Good and Evil.

[ольга]

I think we all learn different lessons as we develop. Some learn early that life is unfair and unstable and cruel. They learn that trusting others leads to disaster. They learn that a better way for them to be successful is to think of themselves only. They learn anger, and they learn revenge.

The kid who was mistreated by an alcoholic father that burns him with cigarette butts grows up thinking the world is his fault and that inflicting pain on others is a form of power. The lessons we learn in our formative years become internalized, until we don't question them anymore. A super simplistic cliche but I think it makes the point.

Не совсем так. В России проводили эксперимент с лисами, который длился несколько десятилетий(возможно, вы о нём слышали). Суть его такова: взяли группу лис и поделили её примерно пополам. Самых злых и агрессивных выделили в одну группу, остальных подобрее - в другую. Затем из каждого помёта стали отбирать добрых - отдельно, злых - отдельно. И так на протяжении нескольких десятилетий отбирали самых добрых, и самых злых. В результате получили лис, которые были сверх лояльны и ласковы к человеку и друг к другу в одной группе, и сверх злых и агрессивных в другой. Затем учёные подложили в помёт к добрым лисам новорождённых злых лис. Когда они подросли, то оставались такими же злыми и агрессивными, как и их биологические родители, несмотря на окружение и воспитание в среде добрых лис. Тогда учёные взяли эмбрионы злых лис, и подсадили их добрым лисам. Результат был тот же. Вывод: всё решает генетика. Роль воспитания и окружающей среды сильно преувеличена.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not exactly. In Russia, they conducted an experiment with foxes that lasted for several decades (you may have heard of it). The gist of it was this: they took a group of foxes and divided it roughly in half. The most evil and aggressive were put into one group, the rest, more kind, into another. Then, from each litter, they began to select the good ones separately, and the evil ones separately. And so, over the course of several decades, they selected the kindest and the most evil. As a result, they got foxes that were super loyal and affectionate to people and to each other in one group, and super evil and aggressive in another. Then the scientists put newborn evil foxes into a litter with good foxes. When they grew up, they remained as evil and aggressive as their biological parents, despite being surrounded and raised in an environment of good foxes. Then the scientists took the embryos of the evil foxes and put them into the good foxes. The result was the same. Conclusion: Genetics decides everything. The role of upbringing and environment is greatly exaggerated.

I am familiar with the fox experiment, yes.

But note: animals are not good or evil. They are reactive.

Humans make conscious choices. Humans can decide to be cruel or kind.

Ever heard the expression 'there are no bad dogs, only bad owners'?

What it means is that a dog that attacks someone or some thing isn't 'evil'; it is only doing what it has learned is an appropriate action.

 

[ольга]

I am familiar with the fox experiment, yes.

But note: animals are not good or evil. They are reactive.

Humans make conscious choices. Humans can decide to be cruel or kind.

Ever heard the expression 'there are no bad dogs, only bad owners'?

What it means is that a dog that attacks someone or some thing isn't 'evil'; it is only doing what it has learned is an appropriate action.

Дэйв, так и люди не считают себя плохими, за редким исключением. Как говорит один наш известный священник: "сам дрянь дрянью, а всё твердит - я не такой, как другие люди, я лучше".

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, people don't consider themselves bad either, with rare exceptions.

True. But people are also masters of self-deception.

 

[C C]

Anything that prevents society and the individual from surviving, what destroys them is considered evil. ...... Всё, что мешает обществу и отдельному индивиду выживать, то, что их разрушает - считается злом.

Like horse theft or rape or Louise Monnier imprisoning her daughter in a room for decades, there are countless actions that have been classed as "evil' throughout history that still allowed survival afterwards (excluding the perpetrator being executed).

Today, though, we may often tend to reserve classification of "evil" for the very worst things that can be committed, rather than "morally objectionable behavior" in general.

And some rights have been extended to animals in this era -- to one mitigated degree or another, and there's even environmental ethics.

Moral relativism has led to scrounging for principles that might be universal to all human cultures. Some freethinkers of both the past and today would object to some of those below (anything rubbing shoulders with unflinching loyalty, patriotism, etc).

