The Human Animal (Animals)
I'm reopening this thread (the earlier one is on Page 4 of the forum,) because of a new book, reviewed in The Guardian, entitled Second Nature: The Inner Lives of Animals by Jonathan Balcombe. Apparently we kill 50 billion animals a year for food, and 100 million are killed annually in American laboratories. Each of these animals, the author reminds us, was "a sentient being". -It will come as no surprise to some of us that Balcombe "finds strong evidence for compassion, cooperation, altruism, empathy, intelligence and communication" in animals. Chickens apparently have 30 different calls concerning food and predators, while prairie dogs have at least 100, including different terms for humans with or without guns. He recounts the delightful tale of a dolphin at the Institute for Marine Mammal Studies in Mississippi. The dolphins have been trained to clean their pools of litter. "Kelly has found her own way to trick the system: when a piece of paper falls into her pool, she sneaks it to the bottom and tucks it under a rock. When she sees a human trainer, she tears off a scrap, takes it to the surface and gets a snack in exchange, leaving the rest of the paper for next time."-I don't know of anyone who has studied animals and not come to the same conclusion regarding their sentience. Regardless of the chance v. design debate, the anatomical, social and mental links we have with our fellow animals seem to me to provide living evidence of the evolutionary chain. They should also shame us into rethinking our whole attitude towards other creatures. The argument that "they are different from us, don't speak our language, don't feel things as we do", has been used throughout history to justify man's inhumanity to man, and it's still used both for that purpose and as a justification for man's callousness towards beasts. -Coincidentally, I came upon a similar sentiment the other day on a Buddhist website:-From Lectures on Kamalashila's Stages of Meditation in the Middle Way School by Kenchen Thrangu Rinpoche:-"Generally, everyone feels compassion, but the compassion is flawed. In what way? We measure it out. For instance, some feel compassion for human beings but not for animals and other types of sentient beings. Others feel compassion for animals and some other types of sentient beings but not for humans. Others, who feel compassion for human beings, feel compassion for the human beings of their own country but not for the human beings of other countries. Then, some feel compassion for their friends but not for anyone else. Thus, it seems that we draw a line somewhere. We feel compassion for those on one side of the line but not for those on the other side of the line. We feel compassion for one group but not for another. That is where our compassion is flawed. What did the Buddha say about that? It is not necessary to draw that line. Nor is it suitable. Everyone wants compassion, and we can extend our compassion to everyone."
The Human Animal
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Thursday, June 03, 2010, 23:04 (5074 days ago) @ dhw
This is the basis if the Jain religion:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism-However, like all religions they seem to take the ideas to an extreme.-I think we have to be realistic in our relations with animals, and recognise that we like them are part of the food chain. It is a part of being human that we recognise our animal nature, and try to come to terms with it, although we may aspire to become some form of higher angelic incorporeal being, we cannot escape the heritage of evolution and our material nature.
--
GPJ
The Human Animal
by David Turell , Friday, June 04, 2010, 01:34 (5074 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> However, like all religions they seem to take the ideas to an extreme. > > I think we have to be realistic in our relations with animals, > and recognise that we like them are part of the food chain. > It is a part of being human that we recognise our animal nature, > and try to come to terms with it, although we may aspire to become > some form of higher angelic incorporeal being, we cannot escape the > heritage of evolution and our material nature.-I have to agree with George, something unusual for this website. Animals are sentient, but they do not have the level of consciousness and introspective ability that we humans have. This has undoubtedly led to the fantasies in the various theologies. We do have our animal background; we are the result of animal evolution, but we been given the magnificent gift of an enormous brain, and we should be able to raise ourselves above the animal level. Unfortunately, as dhw points out, there is human cruelty in the world that results in human suffering. In disagreement with George, what I have just stated above shows we have more than a material nature.
The Human Animal
GEORGE: I think we have to be realistic in our relations with animals, and recognise that we like them are part of the food chain. It is a part of being human that we recognise our animal nature, and try to come to terms with it, although we may aspire to become some form of higher angelic incorporeal being, we cannot escape the heritage of evolution and our material nature.-David agrees with George, and so do I. My post is not a plea for veganism or for the extremism of some religions, philosophies and animals rights movements. I eat fish and poultry, and if I'm attacked by a mosquito at dead of night, I become a ruthless hunter until the dreaded whine is stilled for ever. But where do we draw the line which the Buddha said should not be drawn?-I would draw it at the infliction of unnecessary suffering. I accept that, as David says, animals "do not have the level of consciousness and introspective ability that we humans have", as clearly they have not made the technological and cultural advances that we have, but that does not mean they are any the less sensitive to pain or other forms of trauma, both physical and mental. For that reason I would, for instance, ban blood sports and any type of farming that puts animals under stress. -The review I quoted contains the following observation: "Balcombe devotes a couple of chapters to dismissing the myth that nature is a cruel and bloody place where violence lurks at every corner. Most of the time, he says, animals lead peaceful, calm and enjoyable lives. The most violent creature on the planet is, of course, us."-If we consider the Seven Deadly Sins that underlie much of our violence, how many of them can be attributed to animals? (To save you racking your brains, they are wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy and gluttony.) -But we humans aren't all bad, are we? So to redress the balance, here's a challenge: compile a list of Seven Saving Graces, which ideally should be qualities unique to humans.
