Monstrous
Monstrous Café => Say It! => Topic started by: Loup Garou on October 07, 2007, 11:53:13 AM
-
This is a splinter discussion that started to evolve on another thread, but instead of taking it off-topic, I thought it best to move it here. If you'd like to read the original thread it can be found here (http://www.monstrous.com/forum/index.php/topic,5227.0.html).
Human beings are very capable of doing awful things, but then again, so is an abused dog that attacks children, old ladies and cats on sight. It could be argued that the abused dog only did any of those things because it was abused by humans, and I agree with this sentiment also, but I'd like to make sure that if this pendulum is swinging back, that it swings all the way back. Humans do bad things because other humans taught them to, just like other humans taught that dog to attack children and otherwise act outside of its nature. Greed and selfishness are taught common place in our society today -- the individual is all that matters -- you are a special little someone, and nobody else is as special as you, etc. etc. Evil, to me at least, is very much like a disease - it is spread, and it is contagious, and some people can be born with it because of the "sins of the father" so-to-speak. I also think that "evil", like a disease, is curable - that Ted Bundy, for example, should someone have found him before his "disease" had progressed to such an advanced stage, could have been cured. I don't imagine it to be an easy process by any stretch of the imagination - curing any disease takes an awful lot of time and energy.
All this begs the question: "Where did this disease come from?" It's an excellent question, and one that has plagued philosophers and religious leaders for centuries. I'm also pretty sure you either won't like, or won't believe the answer I have to give, which makes me hesitant to even dive into it. In fact, as I type this, I think it might not be a bad idea to hear your own answers to this question before I begin, so I can sum up my thoughts and try to say what I have to say as succinctly as possible.
~ Loup
-
some good points, bravo.
but - I wish to go with the other possibility, self. u are saying it is nurture that creates evil, i say nature. but i agree that creatures tend to reflect the evils done onto them, (father was abusive to family, son is abusive to his family, so-on). ur example of the dog- creatures trained to be violent, yes they are out there. but for some creatures it is simple nature. for example mastiff gets hungry decides to eat the baby, from the creatures standpoint= logic, from our standpoint its evil. i like how u picked ted Bundy it was a good choice. he raped and murdered girls that looked like his ex-girlfriend, a good example of nurture somehow effecting the nature, but maybe the rage was there to begin with. to end my reply[for now] id like to propose the qestion of , what is evil exactly, i believe it varies in different cultures and even species.
-
True - in the case of Nature vs. Nurture, there will always be a bad apple or two in the basket. Perhaps even our example of Bundy is, in fact, nature, and not nurture. I tend to believe that one is never in complete control of the other. Bad apples are always born, and bad apples are always made. My argument above is simply that human beings -- specifically "evil" human beings -- are not evil because they are all born evil, or that humanity is the source of all evil, or even that human beings tend to be more evil than other creatures. All I'm saying is that human beings are simply human beings -- that they are just as neutral as any other creature on this planet, brought into the world with an equally clean slate. (Obviously this automatically precludes my believing in any "original sin".)
However, as I'm sure it will eventually be argued that no other animal in the world wantonly kills one another, allow me to provide such an example: The Wolverine. It has been observed in the wild, that when two wolverines meet, they will immediately set about trying to kill one another, and will not stop or rest until their opponent is dead. Not until they run off, not until they yield in submission, or even until they go unconscious, but dead. The victorious wolverine will then continue about its business as normal, leaving the victim to moulder on the ground. (No, it doesn't even eat the dead one.)
Now, let's look at the Mastiff. Dogs attacking humans are a relatively common place thing in the first-place. Let's examine why: Dogs have been in contact with people for millenia. Dogs originally came from wolf or wolf-related stock. Wolves are naturally hesitant to go around humans, but wolf-dog hybrids are not. Ergo, I think it is safe to assume that dogs were bred not only for their assistance in hunting animals, but also for compatibility, and fearlessness of humans. (Naturally, it won't do to have a hunting partner that is so frightened of you that it won't come back when it's done it's job - otherwise you've just helped the competition.) The same can be said for the domestication of any species, from horses to sheep, to birds, to housecats. Moving forward, if dogs have little fear of humans (save the fear that humans now artificially input into them through physical abuse), what's to stop them from acting in their own nature: as the bred killers they were always meant to be. If you assume a dog any bigger than a lap-dog is anything less than a killing machine, then I must say that you're fooling yourself. Even dachshunds were bred specifically to kill rabbits and badgers in their holes. Add to the fact that Mastiffs in particular were bred specifically to frighten (and, if that didn't work, to savage and kill) human beings (not to pick on your example), then honestly where is the surprise that a hungry Mastiff (or any other domestic canine for that matter) would prey on a human being smaller than itself? (This, provided of course that the "human meal" in question was not perceived as a "Pack-member" by the still-socially-oriented dog.)
