Horrible, just horrible... U_U

[Rei]

Some people don't even think about the value of other muman being's lives is what i'm trying to say here.

So why should I think about theirs,
well, it is mentally impossible think about everyone elses seeing as though there are nearly 7 billion people on this planet, and in the average human brain there are only 100 billion cells and to remember one person takes about 32 brain cells in all :|

Because you already do and that's why you made this thread.
What I mean is, we can follow a humanistic way of living respecting the others' rights; even if that one has been malevolent in the past. It is our responsibility as a society built upon reason to understand that we punish the act not the one who committed it.

 

[The Doctor]

I don't think you've offended anyone No reason to be on edge, we are all e-friends here.
I don't argue with what you say but I think we were discussing about the one who would make this decision, not the situation itself. That's the point here, what the one taking the decision should be thinking, not what would happen in each occasion. And yes, definitely, we do not live in an ideal society, so human life is not valued the same. Hundreds of Muslims die every day in Palestine and we are concerned because of the few deaths that happen daily in our countries and we get annoyed or sad by it. All of us, or at least most. This is the absolute devaluation of human life: depending on where the death took place, we get involved or we ignore.

For the second part of what you said, it has all been said by Kant already: we get punished -and involved- not because of what we did but because we could have acted otherwise, so it's not about what we will gain but about what we will not lose.

By the way, have you read Nietzche's: 'On the Genealogy of Morality'? Seeing that you are somewhat thinking philosophically, I really recommend it to you because, in my opinion, it's the best answer to what you've just said and the best explanation of what this 'conscience' (and not subconscious) really is:
'The proud realization of the extraordinary privilege of responsibility, the awareness of this rare freedom and power over himself and his destiny, has penetrated him [the Man] to the depths and become an instinct, his dominant instinct: -what will he call his dominant instinct, assuming that he needs a word for it? No doubt about this answer: the sovereign man calls it his conscience'

I wasn't trying to be on edge, it's just when it comes to religion, things can get pretty bad. Also,I'll have to agree, the common mentality for the majority of people is not to get involved, unless it directly affects you. I'll have to take a look at that book though. I haven't read it and the way you made it sound, it seems like a good read.

 

[YowYan]

1 funny thing related to this thread.
1hen i see on the news that 40 afghanistan citizens have been murdered in an terroristic attack its 1 minute news.


Now if 1 tourist (from my country) dies in that same accident..then its an one hour special with interviews of the relatives of the tourist. And as an ending a minute of silence and flower throwing crap.

Just noticed this.

 

[Nori]

Random people, or "good people" dying gets higher ratings and more viewers than the opposite in general, which leads to it being shown on TV more. "Bad people" die all of the time. People, in general, die all of the time regardless of if you consider them good or bad.

It's not about accurately reflecting the truth any more than is required by basic journalistic integrity, it's about putting on what they think people will want to watch more. Advertising revenue makes the world go 'round.

 

[Rei]

I wasn't trying to be on edge, it's just when it comes to religion, things can get pretty bad. Also,I'll have to agree, the common mentality for the majority of people is not to get involved, unless it directly affects you. I'll have to take a look at that book though. I haven't read it and the way you made it sound, it seems like a good read.

I have some chapters in pdf format; if you want, I can e-mail them to you. Pm me if so.

 

[Ryūjin]

your totally right dude

 

[Psychotic X]

1 funny thing related to this thread.
1hen i see on the news that 40 afghanistan citizens have been murdered in an terroristic attack its 1 minute news.


Now if 1 tourist (from my country) dies in that same accident..then its an one hour special with interviews of the relatives of the tourist. And as an ending a minute of silence and flower throwing crap.

Just noticed this.

Well that makes it international affairs and you are stepping into a whole new topic.

 

[Yüme1]

Because you already do and that's why you made this thread.
What I mean is, we can follow a humanistic way of living respecting the others' rights; even if that one has been malevolent in the past. It is our responsibility as a society built upon reason to understand that we punish the act not the one who committed it.

I see...

Thanks Rei!

:hug:

 

[Ishikage]

More good people don't die than bad. Bad people end up dead all the time. It's just not news when a gang-banger dies, because no one cares.

 

[Typhon]

Human kind is inherently selfish. I would have to disagree with you >>Frederick Uchiha, I think that humans are drawn to what you deem as "evil" simply because it is easier. As for why more good people die than bad, that is a opinionated statement. Good and bad are terms made by humans, by nature, nothing is evil, and nothing is good.

