Is humanity inherently good or inherently evil?

[zerorelations]

As a deeply cynic, I tend to believe that people are basically evil. What do you think?

[Eternal]

I think it depends on the person. But as they say, it is easy to make a good girl go bad.

[Lilly Marlene]

I think it depends on the person. But as they say, it is easy to make a good girl go bad.

Is it now ?
:)

In any event, my feeling is that humans are distinguished from other creatures by their potential to discern between the two and make the choice; this is the dignity of being a human being ...

I agree with the Catholic teaching that humans are basically good because they are made in the image of God, but that all nature is in a wounded state

Natura vulnera non deleta

There are additional considerations which relate to neurology of course, such as psychopathy from birth, and so forth.

[saggyjones]

They are neither. Our nature is made up of certain characteristics and instincts that can't be defined as good or evil. It's society and its norms that creates this.

But taking into consideration our society today, I would say that humans are "evil" because we fend for ourselves first, but we have many "good" qualities also. I think it mostly depends on the person and how they were raised.

[Friendindeed]

They are neither. Our nature is made up of certain characteristics and instincts that can't be defined as good or evil. It's society and its norms that creates this.


That is the liberal position that society, upbringing, "nurture" accounts for almost everything.
That has been found to be false.
A whole lot of it is inborn.

[saggyjones]

That is the liberal position that society, upbringing, "nurture" accounts for almost everything.
That has been found to be false.
A whole lot of it is inborn.

No, I'm saying that good and evil are simply perspectives created by society. I know that most of our characteristics are natural.

[Friendindeed]

No, I'm saying that good and evil are simply perspectives created by society. I know that most of our characteristics are natural.

So you don't think there is any real thing such as evil ?
If I burn my child with cigarettes taht is not evil ?

[saggyjones]

So you don't think there is any real thing such as evil ?
If I burn my child with cigarettes taht is not evil ?

In our society, yes, that would be considered evil. However in a system with completely different morals and norms that might be a good thing. All I'm saying is that humans aren't naturally good or evil; they have certain characteristics that our society perceives as either good or evil.

Like I said, in our society today, I think humans are "evil" because they always fend for themselves first. But we also have many "good" qualities, like compassion.

[Friendindeed]

What society would consider it good to burn children with cigarettes.
I have to reject your relativism here wholesale.
And you are also incorrect about fending for themselves first, most people fend for their children first which is hardwired.

[God]

My intention was to make you guys good but then politicians happened.

[Grounded]

My intention was to make you guys good but then politicians happened.

LOL that's a good one.

[vyo476]

What society would consider it good to burn children with cigarettes.
I have to reject your relativism here wholesale.
And you are also incorrect about fending for themselves first, most people fend for their children first which is hardwired.

Friendindeed, you need to pick up some Sociology. In particular the works of Max Weber and Emile Durkheim are quite insightful on the subject of social norms.

Other societies have had what we consider some wacky ideas about what's right and wrong. Look at the Aztecs, who ate the flesh of opposing warriors and performed enormous amounts of human sacrifice. In turn, if the Aztecs got a good look at us today they'd probably think we were pretty wacky, too. Judging other societies by your own norms really doesn't get you much of anywhere.

[Dave]

I don't really believe in good and evil. There is only motivation. I've heard Hitler viewed as the stereotype of what can be considered evil, but the way I look at it, he simply had a different view of what the world should be, and took actions that he thought would make the world a better place. Unfortunately, his view of a better world included the murder of millions. By using this logic, America's founding fathers were evil for waging war against Britain. I just don't think that it all boils down to something as simple as good v evil.

[Coyote]

Humanity is neither evil nor good - moral nor immoral. As a group it is ammoral. It's what we do as individuals through out our lives that adds good or evil. It's nothing inherent.

[9sublime]

It is so clearly upbringing that overpowers everything else in determining who is good and who is evil. A child who is born into one set of circumstances is going to come out a completely different person if put through another set of circumstances instead.

However, if a man has a son who is very aggressive, has high levels of testosterone etc. this is likely to lead to an agressive child. It just depends how his upbringing channels that anger. Most of it is not genetic.

[Coyote]

It is so clearly upbringing that overpowers everything else in determining who is good and who is evil. A child who is born into one set of circumstances is going to come out a completely different person if put through another set of circumstances instead.

However, if a man has a son who is very aggressive, has high levels of testosterone etc. this is likely to lead to an agressive child. It just depends how his upbringing channels that anger. Most of it is not genetic.

