NationStates Jolt Archive

With all this bad stuff going on in the world, it brings up the question, at our most basic level, are humans inherently evil? I would like to be able to say no, but at this point, I'm not so sure, What do you'll think?

Could you define evil for me, as it applies to this question. Obviously you couldn't define evil... You could spend every waking moment for the rest of your life writing and you still wouldn't define evil.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

How can humans all be inherently evil in a world that has rapists, murderers, charity workers, doctors and scientists fighting to relieve human suffering?
It's silly to lump a whole species into one pigeon hole when we produce Hitlers and Mother Theresas.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. In the end, mankind is natural.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. In the end, mankind is natural.

Why are you so sure that we are natural?

Evil. Puh. No one is evil, some are just overly ambitious. Saddam kills a whole bunch of people. Is he evil? NO, but a really bad guy. When an empire collapses, the winners can say anything they want about the other side. Often, they paint a picture that glorifies themselves and helps condone their actions. They do this by describing the otherside as evil.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. In the end, mankind is natural.

Now that depends on what philospher you listen to. Many say that humans are un-natural in their actions and thoughts.

Mankind is definately natural. Killing is natural - even if we dont really need to.

Mankind is definately natural. Killing is natural - even if we dont really need to.

Would you mind answering my question?

yes but at our primoridial selves, without the influences of society, would man tend toward peace and balance or war and greed... Think of the Book "Lord of the Flies." a troop of boys stranded on an Island, and they end up wreaching havoc and killing everything, including each other... I realize it's just a book, but do you see where I am going with this...?

Mankind is definately natural. Killing is natural - even if we dont really need to.

No, killing for pleasure or fun is not natural. In nature killing is done for food and for defense, not pleasure and certianly not fun.

EDIT: By your definition TheNorthernCollective I would say that yes humans would tend toward "evil" however their will be acceptions.

Lord of the Flies was fiction. Man will try to have peace, to preserve all life. Occaisonally life and peace is threatened. This calls for deeds that some would call "evil".

Well, the Bible says that man has a fallen, sinful nature. I believe that.

man is neither evil nor good, for evil cannot itself be defined, neither can good, you cant reduce the world into binaries and denote one man to be evil or good, although we tend to do that in the real world by reducing the world into subject and the object, but in reality all that exists is man. Our actions are the only things that exist and can only be weighed on a case-by-case basis. Good or evil do not exist, so by definiton man cannot inherently be evil or good, he is neither. Read nietzsche for a more through understanding of good/evil and morality ;p

Question padmasa. Have you ever seen a chicken coop after a fox has broken into it? There's no way one fox could eat 11 dead chickens. The fox killed the chickens because it could, because it enjoyed killing chickens. Is the fox evil, and unnatural?

Good and Evil are constructs of human society. Even their definition is subjective. Man is not inherently either.

I am a person of the opinion that man is inherently evil. I am also a person who believes in sin, and that as humans it is our within our nature to commit sin. There are good people in the world, but they are also people who deny their nature. I believe that your concience is God/your soul/whatever you wish to call it telling you that your actions are wrong, but there will always be that little inner voice that tells you that it is ok. That you should sin, that to commit evil acts is ok. I believe that is your human nature. I am person that attempts to deny his inner nature. I strive to be a good and moral person. I also know that I am often tempted to sin. That is my inner human nature leaning towards evil.

This has been the viewpoint of a conservative Christian.

@ United Hippy states -

The fox isn't "immoral", evil , or unnatural since he had no other choice, morality is determined by their intent (kant, metaphysics of morals) since the fox had no intent to kill said animals, but only instict which forces him to do so, he cannot be immoral , unnatural, or evil as you put it

Lord of the Flies was fiction. Man will try to have peace, to preserve all life. Occaisonally life and peace is threatened. This calls for deeds that some would call "evil".

So it is your belief that man will try to co-exist with oneanother despite mans greedy ways of ambition?

Question padmasa. Have you ever seen a chicken coop after a fox has broken into it? There's no way one fox could eat 11 dead chickens. The fox killed the chickens because it could, because it enjoyed killing chickens. Is the fox evil, and unnatural?

