I wouldn't say we're "evil" just that we aren't particularly good either. In fact no, I just remembered there are people who like Uwe Boll movies, yeah, we're evil...
Poll: Is man inherently good, or Evil?
- Thread starter Wackymon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Good? Nah, I've seen some horribly wicked brats. Evil? Certainly not. I've had the pleasure of seeing some delightfully thoughtful tykes.
People are not inherently good or evil. I think we are, however, inherently flawed.
People are not inherently good or evil. I think we are, however, inherently flawed.
'Good' and 'evil' is all based on perception. I don't believe anyone does anything they don't believe is the right thing at the time, even if it is for selfish reasons.
Take for example someone who steals... normally it is out of desperation. That person would have looked at the options in front of them, and chosen that as the best way forward. The person who owned the stolen goods would see them as evil, but they wouldn't themselves.
Take bigger examples. Anders Breivik: He believed what he was doing was the right thing. He honestly believed that the world would mess up if he didn't commit that act. Definitely twisted and delusional, but he didn't do it to just cause pain. Same goes to Hitler... he honestly believed that he would save the world by taking control of it, and destroying an entire race of people... not only that, but he convinced a LOT of people that it was the right thing to do!
Then you have psychopaths. IE people who don't understand emotionally that their actions can negatively effect others. People are all wired differently... and as much as you want to think that a paedophile, or a mass murderer is evil, their actions weren't in their eyes, and it's the intention of the person committing the actions that counts.
Take for example someone who steals... normally it is out of desperation. That person would have looked at the options in front of them, and chosen that as the best way forward. The person who owned the stolen goods would see them as evil, but they wouldn't themselves.
Take bigger examples. Anders Breivik: He believed what he was doing was the right thing. He honestly believed that the world would mess up if he didn't commit that act. Definitely twisted and delusional, but he didn't do it to just cause pain. Same goes to Hitler... he honestly believed that he would save the world by taking control of it, and destroying an entire race of people... not only that, but he convinced a LOT of people that it was the right thing to do!
Then you have psychopaths. IE people who don't understand emotionally that their actions can negatively effect others. People are all wired differently... and as much as you want to think that a paedophile, or a mass murderer is evil, their actions weren't in their eyes, and it's the intention of the person committing the actions that counts.
Well, humanity is inherently selfish, with everyone having the potential to do great good or unspeakable evil. Take from that what you will. 
By whose culture's scale of morality or ethics are we defining "Good" and "Evil" by? During what time period? Or is it something that is shared among other species of animals, like altruistic/selfish behavior? What about actions that, though altruistic, are selfish in nature? Or selfish actions that provide long term altruistic benefits? How much of our existence, actions, and motivations are we allowed to trivialize and gloss over to serve a needlessly superficial point (i.e. we let people die in car crashes because we're addicted to cars)?
Of all the methods employed in the name of preservation, mankind's is perhaps the cruelest. A medley of supersaturation and oppression. Let fate choose it's demise. Vae Victus!
Inevitably gone will be its hunger. The rage that would entice. Until only the sweet dark serenity of its death remains.
That was fun. Kain is such a badass. lol
Inevitably gone will be its hunger. The rage that would entice. Until only the sweet dark serenity of its death remains.
That was fun. Kain is such a badass. lol
Are tigers good or evil for hunting the deer?
Are certain animals good or evil for abandoning their young?
Are penguins good or evil for mating for life?
Are other animals good or evil for mating with anything in sight?
You can't call certain thing evil if the animals do the same.
The only truly evil actions are those that seek the prosperity of yourself, and at the same time, the destruction of others.
Captcha: pearly whites
My mum tried for years to get me to brush my teeth regularly. What makes you think you could do any better captcha?
Are certain animals good or evil for abandoning their young?
Are penguins good or evil for mating for life?
Are other animals good or evil for mating with anything in sight?
You can't call certain thing evil if the animals do the same.
The only truly evil actions are those that seek the prosperity of yourself, and at the same time, the destruction of others.
Captcha: pearly whites
My mum tried for years to get me to brush my teeth regularly. What makes you think you could do any better captcha?
The things that seek their own persistence and propagation at any cost to all but themselves, aren't the type of thing that can be appealed to or even communicated with. For example, how does one get their body to accept it's own death?CpT_x_Killsteal said:
Well yes but that is instinct.RedFeather1975 said:
I'm talking about making the the rich making the poor poorer in order to make themsselves even richer than they already are.
Either richer or more powerful or more "holy".
The real truth is that humans (probably all animals) are inherently selfish.
We do nothing (NOTHING) without some personal gain, it is our very nature itself. Even those selfless acts of charity and kindness reward the person with the personal gain of feeling good for having done such a deed.
We do nothing (NOTHING) without some personal gain, it is our very nature itself. Even those selfless acts of charity and kindness reward the person with the personal gain of feeling good for having done such a deed.
Evil exists merely as a corruption of good; when good intentions are pursued in the wrong way. People inherently strive to do what is right, and therefore it is my view that they are good.
The question is meaningless. It's akin to asking which one is the inherently better number 1 159 271 or 8? So? Without any meaning attached to the numbers, it's really hard to say.
- is it the bigger one? I'd rather have 1 159 271 than just 8
- is it the smaller one? It's better to owe somebody 8, rather than 1 159 271
- is it the closer to some other number? And what is that number - if you have a target of 1 000 000, then 1 159 271 isn't that bad, it's within a 16% margin unlike 8. But what if the target is 10?