The Human Animal
No-one has taken up my challenge to compile a list of Seven Saving Graces unique to humans, as a counterbalance to the Seven Deadly Sins. This was perhaps a rather clumsy way of trying to combine two subjects: to what extent are we different from other animals, and (yet again) what is the nature of our consciousness? Anyway, I'd like to pursue the theme.-I must confess that I've had difficulty pinpointing seven unique "graces", but here is a very tentative list:-The arts; science; philosophy; history; charity; complex language; writing.-Matt will no doubt complain at the absence of mathematics, but I see that as combining elements of science, complex language and writing. By history I mean the preservation of the past. I've cheated a little by distinguishing between language and complex language, and I would have liked to include the imagination, but feel that it's implicit in the arts. It could be argued that charity, in the sense of altruistic aid, is not confined to humans, but our compassion extends beyond our own borders and our own species. You may think that "reason" is an omission, but animals reason, as is illustrated by the story of Kelly the litter-collecting dolphin, and the more sophisticated elements of reason can be incorporated into science and philosophy (under which I would subsume religion). -Every item on my list raises questions about the nature of our consciousness and the provenance of thought. Animal consciousness alone is mysterious enough, and questions of identity and the will that directs actions apply just as much to our fellow creatures as to ourselves. But the mystery deepens with all of these "graces", and inevitably leads to our other theme of spirituality and the brain. If we accept that humans are descended from other animals, does this mean that the expansion of the brain led to greater complexity of thought, and if so, why did the brain expand? Alternatively, did greater complexity of thought lead to an expansion of the brain, and if so, where did the thought come from?
The Human Animal
by David Turell , Monday, June 07, 2010, 19:35 (5071 days ago) @ dhw
> If we accept that humans are descended from other animals, does this mean that the expansion of the brain led to greater complexity of thought, and if so, why did the brain expand? Alternatively, did greater complexity of thought lead to an expansion of the brain, and if so, where did the thought come from?-Why did the brain get so big? The title of my chapter on this issue is "Our Hat Size is Too Big For Darwin". Think about it. Chimps and other great apes did not enlarge theirs, in the six million years since the split. The huge brain with its billions of synapses is way beyond the simple needs of survival. The apes have proven that. So what drove the brain to enlarge and become so complex? There is no clear answer. If anything we are a danger to the planet. The silver-backs are in trouble because of us. What I have just stated turns Darwinism on its head. If natural selection is the driving force to complexity and survival, all on a chance mutational basis, why did it happen, if it was not needed? This is why I conclude it was originally coded into the complex layers of genetic material at the start of life.
The Human Animal
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Monday, June 14, 2010, 00:37 (5064 days ago) @ dhw
dhw lists the Seven Deadly Sins as wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy and gluttony, and Wikipedia seems to agree, so the list must be right! But isn't gluttony the same as greed? What about lying? Isn't that a sin?-dhw asks us for a list of Seven Saving Graces. By simply looking in a thesaurus that gives antonyms as well as synonyms I have come up with the following opposites of my modified list of the sins (though the dictionary wasn't very helpful with lust and envy): happiness, temperance, industriousness, humility, quietude, sharing, and honesty. All rather longer words. I wonder if that is significant?
--
GPJ
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, June 09, 2010, 03:19 (5069 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,-This post coincides directly with the book I've been reading, "The Lucifer Principle." It's a modern explanation on why evil exists; because man is social--and it is in our nature to make distinctions--a great reason Buddhism fell out of favor with me is the fact that our inner "animal" programming makes us make these distinctions. The part of the brain that makes us human is an extremely thin veneer over an ancient brain. We will never be able to destroy or control all primitive impulses: when 9/11 happened, I was angry and sad enough to go to war. Why? I didn't know anyone who died, nor did I KNOW someone who knew someone who died. We have social instincts that are finely honed and crafted; and it is THIS instinct that leads man to do evil. -It's the same instinct that allows us to do good: During the stock market crash of '29 and '87--many who lost their shirts killed themselves primarily because they no longer felt they could support their families. Life insurance collections is another area where people turn self-destructive to help--nearly always due to resources. -So, I'm at an odds here: My philosophy converted from Buddhism to one where I recognize the primitive animal inside and try to go against its wishes on occasion. But I don't try to override it, because I know that's not possible. -In the same way we draw distinctions between other people, we do it en masse for animals. I've come to accept this as simply something natural--in the sense that, it's just what we do. It's human nature; we're not going to stop it.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
MATT: We have social instincts that are finely honed and crafted; and it is THIS instinct that leads man to do evil. It's the same instinct that allows us to do good.-As usual, you come up with some stimulating ideas. I'm sure both your puppy and your house will benefit greatly from your enthusiasm, initiative and expertise, as we have done on this website! I haven't read "The Lucifer Principle", but my immediate reaction to the above is that it's our anti-social, egotistic instincts that lead to what we call evil. I'm moving away here from the deadly sins and the saving graces to moral matters, and it seems to me that virtually everything we view as evil is the result of putting the self before all other considerations. Murder, rape, torture, child abuse, exploitation, theft etc. all involve disregard for the feelings of others, generally for the sake of self-gratification. In other words, they run counter to the finely honed and crafted social instincts.-Your anger at 9/11 is a complex issue. It = revulsion at evil, and willingness to fight against evil can hardly be called evil. However, it leads us into murky waters, because the perpetrators of 9/11 also believed they were fighting against evil. This, I think, is where we need definitions. I would argue that any influence which leads the individual to act aggressively (as opposed to defensively) against others is evil. -You wrote: "My philosophy converted from Buddhism to one where I recognize the primitive animal inside and try to go against its wishes on occasion. But I don't try to override it, because I know that's not possible." Perhaps this is a matter of drawing the distinctions you come onto in your next paragraph. Depending on circumstances, if you don't override the primitive animal, you might end up as a rapist, but if you do override it, you'll never have children. Most of our animal instincts are essential for survival, but we have to find a moral balance between what we want and what we need, and between our own wants and needs and those of others. (Sorry if that sounds a bit pompous!)-I agree with you that we can't stop ourselves drawing distinctions between other people, and doing the same "en masse for animals". It's probably integral to our own survival anyway. But just as there are human associations for the protection of animals, and philosophical, religious and charitable movements that foster peace and goodwill, as against violence and egotism, each individual also draws his own lines. For instance, I have no doubt that you would never torture an animal, and would be angry if you saw someone else doing it. This means that as with 9/11, although you draw distinctions (between yourself, other humans, and animals), you also empathize, which actually entails removing distinctions. In the context of the all-important, finely honed and crafted social instinct of compassion, I suspect that you and I might get about two-thirds of the way along the Buddha's path to Enlightenment!
