Poll: So... are we essentially good or evil?
- Thread starter NorthernStar
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think our essentially human quality, rational thought, makes us inherently good, but our vestigial animal and plant qualities, desire for sensations, growth, and reproduction, make us evil.
It comes down to individuals. So much as someone is human he is good, and to the extent that he is an animal or plant he is evil.
It comes down to individuals. So much as someone is human he is good, and to the extent that he is an animal or plant he is evil.
Nietzsche's analysis of master/slave morality and deconstruction of good/evil in favor of good/bad is a great contribution, and the legacy of those ideas is seen throughout the thread:solidstatemind said:
Even though there is a lot of truth in Nietzsche's writings, and they are attractive, in a way they were already anticipated by Plato's warnings against subjectivity, and ultimately I disagree with Nietzsche, as entertaining as his analysis is.naam said:
I think if you were to look at humanity from a global or macro level, you'd think we are entirely evil. I'd say we're inherently good people on an individual basis. Seeking what is best for us and those we care about.
In doing so, though, we frequently step on the toes and take advantage of others around us. The act of benefiting yourself often comes directly or indirectly at the expense of someone else.
In doing so, though, we frequently step on the toes and take advantage of others around us. The act of benefiting yourself often comes directly or indirectly at the expense of someone else.
What we are isn't good or evil, it's a subjective topic. What we ARE is a bunch of crazy violent bastards, who also have a redeeming side that upholds honor and virtue, even in the face of our more base instincts. In my humble opinion, it's an admirable, and ultimately necessary objective to ensure our survival as a species, but it's never a good idea to completely throw away that aggressiveness that made us the dominant species on Earth. After all, we may need it again someday, when some other force rises up to destroy us...
Both subjectivism and objectivism seem to have some flaws. My main problem with evil however is that it seems like more of an excuse to be justified in disliking others, dismissing a gray reality for something more black and white and easier.isometry said:
.. Then again I don't know a lot about Nietzsche so if the difference between good/evil and good/bad is what I think it is, this post might be a silly response
.
Thanks to all the replies on this topic I'm realising that 'good' and 'bad' or 'evil' aren't necessarily the terms I'm looking for, as so many people have rightfully pointed out that it's so subjective. The weird thing is that I'm struggling to come up with what I actually do mean. Perhaps it's because it's an early morning here and my brain hasn't quite woken up, but perhaps it's because these concepts may be hard to actually put into words.
The funny thing is, that when I read the first part of your post, the thought crossed my mind that I wouldn't consider 'seeking what is best for us and those we care about' as something 'good'. I think the words that bother me here is 'those we care about'. If we were fundamentally 'good' we wouldn't just care for those we cared about, but for the entire human race or, to put it differently, 'those we cared about' would be every single living being, whether we know them or not.babinro said:
You know, I'd like to be pessimistic and say evil, I'd like to be on the middle ground and say either both or neither. However, from my experience, outside a few bad eggs, most people I've seen seem to have a drive in them to do the right thing. Even small acts of kindness.
The success or failure of your deeds does not add up to the sum of your life. Your spirit cannot be weighed. Judge yourself by the intention of your actions and by the strength with which you faced the challenges that have stood in your way.
The universe is vast and we are so small. There is only one thing we can ever truly control. Whether we are good or evil.
The universe is vast and we are so small. There is only one thing we can ever truly control. Whether we are good or evil.
Good and evil are societal constructs that vary with region and time and of course on personal and societal interpretation, thus where any individual falls within the spectrum is ambiguous at best and very dependant upon cultural views. But do not delude yourself into thinking that any isn't capable of great acts of violence or evil when society fails, you cannot give an inherent quality to something thats a societal construct were survivors nothing more or less.
You might want to edit away the pirating part, or you WILL get the banhammer.Combine Rustler said:
Well said.Mr Somewhere said:
It is sad that so few people think humanity is inherently good.
The fact is that humanity IS inherently good, if we actually took the time out to stop and think about it. Altruism, the true definition of goodness, isn't about doing good for the sake of doing good - it is about working together as part of a team. Humanity is, by nature, a social species that are excellent team workers, with incredible communication and collaboration skills. We tend to work together for the mutual benefit for everyone involved.
The biggest problem we fact is a lack of intelligence and a lack of trust. Both of these undermine our otherwise natural tendencies to overcome our immediate instincts and work out the best solution in any given situation. As society has evolved, it has become increasingly difficult to work out who to trust and the best solution, so we have become selfish and independent, and when you have 7 billion people all basically acting the same way, the world goes down the pan.
However, anybody who can actually take the time to think about things will realise that working with people for the mutual benefit for all is always the most efficient outcome. Sometimes we get deluded by issues of ego and the idea that life is a zero-sum game - that is, that we can succeed by making others fail - but this is not always the case. We need to be able to look past our limitations, to think beyond terms of hatred, spite, and suspicion, and see others for what they really are - people just like us.
