The nature of man inherently good or bad?
Human beings whilst in one regard are capable of performing completely selfless acts of kindness are equally capable of doing the opposite to such extremes as murder and endless wars.
Yet these two facets of human beings raise question as to mans nature are we inherently bad or good ? Or perhaps we are both ?
Yet to understand why good or bad acts are commited one must also understand the context in which they take place for example in WW2 both sides committed murders but if ones reasons for doing so were to stop the bad guys committing more than its understandable after all the allies were the good guys. In that context it was necessary to protect our freedoms which would otherwise have been eroded by the Nazis.
But man must eventually learn right from wrong good from evil and hence morality.
So are human beings good or bad (or evil) or is the leaning to either side just a misunderstanding of human nature or are there genuinely good reasons why evil takes place ?
Or is evil just a manifestation of a human beings nature and his worst side ?
Yet these two facets of human beings raise question as to mans nature are we inherently bad or good ? Or perhaps we are both ?
Yet to understand why good or bad acts are commited one must also understand the context in which they take place for example in WW2 both sides committed murders but if ones reasons for doing so were to stop the bad guys committing more than its understandable after all the allies were the good guys. In that context it was necessary to protect our freedoms which would otherwise have been eroded by the Nazis.
But man must eventually learn right from wrong good from evil and hence morality.
So are human beings good or bad (or evil) or is the leaning to either side just a misunderstanding of human nature or are there genuinely good reasons why evil takes place ?
Or is evil just a manifestation of a human beings nature and his worst side ?
Comments (64)
Neither. I think as a species we are inherently deluded an organic alchemy of cognitive biases, maladaptive habits & akrasia homo insapiens. 'Moral ramifications', I suppose, are a fallout from both our individual and collective struggles with for and against our delusions.
The concept of charity such as feeding the hungry gets neglected by a billionaires escapism for wanting to go to Mars.
It is true that there is immeasurable suffering in the world that is due to apathy from those that can help but who do not. And theres a saying that goes something like all it takes for evil to take place is for good man to do nothing.
We have well documented examples of serial killers too who whatever their psychological motivation may be the acts themselves are nothing but evil.
As a species we may in fact be deluded or unaware of our actions and their consequences, certainly the ego holds us back there if not completely blinding us and preventing the escape from such collective delusions.
This delusion can also be called ignorance, lack of self-knowledge and ultimately lack of compassion.
Since humans invented both concepts, and humans describe and define the world and everything in it as a reflection of themselves, humans must possess the characteristics they designate as good and bad. What's confusing is that they individually disagree at any given time on which is which, and the majority opinion shifts over time.
Human nature is neither good nor bad. We can look at the human being as having capacities, which provide for the reality of power. And as Plato explained, one can direct one's own capacities toward good, or towards bad. So the same person who has the power to do great good in the world , also has the power to do great evil in the world.
Comparing the animal kingdom in terms of human behaviour is to misunderstand the role of man as the apex of creation, knowledge and reason still creating irrational acts because emotion and because we still retain our animalistic side despite being higher on the evolutionary scale.
It is reason and intellect that accords us the ability to tell right from wrong or good from bad.
Our intellect and reason separates us from the animal like a dog that would bite your leg for no reason other than it is an animal, or feels threatened or just because thats the animals nature.
To rise above the animal nature is to understand that man need not kill man.
Good luck with that one! Men kill a lot more men than zebras kill zebras or tigers kill tigers.
Rise above animal nature... what vanity!
Neither. I don't really accept the notion of 'evil'. We use this word 'emotionally' to describe detrimental impact, but the person undertaking this 'evil' is likely made this way by situational factors and flawed reasoning.
Quoting 180 Proof
Strong words but I think correct.
Quoting invicta
I think humans are clever animals who use language to manage their environment. I see no reason to theologize humans or utilize categories like 'apex of creation...'
That is a serious problem. Creation? Apex? The role of man?
The Biblical delusion?
We should have been able to come with something more plausible by now!
We don't have an "animalistic side" -- we are all animal--animals descended from animals.
