About humans

Terms such as good and bad, or good and evil, are subjective. Nevertheless, it would be absurd to say that all humans are good, or that they are all bad, or that they are all evil.

It's probably most useful to think of people as having a mixture of good and evil impulses.

Bad with respect to? Good with respect to? What do bad or good refer to? Under what criteria are we scrutinizing humans?

WELCOME to the forum, Murette!

With all respect, your question cannot logically be answered
until u provide a criterion defining how "bad" can be identified and judged;
e.g., if your chosen criterion is tallness, then being short is bad.
If your chosen criterion is intelligence, then being stupid is bad.
If your chosen criterion is accuracy, then being liberal is bad.
If your chosen criterion is speed, then being slow is bad.
If your chosen criterion is loudness, then being quiet is bad.
If your chosen criterion is liberty, then being authoritarian is bad.

When u ask whether something is good or bad,
we need u to declare by which criteria goodness shud be judged.

May u live in BEAUTY and enjoy the forum for many decades!





David

Neither all humans are good nor bad. Every human has good and evil inside him. Some select good and other evil. These are two ways of living. Choice is yours.

Humans aren't only bad, they're the worst! In terms of evil, they're the evilest! In regard to showing it, if you come across a human, never, ever turn your back on one even if it were to smile at you!

An interesting thing about humans, we invented both evil and the smile.

WHAT evidence have u
that we invented evil ?

Simply because it is an IDEA, and we are the inventors of our languages and the ideas they convey. Remember, there are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena--and those interpretations are IDEATIONAL events.

Amidst a mixture of other personal characteristics, iniquity of varying standards may abound [as some of the acts] of humans in the meaningful cosmos manifested by the same's perceptions and understandings. But not outside of that anthropic awareness system, in either the consciousness of other creatures or the eternal oblivion of death (the nothingness / usual lack of exhibited and reasoned evidence for itself which a completely mind-independent universe would be wallowing in).

Some non-human animals surely have a concept equivalent to "bad" [disliked]. Perhaps even a vocal / behavioral signal for attaching it adjective-like to an object or situation; for expressing "this / that bad" to a group. But when wild and untaught, they wouldn't know what evil or its mutable contexts were even if they could dislocate their jaws and swallow it like a snake.

Thank u for that information.
For what reason did u adopt the belief
that an idea of evil
did not ante-date the advent of Man ?????

Have u proof of that????
or even any evidence thereof ??????

Shud that be:
About humen ?????

Oh sorry about the confusion. English isnt my 1st language. I meant to say “good” and “evil”. Something along the lines of not caring about others as long as you save yourself.

Oh sorry about the confusion. English isnt my 1st language. I meant to say “good” and “evil”. Something along the lines of not caring about others as long as you save yourself.

For example, if a person is threatened, the usual reaction is to do anything to save himself. Including selling others out. If safety and security is in danger of compromise, no one in their right mind would willingly give anything up to others. Doesn't this mean, humans are selfish and only think of themselves.

Is my question is still confusing or I just made it more confusing? I can try and elaborate some more.

About the "humen", I dont really know. Sorry.

It only means that humans are selfish and only think of themselves if you make a certain set of unwarranted assumptions. Basically, you've taken a particular (and peculiar) scenario, and you suggest that it represents all of human behavior. Leaving aside how foolish that is, you ignore all the many examples of people acting for others without thought of personal gain--charities, volunteers who line to fill and throw sandbags in a flood, people who donate blood without being paid for it.

If you cast a gloomy eye at humanity, i'm sure you can convince yourself of any number of reasons to condemn all seven billion of us.

Being honourable and magnanimous is just as selfish...perhaps even more.
I guess the point was focusing on consequences and not so much on selfishness alone...

"Selfish" probably isn't quite the appropriate term to use when describing honorable conduct, magnanimity, politeness, "manners", etc. i think that all of the latter behaviors are a product of self-respect, and appreciating oneself enough to respect others as selves; on the other hand, i think the term "selfish" best describes actions that a person undertakes to exploit others, undermine others' autonomy, and disrupt the personal sovereignty of others in order to subvert self-doubt.

You're not entirely wrong, though, both self-respect and selfishness are not "consequence"-motivated. Perhaps both personal phenomena respond to the same mental/emotional need: (and yet) one is informed by awareness and the other dis-informed by ignorance of -- the meaning and the consequence of intent.

I try to remember to be as selfish as possible.
I ofen recommend it.

Every American shud be actively selfish;
that is not to say stingy. That is not much fun.





David

And just how sophisticated is your selfishness ? Are you selfish enough to be magnanimous and honourable ?
Being selfish per se, a rather common trait, doesn't explain much about who you are.