that society causes us to act counter to our instincts. Instinct can not cause us to act counter to instinct, it wouldn't make sense. Ergo, we aren't governed solely by instinct, so to claim that instinct decides right and wrong is a logical fallacy. QED.

At no point during any of my posts did I led anyone to believe that a society is counter to instinct. Plus, you're seeing instinct as an absolute "force" that all animals follow all the time, but you must know that not all animals of the same species are the same: Two bloodhounds will not act exactly the same. Also, as you can see in the link above, chimpanzees form societies and kill one another, every single aspect of our society can be found in nature at different levels.

I think I've already covered this by pointing out that we aren't fully governed by our instincts, and often act counter to them. Heck a perfect example is when an individual's instincts tell them one thing, but their reason tells them something else, and they choose to trust and follow their reason (which is sometimes a good thing, and others a bad) proves that we aren't slaves to our instincts, we can act counter to them. If this is true, then instinct cannot be used as an excuse to justify our actions, because we could have chosen to act otherwise.

Instinct is not a single feeling and doesn't show itself the same way always. I could feel fear and anger at the same time, and I could react differently depending on which one I think is more prominent. I could fight or run, which are two different outcomes to a threat that occur instinctively. And there are a lot more.

I apologize for sounding so cruel. I would have enjoyed killing that kitty, but not as much as having it in the house. It's not a choice of good or evil, but a question of preference and other influences in my life (family, friends, etc.). I have learned that kitties are cool to have around and that's what other people tell me, so I decided to keep it alive (do note that I wasn't that critical at the time, I was about 9 years old).

Right, you were nine, and didn't think all of that out. You didn't decide that you'd miss the cat more then you'd enjoy killing it, you knew that killing the cat would be wrong. It's that simple.

Yes, that's true. My influences from my culture dictated how I should act. In my culture, killing kitties is wrong, so I didn't kill it. In the egyptian culture it was illegal to even harm a cat (an offense punishable by death regardless of intention), now this culture would consider killing a cat an illegal act, but say that I killed a cat attempting to save the faraoh of a threat he didn't know about. In that case, anyone from that culture would condemn me for that act, but in our culture, maybe I would be seen as a hero. So society dicates what is wrong or right, and what is evil or not, none of these concepts are absolute.

Still not evil. You can find a negative side, is not the same thing as it being evil. You aren't hurting anyone else. Maybe not even negative, since perhaps the philosophical discussion here will help to expand your mind, ultimately leading you to have a better, more fulfilling life. Who knows?

Exactly, who knows? You cannot condemn any act as being evil because you don't really know how much good came out of it.

Talking is now evil. Dynamite is great for excavating caves and other useful purposes, but they can kill people, so its use is now evil.

Dynamite is just a tool, tools are neither good nor evil. It's the use to which a tool is put that is either good or evil. Dynamite simply is. Lacking a will of its own, it can't be called evil in and of itself.

I did say "so its use is now evil", not the dynamite alone. But it's the same example as before.

Taking you litterally, that means that anything not composed of chemicals, or that can't be contained by a glass, doesn't exist (i.e. most of reality). So I'll assume you were talking figuratively, saying that unless it could be scientifically measured it didn't exist.

Don't strain yourself re-stating the obvious.

This is also absurd, since there are a number of aspects of human society that can't be scientifically measured, but nonetheless are quite real. Is there a scientific test to determine the difference between the truth and a lie? As with good and evil, the border between those two can often be fuzzy, and hard to determine, but few doubt that they are in fact real concepts, with real meanings. How about the concept of will power? There's no genetic sequence for it, and it can shift even in a given individual based on circumstance, so it can't really be measured, but it certainly exists. It's manifested in circumstances such as one individual having way more native talent then another, but the second doing way better then the first, because they have more will to succeed. It's real, it exists, even if science can't accurately measure it. Good and evil are the same way.

If it's the opposite, then a good deed would negate an evil deed, so it would be ok for me to kill one person as long as I give birth to another. Antimatter explodes when it comes in contact with matter. Plus, morality is also a concept brought up by man, so it's also subjective (reason why you find a similarity).

