3
   

Do you think humans are inherently "evil"?

 
 
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 05:25 am
@William,
William;127799 wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, we are not animal. We are human and there is a big difference of which I will not reiterate again. Yet survival was, it can be concluded, a survival trait but we are beyond that now.


but the human brain, which is architecturally continuous with those of other mammals (animals) hasn't really changed much since the Stone Ages

William;127799 wrote:
When it comes to rationalizing human behavior, I rather not. That's what got us in the fix we are in.


and the rest of us will laugh as the grim real world comes with motorcycles and weathered knee-high boots grinding conservative fantasies about the way things really are into the mud

William;127799 wrote:
And the above statement is why I don't. When we believe the notion we are animal, we justify those animalistic traits we observe in humans and "call" them inherent when in fact they are not.


what do you think is "animal"

ps I'm ironically thanking all your posts from now on
William
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 09:37 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;127816 wrote:
...but the human brain, which is architecturally continuous with those of other mammals (animals) hasn't really changed much since the Stone Ages


Funny you should say that. In some individuals, I agree. I am sure there are reasons for it and that is what forgiveness is all about.

odenskrigare;127816 wrote:
and the rest of us will laugh as the grim real world comes with motorcycles and weathered knee-high boots grinding conservative fantasies about the way things really are into the mud


Mud? Like a sty?

odenskrigare;127816 wrote:
what do you think is "animal"


A predator, varmint, parasite and in some cases a pet or puppet on a sting or leash.

odenskrigare;127816 wrote:
ps I'm ironically thanking all your posts from now on


Thank you. I wish I could say the same. I am not duplicitous.

William
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 07:18 pm
@William,
William;127875 wrote:
Funny you should say that.


no it's not funny

it's true

if you pick apart a human brain most of its substrates are homologous with those of other mammals

it's not like there are Lucky Charms and unicorns and fairies in there

it's simply a fact William

William;127875 wrote:
Mud? Like a sty?


nah I was thinking more like World War I where like all the conservatives were like "what a gallant spectacle of a war we're going to have! and we can wage it just like in the 19th century too!" and then reality sorely disappointed everyone involved

see this is why it's good to be acquainted with reality

William;127875 wrote:
A predator, varmint, parasite and in some cases a pet or puppet on a sting or leash.


your definition of animal is pretty bogus then

William;127875 wrote:
Thank you


nichts zu danken
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 01:15 am
@Yogi DMT,
During my somewhat protracted life I have only met one person who was unmistakably evil

But the masses are still controlled by the few and these few can have an evil agenda , like that of Hitler and his cronies
0 Replies
 
maqbool khawaja
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 02:51 am
@Yogi DMT,
I Think humans are equally inhereted with good and evil, with the command to choose through mind, otherwise there is no logic behind the accountability of humans by creator or any one.
In my opinion this quality is the only difference between humans and rest of known living creatures by us so far.
I think "good and evil" is absolutely universal phenomenone and can not be associated with societies, it does not depend on religion, culture or politics.
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 05:31 am
@ahmedjbh,
Hey there,

I don't think you've supported your statement that humans are inherently evil. I think most (if not all) humans have that ability, as you've loosely defined here. But that's a far cry from saying that they are. Two different ideas

Although I'd agree that most of what we call evil probably does include selfish motives, that's not to say all acts-of-the-self are evil. Nor is good necessarily an act of selflessness. Selfishness isn't necessarily Evil.

To say that 'Evil exists because someone could perceive something, based on their perspective, to be evil' is disjointed. If Bill says I have an Avacado as a left hand, should we then say then that "human have avocado hands" and then embark on a debate about the "why"?

I'd also disagree that humans are born with the idea of putting others before ourselves. Isolate someone for their first, say, 20 or so years then toss them into a group of people and I doubt you'd see much of this. I'd agree that it's a tendency, propensity, but not an innately-borne aspect.

