Poll: Is man inherently good, or Evil?
- Thread starter Wackymon
- Start date
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?
Humanity is a very diverse species with a plethora of different traits. To simply define the nature of humanity as good or evil is too ambiguous. Afterall you must first define what "Good" and "Evil" are. Good luck with that by the way.
To me humanity is amoral. That is to say you start off as a blank sleight with no knowledge of what your actions may cause or effect. As you grow and mature, your life experiences as well as the influences around you define who you as a person fit in with the whole 'good/evil' thing. Once that happens anything that might be considered such is therefore your own problem.
Short answer: Only individuals can be quantified as 'Good' or 'Evil'. Humanity - regardless of whether you believe in a divine or not - is just another animal asserting itself in the cycle.
To me humanity is amoral. That is to say you start off as a blank sleight with no knowledge of what your actions may cause or effect. As you grow and mature, your life experiences as well as the influences around you define who you as a person fit in with the whole 'good/evil' thing. Once that happens anything that might be considered such is therefore your own problem.
Short answer: Only individuals can be quantified as 'Good' or 'Evil'. Humanity - regardless of whether you believe in a divine or not - is just another animal asserting itself in the cycle.
Pretty much this. Good and evil are terms generated by society that have virtually no meaning. Good usually consists of things society would like it if you would do, while evil consists of things you will be punished for. There is absolutely no evidence that good or evil extend beyond what the person in charge wants others to do.SL33TBL1ND said:
Good and evil are just words used to manipulate our perception of our actions. In short, it is a form of control. Possibly originating from some form of the church saying 'God wants you to do this, that is good and you will go to heaven' or some reasonable proximaly thereof. Or alternatively some tribal leader saying what is acceptable and what is not.
Morality doesn't really exist and more than something like imaginary numbers really do, perhaps even less so.
Don't worry. I may think Kain was a badass, but in the end I thought Raziel was the hero. He was the only one that got through to Kain and showed him what needed to be done.DoPo said:Thanks for agreeing with me.RedFeather1975 said:
And Vae Victus to you too!
Just don't telekinetically drink my blood, please...
Heavily influenced by both Leviathan and Nietszche. I believe we created the concept of good and evil, it's a consequence of developing reason and conscience, we attributed values to things and certain "natural laws" that act as a kind of common sense, usually dictated by a divine entity (some kind of imposed divine law that a group of people simply will not argue about), or as I said, the consciousness of a given people. In that prism we are neither inherently good nor evil. But as put in The Leviathan, and I believe it makes much sense to the point I'm inclined to believe in that, all those natural laws only exist because we're inherently evil/greedy, imagine that, maybe due to animal instinct individual A always breaks into individual B's land until he finally manages to take the land form himself, A does that because he is stronger, and one day C arrives and takes A lands, C is very powerful and moves on to take that which belongs to D, but D is also strong, it ultimately loses, but the effort has tired C so much that now E, a much weaker opponent can easily take over C. Soon they all realize that they could choose a sovereign, who would impose rules to define, in this case, property, the ruler would probably be the strongest of them, the only thing impeding this ruler from being a total tyrant being the fact that everyone together could topple him (a sort of impeachment). In other words, everyone reaches a consensus about a ruler and laws (positive laws, not natural laws), not because they're happy to play ball, but because it is convenient, and makes it easier on everyone: basically you don't solve your problems by crashing your adversaries skull to a rock because you're a good guy, but because you don't want to go to jail (which could take me to the discussion of moralism by Kant, but that's another discussion).
Look at PUBLIC International Law, there are four major theories on that, and I'm gonna concentrate on the one I believe in, it's called "Realist Theory", it was born with the end of World War I, the League of Nations was created and the idea was basically "no more wars, only reasonable men fighting with words to achieve what's better for their country and the world". The followers of such theory would say that the League of Nations would fail, simply because "The International law is a fraud, when it comes to international relations all there really is is ANARCHY", they were proven right with the end of the League and the ascension of the Third Reich and, obviously, World War II. It's pretty basic: Germany had signed all treaties that made it weak and threw on it every blame for WWI, but they said that Germany wouldn't care for the treaties, no country would, as soon as a treaty got in their way, if they could take whatever they wanted by force, then they would, to hell with any treaties. And that's exactly what happened. I dare say it's exactly what HAPPENS. Look at the UN, it's a joke when it comes to regulating wars, they said "USA shall not wage war on Iraq", USA replied "Fuck off, I'm stronger, and I will" and they did*, and this can spread to every type of behavior, you can take that to society level, we follow the law, but when WE think it's not very nice, we break it, it might be very minor, like the car stopped in a non-stop area for just a few minutes, so you can buy the ice cream and get home in time to watch soccer. It all indicates, that deep within we are "evil" or at least, savages, and we only follow rules because not doing so would mean the destruction of so many of those of us who just aren't as strong as the rest, it would mean so much "trouble", for that we lie about being free, because no one is really free while there are laws around, thus true freedom is something very very scary.