True enough, "we have reason and intellect that accords us the ability to tell right from wrong or good from bad". But we also have reason and intellect assisting us in sometimes achieving our least attractive desires. We might possibly, perhaps, know right from wrong and good from bad, but these arms are at least somewhat flexible.
Our best selves may have flourished when we were wandering hunter-gatherers. Being civilized for several thousand years doesn't seem to have civilized us all that much.
Sort of Shakespearean.
'Man as apex-predator', yeah okay. No amount of "creationist" dogma, however, changes the fact that the human genome is more than 96% identical with the chimpanzee genome. We're just bald, locquacious (i.e. proselytizing, sermonizing, bloviating) primates in the animal kingdom. Oh yeah, our uniquely distinguishing superpower is that we're a knowledge-creating species; however, it's the knowledge, not us human primates, which is "separate and above" the animal kingdom. Human history "red in tooth and claw" provides the most graphic and repetitious testimony that humans are beasts not angels, inseparable from the animal kingdom, not "above" it. Also, Plato's Euthyphro is instructive as a cautionary tale about unsound reasoning from supernatural premises about "good and bad". :monkey:
Quoting Tom Storm
:up: :up:
:halo:
Quoting BC
:fire:
:up:
But when you start thinking about where our idea of right and wrong, good and bad came from in the first place, it gets really muddy. Guppies have no sense of right and wrong, good and bad - they just swim around looking for food and depositing eggs on plastic foliage.
Chimps, OTOH do some really bad behaving. Do they know the difference between good and bad? Do they have a concept of evil?
All social animals have rules of conduct and means of communicating the rules; of warning a youngster: "You're pushing the limits of tolerance. Back off or get punished."
But I think only humans have come up with so many creative ways to justify and codify antisocial behaviour.
The argument answers itself. There would be no humans if people were following what is good, as to burden the next generation with life, is itself not good. Rather, principles like not causing unnecessary harm and autonomy of those being so imposed upon, would take precedent.
It is also questionable whither it is good to give burdens to people to overcome, like the enthalpy needed to survive in the first place. This can all be prevented unto another. But the very reflex to say, "But they would learn through their experiences", means that the deontological principles are not common or easily digested by many people.
Seems like chimps would have to know what good and bad are before they can be accused of "really bad behaving". IF they don't have the concept of good and bad, then they are merely behaving. A cat doesn't catch mice because it is good (or bad), but because it's in their nature to catch mice.
Homo sapiens also exhibit a variety of behaviors which are our nature, not because they are good or bad. Having said that, setting up moral and ethical schemes seems to be one of our features, which we exhibit not because we are so very very good, but because it's in our nature (language, etc.) And we can also argue that we did NOT violate this or that moral code because X, Y, and/or Z. Dogs can't; we can.
The apex of creation was followed by evolutionary scale if you two bothered to read that paragraph properly. No theological assumptions granted there.
Now, although, all species being derived from evolutionary process since inception have adapted to their environment, man as the crowning achievement of such process sits right at the top by fact of us being able to subdue beast and to some extent nature itself that gave rise to us.
@BC indeed a brilliant summery by Shakespeare there, and despite the religious objections above, places human beings in their own special category compared to a lion or a chimp, with lions too being apex in their own environmental food chain, they got nothing on man which is why we enjoy a safari in their own turf. Hows that for messing with their pride?
Having made the distinction a bit clearer between man and beast above the question still remains somewhat unanswered. The reason for this is because the difference between a good or a bad action are not always clear cut, nor are their motivations.
Now, sure, human history is indeed a bloody one, but you also get good deeds there too. Its pretty much like the news these days, they always focus on the negative occurrences in society, whilst the real world Id say consists of good behaviour as well, perhaps not as common as bad but still there.
Man a creature of rational intent whereby better socialisation can turn that intent to good side rather than bad, wants to inherently do good I believe but gets corrupted, turns to hate somewhere along the line and does bad stupid shit, hating his fellow man in the process to the extremes of wanting to kill him, because of petty differences or simply because he slept with his wife.