This is often our biggest failing: we do not respect others yet demand that others respect us, because we rarely consider that other people are human beings capable of intelligent and rational thought. We are quick to dismiss them as monsters because we want to see them as unreasonable to preserve our own perceptions, than to understand others and work with them.
Yet, at the end of the day, I suspect that if the poll was phrased to ask if you thought yourself were good or evil, the people voting themselves as good would be much higher. This is how people think - that we, ourselves, are inherently good but others are often less so. Therefore, we often describe them as evil or neither. Yet, logically, if I am inherently good, so is the person I am dealing with.
It is therefore only logical to conclude that humanity itself is inherently good, even if it does have limitations and quite often lets itself down. As such, we can only strive for goodness and self-improvement. It is our ability to choose to be good which makes us human.
The fact is that humanity IS inherently good, if we actually took the time out to stop and think about it. Altruism, the true definition of goodness, isn't about doing good for the sake of doing good - it is about working together as part of a team. Humanity is, by nature, a social species that are excellent team workers, with incredible communication and collaboration skills. We tend to work together for the mutual benefit for everyone involved.
The biggest problem we fact is a lack of intelligence and a lack of trust. Both of these undermine our otherwise natural tendencies to overcome our immediate instincts and work out the best solution in any given situation. As society has evolved, it has become increasingly difficult to work out who to trust and the best solution, so we have become selfish and independent, and when you have 7 billion people all basically acting the same way, the world goes down the pan.
However, anybody who can actually take the time to think about things will realise that working with people for the mutual benefit for all is always the most efficient outcome. Sometimes we get deluded by issues of ego and the idea that life is a zero-sum game - that is, that we can succeed by making others fail - but this is not always the case. We need to be able to look past our limitations, to think beyond terms of hatred, spite, and suspicion, and see others for what they really are - people just like us.
This is often our biggest failing: we do not respect others yet demand that others respect us, because we rarely consider that other people are human beings capable of intelligent and rational thought. We are quick to dismiss them as monsters because we want to see them as unreasonable to preserve our own perceptions, than to understand others and work with them.
Yet, at the end of the day, I suspect that if the poll was phrased to ask if you thought yourself were good or evil, the people voting themselves as good would be much higher. This is how people think - that we, ourselves, are inherently good but others are often less so. Therefore, we often describe them as evil or neither. Yet, logically, if I am inherently good, so is the person I am dealing with.
It is therefore only logical to conclude that humanity itself is inherently good, even if it does have limitations and quite often lets itself down. As such, we can only strive for goodness and self-improvement. It is our ability to choose to be good which makes us human.
I honestly beleive that noone in this world does anything evil, they dost do things that are perceived by others as evil... Having a sick sense of humour is not evil. The person making the joke isnt thinking 'this is wrong, but I am going to do it anyway', they actually beleive it is right.
Think back to everything you have done. Have you ever done something to deliberately hut others, be it physically or mentally, just for the sake of hurting them? Or did they always do something first that in your head warranted the response?
And if you look at that, and think, 'hmmm... No I never have done anything, unless it is defending my beleifs' then pretty much noone else has either... Its all perception. Just because someone defends a beleif you dont agree with, doesn't make them evil...
Suicide bombers are not evil. They kill themselves and others due to being misinformed, and because that is the option they honestly beleive is the right thing to do... Just because you dont beleive it, and they are targeting you, and people like you, doesn't make them evil!
Think back to everything you have done. Have you ever done something to deliberately hut others, be it physically or mentally, just for the sake of hurting them? Or did they always do something first that in your head warranted the response?
And if you look at that, and think, 'hmmm... No I never have done anything, unless it is defending my beleifs' then pretty much noone else has either... Its all perception. Just because someone defends a beleif you dont agree with, doesn't make them evil...
Suicide bombers are not evil. They kill themselves and others due to being misinformed, and because that is the option they honestly beleive is the right thing to do... Just because you dont beleive it, and they are targeting you, and people like you, doesn't make them evil!
This is a subject that is entirely dependant on what you define as 'good' or 'evil'.
Even the most debased and brutal serial killer would probably say they were just misunderstood rather than evil (as a general rule if we think something is wrong we won't do it) so most people wouldn't be intentionally evil but it could be argued that the 'morality' of an action has just as much to do with the motivtion and intention behind it as the actual action itself so is it actually possible to be unintentionally evil? (again, entirely dependant on your own view of morality here)
'Good' and 'evil' do tend to be more about how something or someone is percieved by others rather than any actual moral reasoning behind it (I know this is violating Godwin's law but I think it's a valid point to make), supporters of Hitler's regime back in WWII (and neo-Nazi's today) would believe that they are good and doing the right thing, however, most of us here are in agreement that the Nazis were so cartoonishly evil that we often use them as a shorthand for the worst thing we can imagine.