Not completely accurate. Going back to an earlier example, truth and lies are opposites. If I lie about one subject, and tell the truth about another, does that mean the lie is gone? Of course not. The two can't be in different subjects. We do however have the concept of atonement, which if it doesn't cause the evil action to vanish, basically involves doing good in order to make up for some evil act that one regrets. So there's no logical problem with saying that good and evil are opposites.

Just as you said it, concept. Concepts transcend cultures because we comunicate, that is why you see similar ideas of good and evil in different cultures, but they're never the same. We have made a great amount of concepts that are very subjective; that follow logic, but not necessarily reality.

From wikipedia:

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with the questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).

As you may already know, philosophy raises a lot of questions that are tough to prove, questions that will most probably remain unanswered throughout our existence (you can find numerous examples of this if you look into philosophy, so I won't bother showing examples).

Your concept of good and evil can't be proved, and because of that, it's subjective. Your idea of good and evil can never be absolute (do note that it doesn't mean that it's false either).

Miura actually expresses this in chapter 83 - God of the Abyss (the chapter that was removed from volume 13), in the second page of that chapter you see this weird monster and on the left side there's a message saying "The Idea Of Evil" (which is how they call this "god"). If you don't have that chapter you can see the transcript here:

http://arcticnightfall.com/ranemaka13/m ... =chapter83

PS: This is pretty much all I can say, further debate would only waste time unless you think we can come up with some revelation. Quite frankly, I don't think I'm the man for that since I struggle too much writing in English and many thoughts are (yes, like the movie) lost in translation.

[MrFelony]

Just a little tid bit about that primate murder stuff. War Machine is right that Chimps and some other primates kill other primates. The cases I've heard about are usually one tribe killing a chimp from another tribe possibly to defend territory (as suggested by the program as well as what I read for class). The chimp then will sometimes share the dead chimps meat with others in the pack to build community and loyalty.

[Gaiseric]

Watch Planet Earth, I think it was the jungle episode where one tribe of chimps formed a raid party and invaded another tribes territory, they killed one or two chimps then ate them.

[Istvan]

Oh, becuase you don't know about it, it isn't true? I was really hoping that you would believe me on this because this was something I saw in the Animal Planet and it would be hard for me to find that information again. Anyway, here's some interesting reading on chimpanzees:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... peqa.shtml

Nothing against you, but if someone I don't know says something that contradicts the facts I know, I like to know where they learned it, if possible, so I can seek independent clarification. Often it's exactly as they said, but other times I find it was a misinterpretation, so it seems worthwile to try to check. In this case, I stand corrected. Well done. Correcting myself, it appears humans are still the only intelligent species that kills for fun.

At no point during any of my posts did I led anyone to believe that a society is counter to instinct.

Sorry, my bad. That was incubus who said that, and you answered the post where I addressed him. I misremembered.

Plus, you're seeing instinct as an absolute "force" that all animals follow all the time, but you must know that not all animals of the same species are the same: Two bloodhounds will not act exactly the same.

Which implies that (even for animals) there is more then just instinct, and even more so for humans. I don't question that instincts exist, merely that they rule us. As thinking beings, we can choose to follow (or not) our instincts, and so those instincts cannot be used as a justification/excuse for our actions.

Also, as you can see in the link above, chimpanzees form societies and kill one another, every single aspect of our society can be found in nature at different levels.

Not every aspect. For example, no other species has the concept of war, and no intelligent species kills for fun, no other species commits torture, etc. Interesting how the most evil aspects of our society are amoung the ones unique to us (the ones that can't be blamed on instincts) isn't it?

Instinct is not a single feeling and doesn't show itself the same way always. I could feel fear and anger at the same time, and I could react differently depending on which one I think is more prominent. I could fight or run, which are two different outcomes to a threat that occur instinctively. And there are a lot more.

First, I feel that I should point out that emotions and instincts are not the same thing. You're lumping different concepts together. Also, aside from the different instinctual responses, it is possible to act counter to instinct, which again proves that instinct cannot be claimed to rule us.

Yes, that's true. My influences from my culture dictated how I should act. In my culture, killing kitties is wrong, so I didn't kill it. In the egyptian culture it was illegal to even harm a cat (an offense punishable by death regardless of intention), now this culture would consider killing a cat an illegal act, but say that I killed a cat attempting to save the faraoh of a threat he didn't know about. In that case, anyone from that culture would condemn me for that act, but in our culture, maybe I would be seen as a hero. So society dicates what is wrong or right, and what is evil or not, none of these concepts are absolute.

