Is power the most important propogator of evil (in terms of western morals)? More importantly...

Is power the most important propogator of evil (in terms of western morals)? More importantly, is it desire that creates our innate yearning for power?

In the modern world are most of our desires fulfilled by the easy access and instantaneous gratification that television, porn and video games provide? I think yes, but I'd love for someone to refute me. I believe mankind is innately, even biologically, propelled to cooperate and coexist peacefully but throughout history the elites seem to be determined to prevent such an occurrence.

>This thread seems to smart for Veeky Forums
But I'll add my two cents because I'd like to see conversation that doesn't have personal attacks for once. I agree mostly along your terms I believe man is a social being and are wired to cooperate if faced with adversity. I'm not sure though about the "power/desire for power' question though

Perhaps not power in and of itself, as power is only a tool to be wielded. The desire and pursuit of personal power at the expense of others? That is absolutely a propagator of evil. But then again we're using a very loose definition of evil

too*

Well Computers Class still has never helped me with correctly typing then proofreading.

ignorance stem from ego and that is which holds back

But don't you always feel a desire for something more in life that's sometimes rendered numb by the easy access to instant stimulation? I guess it's sort of a redundant question but I feel like it's something we should examine and be aware of.

Just look at the pic I posted. It's the Christmas Truce, when soldiers on the western front put down their weapons and played football together. It's obvious that the only thing propelling them to climb the trenches was elites seeking supremacy over each other.

Well like I said, I was basing my questions on the western (christian) definition of evil, but at the end of the day, mostainstream religions share a lot of core principles (i.e. don't kill, steal or desire more than you deserve). But power is always at the expense of others, no matter which way you examine it. Communism operates at the expense of the rich, more gifted man and capitalism ruins the poor man.

>Is power the most important propogator of evil

That's painting with a pretty broad brush as it most certainly depends on the individual. Or you could turn it around and argue that evil instead seeks power, as research suggests that CEO's are four times more likely to be psychopaths.

>I believe mankind is innately, even biologically, propelled to cooperate and coexist peacefully
I partially disagree.

The human kind is a social animal. Humans can't survive on their own, so they form groups and hierarchies within those groups. Within those groups, people are for the most part cooperative.

However, these groups are well capable and willing to wage war with one another, for a variety of reasons. And this is by no means the doing of some shadowy cast of 'elites' driving people against their will. In primordial times - mostly the time of the first settlements, when people were nomads they would usually avoid each other rather than seek conflict, the groups were small and the distinction between the leaders and the followers wasn't nearly as pronounced as it is today, yet people were well willing to murder each other.

Well take Lenin as an example. You could label him a sociopath but the foundation of his beliefs were very altruistic. He was born into a well to do family (maybe noble?) became a communist in college because he believed that the inequalities present in imperial Russia were an injustice on the proletariat. But when he rose to power he was perfectly fine with executing loggers that didn't meet their quotas and purging political opponents because the most important thing in his existence became the continuation and success of his rule.

Sure you can call this cherry picking but I imagine you can find similarities in many dictators.

The most important propagator of evil is the desire to change things for the better. That is a common root of evil, benevolent intentions taken too far.

To the first question, I would answer yes I have planned to attain my private pilot's license but the desire is sated by flight simulators I have instant access to. To the statement I say that they were bonded to one another not because they were enemies at war dying for governments, but by their experiences they could correlate to one another. They realized they were the same being just on two opposite sides of a spectrum

I'd venture to say something changed when we advanced from tribalism to feudalism though. The rulers became separated from the ruled and the excesses they enjoyed took precedence over their beneficence.

I know where you're coming from, and the same characteristics could be seen in the Indian tribes in North America. They only killed when it was necessary and they never exterminated a rival tribe. But when they discovered the concept of total warfare from the Europeans that all changed. It's the evolution of our beliefs and civilizations that has caused power to become such a narcissistic concept in human nature.