Is either perception right or wrong? It depends on who you ask (for the reccord I disagree with the Nazis and do not condone or support them or any iteration of them or their beliefs).
Overall though, people aren't really morally aligned like characters in a DnD game so much as we assign ourselves and others alignments based on context and our own views and experiences.
Even the most debased and brutal serial killer would probably say they were just misunderstood rather than evil (as a general rule if we think something is wrong we won't do it) so most people wouldn't be intentionally evil but it could be argued that the 'morality' of an action has just as much to do with the motivtion and intention behind it as the actual action itself so is it actually possible to be unintentionally evil? (again, entirely dependant on your own view of morality here)
'Good' and 'evil' do tend to be more about how something or someone is percieved by others rather than any actual moral reasoning behind it (I know this is violating Godwin's law but I think it's a valid point to make), supporters of Hitler's regime back in WWII (and neo-Nazi's today) would believe that they are good and doing the right thing, however, most of us here are in agreement that the Nazis were so cartoonishly evil that we often use them as a shorthand for the worst thing we can imagine.
Is either perception right or wrong? It depends on who you ask (for the reccord I disagree with the Nazis and do not condone or support them or any iteration of them or their beliefs).
Overall though, people aren't really morally aligned like characters in a DnD game so much as we assign ourselves and others alignments based on context and our own views and experiences.
Define "good" and "evil" first. Everyone has different definitions so it's better to establish the terms before we start to talk.NorthernStar said:
I like to use examples of generally despised people:
Hitler thought he was a good person. He wanted to make his country the best and most powerful country in the world (which he did for a brief moment). He thought that Jews were evil and that they were destroying Germany so he decided (probably not alone but that's beside the point) to do the only thing that would surely get rid of them - kill them all.
The thing is, even so-called "evil people" think of themselves as good and there will always be people who agree with that. Just as "good people" are evil to some (Mother Theresa or Gandhi, for example).
Whenever I tell people these things, I always get funny looks. Maybe they think that I'm evil
Good and evil, in my opinion, is mainly used to make a separation between "us" and "them". "We" are usually the good guys while "they" are the bad ones. People generally treat anyone with different opinions on what they think are the most important aspects of life as evil. You're pro-life and they are pro-choice? They're evil. You're a liberal and they're conservatives? They're evil. You're anti-drug and they're pro-drug? They're evil. You're Christian and they're atheists? They're evil.
But that's just my opinion.
Love how it is ordered perfectly ATM with the top being least number of voters, bottom being most.
OT: Neither. Nothing is inherently good or evil, and they are just names we put on values that we do not agree with, which differs from culture to culture.
Even then, the example given is not good nor evil even theoretically. What you are basically asking is 'Are humans more commonly A-Holes to one another or are we more often kind to each other?', as opposed to are we good or evil.
If I had to pick one out of good or evil, I'd pick evil. It has long been said that humans are classified as a parasite. We live by destroying that which provides for us, then moving on. We destroy our home and anything else we don't consider important simply because it would be inconvenient to help it instead, or just let it be and work around it. That to me is wrong, and therefore 'evil'.
If I had to pick A-hole or kind, not sure. Most I'd probably say both. We all have things that irk us, and that will make us act like a total D***, and we all have something that we care about and will be nice to, no matter the inconvenience. For the most part anyway.
OT: Neither. Nothing is inherently good or evil, and they are just names we put on values that we do not agree with, which differs from culture to culture.
Even then, the example given is not good nor evil even theoretically. What you are basically asking is 'Are humans more commonly A-Holes to one another or are we more often kind to each other?', as opposed to are we good or evil.
If I had to pick one out of good or evil, I'd pick evil. It has long been said that humans are classified as a parasite. We live by destroying that which provides for us, then moving on. We destroy our home and anything else we don't consider important simply because it would be inconvenient to help it instead, or just let it be and work around it. That to me is wrong, and therefore 'evil'.
If I had to pick A-hole or kind, not sure. Most I'd probably say both. We all have things that irk us, and that will make us act like a total D***, and we all have something that we care about and will be nice to, no matter the inconvenience. For the most part anyway.
In my opinion Good and evil are simply relgious/societies black and white definitions used in order to control the populus.
They are useful concepts when trying to build a civilisation yet it breaks down when someone asks the question:
Is it wrong to kill a man in order to save more?
It is this question that allows for concepts such as "shades of grey." and it is something that a legal system has trouble with consolidating around. So I have said both as something can be good to one man yet a deadly "sin" to another.
And as we have invented the system We cannot be neither as that would break the system and make it meaningless.
They are useful concepts when trying to build a civilisation yet it breaks down when someone asks the question:
Is it wrong to kill a man in order to save more?
It is this question that allows for concepts such as "shades of grey." and it is something that a legal system has trouble with consolidating around. So I have said both as something can be good to one man yet a deadly "sin" to another.
And as we have invented the system We cannot be neither as that would break the system and make it meaningless.