Are you so sure? Have you ever witnessed the action taking place, have ever been a fox and know that it took such pleasure in killing that it did it again and again?

It is of course argueable that the fox is capable of making such connections and decisions. Human beings do things because they are thinking beings, a fox as you say may or may not be. Until you can prove to me that a fox is a thinking being on level with humans you cannot tell me that the fox was not acting on an instict to defend itself from what it precieved as threats which goes back to what I said above, defense.

Lord of the Flies was fiction. Man will try to have peace, to preserve all life. Occaisonally life and peace is threatened. This calls for deeds that some would call "evil".

So it is your belief that man will try to co-exist with oneanother despite mans greedy ways of ambition?

Good and Evil are constructs of human society. Even their definition is subjective. Man is not inherently either.

Of course, the above is the most truth you will see during the discussion. S/he is completely correct and as such this discussion is moot at best.

@ Northern - it is exactly that greedyness and ambition that leads to peace and coexistence, the modern economic system and the people you speak of RELY on this peace, if there was constant strife, capital buildup will be impossible and these people could not achieve their goals.

well thanks for th input, but lets see what everyone else has to say, just for S&G

Good and Evil are constructs of human society. Even their definition is subjective. Man is not inherently either.

Of course, the above is the most truth you will see during the discussion. S/he is completely correct and as such this discussion is moot at best.

Meh. Allowing people to examine their beliefs is seldom "moot". I know where this discussion ultimately ends, but it is very interesting to see what people believe and why they believe it (or at least the rationale they give for believing it).

@ Northern - it is exactly that greedyness and ambition that leads to peace and coexistence, the modern economic system and the people you speak of RELY on this peace, if there was constant strife, capital buildup will be impossible and these people could not achieve their goals.

But doesn't striff encourage lower prices? What does the fed do when we are going through a recession? It practices an open market policy effectively lowering the price or money... What about wartime production? talk about prduction boom on the good old Gun and Butter demand chart!

Are you so sure? Have you ever witnessed the action taking place, have ever been a fox and know that it took such pleasure in killing that it did it again and again?

It is of course argueable that the fox is capable of making such connections and decisions. Human beings do things because they are thinking beings, a fox as you say may or may not be. Until you can prove to me that a fox is a thinking being on level with humans you cannot actually tell me that the fox took pleasure in the killings.

Does an animal have to be on a be on a par with humans to experience basic primal feelings like pleasure? In answer to your question though, no, I've never seen a fox actually killing a chicken. Do I need to have though? A fox is a predator, and hunting instincts provide it with pleasure in the fulfillment of them. Why wouldn't it want to kill more chickens than it needs?

Are you so sure? Have you ever witnessed the action taking place, have ever been a fox and know that it took such pleasure in killing that it did it again and again?

It is of course argueable that the fox is capable of making such connections and decisions. Human beings do things because they are thinking beings, a fox as you say may or may not be. Until you can prove to me that a fox is a thinking being on level with humans you cannot actually tell me that the fox took pleasure in the killings.

Does an animal have to be on a be on a par with humans to experience basic primal feelings like pleasure? In answer to your question though, no, I've never seen a fox actually killing a chicken. Do I need to have though? A fox is a predator, and hunting instincts provide it with pleasure in the fulfillment of them. Why wouldn't it want to kill more chickens than it needs?

Meh. Allowing people to examine their beliefs is seldom "moot". I know where this discussion ultimately ends, but it is very interesting to see what people believe and why they believe it (or at least the rationale they give for believing it).[/quote]

i completely agree with you, it is an interesting topic.. :lol:

//deleted due to double post

Are you so sure? Have you ever witnessed the action taking place, have ever been a fox and know that it took such pleasure in killing that it did it again and again?

It is of course argueable that the fox is capable of making such connections and decisions. Human beings do things because they are thinking beings, a fox as you say may or may not be. Until you can prove to me that a fox is a thinking being on level with humans you cannot actually tell me that the fox took pleasure in the killings.

