We went to the Moon.
Acts of creation are usually good in my book. Acts of destruction are evil - or at least bad - on the other hand.
In the cases where destruction is necessary in order to create something, it needs to be considered whether the creation outweighs the destruction and whether the creation is done for benign purposes.
One should also think about whether the good things (more like fixing things we broke) done by humans was by the will and effort of the majority or the minority… I’d wager the actual percentage of people who’ve done good for the world is about the same as the percentage of people who’ve made the huge technological advances - a handfull.
I’ve never directly done anything to save the rainforests, help endangered species, devellop fuel-efficient vehicles, set up nature preserves, or invent/add to the Claus process to remove sulpher from crude oil so it doesn’t spill into the atmosphere… and neither have 90+% of people reading this.
It seems that a very tiney proprtion of our species is responsible for the majority of the things we’ve done (good and bad), and that most of us are just along for the ride and follow like sheep; though we still take credit for humanity’s good deeds and deny the bad ones.
That said I can’t think of any actions we’ve taken that have made the world better than before we were around. Imagine the world if humans never existed… it wouldn’t be any worse off and would probably be better.
Man invented pie
Pie good
When come back bring pie
Art: music, painting, drama, literature . . .
Medicine: saved lots of lives, human and otherwise; diminished lots of pain, human and otherwise
Science and technology: progressing toward a point at which we might be able to detect and prevent a ‘large scale event’ (i.e., comet, big meteor, etc.) from wiping out all life on Earth
Love: this invention, possibly experienced by no other species on Earth, justifies our existence
Some of us have the conscience to say, “stop it”. Most do not. Were the case otherwise, we wouldn’t need nature preserves or laws to protect endangered species.
That’s rather the point, isn’t it? Humans, as a species have not done “good”. Some humans, as individuals, have.
Show me where I said anything about humans being evil.
Ok, I am imagining it… It’d be a boring, yet dangerous place.
I Concur, and in my opinion: Case Closed.
No, actually I have not. Will look into it, though.
Darwin’s, of course. But you do realize there are other posters trying to “prove” that “as a species” we are either a plague or next to angels. We can only define “good” by OUR OWN value scales. Even Pablito’s final metaphysical answer may challenged by someone who will claim either there’s nothing special about it or it’s not objectively observable, or it’s not a deed of “the species”.
invented medicine
Not music. Music uses resources that could be used by something else. Plus you’ve got to destroy a lot of stuff to make music with instruments. Your definition of “good” is way too strict. Basically you’re asking what are the Pareto optimal moves made by humanity and asking to include plants and animals and a lot of stuff they depend on. If I pick up a rock to beat on another rock for music, then the first rock is no longer a nice little shelter for some sort of bug.
Not all music requires instruments or resources that could be used by something else, unless you consider the oxygen required to whistle or sing. But if that is the case, then are all vocal creatures to be considered wasteful of O2?
But getting back to my definition of “good”…my bias was pretty much exposed later in the thread:
I had to struggle to define music as good in such a context. At best I consider it a benign experience to the world as a whole. (assuming only the use of breath and anatomical structures used to vocalize).
My personal internal conflict about such issues is this:
As a species I think that we have done, and are doing, more than our fair share of destruction. Destruction has its place in nature, but I think there is more than enough evidence coming out of virtually every branch of science to suggest that the current rate of destruction will result in an environment that no longer includes many, many species, including Humans, that have been surviving and adapting on this planet for as long as life has lived. The legacy of humanity will be the evidence of our having been.
I think that is what will happen if the status quo remains.
As an indivudual, I think that this would be “bad”, and I think that myself and others have the ability and opportunity to walk away from the status quo. Perhaps the hardest part of walking away, for me, is trying to do so, as an individual, despite the fact that there are many who see no problem with the status quo.
And honeydewgrrl’s conundrum still can be the case even if there WERE things that can be pointed to as an absolute “good” done by species.
If any entity is a moral actor, “bad” deeds can outweigh “good” ones, or v.v., w/o denying either’s reality.