I agree (and have throughout) that some aspects of morality are relative, and vary between cultures. Other aspects, however, exist in all cultures, and so can't be called relative or subjective, since those would imply that it vary's based on perspective, and if all cultures share the concept, it can't truly be said to vary by perspective (again, for this as in all tests of objective vs. subjective we exclude the insane). So some aspects are absolute. I've given examples of this in previous posts.

Exactly, who knows? You cannot condemn any act as being evil because you don't really know how much good came out of it.

I cannot (and wouldn't want to) condemn that act as absolute is not the same as saying I couldn't for any act, there are acts I most certainly can condemn. See previous posts.

I did say "so its use is now evil", not the dynamite alone. But it's the same example as before.

Same argument, it's still a tool, using it isn't evil, it's what you use it to do that is or is not evil.

Don't strain yourself re-stating the obvious.

It's fun. Since that's why I post here, that's all the reason needed.

Just as you said it, concept. Concepts transcend cultures because we comunicate, that is why you see similar ideas of good and evil in different cultures, but they're never the same. We have made a great amount of concepts that are very subjective; that follow logic, but not necessarily reality.

Any concept that exists, in basically the same format in every single culture cannot accurately be labeled subjective. Some concepts, of course, are subjective, but that in no way means they all are.

[raoh]

Not every aspect. For example, no other species has the concept of war, and no intelligent species kills for fun, no other species commits torture, etc. Interesting how the most evil aspects of our society are amoung the ones unique to us (the ones that can't be blamed on instincts) isn't it?

im gonna try and stay out of the philosophical side here, but no other species is organised and has the capacity for war for although like someone said above primates often have territorial skirmishes. Saying no other species tortures, well thats like saying no other species bombs itself, they dont have the mental capacity for it, but they may well have the sadism, the urge to create fear or just do it for the same reasons most creatures play with their prey.
killer whales play seal volleyball for "fun", and dolphins bite out the tongues in whales for fun and are also the only other species to have sex for pleasure instead of release

[MrFelony]

[
im gonna try and stay out of the philosophical side here, but no other species is organised and has the capacity for war for although like someone said above primates often have territorial skirmishes. Saying no other species tortures, well thats like saying no other species bombs itself, they dont have the mental capacity for it, but they may well have the sadism, the urge to create fear or just do it for the same reasons most creatures play with their prey.
killer whales play seal volleyball for "fun", and dolphins bite out the tongues in whales for fun and are also the only other species to have sex for pleasure instead of release

I agree with raoh, just because animals don't commit war, torture or other malicious activities doesn't mean they wouldn't if they had the capabilities. also, read up on the bonobo species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Psy ... cteristics

[edit] Psychological characteristics
Frans de Waal, one of the world's leading primatologists, states that the Bonobo is often capable of altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience and sensitivity.

Recent observations in the wild have seemed to indicate that the males among the Common Chimpanzee troops are extraordinarily hostile to males from outside of the troop. Parties are organized to "patrol" for the unfortunate males who might be living nearby in a solitary state. (Some researchers have suggested, however, that this behaviour has been caused by a combination of human contact and interference and massive environmental stress caused by deforestation and a corresponding range reduction.[8]) This does not appear to be the behavior of the Bonobo males or females, both of which seem to prefer sexual contact with their group to violent confrontation with outsiders. The Bonobo lives where the more aggressive Common Chimpanzee does not. Possibly the Bonobo has given a wide berth to its more violent and stronger cousins. Neither swim, and they sometimes inhabit ranges on opposite sides of the great rivers. Bonobos are supposed to live a more peaceful lifestyle in part because of their habitat, which has more nutritional vegetation, allowing less hunting, less competition, and a social outlet of eating.

