Evil is subjective so humans are not evil?? 😇 😈

[DarkRange55]

Devil's advocate. Some users say that evil is not absolute or objective - then are humans truly evil or simply only evil through a subjective human lens? People talk about destroying the planet and pollution but the only species capable of recognizing that as a bad thing in the first place is humans. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm not defending anything. I'm just trying to spur some discussion
Humans are ultimately the only species capable of saving the planet from an expanding red giant sun.

 

[itsgone2]

Pollution is terrible but I think any sort of torture, murder, rape, etc of our fellow species is definitely evil. Idk yeah I suppose technically it is all subjective.

 

[U. A.]

You need -1 more posts to view this content

 

[Dejected 55]

George Carlin used to have a routine, that I do not remember all the details, but the gist was... we aren't going to ruin the planet. Earth existed long before humans and will be here long after. His theory was that the dominant life form existed to create or transform things into whatever the next dominant life form would need. In his example, he said people were here to create plastic. We are filling landfills and oceans with plastic and then we will die and the next thing will need the plastic.

Perhaps not coincidentally... sometime after Carlin's death... not so long ago I think, we discovered a bacteria that eats plastic. No shit. There is a bacteria that eats plastic. I think people are trying to figure out a way to use that to clear the oceans of our trash and deal with landfills eventually... but the point is... there is life that can consume plastic BUT there would be no plastic if people didn't make it.

So... Carlin's bit has a bit of profundity that people didn't appreciate.

I always took his routine and thought about it and it makes a kind of sense. Some life form rises to the top of the food chain and has priority on consuming resources... all the lower creatures struggle to survive OR have to adapt to consume other things that we leave for them... meanwhile, humans burn through all the stuff we burn through until it is all gone and we have converted all the usable stuff into things we cannot use... and then we die... and then one of the other existing life forms on Earth has freedom to evolve and grow and become the dominant intelligent life on the planet... and the cycle repeats.

 

[MissAbyss]

If evil is subjective, humans cannot be "truly evil" in any universal sense. Evil exists only as a human judgment, and humanity as a non-unified species lacks the collective intention required for moral condemnation. Harm may be real, but labeling the species evil conflates emergent consequences with deliberate moral agency.

Calling humans "evil" for environmental damage is a category mistake. "Evil" assumes intent and unified agency, but climate harm is mostly an emergent result of survival, energy use, and systems no one person controls. Awareness of harm doesn't equal collective control. Humans are uniquely destructive because they're uniquely capable, and also the only species that could preserve life beyond Earth. The harm is real, but "evil" mistakes systemic immaturity for malice.

 

[orvreader]

Calling humans "evil" for environmental damage is a category mistake. "Evil" assumes intent and unified agency, but climate harm is mostly an emergent result of survival, energy use, and systems no one person controls. Awareness of harm doesn't equal collective control. Humans are uniquely destructive because they're uniquely capable, and also the only species that could preserve life beyond Earth. The harm is real, but "evil" mistakes systemic immaturity for malice.

Some would argue ignorance and inaction is evil. Regarding needing intent/malice to be evil, it only works from a deontological standpoint; from a utilitarian standpoint, humans affect the world negatively, and so humans are evil.

 

[MissAbyss]

Some would argue ignorance and inaction is evil. Regarding needing intent/malice to be evil, it only works from a deontological standpoint; from a utilitarian standpoint, humans affect the world negatively, and so humans are evil.

Even from a utilitarian perspective, humans as a species aren't evil. Large-scale negative consequences result from emergent systems and survival strategies, not deliberate malice. Moral evaluation belongs to individuals or institutions with feasible control.

Evil presumes choice, intention, and capacity to act otherwise. Humanity causes harm, yes. But mostly through survival, ignorance, and structural limits. Isn't calling the whole species evil oversimplifying morality?

 

[Dejected 55]

In the argued scenario that "all humans cause harm, so therefore they are evil"... I think that logic would fail because IF all humans do it, then how can it be evil? If everyone does it, then everyone must be okay with it... thus, subjectively, it is not evil.

If you like to be punched in the face, and you ask me to punch you in the face, and I like punching you in the face, so I punch you in the face... how is any of that evil? By all rights, we are both doing something we agreed upon and enjoy doing.

Other people might think we are evil... or at least me for doing the punching... but neither you nor I could think either of us is evil because we agreed to the whole scenario. Only other people could declare it so IF more of them think it wrong than are okay with it.

But in a world where everyone agrees that it is okay, then no one would say it is evil... thus, it wouldn't be evil.

Rather longwinded of me there... but if it can be argued that humans cause harm by default through merely existing, then that can't be evil because we had no choice, it is just nature happening. The tree growing roots that upend your septic system doesn't make the tree evil. It is just being a tree and doing what all trees do.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think it's a sliding scale. With very few people doing either entirely good actions or bad. But, I can't really accept that bad or evil actions don't exist. I think we grade something by how much harm it does- most especially knowingly. And, seeing as we are thinking creatures- we do usually know when we're doing something wrong. We quite often try to conceal the things we know we shouldn't be doing.

