[Religion] Why do you believe what you believe?

[Blackhawk]

I think the number of species that naturally kill off members of their own species far, far outweigh the number of species who do not. Animals, from insects on up, worldwide kill each other over mates, over territory, over dominance, and over food. Numerous species kill their own infants. If there is a change of group leadership, for instance, the new leader may kill the offspring of the previous leader.

Humans are intelligent and empathetic animals. We have to ability to choose not to kill, and we have the ability to take a moral position that it is wrong to do so. It is not, however, unnatural. We've likely been killing each other since we were four-legged.

[msduncan]

Since forever. Even before we could be classified as humanoids. For the most part, your chances of survival and quality of life increased as your pack size increases.

This is nonsense. First, humans aren't pack animals. Second, the size of the tribe isn't as important as what is bonding the tribe together. A tribe formed by guys having the name Steve will not be as strong as a tribe formed by an extended family group.

Killing within your small tribal unit is uncommon (but not unheard of) because you'd be killing your family members. Killing humans outside of that small tribal unit? That's as common and natural as breathing.

And there is several million years of evidence supporting that across the entire spectrum of primates (including us).

I strongly disagree with your assertion that humans aren't pack animals. We very much are pack animals.

[hepcat]

I strongly disagree with your assertion that humans aren't pack animals. We very much are pack animals.

Maybe you are. But most of us are lone wolves, baby....sexy, lone wolves.

[RunningMn9]

I strongly disagree with your assertion that humans aren't pack animals. We very much are pack animals.

We very much aren't pack animals. The "pack" social organization is specific to canids. Tribes are not packs.

[Vorret]

You know the guys handing out Chick tracts? They aren't typical of Christians. They're just the ones you see. Most Christians don't advertise it.

You know those folks dressed goth and wearing crystals? They aren't typical of pagans. They're just the ones you see. Most pagans don't advertise it.

You know those atheists who act like a dick toward everyone who doesn't agree with them?

This...
It doesn't matter to me what you beleive in as long as it doesn't matter to you what I beleive in.

One of my girlfriend was... well not ok with me being an atheist (though she was kinda crazy) she even told me once that "You're not as smart as me because I beleive in reincarnation and I've lived more lives than you"

Yeaaa....

[Holman]

One of my girlfriend was... well not ok with me being an atheist (though she was kinda crazy) she even told me once that "You're not as smart as me because I beleive in reincarnation and I've lived more lives than you"

Did you quiz her?

[Holman]

I don't know where deciding that humans killing humans is "natural" is supposed to get us, especially when we almost never do it for natural reasons. Our motivations for murder and war are nearly always cultural/political/social.

[Combustible Lemur]

I don't know where deciding that humans killing humans is "natural" is supposed to get us, especially when we almost never do it for natural reasons. Our motivations for murder and war are nearly always cultural/political/social.

Those aren't natural extensions of our primate evolution? Silly chimps, conducting raids on neighboring tribes. Murders' for people.

[hepcat]

I don't know where deciding that humans killing humans is "natural" is supposed to get us, especially when we almost never do it for natural reasons. Our motivations for murder and war are nearly always cultural/political/social.

it wasn't a decision, it was an observation. and it most certainly was natural at one time to kill for the bigger piece of meat, the best females and the right to wear the largest loin cloth.

we aren't discussing current times, by the way...even if my loin cloth is huge.

[silverjon]

Sure, killing off your tribesmates might have made things harder for you, but what about killing off members of that other tribe that are hunting in the best hunting grounds that your tribe wants access too? As the assassin's always say, "As long as there are two people alive on the planet, someone is always going to want someone else dead"

Far enough back, humans didn't have that kind of population pressure. According to at least some research, there was no need for hunter-gatherer societies to directly compete with each other, because it was easier to just go someplace else. Tribal violence would have advented with agriculture, because at that point, humans were tied down to a specific place they might need to fight to keep. (/Quinnianism-that-isn't-from-Quinn)

[IceBear]

Sure, killing off your tribesmates might have made things harder for you, but what about killing off members of that other tribe that are hunting in the best hunting grounds that your tribe wants access too? As the assassin's always say, "As long as there are two people alive on the planet, someone is always going to want someone else dead"

Far enough back, humans didn't have that kind of population pressure. According to at least some research, there was no need for hunter-gatherer societies to directly compete with each other, because it was easier to just go someplace else. Tribal violence would have advented with agriculture, because at that point, humans were tied down to a specific place they might need to fight to keep. (/Quinnianism-that-isn't-from-Quinn)

True... Was just trying to be simple because I am on my phone. Also shouldn't participate in these discussions as my knowledge is too limited to add value

[msduncan]

I strongly disagree with your assertion that humans aren't pack animals. We very much are pack animals.

