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
Are humans inherently good or inherently evil?
- Thread starter retyopy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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
Most people are egoistic pricks. And those who aren't egoistic pricks are even more egoistic, as they want to be glorified for them not being egoistic pricks. We are all egoistic and evil and selfish in some way or another, it's just not our nature to not act out of self interest.
People? They're inherently tasty. Otherwise...they make their own choices, follow their own paths. Some good. Some evil. Most? Neither.
First of all, Hitler, in his mind, thought he was a good guy. He wasn't the cartoon villain with the maniacal laughter that we're told to believe. Sure, he was an over the top radical and his utopia required lots of casualties but when it came to Germany, he wanted nothing but the best for the country and its' people. Truth is, there are a lot of people in power with similar views as him, they just don't have as much power as him. It's quite hard to be as influential as him these days. I don't think he would be as influential if he was living today.retyopy said:
As for the topic, humans are inherently human. Good and evil are just human made concepts that aren't really applicable to reality.
Seriously!? Only one quote on altruism, and that's buy someone who doesn't even understand the principle behind altruism?tzimize said:
Let's get back to basics here. First off, what is good and evil? The only true answer here is the subjective definition of good and evil, altruism and selfishness. There is no objective good or evil in the universe, because there is no way or means to define it - objective morality does not exist. This is not D&D - there isn't a detect evil spell which tells you whether someone is evil so you know you can kill them and everyone knows that they were really a demon in disguise and you've saved the day. That's a pure fallacy that we use to justify our own actions, so that we can believe that ultimately everything we do is right, and keep a clear conscience. Even when we can't state that something is completely right, we come up with ways why such actions don't count. Often, it includes killing people who are seen as monsters, not people, which is all right. Just because we believe certain people to be evil doesn't mean that they believe themselves to be evil - in fact, most often they believe that those thinking they are evil are the ones that are evil. This is why there is no objective good and evil. There are just sides, and you might as well name them A and B for all that it matters.
Subjective morality does exist however, and concerns itself with how people relate to others. This brings us to altruism and selfishness. The problem is that people don't understand altruism - they think it is doing good things for the sake of doing good things. They think it is about being weak, and meak, and passive. It isn't. It is about working with other people. Altruism comes with intelligence.
Teamwork isn't just about safety in numbers, although this is a big part of it. It is also about understanding that teamwork is the most efficient distribution method, and thus the most useful for survival and advancement of the human race. We use altruism as the basis of EVERY social structure we have in human society, and have always done so. Human babies can't survive without altruism - they will die because they are unable to fend for themselves. Therefore parents share their resources with their children. This is altruism.
The real problem, of course, is that intelligence is key to understanding altruism, because altruism is based on teamwork and trust. It requires all participants to be intelligent, because it requires them to realise that a smaller shared long-term stability through teamwork is more advantageous than a quick short-term gain from selfishness. The short term gain is appealing due to animal instinct and cunning, but the long-term growth and stability is the product of intelligence.
There are a number of intelligence failures that selfish people adopt. They play to their fears, thus creating self-fulling prophecies that reinforce their lack of trust, and simply perpetuate the misery in society. They often fail to appreciate that people can, and will, think like they do, and the consequences of their behaviour. They also often equate the idea that they can "win" with other people "losing" and fail to accept the fact that life is not a zero-sum game, and that all players involved can "lose", therefore those playing life as a zero-sum game are using the wrong rules and simply trolling everyone else. Such behaviour leads to misanthropic or passive-aggressive natures exhibited by people who happen to be such selfish people by default.
However, there are a few unique individuals, known as true altruists, who upon understanding that life is not a zero-sum game, begin to understand the intricacies of human society. They understand that in most relationships with other people, you don't ever actually get to make the decision on whether you "win" or "lose", but only whether the other person will "win" or "lose". Few relationships are actually directly confrontational. Therefore, they understand that in most circumstances their actions have little effect on what happens to themselves - they can't make themselves win. That choice belongs to the other person. All they can do is try and convince the other person to trust them. The easiest way to do this is by sharing and working together.
Ultimately, while the temptation for selfishness will always be there, the moment any betrayal happens, the trust is broken, and the person betraying that trust ends up out in the cold. Others will trust them less as well. The short term gain leaves them on their own, out amongst the other wolves.
There's a lot of propaganda going in to undermine altruism, because altruism smacks too much of communism, because that is essentially what communism is. It doesn't matter that we've been using variants of communism as a primary basis for our government and social models for most of human history, and capitalist propaganda seeks to undermine that by systematically reducing the intelligence of the world and instituting capitalism as the worlds largest, and most selfish, pyramid scheme that will one day seek to remove the entire point of government itself.