Are humans inherently good or inherently evil?
- Thread starter retyopy
- Start date
I'm not a philosopher or an evolutionary psychologist, so what I'm about to post is from my layman understanding of these two topics.
Defining "good" to be "that which society deems is moral and appropriate" and "evil" to be the opposite, I'd say that most people are born with a tendency to be good. Over the few million years that humans have been around, we've been social creatures, and those of us whose brains didn't acclimate to society weren't able (usually) to pass on our genetics to the next branch. So, what little of human nature contributes to this question comes out on the side of good, more than likely.
Obviously, humans being good or evil is definitely based in environment to an extent, and I'm of the opinion that this plays a much larger role in the goodness or evilness of an individual than nature. However, that's just an opinion, and it could be that I'm wrong, and just haven't seen enough facts and studies to suggest otherwise.
Defining "good" to be "that which society deems is moral and appropriate" and "evil" to be the opposite, I'd say that most people are born with a tendency to be good. Over the few million years that humans have been around, we've been social creatures, and those of us whose brains didn't acclimate to society weren't able (usually) to pass on our genetics to the next branch. So, what little of human nature contributes to this question comes out on the side of good, more than likely.
Obviously, humans being good or evil is definitely based in environment to an extent, and I'm of the opinion that this plays a much larger role in the goodness or evilness of an individual than nature. However, that's just an opinion, and it could be that I'm wrong, and just haven't seen enough facts and studies to suggest otherwise.
I never said otherwise, but that doesn't change the fact that we are a social animal. The purpose of altruism is to ensure the survival of the group and thus our own. Altruism is selfish but that doesn't make it bad; "selfish" does not automatically mean "evil".tzimize said:
To me the 'good' and 'evil' labels are little more than placeholders. They are too defined as choices to make sense, that and given the religious context I have little care for those labels.
To me, light and dark intentions seem better. A nice guy can do a bad thing for a light reason and still be a nice guy, or vice versa. With the 'God and Devil' i mean 'good and evil' it is more of a light switch when it should be a dimmer switch.
But to answer the OP question.
Like the grey woolen socks, people are born neutral. I could go into more on my theory of the soul and the whole 'light and dark' thing, but only if people would be interested as it would likely be a very big post.
To me, light and dark intentions seem better. A nice guy can do a bad thing for a light reason and still be a nice guy, or vice versa. With the 'God and Devil' i mean 'good and evil' it is more of a light switch when it should be a dimmer switch.
But to answer the OP question.
Like the grey woolen socks, people are born neutral. I could go into more on my theory of the soul and the whole 'light and dark' thing, but only if people would be interested as it would likely be a very big post.
Sure is Locke and Hobbes in here.
Define "good"; define "Evil"; define "Humanity"; does humanity fit within a previously defined 'good' or 'evil' term.
Now back to reality.
The most correct answer is: no.
Define "good"; define "Evil"; define "Humanity"; does humanity fit within a previously defined 'good' or 'evil' term.
Now back to reality.
The most correct answer is: no.
I think we're inherently good but circumstances can make us worse. And, also if you ask me, people on this site are too cynical
People are inherently self-serving. When born, people will always try their best to serve their own needs and wants. That doesn't necessarily make a person evil. If their own interests get in the way of another person living happily, then they can become dicks, however if their interest is to help a person live happily, then they're good.
Not much more to it than that.
Not much more to it than that.
I'd say humans are born selfish. That's not really good or evil, just survival. What we do have though in regards to morality, is the potential to be both good and evil, and life/we choose one of the shades of grey between the two absolutes to become.
So the answer is iether both or niether... or both both and niether, if that phrasing doesn't twist your brain painfully?
So the answer is iether both or niether... or both both and niether, if that phrasing doesn't twist your brain painfully?
You know whether we are born evil, illogical and impulsive, or good (not necessarily good, just we don't go out of our way to be dicks), rational and logical are the foundations of political ideologies. Classical and Modern Liberals believe in the latter (Liberalism isn't restricted to the left btw) and Conservatives believe in the former.
I'm a Liberal myself.
I'm a Liberal myself.
Well, the idea that we are predetermined FROM BIRTH to be evil or good is a notion that is truly ridiculous. Think about it, did hitler come out of the womb spouting anti-semetic propoganda? The guy grew up as a freaking art student. It wasn't until later in life that he developed certain biases and predjudices.
If you were evil from birth, then it simply couldnt be something psychological. If the term "tabula rasa" is anything to go by, then surely someone who has spent about 5 seconds out of the womb can't be accused of having an evil conscience or praised for having a particularly philanthropic nature. The fact that it couldn't be psychological indicates that it must be BIOLOGICAL, or at best determined later psychologically. If it IS biological then it can be tested, linking evil to a genetic or chemical origins. Either way, the only possible way we could be evil/good from birth is through "fate".
That's not to say it's not possible that we can be evil/good from birth. The same works the other way around; just because a person is brought up in a hovel by abusive parents doesn't neccessarily mean that the child WILL be evil, and visa-versa, being brought up in a life of philanthropic luxury will not always a saint make.
