Evil is, I'm persuaded to believe from my experience, a feature and not a bug. It can get quite extreme at times - heinous atrocities, torture being the worst manifestation - but then Neil deGrasse Tyson's Cosmic Perspective comes to mind - as you so rightly pointed out, let's face the facts, we're teensy-weensy, itty bitty, sacks of chemistry (reductionism maxxed out). Why then is pain such a big deal? It stops making any sense - we fret about our collective suffering on one hand while we self-abnegate ourselves to insignificance and irrelevance. We are in the grand scheme of things insects in our own eyes. Bug spray? DDT? Fly swatters? Flypaper?

No particular point to my post.

I had similar thoughts hanging up such a sticky long thing against flies (don't know what's it called in English, flypaper?). :gasp:

The world of Homer ... is a tragic world but a world without guilt for its tragic flaw is not a flaw in human nature, still less a flaw in individual character, but a flaw in the nature of existence. — W.H. Auden

Amor fati. :fire:

p.s.

I had similar thoughts hanging up such a sticky long thing against flies (don't know what's it called in English, flypaper?). — Hillary

:snicker:

We are in the grand scheme of things insects in our own eyes. Bug spray? DDT? Fly swatters? Flypaper? — Agent Smith

Yet we give meaning and significance to the Universe. What is the point of trees and galaxies if such as we don't exist to look at them in wonder and ponder what, how and why they are?
Its true that if no one sees a tree fall in a forrest then that does not mean that the tree did not fall but if someone reports that it fell then that seems to give the event more meaning. Especially if the event is also memorialised.

Are some animals more evil than others?
Which animal actions would you consider evil?
Do you think that prey consider their predators evil?
Evil/good are inventions of human culture and its preference for a 'civilised system.'
Our Darwinian origin taught us that the jungle rules are not the most efficient way to increase human quality of life and longevity of life, so we created such concepts as good and evil and started to legislate to support what we identified as good behaviour and we legislated against what we identified as evil behaviour. Unfortunately, these new rules of acceptable behaviour were flawed from the beginning as they differed from village to village and tribe to tribe and would only hold if enforced.
Human suffering is such a complicated issue. This is confirmed by such popular adages as, 'we are our own worst enemies,' and 'one man's meat is another man's poison,' etc.
Imo, we just have to keep working hard to make things better for all humans and all other fauna and flora. The universe is my country and to do good things is my religion!

Evil/good are inventions of human culture — universeness

Don't think so. There are some pretty evil animals. Like people.

Our Darwinian origin taught us that the jungle rules are not the most efficient way to increase human quality of life and longevity of life, so we created such concepts as good and evil and started to legislate to support what we identified as good behaviour and we legislated against what we identified as evil behaviour — universeness

Though seemingly reasonable, this doesn't hold in practice. Since science was introduced, the amount of evil has increased only.

Don't think so. There are some pretty evil animals. Like people. — Hillary

Example? How about an evil dog? I can understand a human labeling particular dog behaviour as evil and I can tell when one dog is afraid of another but do you think the scared dog thinks the other dog is evil or merely of a higher (alpha) status than it.

Since science was introduced, the amount of evil has increased only. — Hillary

Based on what evidence?
So more evil today, compared to our days as jungle survivors? Total BS in my opinion.
Do you think there is more chance of human suffering and horrible death now for the vast majority of humans compared to our days in the jungle?
Don't suggest that the threat of global nuclear war is the big difference, because it's not, for two reasons.
1. Full global nuclear war has not ever happened so it's not a valid comparison yet.
2. We have always been threatened with extinction from natural disasters such as a big rock from space.
A full nuclear exchange would produce the same result, extinction. That threat has always been with
us, since the first homo sapiens

Example? How about an evil dog? I can understand a human labeling particular dog behaviour as evil and I can tell when one dog is afraid of another but do you think the sacred dog thinks the other dog is evil or merely of a higher (alpha) status than it. — universeness

It is human conceit to think only they can be evil. Our dog can be pretty mean!

Since science was introduced, the amount of evil has increased only.
— Hillary
Based on what evidence? — universeness

Oh come on brother Uni! Do you have your eyes closed?

So more evil today, compared to our days as jungle survivors? — universeness

Much more evil! I think it would be far more relaxed back then than now, so your evolution isnt reassuring. My dreams wouldnt be hunted by nuclear explosions, for a fact. Didnt Oppenheimer say he'd become death, the destroyer of worlds?

One's own 'evil' tendencies must first be understood. Before understanding there is only a meaningless moral limbo known as ignorance, where one commits good and evil by pure coincidence and one is a slave to their lesser nature.

Evil is not an inherent part of man. When one understands why evil tendencies exist, it becomes a choice. It is therein that morality lies. From that point onward man becomes a moral agent.