Now I'm not saying that you should put fluffy down -- far from it, in fact. I'm particularly fond of canines in general, and I often prefer their company to other domestic pets. Plus I'm not allergic to them. What I am saying is that your dog is your family member - whether it perceives itself as an Alpha, Omega, or somewhere in between is a function of how the dog is treated. In cases where the victim was a member of the owner's family, you can't just take stories like that at face value -- that is, the value that the media would like you to perceive. Sensational headlines sell papers, remember. Family-member-devouring demon-dogs sell papers. "Dog makes inbred mutant mistake" does not. If you read closely into examples like the "Baby-Eating Mastiff", you often find some surprising facts. 1) The murderous dog in question was usually part of "the family" LONG before the baby entered the picture. 2) The dog in question usually had something relating to a higher standing in the family - e.g. it didn't think it was the Omega, even if it didn't know who exactly was. Now bring that baby into the picture. All of a sudden, Dog has gone from not-the-Omega to: "OH MY GOD, HARRY!!! GET IT AWAY FROM THE BABY!!!" or somesuch hyperactive parental nonsense. Basically Dog becomes Omega because of this little wormy-thing that now occupies 200% of the attention that it used to get. Now consider this: as much as we don't like to admit it, Dogs are NOT people. They do not behave the same way, even though we might teach them on some remote level to be. They certainly do not think like human beings. Jealous older siblings will do cartwheels or draw pictures or scream until someone calls the cops to get Mom and Dad's attention. Dog will challenge the baby in physical combat. Dog will win. Always.
On a side note, human-to-human fratricide is far more common than dogs attacking family members. (My statistic, as far-fetched as it sounds, comes from normally adjusted nuclear families who are attacked by their own pets, not thug-wannabe-football stars and their ilk.) Most dog attacks are because of a perceived threat from outside the family-unit, or as a direct result of out-and-out abuse. To cite two examples: My niece is constantly attacking, threatening and otherwise trying to regain "dominance" over "Mom and Dad's" time from her younger sibling, and my sister-in-law made several (albeit indirect and unsuccessful) attempts on her younger brother's life as young children as well.
So hopefully, I've rotated the foggy mirror of perception a little bit. I hope my allegory didn't bore you. I enjoy conversations like this, and polite arguments, and I hope I never discourage anyone from getting into them.
~ Loup
-
i think our ideas are relatively the same. yet maybe miscommunicated.good points, good argument, well done.
-
Well, re-reading this whole thing I realized that I forgot to add the sentence that helped paraphrase our two arguments on perspective of "evil". Duh on my part. Sorry. :)
So let's hear from some other people! I want to hear what all you monsters think about the nature of humanity. The post that spawned this thread asked: "Are Werewolves good or evil?" and that statement can obviously apply to any other humanoid monster out there, so let's hear it! Are "evil" monsters evil because of their human aspects? If so, how? If not, why not? What do you define "evil" to be? How do you suppose your version of "evil" compares to the guy you sit next to on the bus?
-
Evil is relative. <^>
Ex: I dslike pies. They are my anathema= pies are evil(to me).
yet the lemon ones taste good.(temptation) i eat one(sin). I eat so many that i eventually try new ones because i got bored(greed). i 'm happy with my desicion and becom content.(selfishness)
people notice my happiness and pie and seek happiness( Infection). People[for some reason] lose reason and eat pies for power.(corruption of original puropose). The resonable ones see that the others are acting stupidly for a false[ not to mention irrational] purpose and try to stop them(opposition). war breaks out(chaos).
