Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 15th, 2013, 07:04 AM   #1
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582
My theory of Social Evilness


As you may already have noticed, most of my posts about politics or history in general is about how I percieve the vast majority of the humans as evil. I am aware of the relativity perspective in this case.

However, Goodness or "anti-sadistic behavior" is very much appreciated by myself, but I have yet to see evidence that this makes up more than 2 %.

This post is intended to clarify and explain to you what exactly I mean by it.

What I am basically saying is that evilness (although people here claim it is relative), you could call it some sort of "sadistic behavior", is what the vast majority of humans on planet Earth are practicing, emphasizing even embracing. This is what is the root to all the evils throughout history: To inflict as much pain on as many people as possible, for no apparant reason other than the pure sake of being evil.

I'd like to draw some examples:

Harsh punishments that doesn't work exists to be cruel for the sake of cruelty!

In Victorian England and before that time, thieves were hanged. It was later discovered that many of these thieves were starving, and had nothing to lose. They'd die within days no matter what. Yet, the British government imposed the death penalty for theft.

My claim is that the punishments were not loosened and the social reforms not in place because they "now knew better" and therefore "they didn't know better in the past". My claim is the directly opposite: They knew very well from the very beginning that hanging for theft didn't help. They hanged the young people, even children, to please their sadistic behavior!

Every cruelty we see in our world is because people want to be evil. Deep inside people's minds, they know they are evil, and they like to be evil!

My religion, which I wasn't brought up with, teaches that this world is cursed, and my personal explanation is that it wasn't God who created the world, but the devil. I understand that I am in a very tiny minority thoug and I don't want to perform a missionary. All I want is to tell it from my perspective.

I know few people, who are good people. They don't want social fraud, tax fraud, theft nor harsh punishments. They are a rarity though. I highly appreciate that I know these less than 2 % who are not evil.

But I cannot look away from the cruelties. I want people to realize how evil humanity is, and that humanity and only humanity inflicts pain on other living things for the sake of pleasing their sadistic needs. Other animals are merely inflicing pain as a side-effect. They only kill to protect themselves or to get something to eat. Humans however, inflicts pain for the sake of pain.
That is what distinguish humans from animals.

When Jesus said "forgive them, for they know no better" he was wrong.
They perfectly knew better.

Last edited by philosopher; January 15th, 2013 at 07:19 AM.
philosopher is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 16th, 2013, 03:16 AM   #2

larkin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,587
Blog Entries: 5

A human lives by practicing techniques of survival, success and power.


There is no good or evil, only survival.


What you claim is cruelty for the sake of cruelty may be practice and refinement of methods of survival.


A blood thirsty battlefield presence is encourage because it offers the greater chance of survival.


Torture and draconian punishment can insure ones position in power.


Once learned, an individual or a group will continue the use these methods until they no longer work or they are met with a larger challenge that they must submit to.


When the opposition is greater they become slaves or die. This is how Rome did it.


In Rome, the patriarch or father could kill his children, his family and his slaves with impunity. These customs mimicked the rights and whims of the government.


It is not surprising that cruelty and torture could become an art form. Feeding Christians and criminals to the lions is a vivid example.


The rise of non-violence and compassion by the early Christians helped to moderate and influence the excesses of Rome.


Once in power, we see how even the Christians succumbed to techniques of power, torture and excess.
larkin is offline  
Old January 17th, 2013, 02:55 AM   #3
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582

Quote:
There is no good or evil, only survival.
You can break every term, every molecule, every thing into atoms, and they'd be subject to the Laws of Nature with no intentions and their definitions becomes meaningless.

Of course there exists good and evil, on a higher level (high/low level is hereby defined as being what is closest to the basic elements of nature, such as atoms, sub-atomic particles and the like, for instance, atomic physics is on a higher level than quantum physics, molecular biology is on a higher level than atomic physics etc.)

Just like psychology is on a higher level of science than neurology which is lower level, as it is closer to the laws of physics. Anthropology and Political Science is on a higher level than psychology.

When talking on one of the higher levels, that is the levels that talk about human intentions, including psychology and anthropology, Good and Evil are vital terms.
philosopher is offline  
Old January 17th, 2013, 09:20 AM   #4

Giordano's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: The Southland, CA
Posts: 55

What people confuse with "evilness" is not punishment for the sake of punishment, it's punishment to those who deserve it.

Who deserves what varies between governments, groups, and individuals. Christian fundamentalists believe non-Christians deserve to be punished. Hitler believed Jews deserve to be punished. British lawmakers believed those thieves deserved to be punished.

Christian fundamentalists, Hitler, and British lawmakers don't go around punishing people "for the hell of it". That sort of sadism is some sort of mental illness and does not make for a majority. What makes a majority is different perspectives.

I, for example, accept the death penalty and encourage it for certain crimes. My viewpoint leads me to believe these people deserve it. I don't support the death penalty for the sake of killing people, I support it because the person deserves it.

The vast majority of people don't set out to be evil, they set out to bring justice to those who deserve it. So I cannot agree that people are "evil".
Giordano is offline  
Old January 17th, 2013, 10:03 AM   #5

unclefred's Avatar
The Snub Nosed Truth
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Oregon coastal mountains
Posts: 5,973
Blog Entries: 30

To live in a perpetual victim state is to pronounce the imagined persecutors as evil.
unclefred is offline  
Old January 17th, 2013, 10:22 AM   #6
Scholar
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 510

Philosopher, I think you are quite wrong-headed about this matter, though possibly I don't fully understand what you are saying.