Does an animal have to be on a be on a par with humans to experience basic primal feelings like pleasure? In answer to your question though, no, I've never seen a fox actually killing a chicken. Do I need to have though? A fox is a predator, and hunting instincts provide it with pleasure in the fulfillment of them. Why wouldn't it want to kill more chickens than it needs?

You're wrong, see please has nothing to do with morality, if you examine morality, everything is based upon the intent of an action, so if the fox INTENDED , to kill the chicken, then yes it is immoral, but minus the fact that the fox can have intention, but rather acts in a stimuli-response manner means that it cannot be immoral or moral in any way, your idea of pleasure means that murder is moral as long as the subject d/n enjoy it, if a person kills another but doesnt enjoy it isn't it still an immoral act to kill a person?

Try to refraim from telling someone they are wrong like that, everyone can have there own idea...

:oops: sorry about that, no offense meant by that... lots of debating shoved that phrase into me involuntarily... just offering my rebuttal :wink:

No prob, just keep it light and take it easy here everyone, This s a forum with lots of different people with many different ways of thinking..Lets keep it civil ok :lol:

On with the discussion! :wink:

Biologically, we barely attain a 'super-chimpanzee' level of intelligence. If you try to extricate the 'human' from our society and culture, what you are left with is scarcely recognizable. The human animal, born from animal parents, would barely be capable of communication - let alone notions of good and evil.

Inherently, our lack of moral knowledge makes us innocent of right or wrong.

As far as trying to come to some useful conclusion about contemporary ethics goes...

There's obviously too much variation in modern man's experience and upbringing to suggest a common moral character, but as I doubt anyone's personal code of behaviour is completely impervious to reason, I think it is possible to overcome any tendencies people may have towards evil-doing.

Why would the inherent lack of knowledge free us from right or wrong? at the point where free will exist, so does moral responsibility, when we choose our actions we must be responsible for them and take the moral blame for said actions, even if a pure goodness or evil cannot be defined, there are certain moral and immoral actions, how does moral knowledge free us from moral implications of our actions?

All humans look after their own interests first and foremost. If you're hungry, you'll eat before you feed someone. Evil can only be done when you put yourself before the whole.

It's not that our actions would cease to be right or wrong, but more that it would be impossible to justify calling us evil for actions committed in ignorance.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. People can be held accountable for actions that they commit, regardless as to how or why they were justified.

Sort of.

You're wrong, see pleasure has nothing to do with morality, if you examine morality, everything is based upon the intent of an action, so if the fox INTENDED , to kill the chicken, then yes it is immoral, but minus the fact that the fox can have intention, but rather acts in a stimuli-response manner means that it cannot be immoral or moral in any way, your idea of pleasure means that murder is moral as long as the subject d/n enjoy it, if a person kills another but doesnt enjoy it isn't it still an immoral act to kill a person?

I'm not saying the fox is immoral, I hope. My whole fox-chicken thing was to rebutt Padmasa :oops: who said that killing for pleasure was a completely human thing (or something like that) and that it was unnatural for a being to derive pleasure from killing another.... a fox has natural instincts for hunting and killing another creature and every creature with a brain derives a sort of satisfaction from fulfilling instincts. Like when people go sport fishing, they derive pleasure just from catching the fish. If I implied that somehow that unnecessary murder was moral, I appologise, I only meant to point out that a fox gains satisfaction from killing chickens, thus killing for pleasure isn't just a human thing :P it's a fundamental part of an animal's programming.

EDIT: this is my other nation btw :)

Man aquired his nature in the same way he aquired an opposable thumb, evolution. Human nature is designed to respond to situations our cave man ancestors encountered in a way that maximises the chances of passing on genes. Even morals are a self serving mechanism, they decrease the chances of conflict (caused by violent imulses, theft, fraud, adultery etc) and thus tend to increase your chances of survival.

