The Human Animal (Animals)

by dhw, Thursday, June 10, 2010, 14:31 (5279 days ago) @ xeno6696

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!