We very much aren't pack animals. The "pack" social organization is specific to canids. Tribes are not packs.

Ok fair enough.

I also kinda agree with Hepcat though.

[Toe]

I think the number of species that naturally kill off members of their own species far, far outweigh the number of species who do not. Animals, from insects on up, worldwide kill each other over mates, over territory, over dominance, and over food. Numerous species kill their own infants. If there is a change of group leadership, for instance, the new leader may kill the offspring of the previous leader.

Well I think exactly the opposite. Most species do not kill each other over mates, territory, dominance, or food. Most often those are resolved through displays or non-lethal combat (forced submission).

Humans are intelligent and empathetic animals. We have to ability to choose not to kill, and we have the ability to take a moral position that it is wrong to do so. It is not, however, unnatural. We've likely been killing each other since we were four-legged.

Yes, it is unnatural. The science community in general feels that yes, we have a natural aversion to killing each other. If we had been killing each other over all the reasons you say there would be no human race at all.

[msduncan]

I think the number of species that naturally kill off members of their own species far, far outweigh the number of species who do not. Animals, from insects on up, worldwide kill each other over mates, over territory, over dominance, and over food. Numerous species kill their own infants. If there is a change of group leadership, for instance, the new leader may kill the offspring of the previous leader.

Well I think exactly the opposite. Most species do not kill each other over mates, territory, dominance, or food. Most often those are resolved through displays or non-lethal combat (forced submission).

Humans are intelligent and empathetic animals. We have to ability to choose not to kill, and we have the ability to take a moral position that it is wrong to do so. It is not, however, unnatural. We've likely been killing each other since we were four-legged.

Yes, it is unnatural. If we had been killing each other over all the reasons you say there would be no human race at all.

I disagree to your disagreement. Animal species kill rivals all of the time. Lions and other felines kill rivals, babies, etc. The great apes do the same. Bees kill rival queens that are hatched at the same time. The list goes on and on.

I know you are tempted to play the old woe-be-humans card, but we really are just doing things like most animals do.

[RunningMn9]

Yes, it is unnatural. If we had been killing each other over all the reasons you say there would be no human race at all.

What are you talking about? Of course there would still be people. You just have to breed faster than you kill each other, and we do.

What is your definition of "unnatural"?

[Toe]

I think the number of species that naturally kill off members of their own species far, far outweigh the number of species who do not. Animals, from insects on up, worldwide kill each other over mates, over territory, over dominance, and over food. Numerous species kill their own infants. If there is a change of group leadership, for instance, the new leader may kill the offspring of the previous leader.

Well I think exactly the opposite. Most species do not kill each other over mates, territory, dominance, or food. Most often those are resolved through displays or non-lethal combat (forced submission).

Humans are intelligent and empathetic animals. We have to ability to choose not to kill, and we have the ability to take a moral position that it is wrong to do so. It is not, however, unnatural. We've likely been killing each other since we were four-legged.

Yes, it is unnatural. If we had been killing each other over all the reasons you say there would be no human race at all.

I disagree to your disagreement. Animal species kill rivals all of the time. Lions and other felines kill rivals, babies, etc. The great apes do the same. Bees kill rival queens that are hatched at the same time. The list goes on and on.

I know you are tempted to play the old woe-be-humans card, but we really are just doing things like most animals do.

Uh what? Any struggle over dominance of a loin pack that I have seen usually results in the losing male being cast of out of the pride (where they often end up going to other prides). Death can occur, yes, but it is more of an accident than intentional killing. Just like when they fight over food, no one usually dies, just dominance established. As for great apes, while yes, they do sometimes kill each other, it is a rare occurrence and not the norm (at least based on the stuff I am reading)

[IceBear]

I think the number of species that naturally kill off members of their own species far, far outweigh the number of species who do not. Animals, from insects on up, worldwide kill each other over mates, over territory, over dominance, and over food. Numerous species kill their own infants. If there is a change of group leadership, for instance, the new leader may kill the offspring of the previous leader.