But some instincts evolved to cause violent behaviour. The urge for revenge evolved to encourage people to punish people who caused you pain (by violence, stealing from you, defrauding you, sleeping with your partner etc) in order to discourage such behaviour. Such instincts can be damaging if not controlled but generally psychologically normal people don't get violent without a reason (not necessarily a good reason....).

The vast majority of people respect each others person and property the vast majority of the time. Most people are good and virtually everybody thinks that they are a good person most of the time. So why is there so much evil? As Isabel Paterson said in "The God of the Machine".....

Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by accident, lapse, or omission. It is the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends. This is demonstrably true; nor could it occur otherwise. The percentage of positively malignant, vicious, or depraved persons is necessarily small, for no species could survive if its members where habitually and consciously bent upon injuring one another. . .
Why did the humanitarian philosophy of eighteenth century Europe usher in the Reign of Terror? It did not happen by chance; it followed from the original premise, objective and means proposed. The objective is to do good to others as a primary justification of existence; the means is the power of the collective; and the premise is that "good" is collective.

The USSR springs to mind.

Man aquired his nature in the same way he aquired an opposable thumb, evolution. Human nature is designed to respond to situations our cave man ancestors encountered in a way that maximises the chances of passing on genes. Even morals are a self serving mechanism, they decrease the chances of conflict (caused by violent imulses, theft, fraud, adultery etc) and thus tend to increase your chances of survival.

But some instincts evolved to cause violent behaviour. The urge for revenge evolved to encourage people to punish people who caused you pain (by violence, stealing from you, defrauding you, sleeping with your partner etc) in order to discourage such behaviour. Such instincts can be damaging if not controlled but generally psychologically normal people don't get violent without a reason (not necessarily a good reason....).

The vast majority of people respect each others person and property the vast majority of the time. Most people are good and virtually everybody thinks that they are a good person most of the time. So why is there so much evil? As Isabel Paterson said in "The God of the Machine".....

Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by accident, lapse, or omission. It is the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends. This is demonstrably true; nor could it occur otherwise. The percentage of positively malignant, vicious, or depraved persons is necessarily small, for no species could survive if its members where habitually and consciously bent upon injuring one another. . .
Why did the humanitarian philosophy of eighteenth century Europe usher in the Reign of Terror? It did not happen by chance; it followed from the original premise, objective and means proposed. The objective is to do good to others as a primary justification of existence; the means is the power of the collective; and the premise is that "good" is collective.

The USSR springs to mind.Very well put, man is not good or evil but a noble beast, waiting to evolve.

I haven't read through the whole of this thread and it maybe that the answer to my following question has already been given...if so, please let me know.

What is the criteria which makes man evil?

It seems to me that before this question can be answered, a definition of evil might be useful...

Good and Evil are religious concepts.

Very well put, man is not good or evil but a noble beast, waiting to evolve.
That's not what I was saying. I don't know anyone who is "waiting to evolve".
Good and Evil are religeous concepts.
No they aren't.

Good and Evil are constructs of human society. Even their definition is subjective. Man is not inherently either.

Of course, the above is the most truth you will see during the discussion. S/he is completely correct and as such this discussion is moot at best.
I agree wholeheartedly.

If good and evil are religious concepts then how do athiests discipline their children?

I wouldn't say that mankind is inherently evil. I'd rather say that the majority of mankind is selfish and wasn't brought up to discipline themselves against their lower nature.

You see this a lot more lately, with the way kids are brought up. Self-centeredness is becoming more the norm than the exception, and it's not something people are growing out of as they reach adulthood anymore. Sure, there was always a percentage of adults that never grew out of it, but even though they have always outnumbered the people who made an effort to overcome the tendency, never has this group been so large. There were always enough of the disciplined, community minded kind to overcome the effects of the majority, or to keep their actions within reasonable limits.

I guess if by evil you mean sin or crime, I've always believed that these things held in common the selfishness of mankind. The definition of sin or crime for me is "something done without regard to any emotion but self gratification".

I still don't believe that enough of the population has succombed to this emotion to make ALL of mankind evil.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. In the end, mankind is natural.

Now that depends on what philospher you listen to. Many say that humans are un-natural in their actions and thoughts.

