Some would also claim that calling humans evil was simplified.
I think many SaSU users are very animal friendly. I have to think about the member @onlyanimalsaregood They were not online since a few years. I wonder whether other members still remember her. I think many people on here have made difficult experiences with humans.
A relative of mine has a new pet. (a dog) And honestly this made me feel not good. I hear how my mom talks with this dog. My mom abused me as child. And she still has this impatience in her voice. She has changed. And I think she would not use the same methods. Honestly, I sort of fear if she devlops dementia that she will become violent again. There once was one bad sign. My mom also kicked my cat a few times. And she gave her milk. I feel so sorry for the pets that I had as child. I think these people should not allowed to determine the lives of other beings. I hope so much my sister won't procreate. She is such a moron.
But I digress. Animals can be cruel. Cats often torture mice. I think some animals can have patterns of behavior that resemble bullying.
Honestly, I don't have much sophisticated to elaborate on. This isn't a question I usually ruminate about. But I am interested in contrarian takes on this issue. I might say something controverisal now. I think many people connect evil people with an awareness about the inmorality of their behavior. I give a counter example. There happens a lot o bullying in schools. And here the opinions on that are heterogeneous how to evaluate that. Kids are kids? This is what teenager and kids to each other. And kids can be pretty cruel. I was bullied in school. And it had a very negative impact on my life quality. But I think there were also examples where I was the bully. Not that often but sometimes was I just a sheep. My mom beat me up in adolescence and in my childhood. But she wasn't aware about the damage she does. The difference is probably as an adult you should be able to hold responsbility and be accountable. Adults have more life experience. But self-awareness as main difference is probably undercomplex. This would imply awareness was the key difference that decided about guilt. There are also factorts like intentionality.
I think most people would say animals cannot really be evil. They can be dangerous, they can be brutal, they can be a danger for humans. After lethal attacks of animals on humans they are often euthanized. But in some way that's hypocritical. It is not a case by case decision. Maybe one could argue one doesn't understand the psyche of an animal enough. But there are probably many instances where humans were the aggressors. And it wasn't solely the fault of an aggressive animal.
Whether kids can be evil is debatable. The same goes for teenagers. There are many media cases about evil kids and teenager. Some of them get pathologize. Or they are taken as example for a increasingly brutal young generation. Some would also arge one cannot really say that a mature ndividual was fully evil.
What about adults with very low intelligence? What about adults with neurological damage that makes them impuslive, prone to violence?
One could also start the question about free will. Can people be truely evil if they are not really able to change their own behavior? And free will was an illusion. The best counter argument I could think of is. The behavior of humans can be nudged. Even if we say there is not free will. There should an incentive structure that punishes violence and evil behavior. I think I read this argument on here for the first time. It is a very convincing one. Animals don't really understand the notion of morality, ethics and the way we can nudge their behavior is quite different. We can train them. But usually we blame the person that trained them instead.
I think I talked a lot of bullshit thus far because I don't have anything interesting to share.
I am good in hypothetical scenario so here is one: imagine an animal and the instincts of that animals was to kill as many humans as possible in the most cruel way. They were really effective and humans would not find a good way to counter their tactics. It becomes now pretty abstract. Because many variables are not spelled out. But which variables would make us humans think this species was evil? The intelligence of that species? The self-awareness? The fact it targets our species and this is a common sense position thus? Because actually we humans in many instances consider ourselves to be superior to animals. And that our lives were more important and more valuable than the lives of other species. What if the species that would kill humans was superior to us? If it was much smarter, much more aware, much more connected, it had way more intense emotions and we could not even grasp their consciousness. Would the death of humans be the price we had to pay if we were in a competition with the other species for resources?
And who would be able to decide about good or bad in this instance?
I will end it here.
I think many SaSU users are very animal friendly. I have to think about the member @onlyanimalsaregood They were not online since a few years. I wonder whether other members still remember her. I think many people on here have made difficult experiences with humans.
A relative of mine has a new pet. (a dog) And honestly this made me feel not good. I hear how my mom talks with this dog. My mom abused me as child. And she still has this impatience in her voice. She has changed. And I think she would not use the same methods. Honestly, I sort of fear if she devlops dementia that she will become violent again. There once was one bad sign. My mom also kicked my cat a few times. And she gave her milk. I feel so sorry for the pets that I had as child. I think these people should not allowed to determine the lives of other beings. I hope so much my sister won't procreate. She is such a moron.
But I digress. Animals can be cruel. Cats often torture mice. I think some animals can have patterns of behavior that resemble bullying.
Honestly, I don't have much sophisticated to elaborate on. This isn't a question I usually ruminate about. But I am interested in contrarian takes on this issue. I might say something controverisal now. I think many people connect evil people with an awareness about the inmorality of their behavior. I give a counter example. There happens a lot o bullying in schools. And here the opinions on that are heterogeneous how to evaluate that. Kids are kids? This is what teenager and kids to each other. And kids can be pretty cruel. I was bullied in school. And it had a very negative impact on my life quality. But I think there were also examples where I was the bully. Not that often but sometimes was I just a sheep. My mom beat me up in adolescence and in my childhood. But she wasn't aware about the damage she does. The difference is probably as an adult you should be able to hold responsbility and be accountable. Adults have more life experience. But self-awareness as main difference is probably undercomplex. This would imply awareness was the key difference that decided about guilt. There are also factorts like intentionality.
I think most people would say animals cannot really be evil. They can be dangerous, they can be brutal, they can be a danger for humans. After lethal attacks of animals on humans they are often euthanized. But in some way that's hypocritical. It is not a case by case decision. Maybe one could argue one doesn't understand the psyche of an animal enough. But there are probably many instances where humans were the aggressors. And it wasn't solely the fault of an aggressive animal.
Whether kids can be evil is debatable. The same goes for teenagers. There are many media cases about evil kids and teenager. Some of them get pathologize. Or they are taken as example for a increasingly brutal young generation. Some would also arge one cannot really say that a mature ndividual was fully evil.
What about adults with very low intelligence? What about adults with neurological damage that makes them impuslive, prone to violence?
One could also start the question about free will. Can people be truely evil if they are not really able to change their own behavior? And free will was an illusion. The best counter argument I could think of is. The behavior of humans can be nudged. Even if we say there is not free will. There should an incentive structure that punishes violence and evil behavior. I think I read this argument on here for the first time. It is a very convincing one. Animals don't really understand the notion of morality, ethics and the way we can nudge their behavior is quite different. We can train them. But usually we blame the person that trained them instead.
I think I talked a lot of bullshit thus far because I don't have anything interesting to share.
I am good in hypothetical scenario so here is one: imagine an animal and the instincts of that animals was to kill as many humans as possible in the most cruel way. They were really effective and humans would not find a good way to counter their tactics. It becomes now pretty abstract. Because many variables are not spelled out. But which variables would make us humans think this species was evil? The intelligence of that species? The self-awareness? The fact it targets our species and this is a common sense position thus? Because actually we humans in many instances consider ourselves to be superior to animals. And that our lives were more important and more valuable than the lives of other species. What if the species that would kill humans was superior to us? If it was much smarter, much more aware, much more connected, it had way more intense emotions and we could not even grasp their consciousness. Would the death of humans be the price we had to pay if we were in a competition with the other species for resources?
And who would be able to decide about good or bad in this instance?
I will end it here.