I wonder. They say that genetics loads the gun, and environment pulls the trigger.

[9sublime]

Which one takes more? To load a gun or to shoot it?

[Coyote]

Which one takes more? To load a gun or to shoot it?

Doesn't matter if it's full fo blanks.

[God]

According to renowned Stanford professor of psychology Philip Zimbardo, people are mostly good but what he calls the "Lucifer Effect" is the cause of most -evil- in this world: do a little research if you don't know what that is.

[9sublime]

Anyone read Lord of the Flies, that whole book is based on inherent evil.

[Coyote]

Anyone read Lord of the Flies, that whole book is based on inherent evil.

Is it? It's been many many years since I read it. But is it based on inherent evil or amorality?

I think we start out amoral.

We learn moral/immoral or good/evil.

[9sublime]

Well Golding wrote a whole essay on inherent evil, as well as many news articles etc. and was a strong believer in it.

[Fonz]

Anyone read Lord of the Flies, that whole book is based on inherent evil.

its about a bunch of kids acting like adults.

:D

[9sublime]

On one level yeah it makes a good story like that.

[Jake]

I think good and evil are too general of categories

I'm also evenly split between people being basically good or basically amoral

[9sublime]

Read this story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bulger

Sure, the two kids had problems, but I think it shows inherent evil.

[invest07]

My belief is based on my interpretation of the Bible.
Man has an evil and selfish nature, at the very deepest core. Most of us struggle all our lives to overcome this. Our success varies widely. Some people never try to overcome their core evil nature.
I am moderately successful in some areas, reasonably sucessful in others and I am a miserable failure in some areas. I am a total success in no area.
In this way, I am probably like most of you.

[vyo476]

My belief is based on my interpretation of the Bible.
Oh, here we go.


Man has an evil and selfish nature, at the very deepest core. Most of us struggle all our lives to overcome this. Our success varies widely. Some people never try to overcome their core evil nature.

No, man is a creature of nature, which does not recognize concepts of good and evil - which were invented by society. There is a difference.


I am moderately successful in some areas, reasonably sucessful in others and I am a miserable failure in some areas. I am a total success in no area.
In this way, I am probably like most of you.

What do you mean, human?

[Burning Giraffe]

Humans are neither good or evil. They act out of self-interest.

[Dagoth]

I personally believe the answer would be both.
some people are born evil for example Hitler,
and some people are born good like Ghandi

[Burning Giraffe]

I personally believe the answer would be both.
some people are born evil for example Hitler,
and some people are born good like Ghandi

Both Hitler and Ghandi acted out of self-interest based on their experience and perspective. The acts of Ghandi were good for Man, and the against of Hitler were evil for Man - but the men themselves were neutral, like the rest of us.

[Dagoth]

still though they acted out of self interest like most mankind
they both had a dream, and neither dream was neutral for all human beings~

[Burning Giraffe]

still though they acted out of self interest like most mankind
they both had a dream, and neither dream was neutral for all human beings~

Rationally, people can only act out of self-interest with regard to their values. Your ethical parameters are defined by your values, so if you value yourself above all else, your morals will be different than whether you value the weak and helpless above all us, or those who value the community or family above all else. But there is no right thing to value. Everything you choose to value is arbitrary, just as your justifications are arbitrary.

The important thing is to state your values and to argue for them - otherwise, it will be other people's values that gain power, both politically and culturally. We see this today amongst Christian evangelicals, Islamic Fascists, and secular humanists... all struggling against each other for power over government and culture throughout the world.

[9sublime]

I think people confuse inherent evil with instict. Instinct can make us do terrible things, especially in a world which is so far removed from when we needed those instincts.

[vyo476]

Rationally, people can only act out of self-interest with regard to their values. Your ethical parameters are defined by your values, so if you value yourself above all else, your morals will be difference than whether you value the weak and helpless above all us, or those who value the community or family above all else. But there is no right thing to value. Everything you choose to value is arbitrary, just as your justifications are arbitrary.

The important thing is to state your values and to argue for them - otherwise, it will be other people's values that gain power, both politically and culturally. We see this today amongst Christian evangelicals, Islamic Fascists, and secular humanists... all struggling against each other for power over government and culture throughout the world.

Outstandingly put. Tell me, are you familiar with the works of Erving Goffman and Max Weber? You might like them - or at least find their concepts interesting as their writing itself is terribly boring.

