»
Main Forums
»
Passions in Prose
»
The Basic Nature of Man (reposted and rewritten)
| Passions in Prose |
|
The Basic Nature of Man (reposted and rewritten) |
|
|
DreamEvil Member Elite
since 1999-06-22
Posts 2396 |
Mankind is basically, indeed fundamentally Evil. What is Evil? Simple answer: Evil is instinct. Good is reason. You can choose to ignore your instincts in the light of reason. Such as a holding your tongue in the heat of an argument or not hitting someone that antagonizes you. Reason determines what instincts are desirable and which ones must be conditioned or bred out of the species. Conditioning for morality is done, for the most part, during childhood. Breeding it out is determined by an individual's choice of mate. Man being a predator, he carries a predator's instincts for domination of the weak and aggression. It is only reason that overrides them. It could be said that being an omnivore instills traits of both predator and prey in Man. That explains why some individuals are considered "born victims", while others are brutal and sadistic. The bulk of humanity falls between the two extremes. Difficult answer: Evil is the predilection of humanity towards anarchy, towards the violation of the rules of the society in which they live. How many individuals cheat on their tax return? How many partake of recreational drugs? How many early teen pregnancies are there? People constantly take handicapped parking spaces, flick cigarettes out of car windows when there is an ashtray in the car. How about looking at casual cruelty, elbowing someone aside without even noticing them, or a spouse's constant verbal denigration of their mate. The point is that everyone violates the rules in some way, however small. Just like everything else, it comes in degrees. Children are perhaps the best example of this. Why do children, regardless of country or environment, delight in torturing animals, exercising the power of life and death over those less than they? Why do children pull the wings off a fly, or burn ants with a magnifying glass? Isn't tying cans to a cat's tail malicious? What child doesn't alternately envy and enjoy, hate and love their parents? Curiosity can be used to explain this, but only for a few attempts. After that, the child would know the results and would only repeat the behavior if playing. Which, noticeably, they do repeat the behavior on other days. If a human child is deprived of human socialization and contact, is he or she, human? Take, for example, Amala and Kamala-the Wolf Children. In 1920, Reverend Singh discovered them, about 65 miles west of Calcutta. The girls, ages 3 and 5, were running with a pack of wolves, on all fours. The Reverend had the wolves killed to save the girls. They refused to eat and refused to be clothed. By accident, the girls stumbled upon the dogs at the compound eating a carcass. The girls immediately tore into it with the dogs. It became the only means of getting them to eat. While they were fed raw meat, the girls would pounce on birds, insects, and even small lizards and devour them. They much preferred rotting meat however. They would even use their wrists to pin bones to the ground and gnaw the meat from them. Eventually the youngest, Amala, died from the de-worming medication they gave them. She developed kidney dysfunction. Kamala lived into her teen years, even began to eat properly and wear clothes. Other than that she never left a feral state. She died in 1929, from typhoid. There are other cases, not as well photographed or documented however. The point has been made that without human contact and socialization, a human will not grow up to act human. In fact, it becomes very difficult to retrain them to be a functioning part of society. If the basic nature of man is fundamentally good, why are there wars? Perhaps the definition of Good varies from culture to culture. Let us define war: War is the result of a conflict between two (or more) opposing or differing ideas. War can involve near-Genocide, the extermination of everybody who holds an opposing view. In fairness it could be said that only a few are Evil and enforce their will upon others. If so, the Good people aren't. They allow the Evil to flourish. Isn't murder Evil? Rape? Theft? All this occurs both during and as a result of war. With this and more facing anyone, still it will be denied, no one wants it to be true. This is denial on a global scale. We are assaulted by moral dilemmas because we have been conditioned to do Good and to hide or revile our darker half. We must accept the dark side of our nature, suppressing it only leads to acting out in unacceptable ways, such as molestation, arson, assaults, spousal abuse, and the like. Repeat offenders; repeat their crimes as part of a cycle, a circle containing their darker half. Therefore, due to conditioning, we strive for Goodness and try to banish Evil. Until Mankind recognizes it's nature and accepts it, we will never be whole and complete. ©1999 DreamEvil ------------------ Pain is life, life is short, I will endure. DreamEvil© [This message has been edited by DreamEvil (edited 09-11-99).] |
||
| © Copyright 1999 DreamEvil - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Severn, snacks, if you read this, the paragraph explaining about the wolf children mirrors my arguement from "Demons." It(evil) IS intrinsic to man's nature...even from birth. Children may seem innocent, but even when left to their own, without societal influences, they portray the characteristics that we term as evil. DE, well written, and I am glad you re-posted it in edited format. You already know that my thinking mirrors your own. |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