You claim that only about 2% of people perform good acts but I don't see how you arrive at that figure. You quote examples from the Victorian past, but that is history; today people are not hanged for stealing, in fact in the UK they won't be hanged for anything.

In the past society was far more cruel, and that is down to the extreme differences in power and wealth then. Government was mainly by the rich and for the rich. Basically the rich felt that they had to impose order (otherwise they would lose their property). They could see that some of those in poverty (and some not even poor) would gladly steal, therefore the rich felt it was their duty to impose terrible penalties to root out the sin of stealing. They would consider themselves even more majesterial if they imposed exemplary firmness. In the last few centuries the penalties have become progressively less severe, and that is because the judicial system has become more under the control of ordinary people (through democratically elected government). Government is much less about the rich retaining their economic power.
fascinating is offline  
Old January 18th, 2013, 01:27 AM   #7
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
What people confuse with "evilness" is not punishment for the sake of punishment, it's punishment to those who deserve it.

Who deserves what varies between governments, groups, and individuals. Christian fundamentalists believe non-Christians deserve to be punished. Hitler believed Jews deserve to be punished. British lawmakers believed those thieves deserved to be punished.

Christian fundamentalists, Hitler, and British lawmakers don't go around punishing people "for the hell of it". That sort of sadism is some sort of mental illness and does not make for a majority. What makes a majority is different perspectives.

I, for example, accept the death penalty and encourage it for certain crimes. My viewpoint leads me to believe these people deserve it. I don't support the death penalty for the sake of killing people, I support it because the person deserves it.

The vast majority of people don't set out to be evil, they set out to bring justice to those who deserve it. So I cannot agree that people are "evil".
I disagree that people want punishment to those who deserve it. It is my theory that people punish people no matter if they deserve it or not, and that the people who punish perfectly know when they are punishing innocent people, yet they do it for the fun of it.
philosopher is offline  
Old January 18th, 2013, 02:16 AM   #8

Naomasa298's Avatar
Suspended over water
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 19,175

Quote:
Originally Posted by philosopher View Post
I disagree that people want punishment to those who deserve it. It is my theory that people punish people no matter if they deserve it or not, and that the people who punish perfectly know when they are punishing innocent people, yet they do it for the fun of it.
So what is it that you've been punished for that you don't think you deserve? I'm guessing, by all these posts you make about how people are cruel towards each other and how society punishes people who don't deserve it, and how you can't go out for reasons you can't or won't discuss (despite continually dropping hints about it), that you're possibly in jail for something you don't think you deserve. Of course, if you don't want to say, I can understand that too.
Naomasa298 is online now  
Old January 18th, 2013, 03:15 AM   #9

larkin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,587
Blog Entries: 5

Your question presents a myriad of subjective conflicts...

An individual may sadistically torture someone for past transgressions, real or imagined. In his own mind, it may be just retributions. Accomplishing this may initiate pleasure.

Evilness and evil actions is what the State elects to punish and it rewards the public by giving them just retribution which is met with approval.

But what if, as in the past, (Nazi Germany) the state was actually cruel and unjust? It's actions were meant to instill terror and not justice?

What if the individual is motivated by justifiable revolt against tyranny? War and revolution often results in mass murder and sadistic cruelty. These actions either justifies the conflict or the conflict is justified by the cruel actions...Go figure.

Philosopher, do not be too quick to conclude, because your dialogue prompts many more questions than it answers.

Last edited by larkin; January 18th, 2013 at 03:21 AM.
larkin is offline  
Old January 18th, 2013, 03:42 AM   #10

Brisieis's Avatar
Historian
Member of the Year
 
Joined: Sep 2011
From: UK
Posts: 16,033
Blog Entries: 8

1. If animals had the intelligence we do, they may very well be worse for all we know.

2. Why are your friends and you are the only un-evil in the world, or part of the 2%?

3. Evil is subjective so if you declare almost every person on earth is evil you best define exactly how? For instance, are there different degrees of evil, or are you just catergorizing the whole of humanity under one label. IMO this is incorrect, different cultures have different definitions, each individual human has a different definition. So why is it you can just round everyone up into the same label.

What is paradoxical about your notion is that you claim to be in the good 2% and you think things such as the holocaust were proof of this evil existing. Yet, it was exactly this type of mentality which caused the holocaust in the first place. Yes the whole "we are the good guys, all those people are simply evil" mentality is exactly what Hitler thought too.

I'm not claiming in any way that you do not find the holocaust a terrible tragedy for humanity, I just would like you to look at what you are saying by stepping ouside the box, to see how it can be slightly hypocritical.

I am however in agreement with you in a some-what different way, that I believe all people have the capability to cruel and many do get thrills from it. I just think it is unfair to label 98% of humaity with evil. Careless, maybe? Selfish, maybe? Sheep, definitely! But evil? I'm not too sure there...
Brisieis is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
evilness, social, theory


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Theory of social progress. Valery Staricov Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 3 December 7th, 2012 07:15 PM
Social Evolutionism or Great Man Theory? Aulus Plautius Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 17 September 11th, 2012 10:56 PM
Rexamining the concept of social contract theory CIowa Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 3 September 24th, 2011 08:12 AM
The earliest people theory and the Theory of the Bantu-sent tribes etamaze Middle Eastern and African History 0 August 8th, 2011 07:21 AM
Social Contract Theory Wobomagonda Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 58 October 10th, 2009 02:53 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.