I believe all life is evil.

[umair127]

And, as an aside, not always but often times we do act in the self interest of others without the expectation of even good feelings as a reward. Because, you know, we aren't 100% rational robots programmed to always act in our own self best interests. For example, the guy who got gunned down in some bus shooting while acting as a human shield for someone else (some other random rider, not a family member) during the shooting.

[umair127]

Before we start talking about this I have to ask something. Do you consider "that good feeling you get from helping" is payback?

So I'm driving on the highway. I see an old couple with a flat tire and I pull over. Turns out the old guy isn't strong enough to get the lugs off so, so I change the tire. I didn't do it for money or recognition or because it was a friend...I did it just because it was the right thing to do. Was that not altruistic because as I left I felt good for having done it?

What if I don't get this feeling at all?
Where is my payback then.
I sometimes look at the situation and decide whenever to help the individual or not. I help more often strangers, since I don't really need payback and can't judge if they deserve it or not.

The whole "You can't act altruistically because no matter what act you take it is selfish in some way as evidence by the fact that if it wasn't you wouldn't have taken that action!!!"!"!"! argument is just lazy.

[Lauda]

The whole "You can't act altruistically because no matter what act you take it is selfish in some way as evidence by the fact that if it wasn't you wouldn't have taken that action!!!"!"!"! argument is just lazy.

This was a bit hard to understand what you mean, since I wasn't going in that direction.
I was in no way suggesting that people can't act unselfishly. I was stating my view point.
Where did you come up with that from my post?

[BADecker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price

Other work in evolutionary theory

Price developed a new interpretation of Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection, the Price equation, which has now been accepted as the best interpretation of a formerly enigmatic result.[7] He wrote what is still widely held to be the best mathematical, biological and evolutionary representation of altruism. He also pioneered the application of game theory to evolutionary biology, in a co-authored 1973 paper with John Maynard Smith.[11] Furthermore Price reasoned that in the same way as an organism may sacrifice itself and further its genes (altruism) an organism may sacrifice itself to eliminate others of the same species if it enabled closely related organisms to better propagate their related genes. This negative altruism was described in a paper published by W. D. Hamilton and is termed Hamiltonian spite.

Price’s 'mathematical' theory of altruism reasons that organisms are more likely to show altruism toward each other as they become more genetically similar to each other. As such, in a species that requires two parents to reproduce, an organism is most likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological parent, full sibling, or direct offspring. The reason for this is that each of these relatives’ genetic make up contains (on average in the case of siblings) 50% of the genes that are found in the original organism. So if the original organism dies as a result of an altruistic act it can still manage to propagate its full genetic heritage as long as two or more of these close relatives are saved. Consequently an organism is less likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological grandparent, grandchild, aunt/uncle, niece/nephew or half-sibling (each contain one-fourth of the genes found in the original organism); and even less likely to show altruism to a first cousin (contains one-eighth of the genes found in the original organism). The theory then holds that the further genetically removed two organisms are from each other the less likely they are to show altruism to each other. If true then altruistic (kind) behavior is not truly selfless and is instead an adaptation that organisms have in order to promote their own genetic heritage.

Helping the homeless

As part of an attempt to prove his theory right or wrong Price began showing an ever increasing amount (in both quality and quantity) of random kindness to complete strangers. As such Price dedicated the latter part of his life to helping the homeless, often inviting homeless people to live in his house. Sometimes, when the people in his house became a distraction, he slept in his office at the Galton Laboratory. He also gave up everything to help alcoholics, yet as he helped them they stole his belongings causing him to fall into depression.[citation needed]

He was eventually thrown out of his rented house due to a construction project in the area, which made him unhappy because he could no longer provide housing for the homeless. He moved to various squats in the North London area, and became depressed over Christmas, 1974.

Death

Unable to prove his theory right or wrong Price committed suicide on January 6, 1975, using a pair of nail scissors to cut his own carotid artery. His body was identified by his close colleague W.D. Hamilton.[12] Friends said he committed suicide because of despondency over his inability to continue helping the homeless.

Dude killed himself after trying to prove his theory, and you cannot do TRULY selfless things for people when there is no payback for you.