I think "evil" might be a bit of an exaggeration here -- you must remember that the word "evil" is an invention of man, designed to embody all those things that each individual finds repugnant or unwholesome -- as such, the definition of "evil" varies from person to person. I think a better word for this piece might be "savage." Man is fundamentally a selfish creature, interested in his own personal edification and preservation. This is the nature of the beast; it's called survival, and it works. End of story. The imposition of morals and a sense of "good" upon such an efficient system is bound to have reprocussions, which manifest themselves as the ills of society. In civilization, Man has created for himself an environment so sterile and artificial that he has begun to suffer the effects of a sort of sensory-deprivation syndrome, whereby he manufactures reality to fill in the gaps, often resulting in perceived "needs" which endanger the very health and well-being of the individual. Drinking, drug use, excessive violence, bizarre sex rituals (and by bizarre I mean life-threatening; allow me to assure you that I am not at all sexually conservative, and therefore do not wish to become embroiled in a debate with irate persons defending the validity of their sexual practices), and other self-destructive behaviors all fall into this category, and can be attributed in large part, I believe, to the twisting of Man into something he was never meant to be. Anyone care to offer a rebuttal?  --Kesslynne ------------------ You cannot choose the way of your death, but the path you choose will determine its own end. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
I just have to "rebut" by pointing out that you're not really supporting your arguements too well! SkyFyre said: quote: quote: And "savage" is not an invention of mankind as well? I'll stop there, and give you a reference to "Demons." It sparked up quite the debate...you sound like you might be interested...take a peek and tell me if you want me to go on! |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
Christopher: I was indeed lax in my usage of words without denotation, and I thank you for calling me on it. Indeed, ALL words are the invention of mankind, as are many concepts; my opinion is that evil is one of these, while savagery is not. Allow me to clarify: evil: (adj) Morally bad, wicked; causing injury, damage, or any other undesirable result; harmful or prejudicial. savage: (adj) Having a wild and untamed nature; not domesticated; ferocious, fierce; living in or belonging to a primitive condition of human life; uncivilized. Both of these were taken from the dictionary; I think that the definitions themselves show certain patterns, which establish the connotation of each word as significantly different from one another. "Evil" is defined by morality, which in itself is an artificial condition; morality is the result of man acting as a social animal, sacrificing his own personal satisfaction for the good of the whole of society. While it could be argued that this condition runs contrary to the personal fulfillment of the individual, the density of our population and our capacity for destructive behavior necessitates the imposition of such artificial means of control, to protect those weaker members of our species from annihilation. Our gene pool is unique in that both the strong and the weak are allowed, and indeed encouraged, to survive. For recreation, we have taken pleasure in distorting the gene pool of other species, such as dogs, to mimic our own deficiencies. Thus, morality is the thing that forbids mankind his savagery, the result of which is the suppression of that natural, healthy animalistic behavior into the sadistic and intentionally destructive ones we define as evil. (Note that "evil" would be undefined without "morality" to dictate what it was). Savagery, on the other hand, is survival instinct -- and not all instincts are bad or destructive toward others. The majority of the animal kingdom operates on a principle of savagery; yet we do not see animals torturing one another for the sheer joy of doing so. It is my position that very little in humanity, and in fact any creature, is truly "evil"; the majority of the "bad" things that people do are simply the person or creature acting in his, her, or its best interest, which in some cases is not allowable within the confines of society and is thus termed "evil" for being in opposition to accepted morality. It is when we are punished for such natural behavior, or become obsessed with the need to suppress it, that psychological imbalances arise that cause unhealthy and sadistic behaviors that are truly "evil" result. In summary, I suppose I am trying to say that morality CREATED evil, and since Man is not by nature a moral creature (as DreamEvil so eloquently argued in this piece), we are therefore not, by nature anyway, evil. Indeed I will read your piece "Demons", but it will have to wait until later in the day. I look forward to it. --Kess |
||
|
Systematic Decay Senior Member
since 1999-09-15
Posts 1301That place with padded walls and funny people in white......... |
"the majority of the "bad" things that people do are simply the person or creature acting in his, her, or its best interest" Skyfyre, I agreed with you until then. I do believe that bad and evil are all subject to different interpretations: here is mine. When one does harm to another, not for his or own survival, or justice, just for pure amusement or pleasure it is wrong. As for doing harm to another to get something you want, or as we humans so often say, "need", such as the love of another person, some choice information, or any other assortment of things.....that line is very difficult to draw. As is the line for how far justice or vengeance can go before the person has paid their debt to whomever they have wronged. But can I ask you a question. You said very little in humanity is truly evil. So what, in your opinion, is evil, or bad? Are random murder, arson, and rape evil? Or just part of our savagery? I've just ben waiting for another good debate, its been quite a while. Thank you Dreamie. ------------------ "Despite all my rage, I am still just a rat in a cage." -Billy Corgan- |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
Once more into the breach!! You misunderstand my words, Systematic Decay (I will in the future shorten your monniker to "S.D." for the sake of efficiency, if you don't mind ). I did not say that man was not capable of evil; I simply said that it was not in his NATURE. It is only when the beast within is suffocating beneath the heavy chains of society and rigid morality that it feels the need to strike out with vengeance rather than simply from need -- when it feels cornered, an animal will use whatever means necessary to relieve its anxiety, even if it means acting out in a willfully destructive and sadistic manner. If we feel that our one outlet is blocked, we will express our "uncivilized" impulses in other, possibly less wholesome, ways. The one (evil) becomes a substitute for the other (savagery); at this point all bets are off, because the nature of man has been subverted by his inability to operate within the specified parameters and still achieve personal edification.S.D., I am glad you took the time to give me your views and ask your questions: to answer your last question concisely, murder, rape, and arson are evil, but they are products of society, not man's inherent predilection for evilness; they are simply our own savagery being forcibly expressed in a non-constructive manner. We are by nature free-willed creatures; take away that free will to too great an extent, and you have opened your gates to rebellion in the form of retaliative (evil) behavior. We WILL express our primal urges, regardless of what society wants -- but it is the moral chains that bind us which channel our "uncivilized" aggression in less than innocuous directions. Anybody else? Dream? I KNOW you have an opinion on this ... spar with me, my friend!--Kess [This message has been edited by Skyfyre (edited 10-27-1999).] |