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, June 11, 2010, 00:55 (5067 days ago) @ dhw
...my immediate reaction to the above is that it's our anti-social, egotistic instincts that lead to what we call evil. I'm moving away here from the deadly sins and the saving graces to moral matters, and it seems to me that virtually everything we view as evil is the result of putting the self before all other considerations. Murder, rape, torture, child abuse, exploitation, theft etc. all involve disregard for the feelings of others, generally for the sake of self-gratification. In other words, they run counter to the finely honed and crafted social instincts. > -Try this thought: Why did the holocaust happen? Was it because alot of people individually hated the Jews, or were some just following orders? The truth on this is that the greater majority were just following orders. In a way--you're right--they were acting in their own self-interest, but it was out of fear for being separated from the German super-organism NOT a reaction from "antisocial, egotistic instincts." It was the social nature itself that provided the sole impetus for the average German citizen to do the unthinkable. The willingness for some people to do things that they know is wrong comes from a social/tribal instinct--not despite it. -> Your anger at 9/11 is a complex issue. It = revulsion at evil, and willingness to fight against evil can hardly be called evil. However, it leads us into murky waters, because the perpetrators of 9/11 also believed they were fighting against evil. This, I think, is where we need definitions. I would argue that any influence which leads the individual to act aggressively (as opposed to defensively) against others is evil. > -I was responding in a "patriotic" fashion. I allowed myself to lose my self into the mass of my fellow citizens. Before 9/11 I would have said f*** the military. I had a properly low opinion of America--and I challenged the legitimacy of then president Bush. (I still think that that the Florida election was rigged that year.) But that one act of war against civilians--galvanized what would have been possibly a full-tilt liberal pacifist into a person that suddenly recognized the reality of the world around him: People weren't just willing to kill soldiers--but absolutely anyone at all. The way I live my life and my secular values are directly challenged by a minority that was already galvanized to destroy me. -> You wrote: "My philosophy converted from Buddhism to one where I recognize the primitive animal inside and try to go against its wishes on occasion. But I don't try to override it, because I know that's not possible." Perhaps this is a matter of drawing the distinctions you come onto in your next paragraph. Depending on circumstances, if you don't override the primitive animal, you might end up as a rapist, but if you do override it, you'll never have children. Most of our animal instincts are essential for survival, but we have to find a moral balance between what we want and what we need, and between our own wants and needs and those of others. (Sorry if that sounds a bit pompous!) > -No, doesn't sound pompous at all; an automatically true statement. I would say that all of our instincts contribute to our survival, but some instincts aren't for individual survival. You hit the deeper thought I was trying to convey; instead of saying "override" I should have said extinguish as that is part of what creates psychoses; the Church did in fact try to extinguish all things that are naturally part of humanity; while I agree with the goal, my thought is that redirection is a more powerful (and more realistic) tool. -Too much focus in western culture has been placed on the individual; everything is about the individual. Economics, evolution, and politics are all basically centered around the idea of an individual; our christian heritage too. (Especially from Calvin onwards.) Often ignored are such theses as the group being the source of "evil." -> I agree with you that we can't stop ourselves drawing distinctions between other people, and doing the same "en masse for animals". It's probably integral to our own survival anyway. But just as there are human associations for the protection of animals, and philosophical, religious and charitable movements that foster peace and goodwill, as against violence and egotism, each individual also draws his own lines. For instance, I have no doubt that you would never torture an animal, and would be angry if you saw someone else doing it. This means that as with 9/11, although you draw distinctions (between yourself, other humans, and animals), you also empathize, which actually entails removing distinctions. In the context of the all-important, finely honed and crafted social instinct of compassion, I suspect that you and I might get about two-thirds of the way along the Buddha's path to Enlightenment!-True: Though to be clear I wasn't thinking to justify our actions, but to realize that our actions really are a natural response for us.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
Matt has argued that the group is the source of "evil": he says we have "social instincts that are finely honed and crafted; and it is THIS instinct that leads man to do evil." I responded that evil such as murder, rape, child abuse etc. is the result of our anti-social, egotistic instincts.-MATT: Try this thought: Why did the holocaust happen? Was it because a lot of people individually hated the Jews, or were some just following orders? The truth on this is that the greater majority were just following orders. In a way--you're right--they were acting in their own self-interest, but it was out of fear for being separated from the German super-organism NOT a reaction from "antisocial, egotistic instincts." It was the social nature itself that provided the sole impetus for the average German citizen to do the unthinkable. The willingness for some people to do things that they know is wrong comes from a social/tribal instinct--not despite it.-We are clearly talking about two different kinds of evil, the individual and the collective. Your murderer, rapist, child abuser acts out of anti-social, egotistic instincts. I agree that the actions of individuals in the context of a brutal dictatorship are in a different category, though even in this context I'm not convinced that the group instinct is the source. So let me try out an alternative thesis on you. Obviously, our social instincts lead us to form groups, and without groups you can't have collective evil. You can't have bottled water without a bottle, but that doesn't make the bottle the source of the water. In all dictatorships, policies are decided by individuals, and they will always find other individuals to implement them. Those who do so willingly are guilty of the same antisocial, egotistic instincts as the "private" murderers, rapists etc. But once the machinery of oppression is in place (a strong military/police force/secret service to crush opposition), it requires great courage to stand against it. We don't know what the mythical "average German citizen" thought at the time, any more than we know how we ourselves would have acted in such a society, but I'm inclined to agree with you that the greater majority were "just following orders". The penalty for not following orders under the Nazi regime was not just being "separated from the German super-organism", but being separated from life and limb. In my view, the source of the evil is not those who obey orders, but those who give them. We know precisely what Hitler and his henchmen thought, and how they imposed their ideas, just as every brutal leader throughout history has imposed his ideas. And so I would suggest that the source of such unspeakable atrocities is not the group instinct, which only provides the enabling framework; the picture within that frame ... whether good or bad ... is still provided by the instincts of individuals. We have to be governed, and collective good or evil depends on the nature and, all-importantly, the power of the individuals who govern us.
