Humanity and the Nature of Good vs Evil

Evil can run the array of colors when defining if a person or act falls under it.

I never believed children could be evil until I met one specific individual who was literally out to burn the world.
That child modified my way of thinking. (I later learned this child had a rough upbringing and so probably wasn't born that way.)

For your point of discussion, please define the terms of good and evil.
Give examples.

 

To refer to your part of moral conflict amidst religion, one philosopher I know on the matter is St Augustine, I'm not sure if you've heard on him - if not I'd read up on him after this for a more detailed account of his belief. But essentially he posited that God did not create evil because evil doesn't 'exist', it is simply the term used to describe that which has a lack of good where good should be. However that's as much as I will say on the matter being an atheist, I'm a bit biased when it comes to matters of religion.

However I think as much are there are blurred lines between the definitions of good and evil as you've said - that to one side they may be the good and righteous, and their opponent the enemy - there are things that are evil for evils sake. Things such as torture, human trafficking, slavery.. Some would say killing another is evil, but then it comes down to context and subject viewing. Is killing someone that threatens another's life evil? If someone were to go back in time and kill baby Hitler/Stalin, does the future justify the act? I like a quote from the Witcher series by Andrzej Sapkowski: 'Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all.' (Blasted phone cut out parts thank fuck for edit)

 

Funnily enough, according to Jungian theory we are both so we are all as equally qualified so to speak on the matter. According to Jung, we all have a 'shadow' self, which is the aspect of ourselves we keep repressed along with all of its negative traits; yet are aspects we are able to recognise in others. No one is wholly good, nor wholly evil because we all contain this. Going by Jungian theory, your 'persona' - the mask you have on when interacting with others such as on this site - are the aspects of yourself that are socially acceptable and which you present to others. So for your wants, right now everyone stands in the middle ground as the glue - if you want a being that is only wholly one or the other you may have to find an angel or demon

 

Of course I'm sure there's people on here who actually have an academic background in psychology and can speak better on the matter of Jung, I still have a lot of reading to do regarding him

 

So to go by your theory, how would you apply that to terrorism acts? Like 9/11, the Manchester Arena attack, or the French '15 attacks

 

This is the Jean-Jaques Rousseau vs. Thomas Hobbes debate. I don't think there's a clear answer to this question. A lot of behavior depends on IQ, which is 80% genetic. The personality of criminals tend to be extroverted, low contentiousness, high testosterone. Criminals tend to have IQs in the 80-125 range, but mostly low-average range (80-100). For example, the Parkland school shooter had a low IQ (fetal alcohol syndrome). The Sandy Hook shooter was on the autism spectrum and probably had a lower IQ. It also depends on the environment / family environment. As Hobbes and Rousseau have written, conflicts have revolved around envy, boredom, resentment, and other negative emotions. If nations like the US invest in organizations like Planned Parenthood, people are more likely to be raised to be good people / citizens.

 

I like that someone mentioned Jung. We don't do that nearly enough here. Answer to Job is the essay to read by him on this topic.

Personally, I see it as an evolutionary thing. Are cats evil? Okay, bad example because...yes...but, then, take any carnivorous predator and ask the same thing. A lion will play with his cub and even risk his life to save him from stampeding buffalo but lions will also kill the last guy's cubs (sometimes preemptively with stampeding buffalo).

So, then, there are plenty of stories of step parents treating their non biological kids worse. Maybe they don't kill them but it's in the same ballpark. Then there are those who raise them as their own and that's probably a move away from the animal mentality.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that being an animal is reality, and animals can be humane. However, denying one's roots in the animal world, and acting as though only humans are capable of 'goodness', means that 'badness' will erupt spontaneously and uncontrollably or be kept on the DL and be more pathological and compulsive for it.

So, yeah, basically the IQ thing...I think, maybe. Only I daresay there are more factors than just IQ at work (or play). I suppose...consciousness generally. It requires a certain amount of intelligence to realise the extent of your own unconsciousness I suppose. Is consciousness the space between emotion and action? What separates a person acting on emotion e.g. a crime of passion and an animal acting on instinct?

 

Psychopaths / sociopaths often have brain damage, under the influence of drugs, high testosterone levels.

 

It amazes me we had debates on this topic early on in this forum's existence, and after it, there were mass shootings in the news. Crazy.