||
|
DreamEvil Member Elite
since 1999-06-22
Posts 2396 |
To be honest, I wrote an essay that contends that there are many types of evil. The two main classification of evil are, psychological evil and physical evil. I will post that essay soon, but for the meantime, I would contend that savagery is the nature of all predators and most mammmals. Showing animal savagery could mean insanity as instinct (fight or flight response) has overpowered reason. That would then lead to one of my original statements, that evil is instinct and Reason is good. ------------------ Now and forever, my heart hears ~one voice~. DreamEvil© [This message has been edited by DreamEvil (edited 10-27-1999).] |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
OK: in the interest of bandwidth, this will be my final post on this topic (though admittedly, if allowed free rein, I could go on for days). I assert, again, that your statement that "instinct is bad, reason is good" is flawed; not all instinct is bad, and by the same token, not all reason is good. For example, would you contend a mother protecting her child from imminent danger is evil? Or, similarly, a person defending him or herself with whatever means are necessary in a life-threatening situation? These are not evil acts, but they are most assuredly instinctual. Therefore, your generalization fails. Conversely, would you say that a person who found it within reason to murder someone in cold blood to get something that they wanted, because they could be certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that they would never be caught, should not be considered "evil" because they used reason and logic to determine their most advantageous course of action? Would you say that the members of militia in recent "ethnic cleansing" episodes in the Middle East, who raped both women and children that had been incarcerated in "rape camps" for that very purpose, were not evil because what they were doing was allowable under the laws that they were governed by (and could therefore be considered both "moral" and "reasonable")? Certainly not. For these reasons, I'd say that your definitions need some work. By way of reconciliation, DreamEvil, I wish to add that I found this piece very thought-provoking; had I not, I would never have responded to it so extensively. Thank you for this intellectual exercise -- I hold your work in high regard, even if I don't always agree with it!  --Kess ------------------ You cannot choose the way of your death, but the path you choose will determine its own end. |
||
|
Michael
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-13
Posts 7666California |
Well done, Dream, And I'm with chris, Evil is intrinsic to human nature. ------------------ Michael Anderson Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream? |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
LOL -- it figures, you guys all band together to defend your evilness -- very well then, I concede! If you want to be called evil, then by all means you are welcome to the designation. Myself, I'll stick to savagery (well maybe with a little evil thrown in for spice). Oops ... I wasn't supposed to post here again! **blushing** Guess I just can't stay away from this one, sorry! --Kess |
||
|
dvlishimp Member
since 1999-08-01
Posts 126USA |
I am not so eloquent or knowledgeable as those posted here. But, I believe that mankind is intrinsically both good and evil. I also believe that the nature vs nuture argument has its place in the development of one over the other or keeping them equal. My personal opinion on evil is that true evil is done purposefully with an intent to hurt. Sex is instinctual. Rape is not done because one is needing sex so badly that he/she follows their instinct rather than reason. It is taking that instinct and knowing that it is going to hurt the other person and deciding to do it anyway. They aren't disregarding reason. They have their own reasons. It doesn't matter what others think, do, feel.It doesn't matter how their evil is going to effect the other persons live. This is about them. They are egocentric. Their world goes by their rules and their own reasoning. I am not a religious person. And I make mistakes just like anyone else. I try my best to live up to the words "do no harm". However, harm is done every day with or without consent. One person gets a job. Another person must have failed. Is it evil? No. Was it instinctual? I'd say work is needed to survive. So perhaps it is instinctual. But, evil is to intentionally do everything in ones power through reason and instinct to make the other person fail. Well, enough rambling. This is how I see things. To each their own. Interesting topic. Have a non-evil day. |
||
|
DreamEvil Member Elite
since 1999-06-22
Posts 2396 |
What I see is a generalization of the terms evil and good, as though one definition would fit all of society. Evil is intensely personal and unique to the individual in many respects. To use rape as an example, since it has been used as such already, in India child marriage was considered the norm and a desirable thing. Laws have been passed preventing it, in the '50s I believe, but it is still practiced. Female children as young as 8 months were married to men in their 80s. Devout Hindus consummate their marriage on the wedding night. Point is, to us it is a vile perversion and intensely evil. To those that practice it due to religion, not doing so is the evil. Society does shape the individual definition of evil. It is the choice of the individual whether or nor to commit evil acts. ------------------ Now and forever, my heart hears ~one voice~. DreamEvil© |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||