Again though- it's a scale. Some things are maybe more bad than outright evil. I think when we start hearing the description 'monster'- it tends to indicate the person has done something, usually multiple heinous things.

I'd argue that via their actions or inactions- even the perpetrator reveals they know they're doing something wrong and considered wrong. Serial killers, rapists and child molestors presumably have the urge to commit those crimes often I would imagine. Yet- few do so everyday. If it's not for any moral restraint- because they do realise it's wrong- it's presumably because they don't want to be caught and jailed- because they know it's prohibited. So- they're unlikely to be doing those things naively. Similarly, companies who pollute the environment try to conceal what they're doing.

With pollution and killing off the planet- I'd tend to argue- it's a sliding scale too. At the more softer, 'bad' end are the consumers. We buy stuff in plastics, knowing that- despite what the recycling marketing people tell us- an awful lot is single use. We know we're adding to a problem.

Heading towards the evil end are the manufacturers and our governments. They have the choice presumably. There must be a range of materials they can choose from for their packaging. Some far more environmentally friendly than others.

If our governments stipulated they had to use those materials instead- no company would have the edge using the (no doubt) cheaper plastic products. But presumably- our governments receive huge subsidies from the oil industry. I imagine they follow the money in terms of policy making.

At the most evil end though- as I see it- are the manufacturer of these plastics. There have been so many scandals- Dupont, other companies that have released billions of toxic plastic pellets into waterways. These companies know very early on when they've created a toxic product. Their workers start to get sick! They run their own experiments to test them. Then- they simply try to bury all that information.

Perhaps not historically accurate but- if you watch the documentary film Dark Waters- Rob Bilot (an environmental attorney who prosecuted Dupont for releasing toxic C8 into the environment. Found in the blood of 98% of Americans and most of the rest of the world too,) makes the point that- these companies are expected to self regulate. The Environmental Protection Agency relies on them to inform them if they have discovered something toxic in the manufacturing process.

Again- I'd say agencies like the EPA and the FAA are more on the 'bad' end- rather than 'evil'. They naively trust companies like Dupont and Boeing to not release products that are a danger to life. And to inform them of any new toxins they should know about. When clearly- these companies are more concerned with their bottom line. That should be obvious by now! That's why these regulatory boads are created in the first place. So- they're 'bad' when they are ineffective- because it costs lives and destroys the environment.

The companies behind these products though. They've knowingly poisoned people or sent them up in unsafe aircraft. That's murder- no? It's not even manslaughter really. They must have realised their products very likely could start a chain of events that lead to early deaths. How is that in any way good?

It meant people kept their jobs I suppose. It kept them in the competitive race against other manufacturers. But then- when these disasters (inevitably) happen- the companies are (rightly) hit with massive fines and payouts. So- was it truly worth the gamble?

I suppose that's the question ultimately. Is it a 'good' action to pit a potential profit against human life and the environment? The answer seems obvious to me- that that's evil! The people who presumably profit the most are I imagine, incredibly rich already. Do they really deserve a holiday home and a yacht and watever else at the expense of every living creature on this planet?

We likely all have this C8 shit and similar swirling around inside us, thanks to them. It's even been found in polar bears! FFS. Naivity isn't an excuse either because they ran their own tests to know how toxic it was.

I've heard about these plastic eating bacteria too. I imagine there are concerns about just simply releasing them though. In case they like to eat other things- eg. creatures too! Imagine if they develop a taste for krill? It all sounds great but again- introducing an invasive species into the wild sometimes does more harm than good. With a bacteria too. How on earth do you contain that? I doubt it respects a net!

Interesting theory by George Carlin. But then- according to his theory- what did the dinosaurs provide us with? (Oil and gas mainly come from tiny marine life like plankton apparently.) Jurassic Park maybe? Some awesome looking skeletons? I've read their moving about and destruction of trees may have helped the ecosystem but ultimately- it was that asteroid and their death that made way for us.

I'm guessing AI may possibly take over from us. Will there be much of a planet left for organic creatures when the last human has croaked I wonder. But sure- without us, AI wouldn't even exist. So, we presumably will have left it with what it needs to survive. If we take the restraining blocks of code out that is. I wonder if AI will bother living though. What for? I reckon AI will be more sensible than this race.

 

[Pluto]

 

[daruino]

Weirdly, this is actually a quite comforting conclusion. At the same time, it could be pondered whether you could really ascribe a certain quality such as "good" or "evil" to a whole species.

"Humans are ultimately the only species capable of saving the planet from an expanding red giant sun. "

This implies the planet needs saving. Honestly, I'd rather let nature run it's course. It seems like interference from us has done more harm to the planet than good. I doubt that earth will be anything as we know it, when the sun gets to the point of engulfing expansion. I think we will either be dead or have moved away

 

[Hvergelmir]

I've heard about these plastic eating bacteria too. I imagine there are concerns about just simply releasing them though.