The problem is that anything to do with this sort of argument is subject to two crippling problems: Determinism and Cultural differences. Either way you look at this (unless you take a neutral side) it's heavily steeped in determinism: it's either, "you WILL be evil/good from birth" or "However you are brought up, it WILL mean you will be evil/good". Both notions may or may not contain some weight, but neither of them allow for any amount of freewill, and ignore a persons emotional capacity to do acts of both. Secondly, the terms "evil" and "good" carry different meanings in different places. Some acts of "evil" in the western society may not carry over to other places, or even to other social groups in the SAME PLACE (i.e. Morbid humour in some groups is encouraged, while in others damned, thus the label of appropriateness is changed over the space of a playground). Some people view the active predjudice of homosexuals as something to be appaled at, but in some places they view it as the work of god himself, to them what could be more good than to do gods work?
Also, while on the subject of the... subjectiveness of good vs evil, you must also consider the idea of black-and-white or shades-of-gray. Are all "evil" acts just as bad as each other? In which case someone who is forced into a situation where he has to do a bad thing for a good reason could be just as damned as someone who does a bad thing because he or she feels like it. Again, but the other way around, if someone does good for a selfish (bad) reason, (say gives help to someone else, just to rub it into the face of another person) can they also be considered good? On the other side of the coin (a far more likely side) is it possible that good and bad deeds can fall onto a scale of right and wrong? The point is, good/evil, right/wrong as just words associated with social biases.
TL;DR?
-Feasable both ways potentially, much more likely NURTURE than NATURE.
-Both views are deterministic, not a lot of room for emotion/free-will.
-Good/Evil highly subjective culturally.
If you were evil from birth, then it simply couldnt be something psychological. If the term "tabula rasa" is anything to go by, then surely someone who has spent about 5 seconds out of the womb can't be accused of having an evil conscience or praised for having a particularly philanthropic nature. The fact that it couldn't be psychological indicates that it must be BIOLOGICAL, or at best determined later psychologically. If it IS biological then it can be tested, linking evil to a genetic or chemical origins. Either way, the only possible way we could be evil/good from birth is through "fate".
That's not to say it's not possible that we can be evil/good from birth. The same works the other way around; just because a person is brought up in a hovel by abusive parents doesn't neccessarily mean that the child WILL be evil, and visa-versa, being brought up in a life of philanthropic luxury will not always a saint make.
The problem is that anything to do with this sort of argument is subject to two crippling problems: Determinism and Cultural differences. Either way you look at this (unless you take a neutral side) it's heavily steeped in determinism: it's either, "you WILL be evil/good from birth" or "However you are brought up, it WILL mean you will be evil/good". Both notions may or may not contain some weight, but neither of them allow for any amount of freewill, and ignore a persons emotional capacity to do acts of both. Secondly, the terms "evil" and "good" carry different meanings in different places. Some acts of "evil" in the western society may not carry over to other places, or even to other social groups in the SAME PLACE (i.e. Morbid humour in some groups is encouraged, while in others damned, thus the label of appropriateness is changed over the space of a playground). Some people view the active predjudice of homosexuals as something to be appaled at, but in some places they view it as the work of god himself, to them what could be more good than to do gods work?
Also, while on the subject of the... subjectiveness of good vs evil, you must also consider the idea of black-and-white or shades-of-gray. Are all "evil" acts just as bad as each other? In which case someone who is forced into a situation where he has to do a bad thing for a good reason could be just as damned as someone who does a bad thing because he or she feels like it. Again, but the other way around, if someone does good for a selfish (bad) reason, (say gives help to someone else, just to rub it into the face of another person) can they also be considered good? On the other side of the coin (a far more likely side) is it possible that good and bad deeds can fall onto a scale of right and wrong? The point is, good/evil, right/wrong as just words associated with social biases.
TL;DR?
-Feasable both ways potentially, much more likely NURTURE than NATURE.
-Both views are deterministic, not a lot of room for emotion/free-will.
-Good/Evil highly subjective culturally.
Babies are born with basic personalities, as some are grumpy, others laugh, some even enjoy smacking peoples faces. Infants are aware of their immediate needs and don't really understand empathy. Babies can't be said to act evil, because that is a conscious choice in which you are aware of how your actions will negatively affect others.
Inherently evil, because no matter what, a living being will always strive to survive by doing what it needs to do, in order to get food, survive etc. And eventually, the fight for survival will hurt someone else, therefore evil. Sure, you can argue that because of the way society works today, people have no need to fight for survival. But if you look at children in kindergardens or early school, you will see kids fight for the right to play with certain toys, or do certain stuff. So yes, I believe humans are inherently evil.
And OP, quit all the random yabbering about socks, no one gives a fuck. Just make the thread, ask the question.
And OP, quit all the random yabbering about socks, no one gives a fuck. Just make the thread, ask the question.
people are inherently good, it is only through not taking care of themselves emotionally and mentally do they become evil.
i think that it varies from person to person. most are assholes only thinly covered by manners, but some really are kind. I am not one of those few.
I'm going with Rousseau on this one, i.e., we have an innate morality and inclination towards good, but that can be corrupted. Also, on an unrelated note, humans don't have the right to claim property. :3