We aren't all that evil... are we? - Page 2

Azisien · 11-14-2007, 09:50 AM

Evil being a human-defined concept, it really depends how we want to define it to make ourselves look.

Everybody has the capacity of evil and good, taking a stock definition, and I would say on the whole, at least in human-to-human interactions, most individuals choose to be "good" over "evil." There are exceptions, and those tend to stand out because they disrupt social order and go against the mainstream.

Taking a more provocative stance, I could claim humans are rather evil when it comes to human-to-nonhuman interactions, such as with the environment or other life forms, but that depends on whether or not you consider the immediate survival of humans to be inherently good over the survival of other beings. Even if you did, we (and here I only mean a rather small subset of humans) still take actions that are, simply put, not well thought-out and very damaging to the planet. We're very selfish creatures, but we're naturally driven to be. The drive can be overcome, it's just very hard, and most people don't bother.

Also, I haven't read any of these books, so I can't comment specifically on any of them.

Blues · 11-14-2007, 10:16 AM

You forgot Animal Farm and Brave New World and Soylent Green, among like fifty million others.

The point of these books is, in my opinion, to make people question themselves and their motives. Are we doing these things just because nature programmed us to? Are violent behaviors necessary? They may have been helpful before, but are they still helpful, and should we continue doing them? Are they misdirected? Is there a point, or should we change before we reach the lows described in the books?

I think a little introspective doubt is a good thing.

Fifthfiend · 11-14-2007, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerensky287

How about Choice D: we are concerned more by what's negative than by what's positive because evolution gave us an "If it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality? That would explain the media. And maybe the writers who write about evil humanity only focus on the bad parts?

That wasn't one of the choices provided. GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE FORUM AND START AGAIN.

...Posting seriously I would add to the conversation that the subject question is a bit of a misstatement; most of the works under examination really aren't arguing that "we" are all of us incontrovertibly evil. I mean just going by some of the examples people have put out --

Quote:

Lord of the Flies, 1984

Quote:

Animal Farm and Brave New World and Soylent Green

-- these are mostly stories about basically decent and well-meaning people, being coerced and cajoled into complicity with truly evil individuals out of any number of totally understandable impulses like fear and hope and ignorance and the desire to be a part of something that matters. I don't think any of these so much argue that evil is inevitable as that they are cautionary tales about what happens when we let true malefactors to manipulate both the good and bad aspects of our natures to turn us against one another and ourselves.

And it's worth noting that a lot of the above were more or less direct reactions to World Wars I and II, Stalinism, and any number of horrors that actual people actually perpetrated. It seems sort of unfair to blame literature for being negative when it's only trying to make sense of the infinitely more terrible things that actual human beings have actually done.

Serenity · 11-14-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

You forgot Animal Farm and Brave New World and Soylent Green, among like fifty million others.

Oh come on, Animal Farm and Brave New World? Animal Farm is a fairly direct allegory for a real-world government, Soviet Russia.

And on the other hand, Brave New World is a world where everyone's happy, and their entire society is built on guaranteeing this fact. The point of Brave New World is not that man is evil, but that there is more to life than just being happy.

ZAKtheGeek · 11-14-2007, 05:26 PM

Something like Fifth's Choice B, you don't need literature to tell you what you already know. It's obvious that most people are pretty much "not bad." What the books aim to tell you is, "Hey, you can do some bad shit too. Better keep in check, or maybe something like this will happen." Where "this" is the whole book.

Lady Cygnet · 11-14-2007, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serenity

And on the other hand, Brave New World is a world where everyone's happy, and their entire society is built on guaranteeing this fact. The point of Brave New World is not that man is evil, but that there is more to life than just being happy.

Um, which Brave New World are you talking about? If it's the Aldous Huxley novel, I'd suggest that you read it again. In Huxley's book, any happiness is hollow, and utopia is a caste-driven illusion.

Anyway, fiction often reflects the state of the world. There have been many corrupt governments that have been satirized in literature. And why not, when those governments give authors so much fodder for their works? Those thought criminals better watch themselves.

Serenity · 11-14-2007, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Cygnet

Um, which Brave New World are you talking about? If it's the Aldous Huxley novel, I'd suggest that you read it again. In Huxley's book, any happiness is hollow, and utopia is a caste-driven illusion.

There is a complex caste society, yes, and people are built carefully, but they are all happy. That's the entire point of their society. That is why the society exists in the first place.

Well, except the Alphas. Just most of the Alphas are happy, because they're smart.

11-14-2007, 05:26 PM	#15
ZAKtheGeek Worth every yenny Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: not my mind that's for sure! Posts: 1,299	Something like Fifth's Choice B, you don't need literature to tell you what you already know. It's obvious that most people are pretty much "not bad." What the books aim to tell you is, "Hey, you can do some bad shit too. Better keep in check, or maybe something like this will happen." Where "this" is the whole book. __________________ Pyro Icon - It needs your love. I haven't looked at it in months.

11-14-2007, 09:50 AM	#11
Azisien wat Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,177	Evil being a human-defined concept, it really depends how we want to define it to make ourselves look. Everybody has the capacity of evil and good, taking a stock definition, and I would say on the whole, at least in human-to-human interactions, most individuals choose to be "good" over "evil." There are exceptions, and those tend to stand out because they disrupt social order and go against the mainstream. Taking a more provocative stance, I could claim humans are rather evil when it comes to human-to-nonhuman interactions, such as with the environment or other life forms, but that depends on whether or not you consider the immediate survival of humans to be inherently good over the survival of other beings. Even if you did, we (and here I only mean a rather small subset of humans) still take actions that are, simply put, not well thought-out and very damaging to the planet. We're very selfish creatures, but we're naturally driven to be. The drive can be overcome, it's just very hard, and most people don't bother. Also, I haven't read any of these books, so I can't comment specifically on any of them.

11-14-2007, 10:16 AM	#12
Blues Eukaryote Join Date: May 2007 Location: A basement with a view. Posts: 228	You forgot Animal Farm and Brave New World and Soylent Green, among like fifty million others. The point of these books is, in my opinion, to make people question themselves and their motives. Are we doing these things just because nature programmed us to? Are violent behaviors necessary? They may have been helpful before, but are they still helpful, and should we continue doing them? Are they misdirected? Is there a point, or should we change before we reach the lows described in the books? I think a little introspective doubt is a good thing.