Whatever the many reasons for man wanting to kill another man may be, we do know that moral frameworks, makes this a punishable offence and a crime. Thus man rises above his animal nature and instinct there by fact of making laws, that guide if not deter such actions.
Human history may be littered with bloody war and murder but its a macrocosm of such reasons as outlined above, although forgetting to add power struggles too.
And yet good chivalrous acts are easily forgotten when humanity does get its act together for a greater good.
:ok: Riiiiight, the whole thread failed "to read that paragraph properly". The phrase "evolutionary scale" doesn't have anything to do with natural selection since there is no telos at work in nature. Anyway, invicta, I take your lack of response to my post as your concession to the points made by me and the others cited there. :smirk:
Can you expand on this, especially ignorance of self?
Although it must be also observed that animals too are capable of good acts, I saw a video of a monkey rescuing a kitten who was stuck in a well.
Your point is that humans are inseparable of the animal kingdom, in a sense we are in as far as our biology is concerned but its reason truly sets us apart.
Whether were truly good or bad inherently is briefly addressed in my last post, and a few before.
My position is that were inherently good, but its jealousy, hate and thirst for power that leads us astray as well as the desire to subjugate or subdue our fellow man.
Also not interested in the mechanics of evolution for the sake of the question posed , though my responses might have used such terms evolution/creation as literary licence. This is not the thread for it.
I think love and generosity and nurturing also frequently lead us astray. Hence the archaic expression that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Quoting invicta
I'm not convinced that this 'crowning achievement' is a useful frame as I said earlier. Humans are often very cocky and smug about our technology and our metacognition, but it's a form of question begging. How can a human perspective be used to justify the 'greatness' of the human perspective? While I am as speciesist as the next person and would save my daughter over my cat (if I had to), what I would be doing here is responding to biological programming and shared cultural values and preferences that are likely hard wired into most of us by socialisation.
Would it be 'bad' if we go extinct?
I don't really care about good and bad, as notions, in the face of evolutionary fact or in the face of any new technical ability our species might invent and activate, other than the fact that we must deal with such subjective judgements, personally and as a local, national, international and global group.
You either believe we can continue to 'improve,' or we are truly f*****.
We are the best creators that actually exist, no other existent, that we currently know of, can create an aeroplane, an atom bomb, a fantasy story or a space shuttle.
We are the only existent that we know of, capable of perceiving an asymptotic goal, of reaching a so called 'apex of creation.' That's why we invented silly but understandable (due to primal fear) ideal's such as deities.
Its not necessarily a supposition that were better than animals, although we are in most aspects, a fish just cant build a rocket and go to the moon. A fish of course is incapable of having such a discourse as were having but if they could speak theyd immediately acknowledge our superiority to them in almost every aspect apart from being able to breathe under water. So its undeniable that were a far more progressed species than fish in terms of evolution, hence my use of the term evolutionary scale.
The below picture is photoshopped, there are no documented fish astronauts.
It may be a question of preferences here. I am not really fond of terms like superior or apex or crowing achievement. I don't see a hierarchy of evolution but I know humans like to put themselves at the top of every list. I acknowledge that some innate capacities (in humans or animals) are better for a certain purpose, but I don't overplay this card. But there's no reason to explore this further, it's a side issue.
There are of course many examples of pure evil in history Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Charles Manson, and a few serial killers that I cant remember the name of. Could such behaviour have been prevented with the right nurture or educational socialisation do you think ? Nurture can shape nature, at least thats one of my current beliefs.
I have worked with many prisoners over the years. People who have done unspeakable things - murder, child abuse, kidnapping, maiming, arson, pyromania, violent assault, abuse of women, you name it. I have never met anyone who wasn't made that way or distorted by upbringing or by abuse, trauma, neglect, mental disfunction. And almost all have been male.