"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

It is human conceit to think only they can be evil. Our dog can be pretty mean! — Hillary

I don't think humans relish the idea that evil belongs to them alone but I think you are projecting your concept of evil onto what you label 'mean' actions in your dog. There is no way to currently know if your dog is actually capable of understanding the difference between the HUMAN concept of good and evil.
I think dogs can clearly demonstrate human concepts such as happy/sad/need/fear/anger/violence etc but not good/evil.

Oh come on brother Uni! Do you have your eyes closed? — Hillary

Right back at you!

Much more evil! I think it would be far more relaxed back then than now — Hillary

Based on what evidence?
Would you prefer to be chased by predators on an almost daily basis, having to find your hierarchical place amongst your tribe and show subservience to the desires and level of tolerance towards you of those with a better 'alpha' status that you?
You face disease, toothaches, skin diseases, parasitical infestations, venereal diseases etc, with almost 0 medical assistance available. Constant war and violence within and outwith your own community group. A horrible struggle for survival and a very good chance of a very short lifespan and a nasty death.
Do you really think your current life in your home with your wife is plagued by more evil threats now than you would have had as a cave-dwelling couple in an early community of homo sapiens?

Didnt Oppenheimer say he'd become death, the destroyer of worlds? — Hillary

Yeah, very dramatic-sounding BS. What world did Oppenheimer destroy? He is dead and the Earth is still here. A full nuclear exchange might kill all humans and create massive climate change but it would not destroy this planet. Even if it took a few million years, the Earth would recover.

It is human conceit to think only they — Hillary

That's the better example of human conceit, Oppenheimer's conceit that HE had become the destroyer of worlds :roll: Earth is quite capable of surviving human activity. It is much more threatened by the Sun's activity!

I don't think humans relish the idea that evil belongs to them alone but I think you are projecting your concept of evil onto what you label 'mean' actions in your dog. There is no way to currently know if your dog is actually capable of understanding the difference between the HUMAN concept of good and evil. — universeness

Obviously, the dog can't. She's no human! But that doesn't mean she can be mean, if you know what I mean.

Right back at you! — universeness

Then my answer is, look at the state of the planet. Thousands of fellow species have disappeared, natural cultures ceased to exist, and people are exposed to the "delicious" fruits of science. And dint give me that shit that its not the fault of science.

Yeah, very dramatic-sounding BS. What world did Oppenheimer destroy? — universeness

There's still time...

That's the better example of human conceit, Oppenheimer's conceit that HE had become the destroyer of worlds :roll: Earth is quite capable of surviving human activity. It is much more threatened by the Sun's activity! — universeness

But he did become the destroyer of two cities. That's what he meant. There have found place 900 tests! Real life! Pigs burned alive and soldiers cancer. At Mururoa, people of nature in the neighborhood were victims. But hey, thats far away. Poor people. Did they ask for that shit?

Earth is quite capable of surviving human activity. It is much more threatened by the Sun's activity! — universeness

BS!

There is not much in your response worth responding to except

But he did become the destroyer of two cities — Hillary

No, he didn't. Did Colt kill lots of cowboys? Oppenheimer did not launch the bombs which destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. He does not even have sole responsibility for developing the atom bomb, he was no more than a significant cog.

No, he didn't — universeness

Not directly. You see, that's the scary thing with science. You dont know where it ends up.

Not directly. You see, that's the scary thing with science. You dont know where it ends up — Hillary

That's true of all human activity.

That's true of all human activity. — universeness

Okay, but they cant have that devastating effects.

There is not much in your response worth responding to — universeness

I gave you examples of the effects!

Certain things we talk about in philosophy are not so much concepts: they are much more experiences. Conceptualizing experiences can be useful, but it is not the best way to deal with everything. Many mistakes and misunderstandings in philosophy come for mixing these two perspectives. Saying that some evil is necessary for good to exist is a total conceptualization of evil and, as such, it looses sight of a lot of human aspects of it, especially personal involvement. On the opposite, complaining, crying, without any further action, happens when the intensity of experience overwhelms our ability to think. The solution is not in finding a balance between experience and concepts: such a balance cannot exist and, actually, there is progress, movement, becoming, exactly because of imbalance: a too perfect balance turns into absence of life, of progress. I think the solution needs to be dialectic, which means, a permanent action of work, movement, progress, self-criticism, among the different elements and imbalances.
So, facing the OP question “What to do...”, what is important is looking not for a conclusive answer, but exactly for something to do, which is, a kind of doing that must be never expected to stop, like instead conclusive answers are.
In other words, a conclusive answer to evil not only does not exist, but we need to be vigilant to avoid any temptation to find or to built it; a conclusive answer must not exist and we need to work actively to make impossible for it to exist. Conclusive answers to evil are worse than evil itself, because evil can change, but conclusive answers are aimed at not changing: they block progress.
So, from a philsophical point of view, facing the question “What to do with evil”, I think a good answer is working on philosophy to make it dynamic, permanently self-critical and in dialogue with experience and subjectivity, avoiding conclusive answers, conceptualizations that can make us disconnected, forgetful of personal human experience.