[icono1]

.....But there is no right thing to value. Everything you choose to value is arbitrary, just as your justifications are arbitrary...... from BGiraffe. Interesting comment. Care to expand on that. Some would see that as either instinctual behavior or calculated behavior.

[vyo476]

The thing to bear in mind is that every individual's sense of "good" and "evil" is defined by society; everybody has a slightly different view of what those two concepts are and everybody's image of them is defined by the society they inhabit. There are no absolutes for good and evil.

Think about this: the Romans had very different ideas about good and bad than we do. Who is to say that our view of good and evil is any more advanced than theirs? Are we? We're hardly an unbiased source for such a judgment, because as we adhere to our view of good and evil we also project it onto other cultures.

We would need an unbiased judge completely outside the realm of collectivist thought to properly judge who, from throughout human history, got "good" and "evil" right. Unfortunately, someone or something entirely outside of any form of society would exist on a completely instinctual level and wouldn't have anything to say on the subject, since to that individual the two concepts do not exist.

[Burning Giraffe]

.....But there is no right thing to value. Everything you choose to value is arbitrary, just as your justifications are arbitrary...... from BGiraffe. Interesting comment. Care to expand on that. Some would see that as either instinctual behavior or calculated behavior.

We value things out of self interest, that is, we choose our values based on experience. We don't value things accidentally or innately, we are not born with them. Values are not objective, factual parts of nature. They exist in our minds. So, how can something that exists only in our minds, that are a part of our personality be objective?

Instinctual behavior isn't moral, as it doesn't relate to values or ethics. It's a biological response. Rational behavior is based on values, motive, expectations, etc.

[Castle]

Of course it depends on your interpretation of evil but I have to say that I believe we all are all born rather savage which can be paired with evil if one chooses to view it that way.

Think about it. It is very difficult for most people to be compassionate but all to easy to twist your boot heel on someone's neck. I remember back in high school some of the things that were said and done to other people were disturbing to put it mildly. I cringe when I think back to my conduct at times.

Ever been stuck in traffic because of a terrible accident? Ever notice how the backup was made even worse because everyone needed to catch a glimpse of the mangled bodies even though they claimed to be horrified by the sight!

I've seen an old man with no home, no family and no future huddled on the sidewalk in the middle of winter in Washington D.C. To everyone walking by him he didn't exist and for all tense and purposes was already dead. I guarantee if you threw a $100 dollar bill next to him you'd have people piling on.

In the absence of morals and values we are left with our basic and savage impulses. Our conscience no longer tells us what we're doing or not doing is wrong. We only listen to our urges and follow only what pleases us.

Is this evil....maybe not but it sure cast doubt on our evolutionary progress.

-Castle

[Burning Giraffe]

Who says compassion is something that improves the specie from an evolutionary perspective?

[Justinian]

I say inherently human.

[Marina_]

Inherently feeling a need to be loved.
Other features depend on whether this need is met or not.

[Napoleon]

I say neither. I believe that humans are born with a "moral sense", i.e. the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, but I don't believe that we are innately good or evil. Our experience/choices in the external realm are what determine whether or not we are good or evil.

[Castle]

Who says compassion is something that improves the specie from an evolutionary perspective?
Well okay. How does compassion erode the species from an evolutionary perspective?

-Castle

[Justinian]

I think Humans can be looked at as inherently evil because they are inherently dominant and greedy which brings upon vices. I will go far enough to say that human existance and social order is impossible without religion in one form or another. Liberals profess they are against religion yet to liberals, liberalism IS their religion .

[invest07]

At the deepest core, humans are seflish and arrogant. This means that humans are evil at the core.

The purpose of laws is to limit behavior so as to not infringe on other people's rights. One of the functions of religion is to present a means to overcome one's own evil core.

All of us struggle throughout our entire life to overcome our evil core. Some of us are more successful in this than others and it seems to me that some people don't try. Most of us will be successful in some areas and failures in other areas of our nature but it is the trying that gives pleasure and promise to life.

Absolute success in overcoming our basic nature is not possible. Improving is very achievable.

[vyo476]

At the deepest core, humans are seflish and arrogant. This means that humans are evil at the core.

Why is this "evil?"

The purpose of laws is to limit behavior so as to not infringe on other people's rights. One of the functions of religion is to present a means to overcome one's own evil core.

The purpose of laws and religion over time has been to bring order to society.

All of us struggle throughout our entire life to overcome our evil core. Some of us are more successful in this than others and it seems to me that some people don't try. Most of us will be successful in some areas and failures in other areas of our nature but it is the trying that gives pleasure and promise to life.

