@RdH:

I don't think I've ever said all of humanity is evil (or if I did, I wasn't concentrating). Just that when the majority is evil that is enough to say that the species as a whole is evil. It's the difference between a clump of iron with some rust on it, and a clump of rust with a bit of iron holding it together.

As for your other point, you are treating 'evil' as if it were a physical entity of its own; a kind of bacteria that makes people do bad things. Evil is not a noun, it is an adjective like 'acidic'. Just as a mixture in a beaker can be described as acidic, humanity can be described as 'evil'.

Quote from Zed

@RdH:

I don't think I've ever said all of humanity is evil (or if I did, I wasn't concentrating). Just that when the majority is evil that is enough to say that the species as a whole is evil. It's the difference between a clump of iron with some rust on it, and a clump of rust with a bit of iron holding it together.

As for your other point, you are treating 'evil' as if it were a physical entity of its own; a kind of bacteria that makes people do bad things. Evil is not a noun, it is an adjective like 'acidic'. Just as a mixture in a beaker can be described as acidic, humanity can be described as 'evil'.

Oh, well it sounded like you were saying I was saying all of humanity is evil. I'm not trying to make it seem like an entity. it is a concept, not an entity. I believe the majority of humanity is neutral, as in not evil, and not good. Humanity has good in it, too, but that doesn't make it good. I believe humanity is not good or evil, but in beetween. if it were otherwise, and hmanity WAS evil, then the world would be overrun with guys with guns. but the way it is now, there are more good people than you realize. the only reason you don't hear about the good things people do, is because they make less of a news story. stories like the, so called 'Underwear Bomber' are more interesting than a man saving a cat from a tree.

but you figure if there is evil in the world it must have come from some where? From the animals? no, we created the concept evil and what we view on it like jutsu said in a few posts back,back then which burning and stuff like that was not viewed as evil.

It started with a single intention, which is considered evil, but may not have seemed evil to the one doing it. then, people saw how evil works, and more people do evil. eventually, enough people are doing it for it to be considered 'cool.' There is also religions that believe you have to do something in order to get certain priviledges in the 'afterlife.' There's sacrifices, there's offerings, and there's other beliefs that would be considered evil to us.

Quote from ROCKduhHOUSE

Oh, well it sounded like you were saying I was saying all of humanity is evil. I'm not trying to make it seem like an entity. it is a concept, not an entity. I believe the majority of humanity is neutral, as in not evil, and not good. Humanity has good in it, too, but that doesn't make it good. I believe humanity is not good or evil, but in beetween. if it were otherwise, and hmanity WAS evil, then the world would be overrun with guys with guns. but the way it is now, there are more good people than you realize. the only reason you don't hear about the good things people do, is because they make less of a news story. stories like the, so called 'Underwear Bomber' are more interesting than a man saving a cat from a tree.

I presented some data earlier about an experiment where one participant was given $20 to split between himself and another participant however he chose. If people on the whole were good, the results should have been pretty much 50/50, yes? At most you'd expect the anomalies to drag it down to about a 60/40 split. But no, the average split was 80/20. And this was with students who volunteered and knew they were under observation, ie. relatively good people who were on their best behaviour. When similar experiments were attempted in real world settings without letting the participants know that they were participating (I believe they would go to somewhere like a baseball card trading stall and say "give me the best you can for $50) people consistently took as much of the money as they could (ie. lowest value card at the stall). These figures, which have been replicated many times in different countries, do not bode well for humanity's overall goodness.

Quote from Zed

I disagree. Whilst the intention matters, it should not be taken as the sole determinant in morality. If you have not done all that may be reasonably expected of you to gauge a situation before making a decision, you cannot claim that what you did was right because you were negligent in assessing the situation. If a company that runs cruises doesn't bother to make sure that their ships are seaworthy and then one sinks killing hundreds, whose fault is it?

What matters more is necessity. The thief who steals to survive has, we presume, no alternative available. He didn't take the evil course of action, he took the only course of action. People must be judged by their actions against what other actions they could have taken.

So you think those people that run the ship were evil? I don't. I think they would be naive and incompetant. I think intention should determine evil. However, as we can't always know peoples intentions the only alternative is to look at their actions.