>I'd venture to say something changed when we advanced from tribalism to feudalism though. The rulers became separated from the ruled and the excesses they enjoyed took precedence over their beneficence.
Feudal conflicts were in the end fought for the same reasons. The leaders may have been disconnected from their followers, but they too were interested in securing resources, expanding their territory, etc. - power is not so much gained out of lust for power but out of necessity to have the edge over competitors.

>They only killed when it was necessary and they never exterminated a rival tribe.
Again: it depends on how they lived. If they were still partially nomadic, then there was no difference to early European tribes who merely defended themselves but usually peacefully avoided each other with little direct contact. As soon as they settled down however, they took over a territory and ended up having to defend it against competitors. The first mass graves in history stem from the time period of the first settlements. These had to grow larger in order to better protect themselves, and the larger they grew the more organisation was necessary up to the point where we ended up within the modern states we know today.

They were all lower or middle class people that came to the realization that they had no quarrel with each other, ideologically or otherwise. There was no reason for them to fight and lose their lives to each other. WWI became a war to see which country paid the other's debts, and therefore who gained hegemony in the world.

At the end of the day it seems like our race is going to continue to fight and die until one ideology or culture takes supremacy over all the others. Islam is an excellent case in point.

That's what I meant in effect. Though I find the idea of a single ideology that all of mankind will adhere to without question impossible

So you'd say overpopulation and scarcity of resources are the cause of most conflicts?

I honestly can't think of a way to refute this argument. Maybe human nature necessitates a Machiavellian leader. Obviously there are genocidal wars in developing nations that create regime change, or continuity, by scapegoating but at the end of the day their aim is always to preserve one group over another.

Couldn't you say neoliberalism is an ideology most of the world adheres too, with the exception of North Korea?

Sorry should have probably gone into detail. While that is true we still have differences in opinion on certain issues within even our own local government. To find one ideology that completely sates everyone on topics like abortion, legalization of drugs, or firearm usage would I think be impossible.

Haha I mean there's a difference between a perfect society and a global ideology. We're always going to disagree on issues and Brave New World should be taken as nothing more than a work of fiction. But global capitalism is certainly an ideology and it's something that's dominated the world since the 19th century.

The ultimate aim of foreign policy is now the reduction of entropy (read: extermination of Islamists) and the consolidation of money.

I would say that global ideology is up to the interpretation that people take of it even capitalism between neighboring countries is different USA and Canada for example though they are branching differences they are enough to make a difference. Also this is probably the best discussion I've had on this subject and for certain on Veeky Forums

>So you'd say overpopulation and scarcity of resources are the cause of most conflicts?
Some places are more inhabitable than others and people are going to fight for those. Even under the assumption that other places are inhabitable as well: why would you accept the claim of others to possess a patch of land merely because they were lucky enough to arrive there first? Why would you accept others to live in wealth when you and your people are living in relative poverty compared to them? Taking their wealth and claiming their land is the reasonable choice.

Haha well thank you. Tbqh I'm kind of drunk but I like to wax philosophical when I drink wine.

Neoliberalism might just be the closest we get to a global ideology but the elimination of economic entropy seems to be the ultimate goal of it. Anyways I'm about to pass out but I really liked the points you've made. Have a good night.

To you as well

>Is power the most important propogator of evil (in terms of western morals)?
Its power/greed.

>I believe mankind is innately, even biologically, propelled to cooperate and coexist peacefully
and you are absolutely correct. This is readily apparent if you have any experience of eastern spirituality.

Humans, at their core, are not inherently egoistic, and therefore not evil.

>muh altruism
>muh good and evil

good and evil are spooks but labels have to be used, unless you can somehow telepathically communicate your point to the other person.

Its externalized power (control) or irresponsibility (greed, lust, materialism, etc)
That is the root of evil in power, power is not by nature evil, not even in Western Ideology.
Nietzsche would disagree, "but fuck him", he'd want you to say that.

Evil is not a force but a corruption, like a fire.
Fire is not a thing, its an affect, and it burns itself out one day, however it also has the power to consume all.

Dualism has never led to anything. The Good will win out in the end because it is the only side which contains actual truth and real substance.
Have faith.