The Human Animal (Animals)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, June 11, 2010, 00:55 (5278 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.\"