*= don't want anyone getting touchy by it, but it's a fact, particularly, I love the USA, and believe Bush did what he did thinking it was the best for his country, it might have had ZERO diplomatic and political "elegance", but that's not for me to judge, I wasn't affected by the war and I hate hypocrites who stand universes away from the battlefield (or direct consequences) and feel in the right to comment for or against it.
Look at PUBLIC International Law, there are four major theories on that, and I'm gonna concentrate on the one I believe in, it's called "Realist Theory", it was born with the end of World War I, the League of Nations was created and the idea was basically "no more wars, only reasonable men fighting with words to achieve what's better for their country and the world". The followers of such theory would say that the League of Nations would fail, simply because "The International law is a fraud, when it comes to international relations all there really is is ANARCHY", they were proven right with the end of the League and the ascension of the Third Reich and, obviously, World War II. It's pretty basic: Germany had signed all treaties that made it weak and threw on it every blame for WWI, but they said that Germany wouldn't care for the treaties, no country would, as soon as a treaty got in their way, if they could take whatever they wanted by force, then they would, to hell with any treaties. And that's exactly what happened. I dare say it's exactly what HAPPENS. Look at the UN, it's a joke when it comes to regulating wars, they said "USA shall not wage war on Iraq", USA replied "Fuck off, I'm stronger, and I will" and they did*, and this can spread to every type of behavior, you can take that to society level, we follow the law, but when WE think it's not very nice, we break it, it might be very minor, like the car stopped in a non-stop area for just a few minutes, so you can buy the ice cream and get home in time to watch soccer. It all indicates, that deep within we are "evil" or at least, savages, and we only follow rules because not doing so would mean the destruction of so many of those of us who just aren't as strong as the rest, it would mean so much "trouble", for that we lie about being free, because no one is really free while there are laws around, thus true freedom is something very very scary.
*= don't want anyone getting touchy by it, but it's a fact, particularly, I love the USA, and believe Bush did what he did thinking it was the best for his country, it might have had ZERO diplomatic and political "elegance", but that's not for me to judge, I wasn't affected by the war and I hate hypocrites who stand universes away from the battlefield (or direct consequences) and feel in the right to comment for or against it.
Since we're not all dead I tend to believe we have a greater capacity for philanthropy than entropy.
Good and evil are constructs of human society, they are nothing but concepts based on an understanding of morality based on social norms, nothing more.
People are born babies, and they grow into people, that is all, Evil is just another word for total asshole, and good is what they call generally nice people, ammounts of assholism and niceness vary.
However anyone who thinks we are nothing but pack animals running on instinct, needs their head examined, we are capable of much outside of instinct, and our latent ambition in itself sets us apart from "just animals" we are a kind of animal, but we aren't just pack animals, otherwise our society would be much more cut/dry and our understanding of the world would still just be hitting things and surviving, because survival is at the forfront of instinct, defining an animal as just an animal, we strive to constantly change/improve things, we are driven to invent and create, and nessecity stopped being the "mother of invention" centuries ago, it's more like a great aunt now.
People are born babies, and they grow into people, that is all, Evil is just another word for total asshole, and good is what they call generally nice people, ammounts of assholism and niceness vary.
However anyone who thinks we are nothing but pack animals running on instinct, needs their head examined, we are capable of much outside of instinct, and our latent ambition in itself sets us apart from "just animals" we are a kind of animal, but we aren't just pack animals, otherwise our society would be much more cut/dry and our understanding of the world would still just be hitting things and surviving, because survival is at the forfront of instinct, defining an animal as just an animal, we strive to constantly change/improve things, we are driven to invent and create, and nessecity stopped being the "mother of invention" centuries ago, it's more like a great aunt now.