And everyone blames me for all the bad things that happened because i decided to give pie a chance.(now i am viewed as evil. some follow my foot steps for all the wrong reasons. the effects of my actions negate any desire in those that might understand to even try. some even demonize me because of thier own insecurities and are unwilling to admit it.
now replace the pie wiith knowledge. everyone has some but not all kinds are owned. some are yet to be made.
people want happiness so they seek knowledge. but it doesn't make them happy because they want something else.
They hurt others. others react chaos occurs, order comes from the violent wrong chaos but the violence stays because of the missunderstanding.
I get blamed. Knowlege gets abused. I can't use said knowlege for personal satisfaction because of everyone else screwing around.
~this is my current view on evil after eating a peanut. Inspiration dosn't have to make sense it just hits you~
:evil:
________________________________________________________________________________________________ :crazy:
i can't really define evil. its just not my thing. and neither is good. beacuse i need my pie..... peanut-vanilla pie.
-
Well done! If a little... er... unorthodox. Inspiration comes from the least likely sources. I shall worship this peanut, and erect a shrine in it's honor.
-
strange but i think i get what ur saying a lil. but u called being content selfishness i disagree. and u refer to seeking happiness as an infection which i also disagree with. the part i agree with is people seeing someone have something and wanting it, then they lose the reason they had in doing or getting whatever they wanted in the first place to fight whoever apposed them in a cycle of never ending bloodshed. and i don't get the last part about knowledge and u not being able to use it cuz people are screwing around. and this idea could probably or has been argued over, but chaos is a constant in this world but i do not beleive it has to do with evil and violence primarily, sometimes not at all.
-
It sounds to me like inspiration started off by smacking Raz around, then proceeding to a stout beating with a 2x4, and finished with vicious beating with a baseball bat, though with lots of gusto.
Is it wrong that what Raz said makes perfect sense to me?
-
The idea of good and evil is abstract. It doesn't exist until it is considered to exist. Most animals don't have the ability to examine themselves and their surroundings with such thoughtfulness which is why they don't act far beyond the simplest emotions.
Humans were like animals in that respect for a very long time. But at some point in ancient history something happened. We gained the gift of knowledge, self awareness. All ancient cultures and religions have some sort of story as to how this happened, and if you boil it down to the key elements most of the stories are the same. Ultimately it was given to us so that we may better ourselves. The obverse of that is we could destroy ourselves also. In the end though, it was given and cannot be taken back.
To answer the original question, the disease is knowledge. Without it good and evil couldn't be comprehended, and therefore not exist. Ignorance is truly bliss you know.
-
Whatever the case. we know enough to know that we can never know everything so we might as well keep asking questions because doing nothing is retarded and stagnant.
-
how do u know that it cant be taken back, intelligence i mean. what if god was just like, "o i made a mistake . . .Erase. . . now they are all just hairless chimps this should be much more peaceful. "
knowledge isn't the cause, it is how we gain knowledge, how we learn. if we are raised to be evil, we will likely do evil things. if we are raised to do good, we will probably do good things. not there are not exceptions to that. but the exceptions learned to be good or evil somewhere.
then again maybe knowledge has nothing to do with it. maybe it is a persons soul that decides to be good or evil. in my opinion everyone has the potential to be good, and the potential to be evil(or bad).
-
The society as a whole decides what is evil and what is good. In ancient Rome, children were considered property until they reached adulthood. A parent could literally kill their own child if they decided to do so, without any legal repercussions. As society changes, so do its perceptions of good and evil. Thus, evil is constantly redefined as whatever it does not condone.
-
If it could have been taken away from us it would have been by now. In most of the stories about how humans became self aware the gods became angry, but they never took away the knowledge humans had gained. Instead they punished the one who gave them that knowledge.
-
This topic has drifted from being. :"The Nature of Humanity [From "Are Werewolves Evil"]" to Evil: what is it and how do we relate it to weres...
not that i'm complaining :-P
-
I'm guessing the topic is humans. Don't get me wrong they annoy me sometimes. But it sounds like we're only talking about humans being bad. Humans are capable of many many great evils, i mean hello? 9/11. but then again so are every other creature out there. I know a vamp who would kill every human himself. but there are good humans, and were-beings, and vampire, and shape shifters, etc. humans have a set back. most of them don't see the world was well as we do
-
in short, people are different and no two humans are exactly alike. when i say exactly alike, i mean exactly alike in every way