Look at this picture:

What do you see?

A grapefruit. Nah just joking.

Odds on you see an orange (and if not, imagine you did for the sake of the exercise). I don't. I see a grapefruit. One of us is right. I searched the image, I know it's a grapefruit.

My point is, just because we see things differently, doesn't mean that there can't be an objective truth.

I agree that this can be the case in some things. For instance, one can think the world is flat whilst others disagree, but one is right. However, no evidence can be provided to show what is objectively evil, therefore every other alternative is in itself possible.

Hitler may have thought he was doing the right thing by killing the Jews, but we can look at that situation and declare that Hitler was either misinformed or morally impaired. If misinformed, he was evil for having not done the research that most people do to become aware that there is nothing wrong with Judaism. If he was morally impaired then he could be considered basically evil in his very nature.

I don't think he was evil if he was only misinformed, and I can say there are some people who may not think he was evil if he wasn't misinformed. You say "he was evil", and "he could be considered basically evil" as if that's fact. I explained why it isn't above.

If morality is subjective,

Which it is. Explain to me how some people consider cloning moral, and others don't. If you say "well they have different beliefs but there could still be an objective moral standard that they don't know of", then that's complicating things for no reason (think: Occam's Razor), and there is also no evidence for such a thing.

then what is right is self-evidently defined by the majority.

I disagree. If morality is subjective that means that there is no objective right, no matter how many people believe it. There's no proof in numbers (think: Christianity).

If your ethical principles go against those of the majority then the majority will consider you immoral. With more people considering you immoral than moral, your point of view becomes more immoral than moral.

No, your point of view becomes more frowned upon, but in your own mind it would be moral. Numbers don't affect anything. They're just there to control.

If you are mostly immoral, therefore, it can't be right to use your morality as the basis for any argument over who or what is evil - you are morally impaired; it would be like asking a guy on LSD to describe a room to you. And since what is right is defined by the majority we suddenly have an objective reality for what is right and what is wrong. Sure, it's emotive, but it's still objective.

Read above.

So if morality is objective then it is objective, and if morality is subjective the it is objective at any given moment. And since the question is "Is Humanity Evil" rather than "Has Humanity Always Been Evil" there must be an objective answer.

Nope, it's subjective.

I will be genuinely astonished if I get away with that.

You nearly did for a moment :)

Then you admit that humanity as it stands today is, as a whole, evil?

Yes, I completely agree. Humanity is utter evil shite. Wut?

If you think about it, anything that anyone does is for themselves. Let's say there is a person who regularly donates to charity. One could argue that he does it for whoever he gives to, just out of the goodness of his heart. But that isn't a real reason for donating. If you look further, you can see that he might have done it because it gives him a feeling of happiness to help those in need. In this case, he donates to charity to make himself happy, and therefor for himself.

but that isn't exactly evil, so no.

Quote from Vendetta

If you think about it, anything that anyone does is for themselves. Let's say there is a person who regularly donates to charity. One could argue that he does it for whoever he gives to, just out of the goodness of his heart. But that isn't a real reason for donating. If you look further, you can see that he might have done it because it gives him a feeling of happiness to help those in need. In this case, he donates to charity to make himself happy, and therefor for himself.

but that isn't exactly evil, so no.

I hate this argument. Yes, you can twist most actions into egoism, that doesn't mean they automatically are.

But that can be twisted. If I suddenly decide that "chair" doesn't refer to something you sit on, it refers to a pencil, then that's hardly going to change what a chair is, is it? Likewise, just because people don't like one definition of evil doesn't mean it's wrong.

I'll respond to Automaton in a minute.

evil is a much weaker term than chair, as a chair is something physical, while evil is not.

Is a beanbag a chair?

If your talking about those giant ones then yes it can be but it's not very solid.

My point is that "chair" is just as much a concept as "evil" is. It's just that more people agree on the meaning of the word. Language is all invented with a specific thing in mind to describe. The problem we're having is that we all get different mental images generated by this particular word. We might as well be speaking different languages to each other.