Hope this adds well to the discussion
0 Replies
 
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 09:17 am
@Yogi DMT,
There is the good inclination and the evil inclination.
Evil is separation and alienation from the good inclination, from god.
Man misses the mark so to speak, errs.
"nature, Mr Arnault is what we were put in this world, to rise above", Rosie the African Queen
0 Replies
 
PappasNick
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 02:46 pm
@maqbool khawaja,
maqbool khawaja;148140 wrote:
I think "good and evil" is absolutely universal phenomenone and can not be associated with societies, it does not depend on religion, culture or politics.[/COLOR]


It certainly does seem that good should be a universal phenomenon. But then how do we account, for instance, for the fact that owning slaves was once considered good in some places, but now is considered evil? Or is that not the sort of good and evil you're talking about? Is there a good and evil that transcends such societally based practices as slavery? Were there, for instance, good people who happened to own slaves? This would seem to leave us with two levels of goodness - one societally based, and one somehow transcendent. I'm sure I could have put all of this better, but what do you think?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 03:13 pm
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;148321 wrote:
It certainly does seem that good should be a universal phenomenon. But then how do we account, for instance, for the fact that owning slaves was once considered good in some places, but now is considered evil? Or is that not the sort of good and evil you're talking about? Is there a good and evil that transcends such societally based practices as slavery? Were there, for instance, good people who happened to own slaves? This would seem to leave us with two levels of goodness - one societally based, and one somehow transcendent. I'm sure I could have put all of this better, but what do you think?


But the poster said only that the notions of good and evil are common to all societies, and that seems to be true. He did not say that what is good, and what is evil, is common to all societies, since, of course these differ from society to society. It is like saying that all objects are colored, although many objects have different colors.
PappasNick
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 03:53 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;148326 wrote:
But the poster said only that the notions of good and evil are common to all societies, and that seems to be true. He did not say that what is good, and what is evil, is common to all societies, since, of course these differ from society to society. It is like saying that all objects are colored, although many objects have different colors.


I see what you're saying. Clearly I took him differently. The mention of an absolutely universal phenomenon along with mention of it not being dependent on state, religion, etc. led me to read the post the way I did.
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 01:16 am
@Yogi DMT,
Sadly good people are so often held at at ransom and forced into bad behavior by the few really evil people like Hitler The old saying bad things happen when good people do nothing
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 03:07 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;148460 wrote:
Sadly good people are so often held at at ransom and forced into bad behavior by the few really evil people like Hitler The old saying bad things happen when good people do nothing
? that was very long ago, only around a decade, where else do you see in our western world such things? Don't paint everything black with just 1 person.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 10:17 pm
@Yogi DMT,
Yogi DMT;98407 wrote:
I do think humans are inherently "evil". But first let me say that good and evil are terms that depend upon the society and reality we live in. In truth, both good and evil are based on perception and what we define each as.

In my opinion i believe society has come to define good and evil as mainly two ideas...

Evil: One is selfish and puts his/her needs above that of others. In all cases of "Evil" i believe a certain level if selfishness is involved. What we think of evil as is when someone puts others at sacrifice for their own personal gain and benefit. To give some examples, lying cheating and stealing are intolerant and "evil" acts that involve one putting his/her own desires (survival needs to trivial wants) above anyone else's desires.

Good: One is selfless and puts others above him/her. Giving, honesty, and fairness are opposites of what was listed above. These are the traits and quality of someone that is commonly deemed as "good" by society.

Why are humans inherently evil? Because humans are biologically programmed to meet our survival needs. Our desires naturally come before others. Unfortunately this of course is at the sacrifice of others' needs and wants. Human's are born with the idea of putting others' before themselves. In the most basic situation, we will desire to survive and meet our needs. Our wants naturally come before others'.

Again, evil and good are based on perception. One person's view of another person's "evil" may be different from that person's view. So for the purpose of proving the idea of humans being inherently "evil" we will assume that all "evil" acts are directly or indirectly related to someone being selfish in some way.