- is it a score? If so, what's the marking scheme? If it's out of 10, then 8 would be quite nice, while 1 159 271 is nonsensical. If it's out of 100...well, I'd rather have 1 159 271, to be honest - that way I'll probably redo whatever the assessment is, rather than have only an 8.
- are prime numbers significant? 1 159 271 is prime, 8 isn't. Prime numbers are used in cryptography.
- wait, is it cryptography? If so, I sure as hell wouldn't want either of these. 8 is really bad, but 1 159 271 might actually be worse, since it may give somebody a false sense of security.
- do they have to be divisible by something? 8 can be divided into halves or quarters, maybe that's useful? 1 159 271, again, is prime - it can't be divided up.
- is it significant to humans? 8 is wa-a-ay easier to remember.
See - meanings. Change the meanings, you change the "inherent" values. Which means they aren't inherent. Morality is similar - what is classified as "good" or "evil" differs according to the meanings attached to those two.
Moreover, the problem is that people will always strive to be good. You know that saying, "Everyone is the hero of their own story" - very few people would choose to be "evil".
- is it the bigger one? I'd rather have 1 159 271 than just 8
- is it the smaller one? It's better to owe somebody 8, rather than 1 159 271
- is it the closer to some other number? And what is that number - if you have a target of 1 000 000, then 1 159 271 isn't that bad, it's within a 16% margin unlike 8. But what if the target is 10?
- is it a score? If so, what's the marking scheme? If it's out of 10, then 8 would be quite nice, while 1 159 271 is nonsensical. If it's out of 100...well, I'd rather have 1 159 271, to be honest - that way I'll probably redo whatever the assessment is, rather than have only an 8.
- are prime numbers significant? 1 159 271 is prime, 8 isn't. Prime numbers are used in cryptography.
- wait, is it cryptography? If so, I sure as hell wouldn't want either of these. 8 is really bad, but 1 159 271 might actually be worse, since it may give somebody a false sense of security.
- do they have to be divisible by something? 8 can be divided into halves or quarters, maybe that's useful? 1 159 271, again, is prime - it can't be divided up.
- is it significant to humans? 8 is wa-a-ay easier to remember.
See - meanings. Change the meanings, you change the "inherent" values. Which means they aren't inherent. Morality is similar - what is classified as "good" or "evil" differs according to the meanings attached to those two.
Moreover, the problem is that people will always strive to be good. You know that saying, "Everyone is the hero of their own story" - very few people would choose to be "evil".
Well Good is something that is universal in terms of capacity, all animals are capable of achieving good goals since good and evil are entirely mental attributes. Its been shown that animals that have ties to others will preform selfless and/or self sacrificing actions for the benefit of others.
On the other hand, Evil is an entirely human construct. Other animals can't understand the concept of evil since they are ruled by instincts and don't do things they consider to be wrong, just what they see as being necessary. Meanwhile humans are both capable of recognizing an action as "wrong" and yet doing it anyways for self satisfaction. This difference is the balancing point that allows humans to be Evil while animals cannot.
With this in consideration, as the only living creatures within current knowledge that are capable of achieving Evil ends, humans are inherently evil as they are the source of all evil that exists.
On the other hand, Evil is an entirely human construct. Other animals can't understand the concept of evil since they are ruled by instincts and don't do things they consider to be wrong, just what they see as being necessary. Meanwhile humans are both capable of recognizing an action as "wrong" and yet doing it anyways for self satisfaction. This difference is the balancing point that allows humans to be Evil while animals cannot.
With this in consideration, as the only living creatures within current knowledge that are capable of achieving Evil ends, humans are inherently evil as they are the source of all evil that exists.
Neither - good and evil are arbitrary social constraints that vary greatly between different cultures. The particular set of traits you may consider inherently evil might be virtuous or even neutral in another society. Take the Spartans of ancient Greece, casting aside "weak" infants - horrible by most modern standards, perfectly acceptable in their society. In addition any traits you see as inherent to all people could just as easily be a mixture of what you consider "good" or "bad", so picking one or the other would be down to confirmation bias.
And how would any of these scales deal with outliers? People who lack the mental capacity to understand the concepts, or who don't care, or who would rather not interact with others at all? To say all people are inherently predisposed to a certain type of behavior is to severely under-represent the sheer variety of human existence.
And how would any of these scales deal with outliers? People who lack the mental capacity to understand the concepts, or who don't care, or who would rather not interact with others at all? To say all people are inherently predisposed to a certain type of behavior is to severely under-represent the sheer variety of human existence.
Basically what I was going to say, but about "greediness" rather than "selfishness".Nieroshai said:
Except that you missed the point that good is in the mind and intent, animals are capable of not rising to instinct and to not help others and they are capable of resisting instinct telling them to run away in order to sacrifice themselves for others. However evil is a foreign concept which animals cannot comprehend, they do not do things they consider wrong since "wrong" is related to something they shouldn't do. As I said, humans can consider something wrong and still do them to the detriment of all else. This is what makes the action evil.Acrisius said:I think the vast majority of people are decent human beings, compelled to do good rather than evil, but they're not inherently good or evil. They're just human
You know that, by your logic, animals are just as incapable of doing good as they are of doing evil? Like you said, it's just instinct. If you keep that in mind, humans are suddenly not just the only animal capable of evil, but also the only one capable of good. And the planet is still here...snekadid said:
Captcha: raise cain,..... wtf captcha?