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, June 12, 2010, 15:50 (5066 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,-The points you raise here show me that its more of a mixed bag. Using the Hitler example--I know you call it mythical--but it's simply not possible for that many people to all be antisocial. An experiment conducted in the 60's (and redone somewhat recently) where people were ordered to deliver shocks to someone they didn't know has reinforced on multiple occasions that by simply removing accountability for an action, most people don't care. These are random Joe's. The experimenters eventually asked each participant to push the shock into the part clearly labeled as "fatal," and in the 60's experiment, only one person disobeyed. In these experiments, there was no fuhrer who built a complex social framework of obedience; only people who showed up for an experiment. -The experiment was originally conceived to answer exactly this question: How could so many non-antisocial people do the unthinkable? -You want to naturally label the actions of all German citizens as either by pure fear, or by antisocial individuals. This experiment calls into question the motive of fear. Especially since--in Nazi Germany--the entire public was raised in a social framework of Jew Hatred. They were part of a social collective; albeit one that was directly exploiting the social instincts of man for his own ends. In short, it's clearly possible that simply because the onus of the decision to "kill" a test subject was on the guy ordering the job done, that most people don't feel accountable. To me, fear would motivate some, but not all. -How do wars happen? They happen because people inside of one nation or tribal group differentiate themselves from another nation or tribal group. The social nature of humans allows this to happen. Our social instincts lay the groundwork for the most institutionalized and massive kinds of debauchery imaginable--and it all starts (IMO) with accountability. If you remove that, you're the first step towards getting someone to do whatever you want.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Monday, June 14, 2010, 01:00 (5064 days ago) @ xeno6696
I think I can resolve the difference here. -dhw wrote, concerning individual evil-doers: "Murder, rape, torture, child abuse, exploitation, theft etc. all involve disregard for the feelings of others" I would say that they all involve the disregard of others, their feelings don't come into it. It is regarding others as "other". The same applies to group-evil. The Nazis treated Jews and Slavs and others as non-people, lesser beings not part of the master race. It is not just in-group out-group rivalry, but superior / inferior valuation. The same can be seen in rich people devaluing poor people by saying that they are poor because they are inadequate in some way rather than merely less fortunate. Similarly racism, chauvinism, etc.
--
GPJ
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, June 14, 2010, 02:56 (5064 days ago) @ George Jelliss
I think I can resolve the difference here. > > dhw wrote, concerning individual evil-doers: "Murder, rape, torture, child abuse, exploitation, theft etc. all involve disregard for the feelings of others" I would say that they all involve the disregard of others, their feelings don't come into it. It is regarding others as "other". The same applies to group-evil. The Nazis treated Jews and Slavs and others as non-people, lesser beings not part of the master race. It is not just in-group out-group rivalry, but superior / inferior valuation. The same can be seen in rich people devaluing poor people by saying that they are poor because they are inadequate in some way rather than merely less fortunate. Similarly racism, chauvinism, etc.-...and it is up to individuals to guard against those parts of our nature that allow us to make these distinctions.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
Matt has argued that the source of evil is man's social instincts. My argument is that the source is man's antisocial, egotistic instincts.-I assume you now accept that individual evil (murder, rape, child abuse etc.) is caused by antisocial, egotistic instincts, and so the disagreement between us lies in the source of collective evil. You cite an experiment in which people were ordered to deliver shocks to someone they didn't know. All but one acquiesced. Of course I don't know the details of the experiment (under what authority were the participants "ordered", were they being paid, and if so, did they know exactly what they were being paid for, did they really believe that they were killing someone?) but your conclusion is what matters in our discussion. You say that "by simply removing accountability for an action, most people don't care." This is an almost classic case of antisocial behaviour, and it may be that our disagreement is simply a matter of language (as it so often is). Here's a definition: "Antisocial behaviour is violent or harmful to other people, or shows that you do not care about other people" (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). The cause of such evil is not the fact that people belong to a group, but the fact that they do as they please, regardless of others. -In the context of the Holocaust, you talk of "all German citizens", as if they all took part in the mass extermination. The vast majority simply did nothing. Perhaps they didn't know, perhaps they didn't care, or perhaps they were afraid. Not knowing is neutral, not caring is antisocial, and being afraid is understandable. Those who willingly took part acted violently and harmfully and showed that they did not care about other people. That = antisocial behaviour.-You go on to ask: "How do wars happen? They happen because people inside of one nation or tribal group differentiate themselves from another nation or tribal group. The social nature of humans allows this to happen." -If "because" was the right word, all groups and tribes would constantly be at war with one another. The fact that we are social beings is not the CAUSE of war. Your second statement, that our social nature "allows" it to happen, is to my mind far more accurate. You cannot have a war without there being two separate groups, but war usually happens because at least one of those groups (possibly both) is led by individuals with personal ambitions (egotism) and antisocial instincts (violent, harmful, not caring about other people), who are supported by others with the same instincts. Hitler is again a classic example. The idea that it all starts with accountability is not the same as saying that it all starts with social instincts, but even accountability ... or rather lack of it ... need not be accompanied by lack of compassion (caring about others). In your original post, you said that the same social instinct also "allows us to do good." Precisely. Once more, "allow" seems to me to offer the right perspective. There are millions of people within groups who are totally unaccountable but spontaneously show compassion to other groups by contributing, for instance, to charity. They do not send in their pennies and pounds because they are members of a group. They contribute because of their social ... as opposed to antisocial ... instincts. Similarly, you cannot have a welfare state without a state, but social welfare does not exist BECAUSE humans live in groups. If it did, all groups would have social welfare systems. -Within every group there is an assortment of individuals whose instincts may be social or antisocial, or most likely a mixture of both, and collective good (such as social welfare or overseas aid), or evil (such as war or the Holocaust), will depend on the instincts and power of the individuals who govern each group, though more so in a dictatorship than in a democracy. I agree with you that our social instincts lay the groundwork ... you cannot have collective good or evil without first forming a collection ... but whatever is built on that groundwork depends on the nature of the builders.***-*** In your latest response to George's post, you say "it is up to individuals to guard against those parts of our nature that allow us to make these distinctions." We are now on the same wavelength. All groups are made up of individuals, and all individuals belong to groups of one kind or another. Belonging to a group (the social instinct) is not the source of good or of evil. In itself it is neutral. Good or evil arises out of the nature of individuals.
