Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Kyo · 11-18-2003, 11:51 AM

One animal species? Humans, of course.

Do you deny that humans we, as a race, are attracted to violence? The sight of blood has stirred the beasts of humans and animal alike for countless centuries. My guess is that animals do not kill more often because they lack the capacity to enjoy it. Just as they do not spend all of their time procreating, they do not kill when it is not somehow necessary, according to their genetic and environmental programming. Humans, on the other hand, do not lack such capacity, and tend to engage in what we find pleasurable whenever an opportunity presents itself.

We, as a race, enjoy fighting. Violence sells as well as sex. We have perfected sports, martial arts, and various other non-lethal activities as substitutes for true combat - a gentleman's fight, in other words. It is obvious that somewhere within our minds, there is a trigger that equates violence with pleasure, so long as said violence is not inflicted upon ourselves (though to some, it is pleasureable even then).

If you read Lord of the Flies, or watched any movies that expanded on the primary thrust of that novel, do you find it so unreal and terrifying that children could kill so easily? That people who might have once called each other friend now hunted one another like game? Certainly, those who live in modern society might find it disturbing, but it would be naive to think it unreal. To kill simply because we are able is not such a strange and remarkable thing.

We can consider this from a different angle. A concience is developed - it is not innate. There are no such things as a priori morals. Right and wrong must be taught. Therefore, our view that killing is wrong is actually a massive social brainwashing - for our benefit, certainly, but a brainwashing nonetheless. There is no way for you to say that, beyond any doubt and with absolute authority that killing is wrong. No, that's simply what you believe. What you, and everyone around you, has been told since the day you were born.

Because this is so, we must consider all morals to be additions - not innate. Therefore, the actions that they were designed to inhibit must be innate - we are taught that hurting others is cruel and wrong, therefore we stop. Otherwise, we would continue to hurt others. Children can be surprisingly cruel before they are taught sufficient moral responsibility to feel bad about what they are doing. I argue, then, that the capacity to kill is no different. A child who has not been taught any morals can kill anyone without guilt - someone who has no concience can act at a whim.

11-18-2003, 11:51 AM	#51 (permalink)
Kyo Crazy	One animal species? Humans, of course. Do you deny that humans we, as a race, are attracted to violence? The sight of blood has stirred the beasts of humans and animal alike for countless centuries. My guess is that animals do not kill more often because they lack the capacity to enjoy it. Just as they do not spend all of their time procreating, they do not kill when it is not somehow necessary, according to their genetic and environmental programming. Humans, on the other hand, do not lack such capacity, and tend to engage in what we find pleasurable whenever an opportunity presents itself. We, as a race, enjoy fighting. Violence sells as well as sex. We have perfected sports, martial arts, and various other non-lethal activities as substitutes for true combat - a gentleman's fight, in other words. It is obvious that somewhere within our minds, there is a trigger that equates violence with pleasure, so long as said violence is not inflicted upon ourselves (though to some, it is pleasureable even then). If you read Lord of the Flies, or watched any movies that expanded on the primary thrust of that novel, do you find it so unreal and terrifying that children could kill so easily? That people who might have once called each other friend now hunted one another like game? Certainly, those who live in modern society might find it disturbing, but it would be naive to think it unreal. To kill simply because we are able is not such a strange and remarkable thing. We can consider this from a different angle. A concience is developed - it is not innate. There are no such things as a priori morals. Right and wrong must be taught. Therefore, our view that killing is wrong is actually a massive social brainwashing - for our benefit, certainly, but a brainwashing nonetheless. There is no way for you to say that, beyond any doubt and with absolute authority that killing is wrong. No, that's simply what you believe. What you, and everyone around you, has been told since the day you were born. Because this is so, we must consider all morals to be additions - not innate. Therefore, the actions that they were designed to inhibit must be innate - we are taught that hurting others is cruel and wrong, therefore we stop. Otherwise, we would continue to hurt others. Children can be surprisingly cruel before they are taught sufficient moral responsibility to feel bad about what they are doing. I argue, then, that the capacity to kill is no different. A child who has not been taught any morals can kill anyone without guilt - someone who has no concience can act at a whim. __________________ Sure I have a heart; it's floating in a jar in my closet, along with my tonsils, my appendix, and all of the other useless organs I ripped out.