War. What is it good for?

[drillkicker]

I agree to a point, but you must have expected a reaction, surely? It's difficult to make a case for war being a good thing, for people to not care about people they haven't met, etc without getting a strong reaction. At one point you seemed to question why murder is considered wrong, again, that seems provocative for it's own sake, even if your intentions were honourable, which I believe they are, if perhaps misguided in my view.

I don't agree with almost all of what you say on alot of topics, and I've been guilty of a reactionary response to you n the past, for which I apologise. These are your own views, which you clearly put much thought into, so fair enough.

I think what sometimes rattles cages is you offer up your opinions as gospel truth, at times you can appear dismissive of others to the point of bluntness and then seem incredibly touchy when you get picked up for it. That seems especially odd given you stated you don't care about or empathise with people you haven't met. Why so offended or insulted then?

I'm sure you'll explain why my post is stupid, wrong, or both, but at the risk of playing the passive aggressive card I really hope you read this in the spirit it's intended. You're an interesting chap and you have certainly livened the place up for sure. Thank you for that, sincerely. Just please do try and be mindful of your tone sometimes perhaps? Just a suggestion

I appreciate your understanding and don't believe you to be either wrong or stupid, but I feel I should clarify myself : I'm not offended by disagreements, I'm offended because people jump to conclusions and accuse me of making claims I never made. For example, you just mentioned that I was arguing about war being a good thing. That isn't a point that I've ever tried to make. If I've questioned whether murder is considered wrong, it's because I don't believe it is. Murder is literally something that has to happen in order for life to exist, and there is no exception to that. It confuses me that people believe death is something that should cease to exist when that obviously isn't possible. Humanity is the only species that actively bothers itself with the goal of reducing death and pain and it seems to me that trying to put an end to either of those is futile and unproductive.

It's a good petri dish for the basis of the argument, really. If people removed from you don't matter - REALLY don't matter - then nothing you or I say would be important enough to be moved by. And while that's not, in my opinion, a particularly laudable way to live one's life, it is at least an internally consistent ethos.

The difference between the two situations is that one affects you directly by challenging your personally held opinions, and the other requires you to put yourself in the position of the people directly affected in order to imagine their pain and be affected yourself. As man is at heart, (even in these increasingly isolated modern times), a social animal, that is an evolved-in trait that comes naturally to the vast majority of the population, without any conscious decision to participate in the process. Like I said: a lack of empathy.

I'm very much a live and let live person when it comes to differences of opinion but I don't think it's healthy to encourage that lack of empathy as a healthy way of operating. As a random floating avatar on the internet, and wielding all the power and authority that confers, I would advise anyone who finds themselves in that non-empathetic frame of mind to challenge themselves on it. We live in a world where undeniably awful stuff is going on, has gone on forever, and shows no sign of stopping. War is just one of those things. Contention of resources, in and between nations is another. Of all the traits that might help us survive that, empathy is, to my mind, a pretty fucking useful one to have.

I think you misunderstood my argument. I do believe that nobody's opinion matters for anything, including my own (which is why I usually keep my opinions to myself), but I don't see how that would cause me to dismiss your opinion entirely. While I may frequently err in presenting it, I find the thoughts of others to be interesting and enjoy hearing or reading them, but I won't be persuaded by anything that doesn't have a clear and consistent logic.

Anyway, I don't quite understand your reasoning for empathy. I agree with you that the world is filled with suffering and that it will always be that way, but wouldn't that be a reason not to be empathetic ? There's nothing that can be done to reduce the amount of suffering that exists, so there's no use getting stressed about it. In an unforgiving existence such as this one, I don't believe that you can afford to care about anyone more than you care about yourself. And, as a strict determinist, I oppose the idea that suffering is in any way an objectively negative concept. It is simply the opposite of pleasure, and as pleasure exists in abundance, there must be an equal quantity of pain to balance it. The only method I see of eliminating one is to eliminate the other, which means either total numbness or total extinction of all life.

wow you just can't get out of your own head.

i insulted you because you back handedly took a jab at me on the Trump thread for NO reason AT ALL. then went on to say absolutely ludicrous things about war without actually THINKING about what you are saying and what it implies.
add to that the wealth or thoughtless and negatively provocative posts from you....trying to get a rise out of people. just plain STUPID stuff....put me over, i can't handle people that are thoughtless, and have NO regard for others and live in their own little world, trapped inside their own heads.

you STILL refuse to understand what you said. that, to me is deeply concerning. i am THANKFUL to not know you....and will never get to meet you.