Who is the "many"? If human's are naturally un-natural then they are naturally un-natural compared to what?

Evil is a concept born out of self interest. Anything that ill affects a human may be labeled "evil" but it is quite natural. Despite the concept that humans are somehow distinct or have seperated themselves from nature is a non starter idea as is the idea of social evolution. We may have more sophisticated tools and toys, but our natural place in nature has not changed for millennia.

SHL

Apologies if this has already been said, but I believe evil to be a product of the society and conditions a person lives in. We aren't born with it.

Good and Evil are constructs of human society. Even their definition is subjective. Man is not inherently either.

Of course, the above is the most truth you will see during the discussion. S/he is completely correct and as such this discussion is moot at best.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Yep, I can go with this.

You're wrong, see pleasure has nothing to do with morality, if you examine morality, everything is based upon the intent of an action, so if the fox INTENDED , to kill the chicken, then yes it is immoral, but minus the fact that the fox can have intention, but rather acts in a stimuli-response manner means that it cannot be immoral or moral in any way, your idea of pleasure means that murder is moral as long as the subject d/n enjoy it, if a person kills another but doesnt enjoy it isn't it still an immoral act to kill a person?

I'm not saying the fox is immoral, I hope. My whole fox-chicken thing was to rebutt Padmasa :oops: who said that killing for pleasure was a completely human thing (or something like that) and that it was unnatural for a being to derive pleasure from killing another.... a fox has natural instincts for hunting and killing another creature and every creature with a brain derives a sort of satisfaction from fulfilling instincts. Like when people go sport fishing, they derive pleasure just from catching the fish. If I implied that somehow that unnecessary murder was moral, I appologise, I only meant to point out that a fox gains satisfaction from killing chickens, thus killing for pleasure isn't just a human thing :P it's a fundamental part of an animal's programming.

EDIT: this is my other nation btw :)

Your analogy would make more sense, if indeed foxes entering chicken coops did indeed go on rampant killing sprees, killing every chicken in sight, but, unfortunatley for your argument, unless they are extremely sick (as in rabies), they don't. A fox will break into a coop, grab a chicken (killing it on the spot), and then run for the woods with it. Foxes are not stupid, and realize (through instinct or whatever, that they need to eat on an ongoing basis, and therefore do not run around wiping out their entire food source in a blow). What you are are probably alluding to here, is a myth spread around by rural folk, to justify the complete eradication of all foxes in an area..

Chances are, that if an animal got into a coop, and killed every chicken in sight, that the animal in question was a dog. Dogs for someone reason, will sometimes go off the deep end, and kill prey, then leave it. I think it's the "taint" we leave on them lol.

Weasels will do the same, as will wolverines. They are animals which actually seem to enjoy killing for the sake of it.

Apologies if this has already been said, but I believe evil to be a product of the society and conditions a person lives in. We aren't born with it.
It's nature AND nurture. How you respond to certain environments is partly down to chance but genes are very important. Treating humans, cats and potatos the same way will illicit different responses simply because their genes are different. You couldn't train a cat to be vegetarian. Likewise, humans are not "blank slates". You couldn't train a person to never feel angry or hateful in every circumstance they will ever find themselves in, although you can teach them to be more forgiving more of the time. To say "evil is a product of society" isn't saying anything coherent. Do we understand by this that everyone is responsible for evil except the evil doer?

Good and Evil are constructs of human society. Even their definition is subjective. Man is not inherently either.
They are subjective, so how can they be a construct of "society"? Society is a myth, there are just interacting individuals.

Apologies if this has already been said, but I believe evil to be a product of the society and conditions a person lives in. We aren't born with it.
It's nature AND nurture. How you respond to certain environments is partly down to chance but genes are very important. Treating humans, cats and potatos the same way will illicit different responses simply because their genes are different. You couldn't train a cat to be vegetarian. Likewise, humans are not "blank slates". You couldn't train a person to never feel angry or hateful in every circumstance they will ever find themselves in, although you can teach them to be more forgiving more of the time. To say "evil is a product of society" isn't saying anything coherent. Do we understand by this that everyone is responsible for evil except the evil doer?