Bonobos, at least in captivity, are generally held to have superior intelligence to Common Chimpanzees.[9]


[edit] Sexual social behavior
Sexual intercourse plays a major role in Bonobo society, being used as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconciliation, and as favors traded by the females in exchange for food. Bonobos are the only non-human apes to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex (most frequently female-female, then male-female and male-male), tongue kissing, and oral sex.[1] [2] In scientific literature, the female-female sex is often referred to as GG rubbing or genital-genital rubbing, while male-male sex is sometimes referred to as penis fencing.[10]

Sexual activity happens within the immediate family as well as outside it, and often involves adults and children, even infants.[11] Bonobos do not form permanent relationships with individual partners. They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by gender or age, with the possible exception of sexual intercourse between mothers and their adult sons; some observers believe these pairings are taboo. When Bonobos come upon a new food source or feeding ground, the increased excitement will usually lead to communal sexual activity, presumably decreasing tension and allowing for peaceful feeding.[12]

Bonobo males frequently engage in various forms of male-male genital sex (frot).[13] [3][4] One form has two males hang from a tree limb face-to-face while "penis fencing". Frot may also occur where two males rub their penises together while in missionary position. A special form of frot called "rump rubbing" occurs to express reconciliation between two males after a conflict, where they stand back-to-back and rub their scrotal sacks together.

Bonobo females also engage in female-female genital sex (tribadism) to socially bond with each other, thus forming a female nucleus of Bonobo society. The bonding between females allows them to dominate Bonobo society - although male Bonobos are individually stronger, they cannot stand alone against a united group of females. Adolescent females often leave their troop of birth to join another troop. Sexual bonding with other females establishes the new females as members of the group. This troop migration mixes the Bonobo gene pools.

Bonobo reproductive rates are not any higher than that of the Common Chimpanzee. Female Bonobos carry and nurse their young for five years and can give birth every five to six years. Compared with Common Chimpanzees, Bonobo females resume the genital swelling cycle much sooner after giving birth, allowing them to rejoin the sexual activities of their society. Also, Bonobo females who are either sterile or too young to reproduce still engage in sexual activity.

Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson emphasize the Bonobo's use of sex as a mechanism to avoid violence.

"[Common] Chimpanzees and Bonobos both evolved from the same ancestor that gave rise to humans, and yet the Bonobo is one of the most peaceful, unaggressive species of mammals living on the earth today. They have evolved ways to reduce violence that permeate their entire society. They show us that the evolutionary dance of violence is not inexorable".[14]

[edit] Other social behavior
Females are much smaller than males but can be considered to have a higher social status. Aggressive encounters between males and females are rare, and males are tolerant of infants and juveniles. The male's status reflects the status of his mother, and the son-mother bond often stays strong and continues throughout life. While social hierarchies do exist, rank does not play as prominent a role as it does in other primate societies.

Bonobos are active from dawn to dusk and live in a fission-fusion pattern: a tribe of about a hundred will split into small groups during the day while looking for food, and then come back together to sleep. They sleep on trees in nests they construct. Unlike Common Chimpanzees, who are known to hunt monkeys, Bonobos are primarily frugivores, although they do eat insects and have been observed occasionally catching small mammals such as squirrels.


[edit] Closeness to humanity
Bonobos are capable of passing the mirror-recognition test for self-awareness. They communicate through primarily vocal means, although the meanings of their vocalizations are not currently known; however, humans do understand their facial expressions[4] and some of their natural hand gestures, such as their invitation to play. Two Bonobos, Kanzi and Panbanisha have been taught a vocabulary of about 400 words which they can type using a special keyboard of lexigrams (geometric symbols), and can respond to spoken sentences. Some, such as bioethicist Peter Singer, argue that these results qualify them for the "rights to survival and life", rights that humans theoretically accord to all persons.

Bonobo's are fucking kinky motherfuckers

[Brainpiercing]

Bonobos are the hippies of the ape world. They only haven't learned how to smoke marihuana.

[Istvan]

im gonna try and stay out of the philosophical side here, but no other species is organised and has the capacity for war for although like someone said above primates often have territorial skirmishes. Saying no other species tortures, well thats like saying no other species bombs itself, they dont have the mental capacity for it, but they may well have the sadism, the urge to create fear or just do it for the same reasons most creatures play with their prey.
killer whales play seal volleyball for "fun", and dolphins bite out the tongues in whales for fun and are also the only other species to have sex for pleasure instead of release

Claiming that they don't commit torture for fun because they lack the mental capacity is a flawed argument. If primates can be taught our language, and how to communicate, if in fact they can take IQ tests, and do fairly well on them (they have), they are plenty bright enough to understand the concept of torture, especially if we were claiming that evil actions are "instinctual".