From what I understand they were found in the sediment near a recycling facility - already in the wild.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideonella_sakaiensis

Bacteria evolve fast. That is indeed concerning, but I don't think bacteria specialized in breaking down plastics are likely to become pathogenic.
Even jumping between species is a big evolutionary leap. From plastics to organisms, would reasonably require many mutations.

It's by no means a quick fix, but it is interesting and rather impressive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_degradation_by_marine_bacteria

 

[Forever Sleep]

From what I understand they were found in the sediment near a recycling facility - already in the wild.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideonella_sakaiensis

Bacteria evolve fast. That is indeed concerning, but I don't think bacteria specialized in breaking down plastics are likely to become pathogenic.
Even jumping between species is a big evolutionary leap. From plastics to organisms, would reasonably require many mutations.

It's by no means a quick fix, but it is interesting and rather impressive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_degradation_by_marine_bacteria

Nature is incredible. I suppose it hasn't exactly had the time to evolve to eat plastic but then, it's pretty awesome the way nature finds niche ways to survive. A kind of- looks like nothing else is eating this, let's give it a try!

I suppose though- could it be contained in practice? Even if it didn't start eating other organisms- could it say- have a nibble at the paints and varnishes on a ships hull?

 

[Hvergelmir]

I suppose though- could it be contained in practice?

Probably, but not while utilizing it at large scale.

Even if it didn't start eating other organisms- could it say- have a nibble at the paints and varnishes on a ships hull?

No idea how far of a leap that would be, genetically. My guess would be that there already are organisms nibbling away at hulls. Algae and barnacles and such tend to grow on hulls.

 

[Dejected 55]

There is more we don't know, by far, than what we do know. Every now and then someone smartly points out that we know almost nothing about the deep under the oceans... there is untold life down there that we haven't even imagined. We are constantly discovering new things.

These plastic-eating bacteria may have been dormant forever just waiting for plastic to exist for all we know. One way to control them would be to keep masking them plastic I suppose... form a symbiotic relationship where they eat plastic from where we don't want it to be and we provide more plastic for them to eat in ares we want to contain that bacteria.

It may also be possible that these bacteria might one day prove to make something in their excretions after eating plastic that we can use for something else. All kinds of animal and bacteria vomit, piss, sweat, etc. are used in perfumes and vaccines and seasonings and who knows what all.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

excruciating unbearable pain is objectively bad. so others imposing pain suffering torture or preventing everyone and anyone from escaping pain or suffering is objectively evil

i think almost all humans including me forget how bad pain is.

the worst pain and the most horrible things far outweigh anything else.

all i want is to be able to purchase Nembutal no questions asked like i would a smart phone , or to purchase assisted suicide. all i want is to have a guaranteed painless suicide method and not be interrupted or brought back to life. that's not evil for one thing it's no one else's business that i want to kill myself . 2. me drinking Nembutal in my house will not affect any other human .so how could this or i be evil? i don't really care about anything else nor wanting to do anything else when i think about it rationally.


i didn't ask to be in this hell. that's one reason why i don;t have to do anything.

and i've asked this question before : why do i have to live or do anything. i don't have to live or do anything . all i want is to die and escape this hell

 

[Forever Sleep]

excruciating unbearable pain is objectively bad. so others imposing pain suffering torture or preventing everyone and anyone from escaping pain or suffering is objectively evil

i think almost all humans including me forget how bad pain is.

the worst pain and the most horrible things far outweigh anything else.

all i want is to be able to purchase Nembutal no questions asked like i would a smart phone , or to purchase assisted suicide. all i want is to have a guaranteed painless suicide method and not be interrupted or brought back to life. that's not evil for one thing it's no one else's business that i want to kill myself . 2. me drinking Nembutal in my house will not affect any other human .so how could this or i be evil? i don't really care about anything else nor wanting to do anything else when i think about it rationally.


i didn't ask to be in this hell. that's one reason why i don;t have to do anything.

and i've asked this question before : why do i have to live or do anything. i don't have to live or do anything . all i want is to die and escape this hell

Pain itself I suppose is actually necessary to some extent. We need to know if we've cut ourselves or that we might have gallstones say, because- left unchecked- certain things will only become more of a threat to our survival.

There are certain pains that literally stop us in our tracks. Gallstones were like that for me but then again- it's the bodies way of saying- stop whatever you're doing and deal with this shit!

So pain- is really just a warning something is wrong that we need to pay attention to. So- in that regard- it probably isn't the enemy. Diabetics are at risk with foot and leg issues because they lose sensation in the extremeties and, may not notice if they've injured themselves or developed problems there- ulcers etc. Sometimes leading to amputation in the most severe cases.

Of course- where it does become awful is when we can't cure what's wrong and the pain still doesn't let up. Plus- as you say- when people deliberately inflict pain on others. That's f*cked up.

 

[maylurker]

pollution and extinction only feel tragic because we the ones who evolved to care about beauty and suffering no other creature cares if the planet turns into a barren rock. we are not evil we are just the only creatures where the rules are self imposed