I gave you examples of the effects! — Hillary

All your examples are due to human use of tech. All tech can be used for good purposes as well.

All tech can be used for good purposes as well. — universeness

Yes, obviously. But that isn't happening only. The poor natural people on Mururoa could live thousands of years without science.

Saying that some evil is necessary for good to exist is a total conceptualization of evil and, as such, it looses sight of a lot of human aspects of it — Angelo Cannata

Yeah, but you don't explain how we can know what good IS without a comparator existing!

I think the solution needs to be dialectic, which means, a permanent action of work, movement, progress, self-criticism, among the different elements and imbalances. — Angelo Cannata

I agree.

In other words, a conclusive answer to evil not only does not exist, but we need to be vigilant to avoid any temptation to find or to built it; a conclusive answer must not exist and we need to work actively to make impossible for it to exist. Conclusive answers to evil are worse than evil itself, because evil can change, but conclusive answers are aimed at not changing: they block progress.
So, from a philsophical point of view, facing the question “What to do with evil”, I think a good answer is working on philosophy to make it dynamic, permanently self-critical and in dialogue with experience and subjectivity, avoiding conclusive answers, conceptualizations that can make us disconnected, forgetful of personal human experience — Angelo Cannata

I agree we all need to keep the dialogue going about human perception of evil and how it manifests in individuals and groups but your suggested approach seems a bit weak to me.
I agree that we cannot totally defeat evil, it will always remain as a 'potential' and therefore a comparator but we should vigorously fight tooth and nail against it manifesting in the more extreme ways it did during such examples as the holocaust. I would like limits of future evil to be no higher a level than heated disagreement of the kind we exemplify on TPF and physical fighting to be limited to something like the queensbury rules.

The poor natural people on Mururoa could live thousands of years without science. — Hillary

I think so many current societies owe a lot to abused minorities. We have to give back.
I am an avid supporter of all minority rights, especially indigenous peoples.
Do you remember this one:

So, from a philsophical point of view, facing the question “What to do with evil”, I think a good answer is working on philosophy to make it dynamic, permanently self-critical and in dialogue with experience and subjectivity, avoiding conclusive answers, conceptualizations that can make us disconnected, forgetful of personal human experience. — Angelo Cannata

I see that the evil in the world is in me, and I ask what to do about the evil in me, as if what I might do is unaffected by, and separate from, the evil. In other words, I imagine myself good in operating on my evil. Reminds me of the Zen saying: "If you have a thought in your head, throw it out. If it is so persistent that you cannot throw it out, then take it out." Am I the good that is left when the evil is removed or is the good what is left when I am removed?

I think your question is important. In a radical philosophical way, I find useful to think of evil as objectivity and good as subjectivity; this is equivalent to say that evil is what goes against me, good is me. I think this framework has the advantage of being based on our natural instinct, that in other brutal words would be called natural selfishness. But this would be only a starting point. Then we can realize that good and evil are never 100% separated, as well as subjectivity and objectivity. As a next step, I think the best way to go on is to adopt Heraclitus’ mentality of becoming, which is the basis of what I said in my preceding message. In this context, I think that there is no point in throwing out or taking out any thoughts from our mind: it would be almost equivalent to throwing out our mind itself, and even ourselves. Instead, I think we need just to build in our mind an attitude, a familiarity with a dynamic mentality, based on becoming, changing, progressing, fighting against anything static.
So, in a synthesis, I would say: I am subjectivity, I am good, but contaminated with objectivity, with evil. The world and other people are evil (Sartre: “Hell is other people”), but there is also a lot of good in them. In this context, I just need to elaborate, to plan my activity, to find continuously better solutions, better dialogues or harmonies between subjectivity and objectivity, better contaminations between good and evil.

Am I the good that is left when the evil is removed or is the good what is left when I am removed? — unenlightened

I think the good is in what you do, not what you think you might do. Yes you have to resist your more base thoughts but you need fury if you are facing someone who wants to kill you or those you care about. Evil remains mainly subjective. There are human actions which are almost universally/objectively considered evil such as pedophilia but there are few of these I think.
We all have thoughts at times which seem outwith our normal sense of extremity.
If turned to actions these would indeed be evil but I think they are from the Freudian ID and are remnants of our instinctive reactions to experiences from our days in the wild. I think the main source of such is the R-complex of our triune brain. Sometimes called our reptilian or lizard brain section.

Yes you have to resist your more base thoughts — universeness

Is that not a base thought?

Is that not a base thought? — unenlightened

No, Resisting a thought I have labeled 'base' is my neocortex overruling an instinctive reaction/message/thought from my R-complex. I use the word 'base' here not in the sense of 'basic' but in the sense of 'low' or 'basement' or 'low brow' etc.
I say that with no qualifications in neuroscience at all but I have read Carl Sagan's Dragons of Eden and Broca's Brain and listened to some audiobooks by Dan Dennet and Sam Harris.
In otherwords, I don't even claim amateur status in neuroscience.