Seven moral rules found all around the world
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-02-11-seven-moral-rules-found-all-around-world

(1) help your family

(2) help your group

(3) return favours

(4) be brave

(5) defer to superiors

(6) divide resources fairly

(7) respect others’ property
_

 

[ольга]

Like horse theft or rape or Louise Monnier imprisoning her daughter in a room for decades, there are countless actions that have been classed as "evil' throughout history that still allowed survival afterwards (excluding the perpetrator being executed).

Today, though, we may often tend to reserve classification of "evil" for the very worst things that can be committed, rather than "morally objectionable behavior" in general.

And some rights have been extended to animals in this era -- to one mitigated degree or another, and there's even environmental ethics.

Moral relativism has led to scrounging for principles that might be universal to all human cultures. Some freethinkers of both the past and today would object to some of those below (anything rubbing shoulders with unflinching loyalty, patriotism, etc).

Seven moral rules found all around the world
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-02-11-seven-moral-rules-found-all-around-world

(1) help your family

(2) help your group

(3) return favours

(4) be brave

(5) defer to superiors

(6) divide resources fairly

(7) respect others’ property
_

А если человеку на всех плевать, если он никого не любит? Разве он кому то что то должен, кроме своих родителей?

 

[ольга]

True. But people are also masters of self-deception.

Да. Мне было лет 8, когда я вдруг поймала себя на мысли о том, что вот сейчас я обманываю саму себя. Меня это настолько поразило, что я остановилась "как вкопанная". До сих пор помню это место, и свои чувства. Обманывать себя нельзя. Это мешает ясно мыслить.

 

[C C]

And if a person doesn't care if he doesn't love anyone? Does he owe anything to anyone but his parents? ...... А если человеку на всех плевать, если он никого не любит? Разве он кому то что то должен, кроме своих родителей?

Doesn't matter as long as the external conduct of a person is not breaking laws. An Orwellian government of today would lack the ability to read minds, though hooking questionable citizens up to lie-detectors (to test for inner loyalty or love) might not be ruled out.
_

 

[DaveC426913]

But what if a person doesn't care about anyone, if he doesn't love anyone? Does he owe anything to anyone except his parents?

In my opinion, that does not rise to the level of evil.
It may be crummy, and selfish, but not evil.

And keep in mind, it's also abstract. It is functionally vacuous to say "someone doesn't care about anyone"; the deed is in the doing. You might suppose she would let a dog drown, but she would have to do it to qualify as evil, IMO.

There are countless films themed on the idea that a person is to be judged on their actions, not on their reputation.

 

[ольга]

Doesn't matter as long as the external conduct of a person is not breaking laws. An Orwellian government of today would lack the ability to read minds, though hooking questionable citizens up to lie-detectors (to test for inner loyalty or love) might not be ruled out.
_

Это дело времени. Уже сейчас можно составить примерную картину о человеке по его активности в соц.сетях, например. Или по его расходам и покупкам. А со временем ИИ научится из минимума информации выстраивать психологический портрет.

 

[ольга]

In my opinion, that does not rise to the level of evil.
It may be crummy, and selfish, but not evil.

And keep in mind, it's also abstract. It is functionally vacuous to say "someone doesn't care about anyone"; the deed is in the doing. You might suppose she would let a dog drown, but she would have to do it to qualify as evil, IMO.

There are countless films themed on the idea that a person is to be judged on their actions, not on their reputation.

"Бойтесь равнодушных, ибо с их молчаливого согласия происходят все преступления на Земле" - помните, кто это сказал? Кого называют "не холодными" и "не горячими"?

In my opinion, that does not rise to the level of evil.
It may be crummy, and selfish, but not evil.

And keep in mind, it's also abstract. It is functionally vacuous to say "someone doesn't care about anyone"; the deed is in the doing. You might suppose she would let a dog drown, but she would have to do it to qualify as evil, IMO.

There are countless films themed on the idea that a person is to be judged on their actions, not on their reputation.

 

[DaveC426913]

"Fear the indifferent, for with their silent consent all the crimes on Earth occur" - remember who said that? Who is called "not cold" and "not hot"?

Nobody said anything about indifferent. What concerns me is prejudgment and prejudice. I'm a normally functioning society, most people don't commit heinous acts, butvwecar3 very quick to judge and assume things are worse than they are.