Well I apologize if I offended you in your thread, but I'm just tired of people bringing up Donald Trump literally everywhere that a discussion happens, and it irritates me increasingly every time it happens. Nobody has anything original to say about him so there's no point in discussing him when there are plenty of topics that would make for more interesting conversation. But I assure you that I don't say anything without thinking about it first, and, while I am guilty of trying to get a reaction from others for my own amusement, that definitely has not been the case in this thread. I have not made any points that I don't honestly believe to be valid conclusions, and it's unfortunate if my posts have failed to clearly explain my reasoning for them.

[Mexicola]

Thanks for the reply.

Can you explain why you feel murder has to happen for life to exist? Death yes, that much is clear, but murder? I'm struggling with that one. I've not looked up murder rates but surely the answer to overpopulation isn't the annual deathtoll from murder, even if you include wars and conflicts??

Also, humanity as the only species that tries to reduce death and pain? Where is your evidence for this? While I'll grant you we do go to some extraordinary lengths at times, don't animals protect one another at times? Some also feel empathy and sorrow. I know you didn't make that last point, but I feel it's worth considering. Besides, even if you're right about other species being more ambivalent towards death and pain, does it follow we have to act in a similar way?

I wonder what a world would look like where murder was accepted as ok. There are parts of the world where 'life is cheap' and many of the people there often seem quite keen to leave.

Anyway, thanks again for the considered reply, I appreciate it.

[fujee]

Conflating death and murder as biological necessities is where your point gets confused. Yes. the prior is a biological requirement, but the latter is an action from a reasoned being. Murder exists as a separate point of contention because humans have developed the insight to distinguish the two entirely. To suggest that murder is just another way of death manifesting itself as a necessity is to presuppose we are some sort of debased creature which is incapable of separating two very different things.

[Spenner]

Homicide is generally a side effect of a broken system in some way, or flawed to the point that it causes peaks of aggression in a society. Definitely not saying I know the whole well rounded solution to this, but that observation seems true for almost every case I can think of. If a society is willing to be flexible and really look at the problems at hand, and which will be passed onto the next hands, we're completely capable of a humane solution, aside from extremists that are not so flexible. There will always be a handful of poisoning aspects to a society that have to be mitigated by people being aware that such things are toxic. The more people are aware of reality and not lost in their own little world of emotional logic, the more constructive the people can be. Not saying emotional reasoning has to be an extinct thing, but decisions rooted in rational solution building have to trump situations where a person is holding back from change due to their first and strongest reaction emotionally.

Just my own observation... but then again this just comes down to whether the human race is actually capable of helping itself thrive or not. I think it is, just not right now while things are so misguiding and chaotic. Looking through history, we've made big advancements again and again despite the reluctance of those resisting any kind of movement (especially regarding medicine/science in general).

[drillkicker]

Thanks for the reply.

Can you explain why you feel murder has to happen for life to exist? Death yes, that much is clear, but murder? I'm struggling with that one. I've not looked up murder rates but surely the answer to overpopulation isn't the annual deathtoll from murder, even if you include wars and conflicts??

Also, humanity as the only species that tries to reduce death and pain? Where is your evidence for this? While I'll grant you we do go to some extraordinary lengths at times, don't animals protect one another at times? Some also feel empathy and sorrow. I know you didn't make that last point, but I feel it's worth considering. Besides, even if you're right about other species being more ambivalent towards death and pain, does it follow we have to act in a similar way?

I wonder what a world would look like where murder was accepted as ok. There are parts of the world where 'life is cheap' and many of the people there often seem quite keen to leave.

Anyway, thanks again for the considered reply, I appreciate it.

The vast majority of heterotrophs are biologically required to kill other living things in order to survive, and if killing didn't exist then neither would life. Homicide is a form of killing that results from competition, which prevents overpopulation. Homicide doesn't necessarily provide food for the killer, but it does always provide food to large quantities of decomposers and sometimes scavengers. It's true that humanity isn't the only animal to feel empathy, but it is alone in feeling empathy for complete strangers. We don't have to be indifferent toward people we haven't met, but that is the option that makes the most sense and reduces unnecessary amounts of stress.