Well I think exactly the opposite. Most species do not kill each other over mates, territory, dominance, or food. Most often those are resolved through displays or non-lethal combat (forced submission).

Humans are intelligent and empathetic animals. We have to ability to choose not to kill, and we have the ability to take a moral position that it is wrong to do so. It is not, however, unnatural. We've likely been killing each other since we were four-legged.

Yes, it is unnatural. If we had been killing each other over all the reasons you say there would be no human race at all.

I disagree to your disagreement. Animal species kill rivals all of the time. Lions and other felines kill rivals, babies, etc. The great apes do the same. Bees kill rival queens that are hatched at the same time. The list goes on and on.

I know you are tempted to play the old woe-be-humans card, but we really are just doing things like most animals do.

Uh what? Any struggle over dominance of a loin pack that I have seen usually results in the losing male being cast of out of the pride (where they often end up going to other prides). Death can occur, yes, but it is more of an accident than intentional killing. Just like when they fight over food, no one usually dies, just dominance established.

Yes, but male lions will kill male cubs if given a chance so they won't have to fight them later

[Blackhawk]

I don't know where deciding that humans killing humans is "natural" is supposed to get us, especially when we almost never do it for natural reasons. Our motivations for murder and war are nearly always cultural/political/social.

It's all about the instincts. Our 'us vs them' mentality is an expression of our territorial instincts and our instinct to fit in to the social unit. How many wars come down to people wanting power (including money) and control? Why do people want power and control when bring neither happiness nor satisfaction? Because we're still biologically driven to be an 'alpha', to assert dominance and to show our success.

You could argue that our society takes those natural urges an expresses them in an artificial manner, but the drives are still natural.

[RunningMn9]

Toe, please explain.

[Toe]

Toe, please explain.

Sure. As I said before, humans have an innate aversion to killing other humans. Nothing in that article contradicts that opinion, and in some ways supports it. As the article states, infanticide as a form of population control was mainly performed to help the "tribe" or community as a whole. i.e. killing the child now will save the lives of more humans later.

[Toe]

Yes, but male lions will kill male cubs if given a chance so they won't have to fight them later

Yes, that is an example of animals killing their own kind. There are lots of those out there. But, I contest that it is more of an exception than the rule. In this case, the female will immediately come into heat when the cubs are killed. So yes, pussy will make you do crazy things.

[Combustible Lemur]

Are you saying that intraspecies killing is a defect. Or that it is so uncommon as the be considered defect.

It seems to me that, under outside pressures, intraspecies killing greatly increases, (population density, low resources, territory encroachment). But the capacity and population scale reality of intraspecies killing is a generally ubiquitous byproduct of the survival instinct.

Sent from mah Incredible'

[Toe]

Are you saying that intraspecies killing is a defect. Or that it is so uncommon as the be considered defect.

Hard to say. I would say if someone did not have an aversion to killing humans, that would be a defect. That being said, it is plainly obvious that this aversion is often overcome for all manner of reason. I know the military, for example, works very hard on our soldiers to overcome this natural aversion to killing we humans have.

[RunningMn9]

Sure. As I said before, humans have an innate aversion to killing other humans.

This doesn't make any sense, though. They have an innate aversion to killing other humans - except for all the times that humans are busy killing other humans.

As is stated by everyone that observes human behavior, humans have an aversion to wantonly killing other humans that are identified as part of their "tribe".

They have very little aversion to to killing (even wantonly) other humans that are identified as OTHER. Which is why it is so easy for people in group A to chop people in group B up into little bits with machetes.

Or for group D to round up the members of group E and march them into ovens or gas chambers.

I ask you again - what are you using as a definition of "unnatural" that leads you to believe that these aren't modern manifestations of our innate desire to have our tribe survive, even at the expense of other human tribes.

Historically, our general reaction in those situations tends to be "Fuck them!", rather than "Can't we all just get along?!?".

[Toe]

Sure. As I said before, humans have an innate aversion to killing other humans.

This doesn't make any sense, though. They have an innate aversion to killing other humans - except for all the times that humans are busy killing other humans.

As is stated by everyone that observes human behavior, humans have an aversion to wantonly killing other humans that are identified as part of their "tribe".