I understand that Pol Pot is called pure evil but to me this doesn't help us to make sense of the behaviour. Pol Pot may well have thought he was acting towards the common good, trying to improve the world according to a plan, even if that plan involved an awful but necessary price to pay. iek talks about this in relation to Stalinism and other totalitarian expressions. The people who burned witches likely thought they were doing the right thing too. I think pure evil is the term we use when we can't make sense of behaviour. But I understand the attraction to such terms.
We must assume superiority in order to give ourselves the right to do what we do to the other living beings. And we must give ourselves this right in order to protect and feed ourselves. In other words, the assumption of supremacy is necessary in order for us to actually have supremacy, as ideology precedes actuality.
Quoting invicta
Whether or not human beings inherently want to "do good" depends on how we would define "good". Such a statement would require that all of our instinctual actions are directed towards goods. But this is really not consistent with the common definition of "good", as many such actions are designated as directed by bad intentions.
There has been an attempt in Christian theology to define "good" in the way that you propose. This is based in the idea that the end which the will is directed toward, in the case of an intentional act, is called "the good". That is how Aristotle described the intentional act. From this definition, any intentional act is necessarily directed toward a good, and we can say as you do, "our instinctual actions are directed towards good", because our natural inclination is to act according to our intentions.
However, this way of defining "good" produces a duality in types of good outlined by Aristotle. We say that the act is directed toward a good, because it is directed intentionally, and that's the way "good" is defined, as what intention is directed toward, but we still want to be able to judge some intentionally directed acts as wrongful. So Aristotle outlined a distinction between an apparent good, and the real good, to allow for this difference. This principle was adopted into Christian theology. The goal of moral training therefore is to produce consistency between the apparent good and the real good. Then we can say that human beings inherently want to do good, but this turns out to only be the "apparent good". Then we're still faced with the problem of how to determine the real good.
When one's needs aren't met, it creates suffering and pain.
A failure to acknowledge this will inevitably cause the pain to be suppressed, so as to avoid the pain of having to process these emotions. It ends up in what Jung called the shadow.
From there, the pain will find an outlet in other forms. Anxiety, depression, and of course resentment. anger, projection, etc.
Because the person is psychologically wounded, the well-being of other persons becomes less important to them.
The person ends up in a spiral of desperately attempting to have their needs met, while not truly understanding what their needs are and where their suffering stems from (because this issue was put in the freezer a long time ago). Failed attempts cause further suffering and compound the problem, ending up in a vicious cycle.
The tragedy is that people who undergo this aren't aware of it at all until they find help at a later stage, if they find help at all. They might think, at least on the conscious level, their actions are perfectly normal, and that isn't strange considering how prone we humans are to confirmation bias and wishful thinking. (Though, because subconsciously one might be aware, these abnormal behaviors tend to make the condition worse.)
Their ignorance ensures their fate is sealed, unless they receive help or come to realize their predicament through some form of crisis.
If neither happens, the shadow grows until eventually it starts lashing out in behavior which we might term "evil".
If you want this proposition to be taken seriously, you might look to the language you employ.
Also a few of the assumptions you seem to have considered superficially, if at all.
Quoting invictaQuoting invicta
Sure there's wars, genocides, crusades and jihads, killing of our own species on a massive scale, but we're so superior to other animals that we also kill one another for killing one another.
And for every thousand people we blow up, we also help one; for every thousand children we let starve to death or sell into slavery, we feed one and rescue another from abusive parents; for every million chickens we slaughter in factories, we save an orphaned fawn.
Sure we're destroying our own habitat along with that of all other species, but we're so much better than other animals that we do so by legal means.
Sure, vast numbers of us follow and obey evil leaders, torture and pillage in their name, but we're so much better than other animals that we recognize them as evil after they're dead and the damage has been done.
Quoting invicta
"gets corrupted somewhere along the line" .... By what means, whose agency?
If the good is inherent and the evil is not, why hasn't the good triumphed yet, in the apical top peak of evolutionary progress?
You got lost in the detail and missed the wood for the trees so to speak and are no closer to giving the answer to the question in the thread.
Quoting Vera Mont
See OP again, in terms of WW2 history, the allies the good guys triumphed. Although its not as black and white as that
:100: :up:
This makes sense. They have the capacity for both good and bad.
