What makes us human?

I think you're overestimating humans, and maybe misinterpreting human psychology in some ways. Most of us don't grasp the concepts of good and evil. When we do act evilly, we don't do so because the act is evil, or with the philosophical idea of evil foremost on our mind - usually we do it for our own gain, at someone else's expense, on the spur of the moment, and while attempting to convince ourselves that it's not such a bad thing to do after all. Any animal will act in its own best interests.

yes but that doesn't mean "retard" and "imbicile" aren't legitimately descriptive nouns - if I say "retard", what do you think of? a stupid person - exactly - or rather, an excessively stupid person; behond the mere bounds of general stupidity. so we're talking about the right ideas here - just because people throw around the word "retard" to just mean "stupid person" it doesn't make it inaccurate

But then we aren't talking about people being stupid right? It's more about people having a moral consciousness. Stupidity is a judgement I think, whereas having a moral conscious is based more on fact: good or bad, right or wrong.

I don't understand - are you saying the problem with the term "retard" is that it is "immoral"? how? I'm not trying to insult anyone, I'm just concerned with using the most descriptively appropriate terms

Nope, I'm not saying that you're being insulting, I'm just saying that the way you described a "retard" and "imbecile" as primarily to do with being excessively stupid has little to do with the point we are both trying to make (what makes us human).
Initially, you talked about all of us having a sense of rationality, but then we said that there are still 'humans' who don't have a sense of rationality, thus bringing us onto "retards" and "imbeciles". However, I think the point primarily lies on the fact that we all have a moral consciousness, no matter if you are a criminal or a "retard", you will still have one but it would be differently aligned🤔

Then again, I could just be talking nonsense and just waffling this whole time😂

if you're telling me that I shouldn't be using these kinds of (essentially accurate) terms because I might hurt peoples feelings, all you are doing is encouraging people to lack self-confidence - "retards" should be comfortable in their own bodies, but if you're saying they shouldn't (by labelling "retard" not as a description but a pure insult), then what kind of message is that?

Your argument only holds based on the premises that God exists, and since this has not been definitely proved either way it's a weak one to make. I'm not about to get into a big religious debate because I think we both know all of the arguments for and against God, but stating "because God says so" doesn't necessarily state why it is evil, even if it lets you identify what is evil. But yes, I dispute this anyway, as well as the idea that morality is objective.

I have two responses to your second paragraph. Firstly, just because other societies have punished murder as an evil act that doesn't provide proof that it is. It just suggests that these societies think it is, whereas if an act was truly evil then it would be so independently and with proof as to why. Take it as a case of everyone thinking that the earth is flat; it doesn't mean it is. Secondly, murder is damaging for societal cohesion, law and order, so it is only natural that a society punishes people for committing such an act. But just because an act is damaging, that doesn't make it objectively evil.

What I meant is that humans aren't unique with respects to having emotion, committing 'evil' acts seemingly for the sake of it, etc. Presumably any sufficiently advanced species would also be capable of the same activities, but we are the only species on this planet that is currently capable of doing so. We are unique only so far as no other advanced species evolves. This basically just puts us on a spectrum of intelligence. You have to remember, even a human won't just kill someone for the sake of it. There has to be a transaction, i.e. they must get something out of it. Be that wealth, revenge, protection or even just an emotional kick out of doing it, they're choosing to do so because they stand to gain something rather than choosing to do it because it's the 'evil thing to do'. And humans compete for resources all the time, they just take slightly different forms than that of animals (so money, oil, technology, even water in some parts of the world).

But evil isn't measurable, sure it's bad for the person who gets killed but the act of actually killing someone isn't truly, objectively evil. It's just a thing that happens, nothing is necessarily good or evil. There are things that are beneficial to our immediate circumstances and things that aren't, but nothing is good or evil. I'm not condoning murder btw lol, obviously I disagree with it for the reasons you've stated, but I'm disputing the idea that 'evil' can be tangibly measured or even is really a thing outside of personal perpectives.

No, I was saying that past societies thinking murder is evil is as invalid as saying past societies thought the earth is flat, therefore it is. The opinions of past societies are irrelevant to whether or not evil exists. And that's precisely what I'm saying - murder is considered to be "an act of great evil" due to the reasons you've stated, but that doesn't make it a real thing. Evil doesn't exist, there is only that which is beneficial and that which is damaging to any individual or society. Natural aversion is irrelevant because it just means witnessing a murder has a negative impact on us for whatever reason, so our bodies are damaged by it (such as developing PTSD).

Psychopaths get an emotional kick out of killing, some enjoy playing games with the police or their victims. They don't just think "I'm going to murder someone because it's evil", they think "I'm going to murder someone because I get an emotional kick from breaking the rules of society". And things such as charities, NHS etc are all things that help to build a stable and prosperous society. No one wants to pay a huge medical bill when they get hurt, so we pay taxes to sustain the NHS. People feel good about giving to charity, so they give to charity. You can try and dress it up as a moral duty, but if any given individual's personal circumstances were negatiely impacted in a meaningful way from giving to a charity then they simply wouldn't do it.

I agree about agreeing to disagree haha, I think our perspectives are irreconcilable due to the religious element. If God does make the rules then your argument holds, but it is entirely dependant on that. In a world without God then it has no tangible meaning, and even in a world with God it's only because God says it's a bad thing to do.

Oh I agree that evil as a concept exists if we're using the word 'evil' as a synonym for the word 'bad'. There are certainly some very terrible things that happen in this world, but all of this is from a human perspective. In the grand scheme of things there are no good acts or evil acts, there is simply what happened. Person B was murdered by Person A. It was a very bad outcome for Person B, and it implies that the rest of society will be endangered so we shall imprison person A and call this an evil act. But the universe doesn't care whether or not Person A was murdered; it's simply something that happened. Because to me, the world 'evil' means more than just bad. To me it implies that there is an inherent reason why it is wrong above and beyond what each party stands to gain, and there simply isn't one. And I think the PTSD thing is because we're more developed than other animals. I imagine the evolutionary purpose is something along the lines of getting us to avoid conflict, because that may endanger our own life.

Because the opportunity cost is lower than what they stand to gain. A person who donates to charity clearly values feeling good about themselves by helping someone less fortunate moreso than they value having that £2 coin that they just put in the collection bucket. If they had to donate £2000 I doubt they'd be as enthusiastic. Everything we do is a transaction; we don't do something for no reason.

From a Philosophical point of view.
It can be argued that Love is the only ingredient required to make us human, but this can also be debated as another view states that our desire to explore and understand is what makes us human.
I personally think aspects from all three views are relevant.