Humans. So different than others around us. But why?
This question, throughout our entire existence, still remains one of the biggest mysteries. But unlike the questions we face during an ill-prepared for, exam the problem isn't the lack of solutions or explanations, it's the abundance of it.
Of all the theories that are subjected to this particular question the most famous are the two called forth by reliable modern science and not so reliable ancient religions. According to the former, humans evolved from a lesser intelligent species which evolved from a lesser intelligent species which in turn evolved from a lesser intelligent species and so on. According to them we, humans, and everything around us evolved from something else. Over the year's species grow, adapt, evolve and from more complex being than others. Today the human body contains six hundred skeletal muscles, two hundred six bones, around twelve pints of blood, five major organs and trillions of cells. But, according to the above theory, there was a time when all there was, was a single cell. Pretty astonishing isn't it, how a single-celled organism can become something like a human body that exists today. Of course, this theory, like every other theory has its fair share of flaws. But even with its flaws its one of the most accepted solutions to our questions. The other theory that gives the above-mentioned theory any run for its money comes from religion. According to ancient unreliable religious scripture or scriptures (from the Latin Scriptura, meaning "writing"), there is one or more than one (depending upon the religion) supreme being having infinite wisdom and power. This being one day decided to create a world and fill it with plants, animals, humans, etc and this is how we came to exist. This god created humans in his own image and gave them something called wisdom which he did not share with the other animals or plants that he created. This theory when compared to the theory of evolution is fragile and has a much greater number of flaws. But even then, it is widely accepted among humans. In fact, before modern since became as popular as it is today more than ninety percent of the world's population trusted blindly on the ancient theory and didn't even consider the theory of evolution. The ratio of educated people to the uneducated people is the largest today. As of right now, forty-three percent of the total world's population is approximated to be educated. But even with this ratio, the religious theory is still very strong. This is because no matter what school we send our children or what our own level of literacy is, we always teach our offspring to pray to preach and to follow the religion which our own parents passed on us.
So, what is the difference between humans and others? Having superior intellect than all other organisms is one of them, but let's ignore it for the sake of this content.
Conscience. The ability to make the right choice. Moral values etc. I am referring to a person's caliber to differentiate between right and wrong, good and bad. Imagine, what will be your answer if someone comes to you and asks whether you are a good or a bad person. What will be your instinct reaction and what will be your final answer? For a child, he or she will simply say good as to him or her saying good means getting a bar of chocolate or a treat. But an adult, he will consider many variables starting from who is the person asking the question to what he did five minutes before the current conversation. But before answering the question one must have a clear and exact idea about what is good and what is bad. Conventionally the ultimate judge of good and bad is the conscience of a mentally healthy person. If whatever task you did leaves you with a clear conscience then what you did was good and if at the end of the task it is corrupted then the odds might not be in your favor.
For a better understanding let's consider an example playing out in different realities. Suppose you are traveling from one point to another and saw a big muscular man about to stab a young woman. You don't have enough time to reach her, so what you do is throw a stone at the knife that the man is holding. The stone strikes the man's head and knocks him off. In our first reality, you see that the woman runs away as a couple of policemen approach the unconscious man. You continue on your journey with a clear conscience. You might even feel a little bit proud and why wouldn't you, you just saved a young woman from a terrible fate. At this point, you are a great person and an upstanding citizen. In our second reality, you approach the man lying on the ground. When you reach the point of the incident you find out that the man has died. You feel a little bit uncomfortable as you didn't intend to kill the person. In spite of the police telling you that what you did was right, your family and neighbors telling you that what you did was brave and the woman's family repeatedly thanking you your conscience is not very much clear. Right now, you consider yourself good but not great. In the third reality, you dig deep and find out that the woman you saved robbed the man you killed. You start telling your conscience that all that the woman did was a little bit of theft. It is not until the fourth reality that you start to panic. In this reality, the woman not only robbed the man but also killed his wife and infant daughter. You just killed an innocent grieving man to save a cold-blooded murderer. You console yourself by saying that even if the woman killed his family it doesn't give him the right to take justice in his own hand and kill the culprit. In the fifth reality, you find that the man was recording the incident in a hidden camera. Just like you he did not intend to kill but to scare the woman to admit to her actions. At this point, you start hating yourself. In the sixth reality, you come across the two-year-old boy whom you just made an orphan.