Take toddlers for example, occasionally one of them will take the others toy away. If this happens as adults that looks very much like theft. One then must be taught to not perform such wrong actions. But could it be that doing good is as simple as not doing bad? One neednt need to be a hero to be a good guy, just not to do wrong.
I dont understand the point of this response nor am I aware of being intentionally biased towards either side of human nature. My personal view as that human beings want to do good, I expressed that a few posts on. Sometimes they do good for goodness sake, sometimes they do good because they know that doing bad might eventually bite them in the backside.
Here was my answer:
Aha. It's about 50,000,000 shades of grey.
There was a bit of human history even before 1939 and a bit of evolutionary history even before humans learned to tell stories about their own creation and magnificent destiny.
The "good guys" always win, because the winners get to designate heroes and villains after the fact, regardless of any inconvenient facts. They even get to hang a whole great big global conflagration on one skinny madman, because icons of Good and Evil are soooo satisfying to the rational, law-making, story-telling human.
And yet, in all that nature's-crowning-glory human history, Good as a force, has not been able decisively, conclusively to defeat Evil. Neither is bigger or stronger or more prevalent in individual humans and human societies; it's just that evil means and methods are more effective in getting results.
Its not as complicated as that, if say youre in a mall and someone starts shooting randomly because of some mental derangement and you get shot in the foot, you wouldnt say youve had a good day would you ?
I think its as simple as that, would the person though be bad person doing that or would just the action be bad in itself ?
Either, neither or both.
Then youd have to bring the matter of intent into at as @Metaphysician Undercover pointed out. This obviously deranged individual, had some prior intent to carry out a shooting of said mall, because pissed off at his colleagues, fired unfairly, bullying etc etc
The intent itself is to kill.
Is killing another human being at this mall good or bad ?
How could you say its neither, in this scenario @Vera Mont
Ok, the person doing this act might have actually been a good member of society up to this point, but a switch was flipped somewhere leading to up to this hideous act.
I still maintain however, that human beings would rather do good than bad, emotion got to the guy here, a bit of talking to maybe from a friend could have prevented it altogether, and he or she would have continued being a nice member of society.
I must further emphasise as well that its not necessarily the person that is bad(evil) but rather the act.
In what way good or bad? In which category? Subjective, moral, legal, social or statistical? Intent, causation, character or outcome? From what perspective? What are the consequences of the shooter's success or failure, escape or capture?
Quoting invicta
That's a subjective judgment, and still can be comparative. If the person next to me was shot in the head, I've had a better day than his. Are we comparing an injury to a random adult foot to the death of a six-year-old bystander? Did the delay cause me to be miss a fatal encounter with a fire-engine?
See, if you mix categories, there can be no single verdict.
Quoting invicta
Was his intention to start a war or to prevent one? Is he delusional, antisocial or fanatical? Did the shooting spree benefit some political or religious faction, directly or indirectly? Did it finally push a legislature into enacting gun control and thus saving thousands of lives? (Call me crazy, but I'd take a bullet in the foot for that any day!)
A lot of questions there Vera Mont, for the sake of brevity let me pose a slightly different question
Youre walking down the road one day and a stranger snatches your phone or handbag.
Good or bad, or neither?
It seems to me by your answers so far that youre either unsure or just in denial as to what is good or bad.
You might consider asking them yourself before demanding clear answers on muddled topics
Quoting invicta
As usual, it depends.
Good or bad act? Good or bad person? In which category: moral, legal, subjective or social? What is being judged: intent, character, reason or outcome? What POV? Does someone directly or indirectly benefit? Does the event cause direct or indirect unintended harm?
Quoting invicta
I'm trying to convey that "good" and "bad" are concepts subject to evaluation, and that valuations originate in conscious entities, and conscious entities may have different criteria.
As such, there can be no more absolute "good" or "bad" than "big" or "small": they have meaning only in in a specified situational context.
.
Theyre not concepts at all and Im afraid youre mistaken here, theres no grey area in the hypothetical situations Ive just outlined.