Before we start talking about this I have to ask something. Do you consider "that good feeling you get from helping" is payback?

So I'm driving on the highway. I see an old couple with a flat tire and I pull over. Turns out the old guy isn't strong enough to get the lugs off so, so I change the tire. I didn't do it for money or recognition or because it was a friend...I did it just because it was the right thing to do. Was that not altruistic because as I left I felt good for having done it?

According to his simultaneous misunderstanding of basic math and sociology, no. His misinterpretation of a tautology necessarily means that your "good feeling" is selfish and somehow bad.

Sounds like Ayn Rand's philosophy of selfishness.  

[BADecker]

Before we start talking about this I have to ask something. Do you consider "that good feeling you get from helping" is payback?

So I'm driving on the highway. I see an old couple with a flat tire and I pull over. Turns out the old guy isn't strong enough to get the lugs off so, so I change the tire. I didn't do it for money or recognition or because it was a friend...I did it just because it was the right thing to do. Was that not altruistic because as I left I felt good for having done it?

What if I don't get this feeling at all?
Where is my payback then.
I sometimes look at the situation and decide whenever to help the individual or not. I help more often strangers, since I don't really need payback and can't judge if they deserve it or not.

If you don't get this feeling, it's because you are a grumpy person. Your payback is a grumpy feeling, that matches who you are.

[zolace]

But plants are evil though? What about simple organisms? Single cell organisms? Are viruses evil?

[PeanutCoins]

But plants are evil though? What about simple organisms? Single cell organisms? Are viruses evil?

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. They all suck up resources for themselves, and they do it by any means necessary.

I'm trying to paint a picture of us being evil. When we fight evil, we fight...um, ourselves. As long as life exists, there will always be evil.

[BADecker]

But plants are evil though? What about simple organisms? Single cell organisms? Are viruses evil?

That's what I say. Greenpeace doesn't want you to kill some spotted owl or chop down some giant sequoia, but they ALL go to get their shots, thereby killing off trillions of bacteria and viruses.

[umair127]

But plants are evil though? What about simple organisms? Single cell organisms? Are viruses evil?

A quick google search turned up

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/v/virus.htm

The study of viruses is known as virology, and those who study viruses are known as virologists. It has been argued extensively whether viruses are living organisms.
Most virologists consider them non-living, as they do not meet all the criteria of the generally accepted definition of life.
They are similar to obligate intracellular parasites as they lack the means for self-reproduction outside a host cell, but unlike parasites, viruses are generally not considered to be true living organisms.
A primary reason is that viruses do not possess a cell membrane or metabolise on their own - characteristics of all living organisms.

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife...viruslive.html

Viruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others. In general, viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'life', including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction. In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host cell

Perhaps see also
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ses-alive-2004
http://news.discovery.com/human/heal...ems-130227.htm

[zolace]

But plants are evil though? What about simple organisms? Single cell organisms? Are viruses evil?

A quick google search turned up

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/v/virus.htm

The study of viruses is known as virology, and those who study viruses are known as virologists. It has been argued extensively whether viruses are living organisms.
Most virologists consider them non-living, as they do not meet all the criteria of the generally accepted definition of life.
They are similar to obligate intracellular parasites as they lack the means for self-reproduction outside a host cell, but unlike parasites, viruses are generally not considered to be true living organisms.
A primary reason is that viruses do not possess a cell membrane or metabolise on their own - characteristics of all living organisms.

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife...viruslive.html

Viruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others. In general, viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'life', including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction. In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host cell

Perhaps see also
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ses-alive-2004
http://news.discovery.com/human/heal...ems-130227.htm

Define "obligate intracellular parasite".

As it is the Christmas season and many kisses will be snatched under the obligatory mistletoe hung over a doorway, does it also qualify? I have never seen mistletoe survive on its own, absent a parasitic host.

[sana8410]

You are free to believe all life is evil. I am free to believe the opposite. What is more important? Your belief or mine? Neither. What is more important is the freedom for both of us to express our divergent viewpoints...

[umair127]

But plants are evil though? What about simple organisms? Single cell organisms? Are viruses evil?