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 01:19 (5063 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, Here's a pretty complete account of the entire experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment-> ... This is an almost classic case of antisocial behaviour, and it may be that our disagreement is simply a matter of language (as it so often is). Here's a definition: "Antisocial behaviour is violent or harmful to other people, or shows that you do not care about other people" (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). The cause of such evil is not the fact that people belong to a group, but the fact that they do as they please, regardless of others. > -So by your logic, combined with the evidence provided by the Milgram experiment, antisocial behavior is more prevalent than social behavior? When we went to war with Germany in WWII, we killed many Germans. But this killing was sanctioned by the U.S. social superorganism. It was perfectly acceptable to kill because the German Superorganism had attacked our allies. You neglect this source of evil; evil to one Superorganism is good or necessary to the other. I think you also miss the fact that Germans had no problem helping nor giving aid to German citizens. These people are not antisocial; they were supersocial! Note that Mussolini flat out stated "Socialism is giving the state ownership of property; Fascism is state-ownership of people." You undermine your own argument here because antisocial behavior is behavior such that no other human being is helped. German citizens cheered in support of the Fuhrer just as certainly as our "Janes" here in the U.S. took up industrial wrenches to fill the factory jobs left behind--and our men lined up for war after Dec. 7. -> In the context of the Holocaust, you talk of "all German citizens", as if they all took part in the mass extermination. The vast majority simply did nothing. Perhaps they didn't know, perhaps they didn't care, or perhaps they were afraid. Not knowing is neutral, not caring is antisocial, and being afraid is understandable. Those who willingly took part acted violently and harmfully and showed that they did not care about other people. That = antisocial behaviour. > -I'm not even talking purely about "The Final Solution." I'm extending this to the entire German war effort. (The Allied war effort as well.) Why do we kill each other in battle? One of my good friends, Steve, fought in the front lines in Iraq. So; he's antisocial? He killed people. He engaged in an us-vs-them mentality. He had no Fuhrer. Why did he become a soldier? He just wanted to serve--and to take advantage of the school support. -So, does this make him evil? I'm trying to find where the lines are here, because I'm not seeing any...- > If "because" was the right word, all groups and tribes would constantly be at war with one another. The fact that we are social beings is not the CAUSE of war. Your second statement, that our social nature "allows" it to happen, is to my mind far more accurate. You cannot have a war without there being two separate groups, but war usually happens because at least one of those groups (possibly both) is led by individuals with personal ambitions (egotism) and antisocial instincts (violent, harmful, not caring about other people), who are supported by others with the same instincts. -"Because" IS the right word. Individuals don't start wars. Groups start wars. -And groups and tribes DO care about other people!!!!! Just not ALL people! There's a tribe in S. America that rewards those in the tribe that are the best killers of people of other tribes. They get the most wives, the most resources; you name it. But they love their children, care for their elderly; all of the things that you would consider social. Where is the line here?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
Matt has argued that the source of evil is man's social instincts (the group). My argument is that the source is man's antisocial, egotistic instincts. I keep introducing my posts with this brief summary, but the discussion seems to be drifting away from its starting point. I pointed out that murder, rape etc. were the result of antisocial, egotistic instincts, and so we moved to collective evil in the form of the Holocaust and war. In your latest post, however, you've switched the focus to the ethics of killing people and to the mixture of good and evil within a state, and you have twice asked where is the line. It's a very fair question, and by all means let's discuss it, but it's a different issue, because it entails subjective judgements as to what actually constitutes good and evil (as opposed to what is the source).-I have used the definition of antisocial behaviour as being "violent or harmful to other people, or showing that you do not care about other people." The converse, of course, is being considerate and caring towards other people. In my previous post I wrote: "Within every group there is an assortment of individuals whose instincts may be social or antisocial, or most likely a mixture of both." You can extend that to the group itself, which will most likely contain a mixture of social and antisocial elements. You say that the Nazi system of welfare for German citizens (well, those that supported the Nazis) made the state supersocial. OK. I would add that the system of exterminating Jews and non-supporters also made it superantisocial. My claim is that the social (good) and antisocial (evil) elements were not caused by the fact that Germans constitute a group, but by the fact that certain individuals put together the Nazi system and had the power to implement it. Different governments can mould the same group into different shapes. You say "antisocial behavior is behavior such that NO OTHER human being is helped." If we exclude perverse definitions of help (already a subjective field), I would say that individual murder (evil) and mass murder by the state (evil) help no-one, but that doesn't mean that a murderer is never kind to his family (good) or a brutal dictatorship won't provide aid for those who support it (good). You seem to want an all-or-nothing, either/or classification, which is what gives rise to the line-drawing problem.-As far as killing is concerned, I did try to draw a line on 10 June at 14.31: "I would argue that any influence which leads the individual to act aggressively (as opposed to defensively) against others is evil." Note the parenthesis. Clearly this brings us to the Milgram experiment. I haven't got time to read it all now (I have an important cricket cup match this evening, which must take priority over such trivia as the source of good and evil!) but I've glanced at the first couple of pages, and it deals with obedience to authority. Your soldier friend obeyed orders, fought in Iraq and killed people, so you ask if he is antisocial/evil. I can only give you a totally subjective answer. In my view the Iraq war was aggressive and evil. We needn't argue about that, because I'm simply explaining the answer I'm about to give. I would not call your friend antisocial or evil. He may have believed that he was fighting a just cause (which would make him a hero). If he didn't, he will judge himself. Nor would I say the invasion was caused by the fact that soldiers obey orders, or that there is an Iraqi group and an American/British group. The SOURCE of what I subjectively consider evil was the decision by Bush, Blair, and other individuals that the invasion should take place. If they had not given the order, there would have been no invasion, and your friend would not have killed anyone.