Its becoming obvious now that you dont know right from wrong, or maybe youre just arguing for the sake of it.
Theres no point over-rationalising, if a mall shooter goes on a killing spree in such a mall, with you getting shot in the foot during the massacre, under the rationalisation that hey, at least I didnt get shot in the head
Everyone got a bum deal, but at least you walked away with your life, getting shot in the foot aint good stupid, no matter how much you wish to apply to it the relative consequentialism that youre doing, because that same bullet would have easily turned you into a quadriplegic - Im sure youd see the upside to that as well but only as a form of argument on an internet forum.
Not anymore!
I think we're more human the better we are at working together and less human when we work against each other. We're political beings in the best sense when we are living together in a functioning "city." It is self-centeredness, whether in terms of the individual or "my group," that sustains so many avoidable woes. So, I think we are inherently good in terms of potential but actually bad at being human. Evil is a lack and we lack the skill to be human, too often.
There's a few reasons why this doesn't work. First, human beings like other animals are active, so they can't be told to do nothing, which one might be inclined toward if simply directed not to do anything bad. Since they must be allowed to do things, we can't list off all the bad things, and tell them not to do these, because human beings are creative, and they will develop new, unnamed bad things. So, it's better to direct them toward doing good, so that they happily occupy themselves doing good rather than spending their time looking for loopholes around the named bad things which they are not supposed to do.
We usually say that the beasts are innocent; that their kindness and cruelty are innocent because they do not know right from wrong. Man knows already, and having lost innocence, is always in the moral conflict, choosing now one, now the other. Another way of putting this is as a split in consciousness, such that one second guesses what one has the urging of desire and fear to do, with ideas of what the m(other) requires one to do.
"Eventually", man will move 'beyond good and evil' through enlightenment. This is a reintegration of consciousness that resolves the conflict of good and evil in similar way to the way that the innocent awareness resolves the conflict of desire and fear. But the worst evil of all is the pretence that it has happened when it has not.
Evil is a product of delusion (perhaps is in fact synonymous to it), because surely only ignorance would move man to act in ways that make him miserable.
Man is inherently good, because he desires above all things truth and genuine happiness.
However, man is also inherently ignorant, which has a tendency to delude him in regards to the nature of these things, especially when deprived of those things he desires most.
Where does one normally see confirmed evildoers? I suspect the situation itself creates a bias.
I have seen people happy because they were doing something blessed or patriotic in their own estimation, which to me seemed quite wrong.
Okay. But if a fish could speak and be intelligent enough to have enough self-awareness, introspection, and skilled enough understanding and use of language to deem humans "superior" in the first place, then OMG, they would not be fish. They would be almost equal competitors and demonstrate we are NOT superior.
Look at Tenoch Huerta Mejía (the fish people) from the 2nd black panther movie. It would be just like that.
Do you really think so Cobra? I think were better designed than fish for the fact of having opposable thumbs giving us a huge advantage in tool making. Their little fins would be absolutely useless in manufacturing a bicycle or a plane. Or even just writing a letter.
Still fish if they were as smart as us would eventually overcome such physical limitations and even be considered our equals so perhaps you could be right there.
The last competitors to Homo sapiens were the Neanderthals whom we still retain some of their features genetically but very small amounts.
Fish of course are more then welcome to try.
Who says they can't speak? We don't speak their language; that doesn't make them inferior.
Look, instead, at their system of values, which is formed by their environment and evolution - just as our system of values is formed by our environment and evolution. From a fishy POV, we're lousy swimmers, slow and poorly co-ordinated; can't even stay underwater without those big clumsy fish-imitation devices we wear in the water; can't change colour; can't attract minnows with our tongues; can't puff up and harpoon something with a poison dart; can't groom a shark; can't burrow into the silt and disappear; can't chase down a meal... bloody useless! We're not superior, or even barely adequate in any way that would make sense to a fish.