Conflating death and murder as biological necessities is where your point gets confused. Yes. the prior is a biological requirement, but the latter is an action from a reasoned being. Murder exists as a separate point of contention because humans have developed the insight to distinguish the two entirely. To suggest that murder is just another way of death manifesting itself as a necessity is to presuppose we are some sort of debased creature which is incapable of separating two very different things.

I don't understand what you're trying to argue. That murder is bad because it's something that has a name ? Grocery shopping is something that humans are capable of distinguishing, so I suppose it must be immoral.

Homicide is generally a side effect of a broken system in some way, or flawed to the point that it causes peaks of aggression in a society.

Then why does homicide predate society ?

[IanRedpoint]

Anyway, I don't quite understand your reasoning for empathy. I agree with you that the world is filled with suffering and that it will always be that way, but wouldn't that be a reason not to be empathetic ? There's nothing that can be done to reduce the amount of suffering that exists, so there's no use getting stressed about it.

Of course you will never eliminate suffering... but I, and by extension most humans, can make a conscious decision to cause or not cause suffering in others. I choose to not act like a cunt to a colleague. I choose to not kick that defenceless animal. A drop in the ocean, certainly, but to insist that suffering is absolute and beyond influence is wrong. It's also a cheap abdication of responsibility to behave in a decent way to your fellow man.

[drillkicker]

Of course you will never eliminate suffering... but I, and by extension most humans, can make a conscious decision to cause or not cause suffering in others. I choose to not act like a cunt to a colleague. I choose to not kick that defenceless animal. A drop in the ocean, certainly, but to insist that suffering is absolute and beyond influence is wrong. It's also a cheap abdication of responsibility to behave in a decent way to your fellow man.

Why are you under the assumption that I deliberately cause suffering in others ? Really, I want you to clearly explain what gave you that impression, because I promise that no part of my argument implied that at any point. I'm suspicious that you haven't read any of my posts and decided to just take a guess at what my argument is.

[Mexicola]

Is the aim to discuss or just provoke Drillkicker? I'm beginning to have my doubts frankly.

[fujee]

I don't understand what you're trying to argue. That murder is bad because it's something that has a name ? Grocery shopping is something that humans are capable of distinguishing, so I suppose it must be immoral.

I never made the moral case, you're projecting that on to my point. My actual point was that you are conflating the act of murder and the natural biological process/necessity of death as the same thing, when they are not.

You said murder is something that

" ... has to happen for life to exist, and there is no exception to that."

But then immediately go on to say

It confuses me that people believe death is something that should cease to exist when that obviously isn't possible.

Are these two sentences connected? They appear to be. If so, this is my point:

There must be an exception because murder is, by definition, not the same thing as death. Death has to happen for life to exist, that much is clear. But murder does not have to happen. It unfortunately does, but it is not a natural regulator like you seem to be suggesting. Murder and death are very much distinguishable. This is demonstrated in the fact that the moral/immoral justification of murder has played a prominent role in philosophical and ethical debates for millennia. They are definitively not the same thing. If they were the historical discourse around murder would never have existed. Reason presupposes that we can understand something which happens irrespective of our control, and something which we very much have control over. There lies the difference.

Sorry if I have misunderstood your point. Maybe we all lack some comprehension with your position because you seem to suggest we constantly misunderstand you.

[IanRedpoint]

Of course you will never eliminate suffering... but I, and by extension most humans, can make a conscious decision to cause or not cause suffering in others. I choose to not act like a cunt to a colleague. I choose to not kick that defenceless animal. A drop in the ocean, certainly, but to insist that suffering is absolute and beyond influence is wrong. It's also a cheap abdication of responsibility to behave in a decent way to your fellow man.

Why are you under the assumption that I deliberately cause suffering in others ? Really, I want you to clearly explain what gave you that impression, because I promise that no part of my argument implied that at any point. I'm suspicious that you haven't read any of my posts and decided to just take a guess at what my argument is.

Re-read what I wrote, free of emotion, as a calm intellectual discussion.

You're implying something that I absolutely have not said. The single use of the word "you" in my post was in no way intended to mean specifically you, drillkicker. I could, and maybe should, have said "humanity" or "society" instead but I fear that would have triggered another argument about the redundancy of those two terms.

My argument was simply that, at a personal level, choice dictates the amount of suffering in the world. Therefore something can be done to reduce the amount of suffering that exists.