Your examples of intelligent species being cruel is also flawed, since none of the examples applied to their own species, as humans torturing each other does. Can you name any other species that kills other members of their species for fun? Or even one that is needlessly cruel when killing of their species? These are uniquely human attributes, which is why I reject any attempt to claim that such behavior is "natural" or "instinctive", since it's no such thing.

Bonobo's are fucking kinky motherfuckers

True enough. I like Brainpiercing's description, actually, as hippies. But it is interesting to note that they're also an amazingly peaceful species.

[raoh]

We should distinguish functional torture from the sadistic variety. The former is calculated to extract information from the tortured or to punish them. It is measured, impersonal, efficient, and disinterested.

The latter - the sadistic variety - fulfils the emotional needs of the perpetrator.

People who find themselves caught up in anomic states - for instance, soldiers in war or incarcerated inmates - tend to feel helpless and alienated. They experience a partial or total loss of control. They have been rendered vulnerable, powerless, and defenseless by events and circumstances beyond their influence.

Torture amounts to exerting an absolute and all-pervasive domination of the victim's existence. It is a coping strategy employed by torturers who wish to reassert control over their lives and, thus, to re-establish their mastery and superiority. By subjugating the tortured - they regain their self-confidence and regulate their sense of self-worth.

Other tormentors channel their negative emotions - pent up aggression, humiliation, rage, envy, diffuse hatred - and displace them. The victim becomes a symbol of everything that's wrong in the torturer's life and the situation he finds himself caught in. The act of torture amounts to misplaced and violent venting.

Many perpetrate heinous acts out of a wish to conform. Torturing others is their way of demonstrating obsequious obeisance to authority, group affiliation, colleagueship, and adherence to the same ethical code of conduct and common values. They bask in the praise that is heaped on them by their superiors, fellow workers, associates, team mates, or collaborators. Their need to belong is so strong that it overpowers ethical, moral, or legal considerations.

Many offenders derive pleasure and satisfaction from sadistic acts of humiliation. To these, inflicting pain is fun. They lack empathy and so their victim's agonized reactions are merely cause for much hilarity.

Moreover, sadism is rooted in deviant sexuality. The torture inflicted by sadists is bound to involve perverted sex (rape, homosexual rape, voyeurism, exhibitionism, pedophilia, fetishism, and other paraphilias). Aberrant sex, unlimited power, excruciating pain - these are the intoxicating ingredients of the sadistic variant of torture.

Still, torture rarely occurs where it does not have the sanction and blessing of the authorities, whether local or national. A permissive environment is sine qua non. The more abnormal the circumstances, the less normative the milieu, the further the scene of the crime is from public scrutiny - the more is egregious torture likely to occur. This is especially true in totalitarian societies where the use of physical force to discipline or eliminate dissent is an acceptable practice.

taken from http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-9-2004-53924.asp after a quick googling. we are a lot more complex than other animals psychologically, but we still have the drives down there

[Istvan]

This article didn't actually relate to anything that we were talking about. I have never argued that there aren't generally psychological reasons for why people torture each other, what I argued was that these reasons couldn't be called instinctive or natural. Nothing in the article you quoted seems to disprove any of my points. Psychological reasons, yes. Instinctive, no. Thus we still can't blame our instincts for our crimes and the evil that we commit.

[raoh]

This article didn't actually relate to anything that we were talking about. I have never argued that there aren't generally psychological reasons for why people torture each other, what I argued was that these reasons couldn't be called instinctive or natural. Nothing in the article you quoted seems to disprove any of my points. Psychological reasons, yes. Instinctive, no. Thus we still can't blame our instincts for our crimes and the evil that we commit.

it described our reactions to instincts, need for dominance or to conform. also i dont think anyone has said instincts were the only reason behind things we call evil, if it was as simple as "a torture instinct" there would be no discussion about it but we are a little more complex than that.

[Brainpiercing]

I have to say perhaps the strongest analogy to real life is ambition and how much people are prepared to sacrifice to reach their goals. Many people don't sacrifice their friends, others do, many without even realizing it. Some sacrifice their families, without ever noticing. Sure, in real life there is no eclipse, no bloody murder of the loved ones, but the result is very similar.

In light of this, someone give a Behelit to G.W. B. already.