The Human Animal (Animals)

by dhw, Thursday, June 24, 2010, 15:57 (5265 days ago) @ xeno6696

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.