I've been scratching my head trying to think of the best term to loosely describe your view of things. A moral nihilist was the best I could do. Is that close?

[drillkicker]

Is the aim to discuss or just provoke Drillkicker? I'm beginning to have my doubts frankly.

My aim is to have a discussion with people who are willing to discuss my points, but that does not appear to be possible in this thread.

I don't understand what you're trying to argue. That murder is bad because it's something that has a name ? Grocery shopping is something that humans are capable of distinguishing, so I suppose it must be immoral.

I never made the moral case, you're projecting that on to my point. My actual point was that you are conflating the act of murder and the natural biological process/necessity of death as the same thing, when they are not.

You said murder is something that

" ... has to happen for life to exist, and there is no exception to that."

But then immediately go on to say

It confuses me that people believe death is something that should cease to exist when that obviously isn't possible.

Are these two sentences connected? They appear to be. If so, this is my point:

There must be an exception because murder is, by definition, not the same thing as death. Death has to happen for life to exist, that much is clear. But murder does not have to happen. It unfortunately does, but it is not a natural regulator like you seem to be suggesting. Murder and death are very much distinguishable. This is demonstrated in the fact that the moral/immoral justification of murder has played a prominent role in philosophical and ethical debates for millennia. They are definitively not the same thing. If they were the historical discourse around murder would never have existed. Reason presupposes that we can understand something which happens irrespective of our control, and something which we very much have control over. There lies the difference.

Sorry if I have misunderstood your point. Maybe we all lack some comprehension with your position because you seem to suggest we constantly misunderstand you.

Murder is necessary because it's an inherent part of human instinct. Humanity cannot exist without murder also existing, which is evidenced by the existence of homicide over the entire history of human interaction. Heterotrophic life cannot be sustained without the act of predation, of which killing is an integral part. If the first bacteria hadn't killed one another then multicellular life likely would not have developed. If Cro-Magnons hadn't violently effected the extinction of Neanderthals then Homo sapiens would not likely have become a globally dominant species. It is my opinion that homicide wouldn't be such a prevalent aspect of human behavior if it had no purpose. But I don't believe that the distinction between murder and death is a very important one, since death is inevitable.

Of course you will never eliminate suffering... but I, and by extension most humans, can make a conscious decision to cause or not cause suffering in others. I choose to not act like a cunt to a colleague. I choose to not kick that defenceless animal. A drop in the ocean, certainly, but to insist that suffering is absolute and beyond influence is wrong. It's also a cheap abdication of responsibility to behave in a decent way to your fellow man.

Why are you under the assumption that I deliberately cause suffering in others ? Really, I want you to clearly explain what gave you that impression, because I promise that no part of my argument implied that at any point. I'm suspicious that you haven't read any of my posts and decided to just take a guess at what my argument is.

Re-read what I wrote, free of emotion, as a calm intellectual discussion.

You're implying something that I absolutely have not said. The single use of the word "you" in my post was in no way intended to mean specifically you, drillkicker. I could, and maybe should, have said "humanity" or "society" instead but I fear that would have triggered another argument about the redundancy of those two terms.

My argument was simply that, at a personal level, choice dictates the amount of suffering in the world. Therefore something can be done to reduce the amount of suffering that exists.

I've been scratching my head trying to think of the best term to loosely describe your view of things. A moral nihilist was the best I could do. Is that close?

My point is that indifference to unfamiliar people is healthy. You attempted to refute that by arguing that choosing not to cause suffering is optimal. Your argument implies that indifference is analogous to active carnage, which is an illogical claim. Furthermore, your argument that choice dictates the amount of suffering that exists implies that all suffering that is experienced by a given organism is caused by the actions of external organisms, which is false : suffering can just as easily be the result of circumstances beyond anyone's control or internal processes within the organism, such as physical or mental illnesses, disabilities, defects, or deficiencies. It can even be argued that these forms of suffering are by far the most common ones, especially in antisocial species. Parasitism and predation also generally necessitate the suffering of the host or prey in order to sustain the parasite or predator.

In response to your label of my beliefs as moral nihilism, I feel a more accurate description would be pantheistic determinism.

[Spenner]

Homicide is generally a side effect of a broken system in some way, or flawed to the point that it causes peaks of aggression in a society.

Then why does homicide predate society ?