The Human Animal
by David Turell , Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 18:08 (5063 days ago) @ dhw
>In my view the Iraq war was aggressive and evil. We needn't argue about that, because I'm simply explaining the answer I'm about to give. I would not call your friend antisocial or evil. He may have believed that he was fighting a just cause (which would make him a hero). If he didn't, he will judge himself. Nor would I say the invasion was caused by the fact that soldiers obey orders, or that there is an Iraqi group and an American/British group. The SOURCE of what I subjectively consider evil was the decision by Bush, Blair, and other individuals that the invasion should take place. If they had not given the order, there would have been no invasion, and your friend would not have killed anyone.-This sounds like the Anthony Eden approach to the world, and only Churchill constantly warning about appeasing. You don't realize you are reliving the 1930's all over again, and should have learned from it. The ineffectual UN, a worthless group, is really appeasing Iran. At least the USA is on both sides of Iran to contain it for the moment. Israel is the only friend the West has in the Arab Middle East. If Iraq develops as a semi-democracy, we in the West will be able to control the Wahabi sect, while sucking oil from the Saudis.-And just a note about oil. The Gulf is loaded with oil, both just off shore and in deep water off the continental shelf. Until now the fear of a spill caused the US goverment, in its stupidity, to prevent close to shore drilling, which is easier to do and more controllable in a leak. BP was forced to drill at 5,000 feet. They appear to have cut some corners to reduce cost. I live just outside Houston, the oil capital of the world. It is fascinating to hear the discussion here. The 6-month Obama deep water drilling ban is completely political theater,and all seven advisors from the energy sector, as reported in the Houston Chronicle told him not do do it. Floating rigs will leave and go overseas to keep their businesses afloat. -Both of the two above paragraphs are totally related. The World approach to foreign relations is called the 'reality approach', which means live with the dictators who don't bother you too much, and our State Dept. is the worst player of that game. Europe, other than the UK, has no military. Russia has military, somewhat controlled at the moment. The UN is useless, so the USA is the world policeman. And doing the job hampered by liberal policies from the past. The use of oil as a major energy source will continue, despite wishful thinking. Alternatives are not really developed as yet. That will take much (how much is unknown) time. Put this all together in your thinking.
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, June 16, 2010, 03:06 (5062 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,-I think we have very divergent approaches to this: where you draw distinctions, I draw none. -A human being who kills someone else, does so because he or she--even if for a moment of "insanity," draws distinctions that allows them to carry out the act. The ability to make these distinctions is part and parcel of the human condition. I agree that each of us has a combination of social + antisocial tendencies. -Human beings are intrinsically social; we agree here. A key difference to why I consider all evil being social in cause--if there was no other people, there is no one to do evil to. You can't be antisocial without a society to be "anti" towards. Going back to one of my old Nietzsche threads, morality means nothing to the man who is wholly separated from society. Good and evil are only concepts that exist when more than one human must coexist. -Having established a concrete link between man's social nature and the existence of Good and Evil; the rest of my argument should be--I hope--transparent. -I find no difference in being antisocial within your society, and being antisocial towards other societies. The only difference is that society decides whether or not your actions are acceptable or not. -Like it or not, we reward fighter pilots medals for destroying the most enemy combatants. Soldiers who single-handedly kill more of "the enemy" than their peers are awarded Medals of Honor. Our nature that allows us to organize into polite social clusters also enables us to destroy each other at will; again--the cause is social. -You argue (strongly) that Bush/Blair were the instigators of evil: but you have fallen for a critical (and extremely powerful) fallacy. The cause of the war in Iraq is ultimately in the combat between extremist Islam and Western Secularism. Iraq would NEVER have happened had Bin Laden not founded his (social) group of Al-Qaeda (at American expense--but that's a different topic). If you're a student of Sun Tse's "The Art of War," the strategy in Iraq was quite simple. By putting American soldiers into harm's way, we give angry Islamists easier access to kill Americans in their "Jihad" without needing to find a way to get to American soil. I completely disagree with the public pretenses of the Iraq war, I fully agree with it's military consequences in the broader ideological war against theocracy. I stopped being Buddhist when I realized that the only way all people could live in peace and harmony was if all people adopted the same Meme. And this is contrary to human nature. Our social natures are what provide the impetus to fight against each other. (Look at kids who form social groups around music groups.) -There's no way to tie Al Qaeda to only one man; the movement Al Qaeda represents is much larger than even Bin Laden. The same way, ultimately neither Bush nor Blair would have signed the attack orders if a true majority of Yanks (can't speak for you Brits) were against the war. I remember 2003, and there was very little resistance to going to Iraq at first, so much so that it took a year of the media asking "where the war protesters were" before they actually materialized. Social impetus provides the source AND the means to carry out goals--however we want to flavor them as good or bad.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
Matt and I are still discussing the source of evil.-MATT: A key difference to why I consider all evil being social in cause ... if there was no other people, there is no one to do evil to.-The syntax of this crucial sentence is a bit difficult to follow, but the rest of the paragraph makes the meaning pretty clear, and the logic is irrefutable. Perhaps we should circulate it to all defence attorneys: if other people didn't have property, my client would not be a burglar; if women didn't exist, my client would not be a rapist; if the victim hadn't been alive, my client would not have murdered him. This is all true, but does it mean that the SOURCE of these forms of evil is property, women, victims? If there were no knives, there would be no stabbings, so should we say the knife is to blame, and not the person who wields it? -In an earlier post, you brought up the subject of accountability, and in response to George's comments about group-evil, such as racism, chauvinism etc., you even went so far as to say "it is up to individuals to guard against those parts of our nature that allow us to make these distinctions." There is no escaping the fact that each individual is distinct from every other individual. But that does not CAUSE us to commit evil. And so I'm afraid I shall continue to argue that the source of evil, in accordance with your admirable precept, is not the distinctions themselves but those parts of our nature that drive us to use the distinctions for harmful purposes.- *** I shall respond eventually to your rather beautiful post on "The Illusion of Time", but the battle with Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam and Nietzsche has proved a bit illusion-consuming.
