The Human Animal (Animals)

by dhw, Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 16:40 (5274 days ago) @ xeno6696

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.