Then why do them dummies keep falling for the bait at the end of the fishing rod ? If it wasnt for our catch and release policy theyd be our dinner. And sometimes they are, delicious with freshly squeezed lemon.
Next time I catch a fish and it talks its way out of ending up as my dinner, heck I might even let them go.
I worded that badly. I don't think fish are inferior, I think they are fish, and yes they have means of communication. Look at sharks. My point in that post was to respond to his point, not necessarily to make mine.
I am not a misanthrope, so I think humans, we're.. fine. For the most part. It could be worse. We are fine. No need to trash us so badly. We can hold our own on this planet, and in spite of all these crazy "predators" roaming around, we are alive by the billions. We are an ok animal, not as weak as we think just to make the other animals without brain power feel better. We're all animals at the end of the day if we aren't extinct yet. Yes, we are a shitty dumb species too, but I'm fine being a human and not some apex Cheetah that runs fast or a great white shark. I don't care for their skills. It's the same way I don't want to be Tiger Woods.
I am mostly in agreement that the superiority/inferiority argument is irrelevant. Honestly, I don't think it has anything to do with anything and it's a false comparison of some kind unless we are comparing parts and natural skills of animals to each other, but unless OP is making a transhumanism or supernatural kind of argument, I don't see how humans by the nature of being humans can be superior to other animals as animals themselves. They would have to super in someway, and there is nothing that can justify the -super. What is super about humans, OP? What makes us super .. natural?
I think humans and fish are both animals and neither of us can transcend the animal kingdom, we will both always be a part of it, but what even is the relevance of that, anyway also?
If can't transcend the animal kingdom? Well, we could hypothetically but then we lose what makes us human. We are looking at Transhumanism if not supernatural. That's the only way out of this.
When we are no longer humans, we are no longer animals. That means to me personally, the entire OP just dissolves in on itself. If we are not animals, we cannot be superior/inferior to one. Like a goldfish. We are apart of a different classification. We are competing with AI, computers, and technology. We are a part of the technology kingdom now and have to conform to the rules of IT. The tech master race. It's not too far off, the human brain is computational. But we will never be able to keep up with the "tech master race". We will be the fish of their world. Swimming around aimlessly in a bunch of data soup. That alone should humble you.
By OP Im assuming you mean opening poster rather than opening post which is a different question to the one were discussing now, slight detour if you like into the superiority of man in relation to every other animal in the animal kingdom.
Firstly I, as a human being dont go around feeling smugly superior to cats OR fish. Or any other animal for that matter.
But imagine for a second that I was stupid and arrogant enough to do this and encountered a cat say Id be like Ha! Cat, Im so much better and smarter then you hahaha!!! You cant even walk upright or upon seeing a fish and uttering to it Ha! Stupid fish dont even know how to ride a bike let alone read a book! Ha, loser!
This would be madness.
That was my whole argument regarding all those "crowning achievement" superlatives early in the thread. I wasn't putting humans down; merely pointing out that better or worse depend entirely on the criteria of comparison.
This is a direct reflection of man being a cooperative and selfish animal, just as other social animals are. Being purely selfish or purely altruistic is no good, it is evolutionarily optimal to take on a strategy that mixes both. Many good strategies exist, this diversity of strategy, along with cultural diversity, along with our unique ability to conceptualize, is what makes all the confusion and complexity around morality.
Quoting invicta
The blatant fallacy inherent in the phrasing of this question is black-or-white.
It's a shit OP.
But humans, unique among animals, can conceive of something better. This ability to conceive is also the possibility of realizing it, and is what is truly superlative about humanity, above every other animal.
Conceive, yes. At least, according their own code of morality and standards. Achieve, no.
Quite the reverse: having the unique ability to conceive of what they themselves consider better than animals, and the ability to recognize their own potential for less good than other animals - what they call evil - they proceed to do an astounding amount of the latter.
Quoting hypericin
How is that "above", except in terms of power to destroy?
Yes, but that happens at the end of the story. The meat of the story has to be about adversity and horrific shit for the reasons Schopenhauer explained.
You can't have a happy ending without fear, grief, rage, and pain.