I believe we do have the ability to break free of this inherent selfishness and become a "good" person who may sacrifice for others and that may give care to others before themselves. This argument states that people are created selfish not that humans may not overcome this natural inheritance.

Selfishness is a biological survival trait purposefully designed to promote the well being of one's self without any sort of care for others. Naturally we focus on ourselves before anyone else. Because we as humans are aware of the others we must coexist with, we can understand the needs and wants of others and therefore have the choice to compromise of or possibly be a selfless person, one who is conscious and shows caring for those other than his/herself.

A neutral mindset is impossible to achieve because people will always have conflicting desires. One cannot be neither selfish nor selfless. Everyone has their wants and needs and how they prioritize those in relation to the wants and needs of others determines the type of person society will consider them.

Good and evil are again dependent on your whether your desires benefit yourself or if they benefit other people and possibly humanity as a whole. To survive we must have this inherent and natural selfishness to benefit ourselves above other or else our race would die off due to not being able to survive on our own.

The origin of conflict comes from many having similar if not the same wants or needs. Therefore, someone will get the get the short end of the stick. This will deem the victor, "evil".

So to conclude, all commonly considered "evil" acts will be traced back to one being selfish. We are naturally selfish because that is how we fight to survive. Evil is based on perception and i believe evil is how are race has come to survive.


primitive behaviour has become interpreted as " evil " because of the introduction of religion

in nature , primtive behaviour is natural , survival
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 10:19 pm
@Yogi DMT,
Btw, most people holds what morals and ethics you grant them, however most people are utterly stupid.
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 10:34 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;149843 wrote:
Btw, most people holds what morals and ethics you grant them, however most people are utterly stupid.


morals and ethics were long before any god(s)

morals and ethics have been around for thousands of years
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 11:59 pm
@north,
north;149848 wrote:
morals and ethics were long before any god(s)

morals and ethics have been around for thousands of years
How do you know? If gods created our world, meaning they were there before humans to define ethics and morals ..I don't get you?
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 12:13 am
@HexHammer,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
morals and ethics were long before any god(s)

morals and ethics have been around for thousands of years



HexHammer;149867 wrote:
How do you know?


there was a time before god(s) , several thousand years ago , Summarians

who made symbolic language and mathematics ( accounting )



Quote:
If gods created our world, meaning they were there before humans to define ethics and morals ..I don't get you?


above

there were no god(s) then

---------- Post added 04-09-2010 at 02:24 AM ----------

not only are humans not inherently " evil "

they never were or are
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 10:58 am
@north,
north;149869 wrote:

not only are humans not inherently " evil "

they never were or are
I think your philosopy reaches such high standards that I have no idea how to comprehend it, less to respond to it, therefore I in all humility will put you on ignore not to defile your pure state of mind.
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 05:00 pm
@Yogi DMT,
It is fundamental Christians who believe humans are inheritor evil, due of course to Adams sin in the Garden of Eden, now all humans need redemption through the blood sacrifice of Christ Jesus on the cross of Calvery
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 02:08 am
@Alan McDougall,
[CENTER]Peoples evolution is not only a physical process. We are still developing as a species, I am just not sure if it is a process leading to less 'evil'.

The developments in sciences led to horrors like atomic bombs. People would not understand this 1,000 years ago and call it the Devil's work.

Sumerians worshipped Astarte for instance. A moody goddess who would start wars when she was bored... She was also the goddess of Love so they tried to please her with offerings.

Monotheistic faith is relatively new and has a problem with dealing with evil and the duality in the world and mankind.

Morals and ethics evolved slowly. Freedoms we now want were not possible till recently, and still only for a limited number of US.

Freedom of speech is still limited and restrictions are growing again. In times of war the common 'good' is more important than the rights of an individual. Survival of the structure seems paramount.

Pepijn:Glasses:
[/CENTER]
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/29/2022 at 12:44:12