 

[ольга]

Nobody said anything about indifferent. What concerns me is prejudgment and prejudice. I'm a normally functioning society, most people don't commit heinous acts, butvwecar3 very quick to judge and assume things are worse than they are.

Дэйв, всё зависит от условий. Все добрые, пока всё хорошо. На Титанике тоже все были добры, веселы, и никто никого не обижал. Пока не пришлось эвакуироваться на плотах. Тогда вся эта наносная шелуха и спала. Кто то помогал слабым, женщинам и детям, отдавая им свои места в шлюпках, а кто то наоборот расталкивал всех, пытаясь спастись самому. У нас говорят: хочешь узнать человека получше - поставь его в критическую ситуацию. Тогда и узнаешь, кто есть кто. Возможно, человек и сам о себе многого не знает. У нас несколько лет назад фильм вышел, "Остров" называется. Он примерно об этом. Хороший фильм, психологичный такой, со смыслом.

 

[gmilam]

Not exactly. In Russia, they conducted an experiment with foxes that lasted for several decades (you may have heard of it). The gist of it was this: they took a group of foxes and divided it roughly in half. The most evil and aggressive were put into one group, the rest, more kind, into another. Then, from each litter, they began to select the good ones separately, and the evil ones separately. And so, over the course of several decades, they selected the kindest and the most evil. As a result, they got foxes that were super loyal and affectionate to people and to each other in one group, and super evil and aggressive in another. Then the scientists put newborn evil foxes into a litter with good foxes. When they grew up, they remained as evil and aggressive as their biological parents, despite being surrounded and raised in an environment of good foxes. Then the scientists took the embryos of the evil foxes and put them into the good foxes. The result was the same. Conclusion: Genetics decides everything. The role of upbringing and environment is greatly exaggerated.

Aggressive does not equal evil. Docile does not equal good.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, it all depends on the conditions. Everyone is kind, as long as everything is good. On the Titanic, everyone was kind, cheerful, and no one offended anyone. Until they had to evacuate on rafts. Then all this superficial husk fell asleep. Some helped the weak, women and children, giving them their places in the lifeboats, and some, on the contrary, pushed everyone aside, trying to save themselves. We say: if you want to know a person better, put him in a critical situation. Then you will find out who is who. Perhaps a person does not know much about himself. A few years ago, we had a film released, called "The Island". It is about this. A good film, psychological, meaningful.

Yup. I fear the day I am tested.

I sometimes run through scenarios where my wife is in danger just to hope I do the right thing.

But we're talking more about cowardice than evil.

 

[ольга]

Yup. I fear the day I am tested.

I sometimes run through scenarios where my wife is in danger just to hope I do the right thing.

But we're talking more about cowardice than evil.

Вот этот фильм "Остров" Павла Лунгина именно об этом. Не знаю, слышали ли о нём на Западе? Сейчас не так много хороших фильмов, но иногда попадаются.

 

[ольга]

Aggressive does not equal evil. Docile does not equal good.

Там речь шла не о добре и зле, а о влиянии генетики на характер и поведение. Лисы то, понятно, не выбирали какими им родиться. Но и человек не выбирает, а он тоже животное, хотя и высшее.

 

[DaveC426913]

But man does not choose either, and he is also an animal, albeit a higher one.

This seems a contradiction in terms. Or a difference without a distinction.

If humans do not get to choose any more than animals do, then they are not - as you say - higher.

 

[ольга]

This seems a contradiction in terms. Or a difference without a distinction.

If humans do not get to choose any more than animals do, then they are not - as you say - higher.

Человек не может выбирать родиться ему умным или глупым, жадным или щедрым, смелым или робким, музыкантом или физиком, лидером или ведомым, и т.п. Эти способности ему даны от природы. Вернее, от предков. У человека в генах записана вся история его рода. Поэтому "дети отвечают за грехи родителей".

 

[DaveC426913]

A person cannot choose to be born smart or stupid, greedy or generous, brave or timid, a musician or a physicist, a leader or a follower, etc. These abilities are given to him by nature. Or rather, by his ancestors. The entire history of his family is written in a person's genes. Therefore, "children are responsible for the sins of their parents."

So then how are humans any "higher" animals than other animals?