reply to post by Perplexity
I should clarify that I am saying that the individual is ultimately responsible for their actions. They choose to pull the trigger. Its an act of
personal will. Even if they give in to an unconscious drive, they are still choosing to give in.
In regards to instinct, my point is that humans are instinctively violent, aggressive, hierarchical and territorial. This is a trait that can be found
in all Hominids. You should have the same instincts as well, as all humans do.
If this is so then why do I not believe what they did was right?
This is because you have values. There are things you value whether it be life or liberty that conflicts with the actions of tyrants. If you value
these things because you don't want to be violated, this basically makes you civil. You probably favor a civil society that has values, a social
contract, that protects its citizens from other humans.
This is what makes you different, especially if you believe the values to be inalienable.
Not everyone is like that though. Sociopaths have no values, but may maintain an appearance of values for Machiavellian reasons. They do whatever it
takes at any cost to climb the ladder, get to the top of the food chain and become an alpha member.
The mind of such a person might seem almost alien to you.
Historically this can change due to environmental factors. Studies indicate that if your fulfilment of the hierarchy of needs is at the bottom, as in
a famine, you will lose all values and dignity. Examples of this can be seen in Soviet gulags and Nazi concentration camps. Here humans become
apathetic and lose all interest in values.
Another historical indicator of change due to environmental factors can result when your higher needs are suddenly being met and just as suddenly
those needs are not met. Examples of this can be found in every violent political revolution from the American to the Iranian. In these scenarios
humans violently overreact to a sudden loss of fulfilment that they had just gained.
Both of these seem to indicate some unconscious survival mechanism that kicks in.
Chronic trauma can also change a person's values and create a relationship where the abused identifies with the abuser and develops affection for the
abuser. Examples of this can be seen in the Soviet Union under Stalin and even abusive domestic relationships between mated humans.
What does all of this mean in reference to the thread? That religions and ideologies become tools and means. They can be corrupted and abused. The
source of this corruption and abuse isn't the idea itself, but the humans who choose to corrupt and abuse it. An idea can be just a dangerous as a
gun, but in the end a human still has to pull the trigger.