I agree, and disagree to a certain extent. The definitions of "good" and "evil" are certainly human terms, but they're there to define actions we see, both in humans and nature. The reason why "evil" is such a human term isn't because of the actions we commit, but because of the reasoning behind the actions. In nature you will certainly see animals attack and killing each other. Is this evil? No, Its not. And the reason why its not "evil" is because the act of that animal killing another animal is because that action in some way enhances the chances of the killer to survive and pass on its genes. The act of "evil" (using that very broadly) is an almost strictly human behavior. A person can harm another out of nothing other than hatred, or anger. This behavior in no way enhances their survival or chance to reproduce, and therefore is something I think we could consider "bad".


There are 4 very general types of animal behavior.
1. Selfishness - One individual acts in a way that harms another, but enhances their own fitness.
2. Cooperation - 2 or more individuals act in a way that enhances their fitness.
3. Altruism - One individual acts in a way that reduces its own personal fitness to enhance the fitness of another. (This one is generally very rare).
4. Spite - One individual acts in a way that reduces another's fitness, as wells as reducing their own. (Considered by far to be the rarest).


Spite, is the one which is almost strictly seen in humans. All "evil" is, is the word created by religious people to describe the behavior of spite. Regardless of whether the words were there to describe the behavior, the behavior would exist.


A good example of "spite" is the myth of the Greek princess Medea, who's husband had deserted her. She proceeded to kill not only his new lover, but her two children as well. This type of behavior is something you will never see in nature. Purely human, and certainly "evil".

 

[Ishikage]

I agree, and disagree to a certain extent. The definitions of "good" and "evil" are certainly human terms, but they're there to define actions we see, both in humans and nature. The reason why "evil" is such a human term isn't because of the actions we commit, but because of the reasoning behind the actions. In nature you will certainly see animals attack and killing each other. Is this evil? No, Its not. And the reason why its not "evil" is because the act of that animal killing another animal is because that action in some way enhances the chances of the killer to survive and pass on its genes. The act of "evil" (using that very broadly) is an almost strictly human behavior. A person can harm another out of nothing other than hatred, or anger. This behavior in no way enhances their survival or chance to reproduce, and therefore is something I think we could consider "bad".


There are 4 very general types of animal behavior.
1. Selfishness - One individual acts in a way that harms another, but enhances their own fitness.
2. Cooperation - 2 or more individuals act in a way that enhances their fitness.
3. Altruism - One individual acts in a way that reduces its own personal fitness to enhance the fitness of another. (This one is generally very rare).
4. Spite - One individual acts in a way that reduces another's fitness, as wells as reducing their own. (Considered by far to be the rarest).


Spite, is the one which is almost strictly seen in humans. All "evil" is, is the word created by religious people to describe the behavior of spite. Regardless of whether the words were there to describe the behavior, the behavior would exist.


A good example of "spite" is the myth of the Greek princess Medea, who's husband had deserted her. She proceeded to kill not only his new lover, but her two children as well. This type of behavior is something you will never see in nature. Purely human, and certainly "evil".

That's not entirely true.

A lion who takes primacy from another over a pride will kill and eat the cubs of the other lions to make their mothers ready to mate faster. A similar logic can be applied to your example, I think.

Studies show people who are in dimly lit areas (even when only perceived, like they are wearing sunglasses) are more likely to behave immorally. Also if a place is messy, they are more likely to litter there, which helps no one. Tall trees and pictures of eyes dissuade people from such activities. So motivation is not easy to quantify (especially in animals) and that seems to be the most important factor in perceived "evil".

I also believe not just people, but every living organism is selfish. This is how its descendants survive. Even in seemingly selfless, altruistic acts, there is a selfish motivation. The hope that the group will care for your progeny if you become unable comes to mind. Also the sense of satisfaction and elevated esteem you gain by these actions can be boiled down, at least partly, to the selfish desire to be favored in the splitting of resources and finding a mate.

 

[Yüme1]

I've seen that movie too (or at least a similar one). Chick ended pretty wrecked.​

Horrible!

 

[John Constantine]

Horrible!

Right! She got stuffed.​

 

[Zoro]

Right! She got stuffed.​

_O-

 

[Yüme1]

Right! She got stuffed.​

wtf lol.

_O-

You!
Take the damn sig off.

 

[Adachi]

I don't even want to read what is going on up there.
What is good?
What is bad?
Everyone's judgment is different. Someone robbing someone who is so horribly rich that wouldn't make a difference only because the robber needs money for his hungry family. That might not seem "bad" to him.
There's no such thing as positive and negative as there isn't with what's right or wrong.
As for people dying, the news just can't pick better topics to get more humans to sympathize and connect...thus, more viewers. Besides, people die every day, a lot of them accidental. It's part of this world.
Yes, I hate it too. But all of us just have no choice to accept it. Besides, you might feel like this today and forget about it tomorrow. People just don't give shit unless they've really experience it themselves. Time to face reality.

 

[Adachi]

Wow, Danzo. I thought you were Lord of Kaos for a moment.

