Humanity: Good and Evil

In response to Bookworm's post, link's in title.

First half to the subject of Evil or Goodness inherent in Humanity.

Second part is directed to Bookworm.

The idea that humanity is evil and that the only thing that restricts its morality is societal pressure, is close to the truth but still flawed.

Most fake liberals do believe humanity is evil, that is why they believe that government for the people, not by the evil people, is a Good Thing.

The True liberal idea that humanity is either good naturally or potentially good or evil, has been modified by the fake liberals to mean that everyone else is good while people in the United States (with the exception of the anointed ones like Kerry and Let's Drown A Woman Kennedy).

Personally, I am not a believer in Original Sin, because Free Will requires the knowledge of Good and Evil. Without that, yes no evil would have been committed, but then no good would have either. To separate from the religious issue, let's say humanity was inherently evil. Then what would happen to a bunch of Marines sent to another world, free to do whatever they pleased with no fear of punishment?

If humanity is inherently evil, then why don't Good People revert to evil when they know they won't be punished for it?

Good people like that do exist, if not in the majority. People who do what they do because they adhere to a personal standard of conduct, one apart of yet independent of society's.

I have always wondered, if humanity is evil inherently, then how do individuals surpass their societal constructs (like inter-racial marriage) and other generational taboos. My answer is simple.

Each person's nature is related to, but independent, of the human commonality. A person is good or evil based upon his mind, his personality, and his actions. Not based upon his father's mother's, or his society's.

Something deep inside us yearns for the Good, others fall to the Dark Side. The majority of the human race, is indeed as the poster noted. The majority of humans do what they are rewarded for and avoid doing what they would be punished for.

There is good and evil in all of us. You don't have to believe that humanity is inherently evil to also believe that how a person is brought up influences their decisions.

But that should not blind us to the fact that an inner strength exists in some, if not all, people and whether that strength becomes manifest is the question in the end.

Anne did not get a chance to show the world what would have became of her spirit and wit. Would she have favored Peace Through Superior Firepower as I do? Would she have been a conscientious objector? A supporter of Israel? If she had come to America, what would have became of her, I ask myself. I, and others like me, will never know.

Because Anne did not have the power to survive, and without that power, GOod and Evil is a meaningless consideration.

A man that has to protect his family, is not worried about Good or Evil, because if it means doing what is considered evil to protect his family, he will do it. In that manner, genetics still rule our will.

To Bookworm,

I liked how you tied in Western value systems into the Anne Frank subject. I myself have analyzed some of the trends, and came to a few conclusions.

Much of European society came from the Feudal System, which was a effective system to take over the power vacuum left by the Roman Empire. These men and women had to protect their people, given Rome's powerlessness to do it for them. And the barbarians WERE at the gates, as well as plague and all manner of apocalypses.

I tend to believe that mass depopulation and high infant mortality rates due to the loss of Roman technology, produced a society that valued, cherished, and sought to protect women over men. In the greater genetic sense, that makes sense, since 90% of the men can die off and the women can still continue the blood line. Realistically, this produced a lot of usurpations and chaos. But it still didn't change the fact that men were just more EXPENDABLE than women in those days. A society can survive with only 10% of the men due to wars, but it cannot survive with 10% of the women. Birth rates go to zero and the barbarians come through the doors outbreeding you in motion.

That's actually what sort of happened to Briton after 500 A.D. Saxon barbarian invasions. And it is happening even now in Europe.

Is it so surprising to realize that a society that values their women over the men, would produce effiminate males, high crime (Britain) and low birth rates? Not to me it isn't. Technology means we can now harness the 50% part of the human race, the female population, to power our military. Old habits die hard, and they should, simply because old habits are OLD for a reason.

Not everything new is better.

In today's world, chauvinism is described in all its vices but never its virtues. It was the males that inherited, because in the old Feudal system it was the males that fought to protect their honor, family, and people. A lot of power, but also a lot of responsibility and sacrifices.

Feudalism didn't encounter problems until well after the 12th century, when the knights and barons got RICH as all hell and corruption occured. Sort of like the SouthWest border of America compared to Los Angeles and New York.

This goes back even to the Greeks. Since I will defend the Western-Judeo-Roman-Greek Culture.

The Greeks basically settled their wars with hoplite clashes. No, burning the city. Although that did happen. Usually just a clash, and whoever shows their tail and runs (thereby showing their lack of courage and henceforth lack of will and right to victory) surrenders and everything is all right.

This Western culture of surrender with honor, of limited warfare, of gentleman's "agreements" started to fray during the Peloponessian War, written about by victor davis Hanson. But even in Cromwell's age, limited warfare with set rules still held sway.

The Islamics and the Mongols and the Persians, all descended from steppe tribes and other barbarians, do not have this cultural background. They believe victory gives them the right to impose whatever conditions they want on the loser. They see America's refusal to do so, as a sign of weakness. A misperception that will kill more Muslims than Americans in the end.

In some senses, it is Persia vs Sparta all over again. Except we're Persia and Iran is Sparta. Except Iran is also Persia and Sparta is also the United States Marine Corps.

Persia didn't win even when they outnumbered the Spartans and Thebans at the Gates of Fire. Unlikely that they will win now when they were outnumbered.

The reason was simple. Spartans prided themselves not on INDIVIDUAL SKILL, but on teamwork and group discipline. Your honor and your duty came about by standing in the rank and file, never flinching, and doing your job to plow through the enemy regardless of the consequences. This is why the armor of a Hoplite was 3 months wages, this was why heavy armor was near 100 pounds in all. And also why the average American infantryman Combat Loadout is also near 100 pounds.

We value our soldiers. But we value our families and people more, enough to risk those soldiers, yet not wasting their lives and sacrifice.

Persia on the other hand (Battle of Thermopylae) had no armor, sucky weapons, and were all cavalry. Cavalry without armor, is light cavalry, and it doesn't do dick against a phalanx full of spears.

Persia prided themselves on their horsemanship, archery, and individual combat skill. Like a barbarian.

Why does that sound familiar when looking at the Mid East?

The terroists with their cutting knives and terror camps, they are great individual fighters, full of fanaticism and endurance, but as a team they are nothing but cannon fodder for the US military. Many civilians see them as a throw back to the Dark Ages, but it wasn't our Dark Age they are trying to throw us back to, but theirs.

This fight between West and East has been going on for thousands of years. No reason why it has to stop now.

Talking about the Crusades doesn't go NEARLY far enough back in time.

The funny thing was during the Crusades, the Templar were a bunch of freaking fanatics that used brute strength to cut through a man with cold iron while the Muslims had Damascene WATER STEEL for God's sake.

Good thing we wiped the Templars out, cause their "No Hostage policy" might have looked courageous, but it definitely was not Western.

And one last thing. The Muslims loved taking hostages and so did the West, cause it was free money. Somehow the West gave it up while the Muslims kept at it. Weird. Wonder why we don't return the favor.