So, what do you consider yourself now? Good or bad. Compare your answer at the end of the first reality to the last. All the actions you committed were over in the first reality. The only difference between the first and the sixth reality is the amount of information you have about the people involved. The more pieces of information you gain the more degraded you feel. People believe that if you do good while your time on earth you receive heaven and bad chores lead you to hell. Does it mean that if you died in the first reality you would go to heaven and death in sixth reality will lead you to eternal damnation? How does it work? Is there someone who keeps a record of all the deeds and misdeeds of all the peoples on this planet or an individual's personal image plays a major role in deciding the afterlife.
Personally, I think the idea of good people and bad people very absurd. There are no good or bad people, goodness or badness are two properties that both reside in all humans. I prefer this way as it relates to science which in turn I can relate to. Anyone with a basic knowledge of chemistry knows what an acid and a base are. But the thing is no chemical can be called a pure acid, each and every chemical has an acidic and an alkaline property. In some, the acidic property is more whereas others are more alkaline in nature. Everyone with an elementary knowledge of physics knows the difference between a conductor and an insulator. But the fact is conductivity and resistivity are two properties that exist in all elements. Even the most conductive element offers some resistance, the value of said resistance might be very minute but it is always there. Goodness and badness are just like an electric dipole or two poles of a magnet. One cannot exist without the other. In some people, the amount of goodness is more than the badness where in some the bad triumphs.
Talking of evil, what is the act of evil. What activities can be so bad that it can damn you to hell or render your conscience so bad that you can never recover from it? The most heinous task of all. Certainly, it must be the act of murder. To kill someone. To separate one's soul permanently from the body. To divide the two realms of existence. But the question here is, does it always apply. Does the same rule apply for all conditions or the rules are inconsistent and changes with every scenario? For a demonstration consider a man who kills for his country. He kills to protect his nation and the people living peacefully in it. But the enemy soldier he kills is also a husband, a father and a son. He too is fighting for his nation. Now inside that nation, consider a man who kills his fellow man because of love. He kills him because he loves the dead man's wife and wants to claim her. He knows that the dead man abused his wife physically and this was the only way to keep her safe. Now consider another man who kills his fellow man on the order of his master, in exchange he does not ask for money, he asks his master to free his family whom the master threatens to torcher. Which among the three killings are righteous? Are any of them righteous? All of us are entitled to our own opinions. But it is not us who will decide their future it will be done by a judge or a jury. But what makes them suitable for the job. I am not questioning their qualifications or authority. I am just asking what makes them choose between the two options. Afterall their one choice decides the fate of a human.
How do we decide whose life is worth saving and whose is not? Consider a policeman with a gun standing at a particular place when he sees that a big dog is trying to attack another human. He, no doubt, will quickly shoot the dog and kill him. The incidents prior to this event will not affect the decision of the policeman. The man might be trying to hurt the dog's family, the dog might not want to actually kill the man but simply trying to scare him away from its puppies. Now let the dog and the man switch places. The man is hitting the dog repeatedly with a cane. Will, the police shoot the man, will it even give a shit about what's happening in front of him or will the man beat the dog to death? Of course, I am not questioning the judgment of the policeman. We all know that the value of human life is more than any random animal. It must be a rule engraved somewhere. Replace the dog with any animal the results will be the same. Who decides these rules? Who decided that the value of human life is above all? For sure it must be set forward by a fellow human. After all, we are the only creatures who are intelligent enough to make rules. But isn't it biased? What about a rule that applies to all living things at an equal level? Is there any such rule? If yes then what are they and who made those rules? Who is capable of making rules other than humans? The answer is really very simple. It is nature. There are rules in nature that apply to all who live in it. In the case of a disaster such as a flood, all living things who belong to the land will drown and die. Here the rules made by humans fall of no use. The man, the dog, and even the policeman will drown and die. Nature treats all of us equally with no exceptions.
When such disaster strikes, man forgets his intellect and starts praying to his respective god. The truth is that the basis of all religion is either fear or greed. It might not sound good but it is the truth. We all pray to either gain something or to save something. Man prays to God and asks for material things. He asks for knowledge. He asks for forgiveness. He asks for love. He asks for courage and bravery. Or he asks God to keep him safe. He asks him to keep his family safe. He asks him to take care of his loved ones. When was the last time you prayed to god with no strings attached? When you prayed and did not ask for anything in return. When you prayed just because you wanted to.
In the end, it does not matter why we are different or how we are different. All that matters is the big picture as the truth is all humans, every one of us is a lying, selfish, self-centered person trying to become a better version of us and do some good in the world until we do something bad.