They have very little aversion to to killing (even wantonly) other humans that are identified as OTHER. Which is why it is so easy for people in group A to chop people in group B up into little bits with machetes.

Actually there is evidence that this is not the case. From http://smellslikescience.com/the-psycho ... ns-of-war/

Evidence of a powerful resistance to killing has popped up in unexpected places. Many people assume that soldiers in a firefight instinctively respond to enemy fire by shooting back, and that soldiers in a kill-or-be-killed situation will choose to kill. But informal interviews conducted with thousands of American combat soldiers during World War II by army historian S.L.A. Marshall revealed that as many as 75% of soldiers never fired their weapons during combat. In recent years the rigor of Marshall’s research methods has been called into question, but his basic conclusion that the majority of soldiers will not return fire during combat if left to their own devices has been corroborated by evidence and accounts from other wars, including the American Civil War, World War I, and the Falklands War.

So why didn’t these soldiers use their weapons? Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, a psychologist and professor of military science, looked at this evidence and concluded “that there is within most men an intense resistance to killing their fellow man. A resistance so strong that, in many circumstances, soldiers on the battlefield will die before they can overcome it.” In some ways this isn’t all that surprising. Very few people would seek out an opportunity to kill others. At the same time, you may find it hard to believe that it is sometimes impossible for soldiers to kill others even when their own lives are at risk.

[Tareeq]

This argument would be better served if you were to phrase it in terms of integral calculus rather than in terms of set theory. You're arguing whether the capacity to kill is a bit of one or zero, when you should be arguing about the midpoint of a parabolic arc.

[Smoove_B]

This argument would be better served if you were to phrase it in terms of integral calculus rather than in terms of set theory. You're arguing whether the capacity to kill is a bit of one or zero, when you should be arguing about the midpoint of a parabolic arc.

See also: The Science of Good and Evil

[RunningMn9]

Actually there is evidence that this is not the case.

There is a helluva lot more evidence that humans are A-Ok with killing humans that fall into the class of "Other".

Why won't you tell me what your definition of unnatural is? I've asked nicely three different times.

[Jaymann]

Actually there is evidence that this is not the case.

There is a helluva lot more evidence that humans are A-Ok with killing humans that fall into the class of "Other".

Why won't you tell me what your definition of unnatural is? I've asked nicely three different times.

Not sure how Toe defines it, but I am pretty sure it involves Hepcat, a rubber spatula and a jar of petroleum jelly.

[RunningMn9]

Let me put it this way. Humans killing other humans is as natural as beavers building dams. That doesn't mean that all humans are compelled at all times to kill other humans.

It just means that there are plenty of situations where our reaction to a situation is to kill other humans. Violent behavior in humans is natural. Not ubiquitous. Not constant. But natural.

That we can be remorseful about it doesn't make it less natural. That we can be hesitant about it in situations doesn't make it less natural.

[Kraken]

Getting back to the power of stories: Doesn't the Bible have a murder in chapter one? OK, that story is really about the conflict between agriculture and hunter-gathering, but still...murder is fundamental.

[Tareeq]

OK, that story is really about the conflict between agriculture and hunter-gathering, but still...murder is fundamental.

Saying that the story of Cain and Abel is really about the conflict between agriculture and hunter-gathering is like calling Watership Down a novel about overdevelopment in rural England.

[hepcat]

Actually there is evidence that this is not the case.

There is a helluva lot more evidence that humans are A-Ok with killing humans that fall into the class of "Other".

Why won't you tell me what your definition of unnatural is? I've asked nicely three different times.

Not sure how Toe defines it, but I am pretty sure it involves Hepcat, a rubber spatula and a jar of petroleum jelly.

How in god's name is that unnatural?

[Holman]

I'm just not sure what we get by calling it "natural" other than an acknowledgement that it has always happened, is common, and is likely to keep happening. All that is given.

But when we call behavior "natural," it suggests additional meanings that don't apply to human behavior: it is instinctual, there is little choice not to do it, it is beyond ethics. No one makes ethical arguments against sharks or wolves (or raccoons or housecats) when they kill. That's natural. But we can't use the word in the same sense when humans kill because, with very few exceptions, there are cultural and social and conscious reasons for killing that go way beyond any natural imperative.