A quick google search turned up

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/v/virus.htm

The study of viruses is known as virology, and those who study viruses are known as virologists. It has been argued extensively whether viruses are living organisms.
Most virologists consider them non-living, as they do not meet all the criteria of the generally accepted definition of life.
They are similar to obligate intracellular parasites as they lack the means for self-reproduction outside a host cell, but unlike parasites, viruses are generally not considered to be true living organisms.
A primary reason is that viruses do not possess a cell membrane or metabolise on their own - characteristics of all living organisms.

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife...viruslive.html

Viruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others. In general, viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'life', including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction. In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host cell

Perhaps see also
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ses-alive-2004
http://news.discovery.com/human/heal...ems-130227.htm

Define "obligate intracellular parasite".

As it is the Christmas season and many kisses will be snatched under the obligatory mistletoe hung over a doorway, does it also qualify? I have never seen mistletoe survive on its own, absent a parasitic host.

I'm neither a biologist or virologist, so I leave the discussion to them .So, the individual is evil. Cooperation among individuals is goodness.
Reminds me of Marine Corps Boot Camp. How they would mentally drain you in order to strip away your individuality.

[zolace]

You are free to believe all life is evil. I am free to believe the opposite. What is more important? Your belief or mine? Neither. What is more important is the freedom for both of us to express our divergent viewpoints...

is god the inventor of the evil, or is it lucifer that was the one that done it ?on average is evil about ... dark greenish, 20 fahrenheit, hydrogen sulphide smell, and misty ?i thought i saw one once ?

[umair127]

You are free to believe all life is evil. I am free to believe the opposite. What is more important? Your belief or mine? Neither. What is more important is the freedom for both of us to express our divergent viewpoints...

is god the inventor of the evil, or is it lucifer that was the one that done it ?on average is evil about ... dark greenish, 20 fahrenheit, hydrogen sulphide smell, and misty ?i thought i saw one once ?

Um, Religion is good in that it unites people. But evil in that people think religion revolves around the individual.

As far as God is concerned (I'm an atheist), he created us with 'original sin'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_man

I've been thinking about this concept for the last few days.
I truly believe we are all evil selfish individuals, and the only good that can come from us, is cooperation.

[Lauda]

If you don't get this feeling, it's because you are a grumpy person. Your payback is a grumpy feeling, that matches who you are.

What do you exactly mean with grumpy feeling?
grumpy
adjective
surly or ill-tempered; discontentedly or sullenly irritable; grouchy.

I surely for one don't see myself as such a person. Maybe I'm just lacking that feeling or think that it's useless so I prefer its absence?

[yayayo]

An abstract concept such as "life" cannot be morally evaluated by entities that constructed the very same concept in the first place. A valid moral evaluation requires the judging entity and the to-be-judged entity being on the same layer of existence.

Of course you can believe what you like...

ya.ya.yo!

[zolace]

You got a pretty fucked up prospective if you think acting in your own interests is evil.

It may have evil consequences, it may be benign, or it may actually also be in the other party's best interest as well. A blanket statement "if you act in your own best interest and then you're evil" is just stupid.

[umair127]

You got a pretty fucked up prospective if you think acting in your own interests is evil.

It may have evil consequences, it may be benign, or it may actually also be in the other party's best interest as well. A blanket statement "if you act in your own best interest and then you're evil" is just stupid.

I'm not stating 'if'. Perhaps I'm changing definitions. I'm saying that being evil is just natural. Not you can/will be evil, you ARE evil. This is your natural state. When you leave the mothers womb, you cry because it is in your interest to cry, not for anyone else. And you maintain this individuality. You just ARE evil. Try not to read too much into the baby reference, it's just an example.

[BitsBitsBits]

And the attempt to rid us of evil is stupid.

I agree, evil should be embraced at a subjective level. This helps combat identify with your shadow material.

And what is that supposed to mean?

Goodness comes from cooperation amongst evil.

What does this mean? or did you mean to say "cooperation [with] evil."

2 wrongs make a right.

Explain.

[Daniel91]

First you will have to give definition what is life and what is evil.
This are not absolute but relative categories, and each person have different understanding about it, based on his/her culture background, life, education etc.
Some people believe than only God can give us absolute definition about right and wrong, purpose of life and life etc.