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, June 16, 2010, 23:07 (5061 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,-I will try one more time to have us come to an agreement. I think you yourself are being too "black and white" in this topic. -First, I will be speaking from the premise that the terms "good" and "evil" are interchangeable. -The S. American tribe I discussed previously are called the Yanomomo. In their society, the men gain wealth, power, and prestige by being successful at bringing slaves into the village. -So if you're born into this society--you learn from day one that slavery is the main means for becoming powerful and earning more wives. -Slavery is an epithet in our western heritage. But it is a virtue in Yanomomo heritage. -So what is the cause of this "evil?" Is it the society? Or the individuals that are trying to play within the social rules? -Clearly, at some time in their history, slavery was important if not essential for their survival--for whatever reason. It could have been a group decision, or it could have been imposed by a greedy leader; this we cannot know. But one thing is clear: it is the society that enables the course of action that leads to slavery--and not the individuals. -It's easy for you or I to label this system as barbaric and/or inhumane, but we were raised with the (social) values of individual freedom and liberty. The Yanomomo were not. -My overriding point is that only in context of the group you live in are any of your actions painted according to whatever that society's moral valuations are. Man himself is neither good nor evil; man simply acts and the group decides what's right. -I know you playfully accused me of lawyerlike sophistry--I've found no way around this issue for over ten years. Yes; we are the arbiters of our actions, but before we are our "own men" we are whatever society builds us to be--man can never escape society no matter how hard he tries. Not without other men.- [EDIT]-One more premise I'd like to add. I actually deny that men are "individuals" by nature. I think that we are social by nature, and the philosophy of individualism is a meme that is essentially aberrant to the evolutionary mechanisms that have brought us here.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, June 17, 2010, 02:39 (5061 days ago) @ xeno6696
"He butchered three of them with an ax and decapitated them. In other words, instead of using a gun to kill them he took a hatchet to chop their heads off. he struggled face to face with one of them, and throwing down his ax managed to break his neck and devour his flesh in front of his comrades... I ...award him the Medal of the Republic."--General Mustafa T'las, Syria's minister of defense, praising a hero of the 1973 war with Israel before the Syrian National Assembly.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
Matt, you are our flashing firefly, and I strive in vain to hold you still in my AgnosticWeb. But I shall keep trying.-Compare these statements: 1) The source or cause of evil is man's social instincts / the group. 2) "If there was no other people, there is no one to do evil to." 3) "My overriding point is that only in context of the group you live in are any of your actions painted according to whatever that society's moral valuations are." 4) "Man himself is neither good nor evil; man simply acts and the group decides what's right."-As I have repeated at the beginning of every post, 1) is the statement with which I disagree. It has nothing to do with the facts that evil cannot exist independently of other people, or that there are no objective norms for good and evil (which you say are interchangeable). I'm aware that one group's patriot is another group's terrorist, or insurgent, or traitor. These are different topics. You have also stated that distinctions are the source of evil, but distinctions are neither good nor evil. I suggested that the cause of evil is "those parts of our nature that drive us to use the distinctions for harmful purposes." You have not responded to this, although it is based on one of your own statements. -The fact that the group decides what is right does not mean that the group causes the individual or the group as a whole to do what is wrong. This is where your social-context argument clashes with your personal judgement, and the Yanomomo example is an excellent one with which to illustrate the point. Since slavery is good in the eyes of the Yanomomo, you are imposing your subjective values if you claim that their society is the source of evil, just because you condemn the system of slavery. If you don't condemn it, then you can't argue that Yanomomo society is the cause of people doing evil. My group, however, does condemn slavery, and so if I became a slave-owner (there are such people in our society), would you say the group was the source of my wrong-doing, i.e. that the group caused me to become a slave-owner? Of course you wouldn't. This is not, in my view, "lawyerlike sophistry" but plain common sense. -Perhaps we can agree that man is neither good nor evil, man's social instincts are neither good nor evil, grouping is neither good nor evil, and distinctions are neither good nor evil. Good and evil are not absolutes, and norms may vary in different groups, but the source of both is the different "parts of our nature", some of which you rightly say we must guard against. However, let me make a small concession to you, although you "consider ALL evil being social in cause": in certain circumstances, such as under a brutal dictatorship, membership of a group may cause individuals to do things they themselves consider to be evil. -Following on from what I see as a fair comment that "man can never escape society", you finish with yet another of your magnificently provocative statements (I should add that I really appreciate the way you stoke our fires!): "I actually deny that men are "individuals" by nature. I think that we are social by nature." Why must it be an either/or? I am acutely conscious of myself as an individual AND as a social being. My individual identity arises out my interaction with myself and with others, and although at a pinch I suppose I might survive (unhappily) without others, I certainly couldn't survive without myself!-- .