So I think we can say "killing is natural" for humans only in a sense that's so broad as to be pretty meaningless in any particular case. "People killing people is natural; they have always done it," is true enough, but even at that level it doesn't mean the same thing as "Tigers killing rabbits is natural; they have always done it." It breaks down as soon as we talk about any specific acts or patterns of killing. It's absurd to say that it was "natural" for Germany to invade Poland, Rome to sack Carthage, Crips to ambush Bloods, or Mrs. Smith to kill Mr. Smith over an affair. There are just too many cultural/social/etc reasons for nature to come meaningfully into play here (unless you want to reduce culture to an arm of nature, in which case neither word means anything). Even a very obvious struggle for territory (U.S.A. vs. Apaches) can't be called "natural" without totally missing the cultural and political factors involved.

Sorry for my long-windedness here. I'm trying to work this out for myself. I guess the real question I'm wondering about is, What is "natural" for humans any more? Haven't we mostly lost that innocence?

[Holman]

Actually there is evidence that this is not the case.

There is a helluva lot more evidence that humans are A-Ok with killing humans that fall into the class of "Other".

Why won't you tell me what your definition of unnatural is? I've asked nicely three different times.

Not sure how Toe defines it, but I am pretty sure it involves Hepcat, a rubber spatula and a jar of petroleum jelly.

How in god's name is that unnatural?

It's a natural solution to an unnatural problem...

[noxiousdog]

So I think we can say "killing is natural" for humans only in a sense that's so broad as to be pretty meaningless in any particular case. "People killing people is natural; they have always done it," is true enough, but even at that level it doesn't mean the same thing as "Tigers killing rabbits is natural; they have always done it." It breaks down as soon as we talk about any specific acts or patterns of killing. It's absurd to say that it was "natural" for Germany to invade Poland, Rome to sack Carthage, Crips to ambush Bloods, or Mrs. Smith to kill Mr. Smith over an affair. There are just too many cultural/social/etc reasons for nature to come meaningfully into play here (unless you want to reduce culture to an arm of nature, in which case neither word means anything). Even a very obvious struggle for territory (U.S.A. vs. Apaches) can't be called "natural" without totally missing the cultural and political factors involved.

Sorry for my long-windedness here. I'm trying to work this out for myself. I guess the real question I'm wondering about is, What is "natural" for humans any more? Haven't we mostly lost that innocence?

It's also possible all those are manifestations of an instinctual drive.

[Combustible Lemur]

+1

I think it's being worked backwards. Killing isn't unnatural to humans. Complex social structure, though a natural outcome, has given us synthetic means to communicate the drawbacks and negative repercussions of intraspecies killing. In some very effectively (crime rates are down in 1st world cities) , in some ways grossly inneffectively (people still killing people even on the genocidal level everyday)

Sent from mah Incredible'

[RunningMn9]

I guess the real question I'm wondering about is, What is "natural" for humans any more? Haven't we mostly lost that innocence?

My answer would be that it is still important to understand human nature for what it really is - rather than what our chosen system of ethics or culture thinks it ought to be. That understanding will help you realize why we so often fail to meet those "unnatural" ideals.

We live out lives as if humans are something they aren't. Build all the rules around them you want, the animal is still there, acting out in a way wholly consistent with human nature.

We can call it "bad" when someone convinces a group to commit genocide against another group - but there is value in understanding WHY that is possible in the first place, and why it happens a lot more often than we'd otherwise like.

[Holman]

I guess the real question I'm wondering about is, What is "natural" for humans any more? Haven't we mostly lost that innocence?

My answer would be that it is still important to understand human nature for what it really is - rather than what our chosen system of ethics or culture thinks it ought to be. That understanding will help you realize why we so often fail to meet those "unnatural" ideals.

We live out lives as if humans are something they aren't. Build all the rules around them you want, the animal is still there, acting out in a way wholly consistent with human nature.

We can call it "bad" when someone convinces a group to commit genocide against another group - but there is value in understanding WHY that is possible in the first place, and why it happens a lot more often than we'd otherwise like.

Completely agree.

I believe I was just trying to avoid the easy slide from "It's human nature" to "There's nothing we can do about it." I didn't see anyone here making that move, but I've seen lots of students do it.

[RunningMn9]

My concern is for those that forget that we are animals. Which is why I'm trying to find out Toe's definition of natural or unnatural.