Once one looks upon the concepts of "good" and "evil" as absolutes it becomes easier to identify how the concepts apply to everyday life and is therefore easier to live a life of "good" despite an "evil" core. In other words, the limiting of one's perception also limits the constraints of said perception. It's easier to be "good" or "evil" when the definitions of both are limited.

Absolute success in overcoming our basic nature is not possible. Improving is very achievable.

Yet more limitation. The concepts of "total success" and "limited improvement" are necessarily constrained by the constrained concepts of "good" and "evil."

[JavaBlack]

I say inherently human.
I'm gonna go with Justinian on this one.
Who can argue with that?

Humans are born with a predisposition toward selfishness... but also with a predisposition toward altruism and empathy. It varies from human to human, and both things by large help us survive.
Most of our evil comes from our innate cluelessness and the limits of our brains to make sense out the universe... while being inclined to do so.

We must learn both emotionally and cognitively to be good. But we also must learn to be evil.
Without learning either, we are generally just ignorant and unthoughtful. The undersocialized human doesn't mean to hurt anyone... but doesn't understand
how not to... and to some extent, we're all like this. We always do dumb things and don't understand just how dumb it is until we are called on it...
Then we either rationalize it away or learn a lesson.

Truly evil people are a rarity, both of genetic mind disorders and terrible social circumstances.

[numinus]

Inherently good.

All human actions are calculated to bring about some sort of good.

It is the calculation that is defective.

[invest07]

[QUOTE=vyo476;14470]
Once one looks upon the concepts of "good" and "evil" as absolutes it becomes easier to identify how the concepts apply to everyday life and is therefore easier to live a life of "good" despite an "evil" core. In other words, the limiting of one's perception also limits the constraints of said perception. It's easier to be "good" or "evil" when the definitions of both are limited. /QUOTE]

Just curious but do you believe in situational ethics?

If I am interpreting your comments properly, it seems like you reject notions of absolute good and evil. Good and evil seem to be relative to you.

I have no problems with absolute definitions of right and wrong. And those absolutes apply solely to me. No interest in requiring others to agree with my definitions. Absolutes do not seem to me to be a limit on perception. Limits are a method of interpreting data and life, within a framework that make sense.

[invest07]

We must learn both emotionally and cognitively to be good. But we also must learn to be evil.

One of may favorite original Star Trek episodes deals with this theme.

Kirk is split into 2 Kirks by the transporter. One is totally evil and the other is totally good. The good Kirk is non-functional as he is incapable of making even simple decsions and is a blubbering wimp. The evil Kirk is functional but terminally self destructive to himself and everyone around.

The moral for me: People have different natures and we are a combination of those natures. Some good and some evil are in the mix. It is the mix that makes each person unique and the mix that results in us being functional in society.

[JavaBlack]

Just curious but do you believe in situational ethics?

If I am interpreting your comments properly, it seems like you reject notions of absolute good and evil. Good and evil seem to be relative to you.

I have no problems with absolute definitions of right and wrong. And those absolutes apply solely to me. No interest in requiring others to agree with my definitions. Absolutes do not seem to me to be a limit on perception. Limits are a method of interpreting data and life, within a framework that make sense.

Absolutes can be useful in some cases, but not all defined absolutes are equal. "Our side is always right" is a pretty lousy absolute (but common) when it comes to moral depth. Even killing and theft are not perfect absolutes... ? Even if all are bad, not all cases are equally bad.
I think the only absloutes that make moral sense are those based on motive. Malice is the ultimate evil... but unfortunately that is based on the person's beliefs, understandings, and mental processes.
So I guess what we really have is a form of evil that is based on bad things that happen and a form of Evil that stems from malice and disregard of others. The former evil is not always the result of Evil.

[Force-of-the-Truth]

I don't think that we are inherently good or inherently evil. I think that individuals choose to be good and evil. Claiming that we are inherently good ignores genuine malice, while claiming that we are inherently evil unintentionally eliminates personal responsibility. If we are all innately evil, there are no logically consistent grounds for any ethical code. No matter what evil a person committed, they could always make the excuse that they were born bad and that so was everyone else, meaning that their actions were as justified as any other. This is a problem with any outlook that downplays the importance of free will. It is equally important, moreover, not to view certain people (but not others) as innately evil apart from the decisions that they make, because doing this is the basis of all forms of prejudice.