there's so many conversations that can come from realizing that human beings aren't great. it immediately calls out so many flaws. it's like 'why are people racist?', 'why are people xenophobic?', 'why do we people intrinsically trust systems that place them at odds with each other?', 'why do people seem to lack empathy for other species, despite their tendency towards pets?'
people even have the nature of thinking we are the last step in the evolutionary ladder. that' logic' simply wouldn't exist if it weren't for human beings.
if you accept this, then you must accept the ego is an invention of the human being. the idea or concept of a 'you' in itself is a fucking creation.
and so i come back to the point, if you have to subscribe to the point that human beings are 'the most amazing things in the universe' then i say fuck you. you as the 'individual' specifically.
i don't think you've really poked any kind of holes in the actual argument, being that humans are shit, based on a the moral criteria that can be derived from the questions listed.
You're saying a lot more than "humans are shit". I can tell because there's a lot more than three words in your posts. If you don't even know what you're saying, maybe take a beat.
Your argument wasn't just that humans are shit. It's that humans are wrong for thinking they're superior than other species. Which means you think humans aren't superior than other species. Which means you can't think that humans are superior at being evil. Because if we're all just animals, and no better than them, then you're inventing an ego and a moral system just like the people you're criticizing. It's also not a leftist argument to make, as others have pointed out and you can't seem to address. My argument isn't that humans are great or that you shouldn't be be angry, it's just that you want to believe humans are unnaturally evil while using naturalistic assumptions/premises about evolution and other things.
it means that 'superior' shouldn't be judged by a kill count. lots of animals don't kill indiscriminately. are you arguing that they do?
the entire argument is that the idea that 'humans are superior' take leads to a lot of shitty policies. the argument is that morality isn't an invention, and that those who think that it is think that humans fucking invented it, and if they did don't even abide by 'their own' fucking system.
Bro I'm not actually arguing that superiority should be judged by a kill count. That's not my personal belief. However, my personal belief doesn't change the definition of a word or the way its used. The word means what it means. Superior evil is superiority. Superiority doesn't just mean being nice. I'm not sure why that's hard for you to understand.
Now, here's what I personally believe, morality is definitely an invention. I'm not even sure how you're here and think that. Are you religious? Are you one of those Sam Harris "moral landscape" people? This is a whole 'nother discussion that wasn't apparent in your original post. It's also an example of what I meant when I said you're saying a lot more than "humans are shit." To use a shitty phrase, there's a lot to unpack here.
Stop watching videos of people getting beat up, or animals being killed, or whatever it is you've overconsumed that got you angry enough to make this thread. Understand there's a difference between what you see online and the real world. You have to love your fellow human and all their flaws if you want the leftist project to succeed. I'm not saying you can never be violent or dislike capitalists. But you have to recognize that people as a whole are salvageable and can fit into your ideal communist world.
Everyone makes judgements. You've already done it many times in this thread. Everyone makes a system of morality. Again, something you're doing right now when you say that killing a lot of shit isn't the goal. You can't escape that ever. Having judgment isn't the issue. Thinking things are superior isn't the issue. I would certainly hope you think being a good person is superior to being a bad person. It's all about how you form those judgments and what your criteria are. I think you're trying to understand that, but just don't have the dialectics for it yet. And I think you're committing the same fallacy as those you criticize by assuming your criteria are or should be more universal than they are.