Even in a world where some people disagree about whether certain things fit into certain categories, there can be some constants. Some people will say a beanbag is a chair. Some people won't. That is a grey area. What is not a grey area, is whether a pencil fits the bill. That is white. And in the black corner we have wingbacks.

With regard to evil, there can be some things which are black and some things which are white, even if the grey area is quite large. Humanity (or the majority thereof) may fit into one of these clear cut sections. That is what this debate is about. Is there anybody who, when asked what evil means to them, gives a definition that does not include most of humanity in some way?

Quote from Automaton

So you think those people that run the ship were evil? I don't. I think they would be naive and incompetant. I think intention should determine evil. However, as we can't always know peoples intentions the only alternative is to look at their actions.

Naive and incompitant? Try lazy and uncaring.
How does that work out for someone who told me that you have to intend to do wrong for it to be wrong(according to your morals)? That seems a little counter productive to me. What if you where in seven eleven and a gangster walked in with an armed gun and robs the store and shoots someone? But what you don't know is that it was an accident, or that the barkeep was pulling out a gun and that he needs the money because his daughter is dying. Naturally looking at it without knowing all of that you would think that was evil according to this logic and rightfully so.

Quote from Automaton

I agree that this can be the case in some things. For instance, one can think the world is flat whilst others disagree, but one is right. However, no evidence can be provided to show what is objectively evil, therefore every other alternative is in itself possible.

Oh dear, I don't think that was the best thing to say >.>

Quote from Automaton

I don't think he was evil if he was only misinformed, and I can say there are some people who may not think he was evil if he wasn't misinformed. You say "he was evil", and "he could be considered basically evil" as if that's fact. I explained why it isn't above.

That's what zed was talking about, just because you think he isn't evil doesn't mean he isn't. I know A LOT of people who would say he's evil without a seconds thought. Also according to yourself all other alternatives are possible therfor you can't ignore that you're contradicting yourself.

Quote from Automaton

No, your point of view becomes more frowned upon, but in your own mind it would be moral. Numbers don't affect anything. They're just there to control.

If 6 billion people think that breathing is good but you don't, Not only are you wrong but everyone else thinks your wrong. Just because you would dislike breathing tremendously doesn't mean your opinion matters, infact it doesn't at all. Although it would be right to you no one else in the world would agree therfor making it pointless, but according to you breathing can't be good because one person thinks that it isn't, according to you breathing would have to be considered almost good. What an unfair way of thinking, not considering the majority. Face it numbers do matter and they're not just their for control they are there because a lot of people think that they are right and that other people are wrong.
What I am getting at is, if a lot of people in this world are cruel and greedy just because one person wouldn't be doesn't make humanity not evil and now according to you the possiblity of humanity being evil is there so now what? You admit you exept the possibility after saying no it's not true after so long?

Humanity can't be good according to your logic as long as there is at least one evil person humanity must be reffered to as mostly good, even though I am positive at least the majority of people are evil intentionally and the rest are just by existing.

If you say humanity can't be good or evil by this logic and then turn around and say that they're possible than your just contradicting yourself.

What your aiming for is just to say that humanity isn't evil, but to what? If they aren't evil and aren't good what are you saying? We are ignorant and naive, the whole point of my last little string of posts where to tell you that being ignorant and naive is evil, it's not caring it's not looking around yourself and realizing what your doing.

You admitted that you can't always know their intentions therfor you must look at their actions, well look at them. Even though they chose to not realize and chose to not care which is selfish all on it's own, you agree that we have to look at there actions which are evil.

So by saying humanity can't be good or evil and I show that this neutrality you claim is indeed evil, by your own logic your pinned.


You have nowhere to go, your saying it's all impossible but all other alternatives are possible. I think that almost all people on earth agree that humanity must be something, aside from yourself making your opinion pointless. Your opinion must be that we are nothing at all, we are just a name that can't be anything.
Like I said numbers do matter and you are horribly out numbered.

Hmmmm..... Well, humans created weapons and they used it against humans. That made some parts of the world corrupt and "evil". So I'm really saying that humans are not evil.

I don't think that was a well thought out post, or relevent to the current string of comments.