The Human Animal
Having now finished reading the complete and very disturbing account of the Milgram Experiment (thank you for that), I would like to add a postscript to what I wrote yesterday about the source of evil, perhaps to bring our viewpoints a little closer together. Our human society is so complex that we have become reliant on authority figures ... e.g. political and religious leaders, and experts in fields we know nothing about. You could therefore argue that our social instincts may put us in situations that result in group-evil (though not in individual crimes, as listed earlier). But I would still say that those social instincts are not the source. In themselves they are neutral, and the worst they can do is make us vulnerable to evil influences, just as they can make us receptive to good influences. (I am of course ignoring the relativity of the two terms.) In my view, the source of the evil in the Milgram/Nazi context is the authority that abuses our dependence.
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 21:57 (5055 days ago) @ dhw
Having now finished reading the complete and very disturbing account of the Milgram Experiment (thank you for that), I would like to add a postscript to what I wrote yesterday about the source of evil, perhaps to bring our viewpoints a little closer together. Our human society is so complex that we have become reliant on authority figures ... e.g. political and religious leaders, and experts in fields we know nothing about. You could therefore argue that our social instincts may put us in situations that result in group-evil (though not in individual crimes, as listed earlier). But I would still say that those social instincts are not the source. In themselves they are neutral, and the worst they can do is make us vulnerable to evil influences, just as they can make us receptive to good influences. (I am of course ignoring the relativity of the two terms.) In my view, the source of the evil in the Milgram/Nazi context is the authority that abuses our dependence.-In some amount of coincidence I had just started thinking about this problem again when I read your post here. -I understand where you're coming from: Social instincts are just a property of being human, like an arm or a leg. -However, my brain cannot leave this trap: maybe you can lift it?-Draw a dot on a piece of paper. That dot is the only man on earth. Draw two arrows--pointing in any direction. Those are two actions he carries out in this world. -But where does this man's moral compass come from? He's the only man? How is he to evaluate if these two actions are performing good or evil? The directions you placed the arrows dictate two different outcomes; for the sake of the exercise, if the arrows are closer together, the kinds of actions are similar, if they're 180 degrees from each other, they're dead opposite.-We have a situation identical to any other kind of observation in mathematics or in any other science, where we've got no unit of measurement, and therefore nothing useful to consider. -Draw another dot.-Now, at this point you have the only situation in which person A's actions can be considered on any kind of scale of "good" or "evil." Therefore, without at least two people, the words "good" and "evil" have absolutely no meaning whatsoever. -If "A" carries out an action, it is neither good nor evil until someone else "B," observes it. -Therefore the source of good/evil comes from the social group--and not the individual. -Nazi's (and the Milgram experiment) are simply two ways of exploiting this nature in order to get people to do things. And yes, I consider exploiting human nature in this fashion to be evil--but a Machiavellan would have a far different appraisal. (If you will the ends, you necessarily will the means.) Or, a more direct argument (though not perfectly on target) is that ALL things we call moral are absolutely relative. There's no such thing as a "selfish" act until there's some kind of agreement on what "selfish" is among a social group. -For the greater discourse about how to deal with this: Cultivating strong individuals is something that is a very new concept in the history of man--and it is THIS concept that is our only defense against being exploited as a society. When groups act as individuals instead of individuals acting in a group--this is where the greatest evils are allowed to manifest. -Now much of this is largely theoretical--it's difficult if you can't step away from all the moral judgments and valuations we both have deeply rooted within us. But I hope... you can see more clearly my dilemma, and though I know you don't agree with me, I hope you can maybe suggest a way out?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Human Animal
MATT: If "A" carries out an action, it is neither good nor evil until someone else "B", observes it. Therefore the source of good/evil comes from the social group ... and not the individual.-Earlier in your post, however, you have agreed that "social instincts are just a property of being human, like an arm or a leg." You call this a trap and ask if I can get you out of it.-I'll try! It seems to me that you are juggling different truths at the same time, and can't separate them. The two basic ones are: 1) The definition of evil will depend on the group. 2) Evil does not exist independently of humans, and you need at least two of them for evil to be committed and defined. This means that the source of the CONCEPT of evil is the social group. That is very different from the source of the evil itself. If we're going to identify that, we need to distinguish between different kinds of evil ... but for the sake of argument we need examples, and so you and I will first have to agree on a code, e.g. that murder, rape, genocide are evil. They may not be so in another society, but that is a matter of definition and not of what constitutes the source or cause of the evil itself.-Individual evil: Your earlier observation that there would be no evil if there were no other people entails the argument that Mr X could not have raped Miss Y if she had not been there, and therefore the source of the crime is Miss Y. I don't think even you will accept that. The source of the crime (if you are willing to share my code that rape is wrong) is Mr X's selfish pursuit of his own desires.-Group evil: Obviously this could not take place without a group, but a group in itself is neither good nor evil. Group evil, such as the Holocaust, takes place because the group is influenced by its leaders. There may be any number of factors underlying the course taken, but the source of the evil is not the fact that humans form groups. The source is the people who force/persuade/influence the group to perform certain actions. The same applies to war. Wars are generally declared by the leaders in the name of the people. (I'm not distinguishing here between aggressive/defensive, or just/unjust - that's a matter of definition.) The group's vulnerability to such influences is not the cause but a precondition that allows the cause to take effect. You say the concept of strong individuals is "our only defense against being exploited as a society". Who does the exploiting, if not strong individuals? -The way out of your "dilemma", as I see it, is therefore to distinguish between the concept and the doing of evil. The source of the concept and the definition is society. The deeds are performed by individuals as individuals, the source being their antisocial instincts (open to definition), or by individuals in groups. Groups (social instincts) in themselves are neutral, but they are potentially exposed either to "good" or "bad" influences (open to definition), in accordance with the agenda and power of those who govern them.
The Human Animal
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, June 26, 2010, 15:49 (5052 days ago) @ dhw
I have not forgotten, this just requires more deep reflection. Thank you for your patience!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"