Simple, it's before we had the capacity to be optimal. We do now. Why does it predate society, -precisely-? Because we were far more instinct driven in the past. The further back you go the more animalistic we become, until you reach the point when we were just pure animals.

[drillkicker]

Homicide is generally a side effect of a broken system in some way, or flawed to the point that it causes peaks of aggression in a society.

Then why does homicide predate society ?

Simple, it's before we had the capacity to be optimal. We do now. Why does it predate society, -precisely-? Because we were far more instinct driven in the past. The further back you go the more animalistic we become, until you reach the point when we were just pure animals.

But we're still pure animals, instinct is just more convoluted and repressed now. That's why mental illnesses are so common.

[Spenner]

Fitting into societal norms for some can be like fitting a square peg in a round hole, and mental illness is all too often the byproduct of repression by learned negative behaviour and feedback loops of obsessively avoiding their natural behaviour. It develops bad mental habits just because one has been suggested a tendency of theirs need be changed.

Also I think you misunderstand what I mean by animals in this context... I simply mean our capacity to reflect on our actions more, to have foresight into the ripple effects of said actions, as being non animalistic tendencies. Purely instinct driven rationale is of course more animal. We are always going to be mammals by definition but that needn't be a reflection of our gamut of behaviour.

Mental illness is not simply the product of repressed feelings though, that ideology being firmly believed last century is starting to form wrinkles. It is complex and sometimes entirely genetic.

[Mexicola]

DK, surely emotional pain and empathy are also instinctive, certainly for most people?

Besides, what about other examples of people acting on instinct. Rape for example. Pedophilia? Can it not be said that sometimes acting purely on instinct, acting selfishly as I'd suggest most people understand it, has a negative impact so enormously detrimental that we seek to override base instincts?

[IanRedpoint]

My point is that indifference to unfamiliar people is healthy.

Yes. Whilst I don't agree with it, I can understand your point. You're far from the first person I have met with a similar belief.

You attempted to refute that by arguing that choosing not to cause suffering is optimal. Your argument implies that indifference is analogous to active carnage, which is an illogical claim.

The point I was refuting was that "there is nothing that can be done to reduce the amount of suffering that exists". I would have written a far different argument if I wished to tackle the subject of empathy or indifference. There are others on here who have already eloquently argued my own personal views on that subject.

Furthermore, your argument that choice dictates the amount of suffering that exists implies that all suffering that is experienced by a given organism is caused by the actions of external organisms, which is false : suffering can just as easily be the result of circumstances beyond anyone's control or internal processes within the organism, such as physical or mental illnesses, disabilities, defects, or deficiencies. It can even be argued that these forms of suffering are by far the most common ones, especially in antisocial species. Parasitism and predation also generally necessitate the suffering of the host or prey in order to sustain the parasite or predator.

Well, it certainly wasn't my intention to imply any such thing. It's unfortunate that you read it in that way. Of course a vast amount of suffering is a part of the natural world. Even when limiting the scope to human suffering, there is a great deal that cannot be avoided - illness and disability as you correctly observe. My argument was that the amount of human suffering that exists can be reduced but, obviously, never eliminated. This is because a significant proportion of it is caused by conscious choice. A crude example would be a bully choosing to not threaten or harm another individual, or for an individual to step in to protect another individual from being abused. Both acts would reduce the amount of suffering experienced by the bully's victim and the abused.

In response to your label of my beliefs as moral nihilism, I feel a more accurate description would be pantheistic determinism.

Thank you. Again, that would hold true for other people I know with similar beliefs.

[fujee]

This thread is getting interesting.

Drill, 2 questions:

Do you believe free will and moral accountability exists?

Do you feel all things that happen are determined as external to the will of the person?

[drillkicker]

Fitting into societal norms for some can be like fitting a square peg in a round hole, and mental illness is all too often the byproduct of repression by learned negative behaviour and feedback loops of obsessively avoiding their natural behaviour. It develops bad mental habits just because one has been suggested a tendency of theirs need be changed.

Also I think you misunderstand what I mean by animals in this context... I simply mean our capacity to reflect on our actions more, to have foresight into the ripple effects of said actions, as being non animalistic tendencies. Purely instinct driven rationale is of course more animal. We are always going to be mammals by definition but that needn't be a reflection of our gamut of behaviour.