There are 4 very general types of animal behavior.
1. Selfishness - One individual acts in a way that harms another, but enhances their own fitness.
2. Cooperation - 2 or more individuals act in a way that enhances their fitness.
3. Altruism - One individual acts in a way that reduces its own personal fitness to enhance the fitness of another. (This one is generally very rare).
4. Spite - One individual acts in a way that reduces another's fitness, as wells as reducing their own. (Considered by far to be the rarest).

1. Like Ishikage said, YES, I agree everyone is selfish.
2. For selfishness, again, the core of humans, since it "cooperates" with survival.
3. Impossible.
4. Direct quote: "Humans enjoy seeing other humans suffer." Isn't that the basis of most jokes nowadays?

Let's just complete with that everything we do is completely out of desire and that altruism is non-existent.

 

[John Constantine]

I don't even want to read what is going on up there.
What is good?
What is bad?
Everyone's judgment is different. Someone robbing someone who is so horribly rich that wouldn't make a difference only because the robber needs money for his hungry family. That might not seem "bad" to him.
There's no such thing as positive and negative as there isn't with what's right or wrong.
As for people dying, the news just can't pick better topics to get more humans to sympathize and connect...thus, more viewers. Besides, people die every day, a lot of them accidental. It's part of this world.
Yes, I hate it too. But all of us just have no choice to accept it. Besides, you might feel like this today and forget about it tomorrow. People just don't give shit unless they've really experience it themselves. Time to face reality.

I pretty much agree with this but i thought the topic was about porn!​

 

[Professor Sarutobi]

i skimed over the replys but i'll just put what i thought at first.

Good and Evil have always seemed to be vague terms to me, kind of like human rights, its good or evil and its your "right" to say what you want or go where you want.
but those only go as far as people obeying the law that says that you can or can't do such things.

Spoiler

you could steal to feed your family from someone who won't go hungry a day in their life (wealthy chain stores or people), or you could shoot someone for no real reason other then hate or spite. the law won't protect them from that bullet, it will only allow the police to inflict a legal punishment, possibly even murder you for murdering someone.

and your human rights can be taken away by goverments if your suspected of being a terrorist or spy. If your in certain countries you can be treated with different rights, like as a general example, non-muslums are not allowed to set foot in mecca (if i remember right). but in america muslums can go to ground zero, or any place of worship they please because thats our law.

anyway, same as some other posters said its the media picking and choosing what gets people to watch, not as many will watch a report about a dead hooker or gang member as they will a report about a child with a horrible illness/disabilty or a mother of 5 being killed by a drunk driver.

i remember hearing somewhere, "i wish just once when some kid goes on a killing spree in his school they say it was the news showing them all those violent things that made them do it, the reporter's faces would melt trying to spin that."

 

[Typhon]

That's not entirely true.

A lion who takes primacy from another over a pride will kill and eat the cubs of the other lions to make their mothers ready to mate faster. A similar logic can be applied to your example, I think.

Studies show people who are in dimly lit areas (even when only perceived, like they are wearing sunglasses) are more likely to behave immorally. Also if a place is messy, they are more likely to litter there, which helps no one. Tall trees and pictures of eyes dissuade people from such activities. So motivation is not easy to quantify (especially in animals) and that seems to be the most important factor in perceived "evil".

I also believe not just people, but every living organism is selfish. This is how its descendants survive. Even in seemingly selfless, altruistic acts, there is a selfish motivation. The hope that the group will care for your progeny if you become unable comes to mind. Also the sense of satisfaction and elevated esteem you gain by these actions can be boiled down, at least partly, to the selfish desire to be favored in the splitting of resources and finding a mate.

The lion example is a bit different and would fall under the "selfish" category of behavior. The cubs of the pride that the male takes over aren't his offspring and don't carry his genes. So if he had to help raise and feed those cubs it would be detrimental to his fitness. By killing them he makes the females become ready to mate again and can focus all the resources on helping his offspring survive.

He hurts his rival's fitness, while helping his own. By definition this is selfishness.


In the example I gave the woman killed her husband's lover and HER own children. These kids carried her genes, therefore by killing them she hurt her own fitness.

She hurt her husband's/husband's lover's chance of passing genes on to the next generation, but she also hurt her own chances. By definition this is spite.



Not sure about that whole dimly lit room stuff, so I'll skip it.


I agree that most organisms act in selfish ways. Its the best way to pass on your genes to the next generation. But there are examples of altruistic examples. Take Bonobos for example. They've tested them by having them in adjacent cages and giving excess food to one of them. That individual will pass the food to the one who can't get to it. This same thing was done with chimps and the chimp hogged it all. Theres no plus side for the Bonobo to share the food. More food for itself means more energy and a better chance of survival and reproduction. Even if its plan was to at some point get something in return, that wouldn't be as effective as just taking the initial resources for itself. So that act can be seen more as altruistic than selfish.