Mental illness is not simply the product of repressed feelings though, that ideology being firmly believed last century is starting to form wrinkles. It is complex and sometimes entirely genetic.

Why is instinct a bad thing, though ? Is it not a proven and time-tested tool ? And is it not still just as dominant as it ever was considering the many actions humans continue to make without logical reasoning behind them ?

DK, surely emotional pain and empathy are also instinctive, certainly for most people?

Have I ever implied that they aren't ?

Besides, what about other examples of people acting on instinct. Rape for example. Pedophilia? Can it not be said that sometimes acting purely on instinct, acting selfishly as I'd suggest most people understand it, has a negative impact so enormously detrimental that we seek to override base instincts?

Yes, and our conceptions of these actions as negative ones are also instinctual. Why are you under the impression that human instinct is only selfish and evil ?

The point I was refuting was that "there is nothing that can be done to reduce the amount of suffering that exists". I would have written a far different argument if I wished to tackle the subject of empathy or indifference. There are others on here who have already eloquently argued my own personal views on that subject.

Furthermore, your argument that choice dictates the amount of suffering that exists implies that all suffering that is experienced by a given organism is caused by the actions of external organisms, which is false : suffering can just as easily be the result of circumstances beyond anyone's control or internal processes within the organism, such as physical or mental illnesses, disabilities, defects, or deficiencies. It can even be argued that these forms of suffering are by far the most common ones, especially in antisocial species. Parasitism and predation also generally necessitate the suffering of the host or prey in order to sustain the parasite or predator.

Well, it certainly wasn't my intention to imply any such thing. It's unfortunate that you read it in that way. Of course a vast amount of suffering is a part of the natural world. Even when limiting the scope to human suffering, there is a great deal that cannot be avoided - illness and disability as you correctly observe. My argument was that the amount of human suffering that exists can be reduced but, obviously, never eliminated. This is because a significant proportion of it is caused by conscious choice. A crude example would be a bully choosing to not threaten or harm another individual, or for an individual to step in to protect another individual from being abused. Both acts would reduce the amount of suffering experienced by the bully's victim and the abused.

But choosing not to cause suffering isn't reducing the amount of suffering that exists, it's only preventing new suffering from entering existence. I don't see how that makes a difference.

Do you believe free will and moral accountability exists?

That one is two questions. Free will does not exist. Moral accountability is something that exists in society but it has no meaning objectively because morality is objectively meaningless. Moral accountability doesn't have anything to do with free will, it's just a loose rule of nature that applies to humans and some other primates.

Do you feel all things that happen are determined as external to the will of the person?

I believe that what appears to be the person is only a tool to bring about certain effects and the will of the person is entirely quantifiable.

[Spenner]

The argument "instinct vs pre-thinked" is really not a viable one because it doesn't matter in the bigger sense. Human behaviour as a whole is the thing that deserves the analysis regardless of whether or not there is planning or impulsivity at the core of it-- context will determine whether a person who ordinarily makes methodical decisions chooses to act instinctual or not.

I'm predicting that if this thread were to go on for 50 more pages we'd be arguing about specific parts of our genetic code and how those influence us at a very fundamental level physically >_> not that I'm avoiding such a scenario, I'd love to talk about that, but not sitting in the context of a thread about war. It's getting a bit tangential because the original arguments left a lot of open holes.

Maybe we should have an official debate thread and be able to control the number of retorts we're allowed, because it really could go on for a long time. DK you are in fact dodging a lot of good points and cherry picking negligible aspects of post to use as an excuse to not fully retort, such as Mexicola's post about rape being instinct-- you did ask me why instinct is bad, and his post already made a good example for the kind of response you'd get, right after mine-- I'm not going to respond therefore. Then when you quoted his post you unfairly just imply that he thinks instinct is one sided-- surely not everyone is a rapist or pedophile dude, I think you just need to think a little longer about some of the responses you're getting before you yourself have a stab at it. I want you to have a better argument for these points.

[Mexicola]

Besides, what about other examples of people acting on instinct. Rape for example. Pedophilia? Can it not be said that sometimes acting purely on instinct, acting selfishly as I'd suggest most people understand it, has a negative impact so enormously detrimental that we seek to override base instincts?

Yes, and our conceptions of these actions as negative ones are also instinctual. Why are you under the impression that human instinct is only selfish and evil?

I'm not. See my point about empathy in the same post.