No, but it is equally ridiculous to say that there is a gene for evil. It has to come from inside somewhere, and i believe that more often than not, it is a product of the circumstances they live in.

Sometimes I think it makes no difference what kind of nurture a person had. There are sociopaths who come from perfectly normal, nurturing families. There is such a thing as a bad seed. I don't believe it has anything to do with DNA or upbringing, they're just born that way.

Of course, Antisocial Personality Disorder, the disorder which defines a sociopath, also defines self-centeredness.

It may be a freak chemical imbalance in the brain that causes it. Nobody knows for certain.

APD (http://asperdis.org/DIAGNOSTIC%20CRITERIA%20&%20ANTISOCIAL%20PERSONALITY%20DISORDER.htm)

Yes, mental illness is the other reason...however using that as an excuse that all humans are born evil is wrong. (Not that you were, i'm just trying to prove my point that humans aren't born evil)

Apologies if this has already been said, but I believe evil to be a product of the society and conditions a person lives in. We aren't born with it.
It's nature AND nurture. How you respond to certain environments is partly down to chance but genes are very important. Treating humans, cats and potatos the same way will illicit different responses simply because their genes are different. You couldn't train a cat to be vegetarian. Likewise, humans are not "blank slates". You couldn't train a person to never feel angry or hateful in every circumstance they will ever find themselves in, although you can teach them to be more forgiving more of the time. To say "evil is a product of society" isn't saying anything coherent. Do we understand by this that everyone is responsible for evil except the evil doer?

No, but it is equally ridiculous to say that there is a gene for evil. It has to come from inside somewhere, and i believe that more often than not, it is a product of the circumstances they live in.
Of course there's no gene for evil. But there are genes for the emotions that cause evil: jealousy, hatred, vengefulness, anger, fear, lust....

Did you ever hear of a jealous frog? Frogs just arent' the sort of thing that are capable of jealousy. Why? It's not in their genes.

Nature determines how you react to nurture.

It's not that our actions would cease to be right or wrong, but more that it would be impossible to justify calling us evil for actions committed in ignorance.

it would be impossible to call us evil, I agree there, because that means there is a group of people who are "good" and as i said before, that cant be defined or exist, but i feel that even within ignorance, our actions can be immoral. If actions are commited without knowledge of morality, but with an malicious intent (intent to kill .etc) you are still responsible for the moral reprecussions of actions. The issue i see with what you propose is that that woud make caniballism "just" since these other people do not know morality; and a child killing another "just" since the child didnt have and concept of morality...

//Deleted for double post (those connection errors!)

Yes, mental illness is the other reason...however using that as an excuse that all humans are born evil is wrong. (Not that you were, i'm just trying to prove my point that humans aren't born evil)
The mentally ill are on average more law abiding than "normal" people.

Mankind is carnal. We are animals. Religionists forget this. The very idea that we are actually acknowledging silly concepts like 'good' and 'evil' indicates the pervasiveness of religion in the modern world. Religion is a kind of defense mechanism against the realities of life. Judeo-Christianity has become obsolete because we have sufficient knowledge of science and human society, such that 'god's will' is no longer a sufficient explanation for anything. 'Evil' is also obsolete. It falls withing Judeo-Christian memetics to write off rationality as 'evil' and characterize weakness as 'good'.

In fascism, the powerful elite rule without opposition. In democracy, the people vote themselves largesse from the public treasury - as Alexander Tyler says - leading to louse fiscal responsibility always followed by a dictatorship. In communism, prices are fixed and government holds absolute power. All these systems are linked in their dependance upon mankind's carnal nature. All ascribe to the profoundly un-egalitarian reality of life: that people are not equal and that some will lead while others will follow. A naturalistic system would be preferrable once people grasp this concept. I favor either fascism or anarchy.

Humans are neither inherently good or bad. The type of society and what choices are made are what matters.

If you're in a society that uses violence on a regular basis, then you will be inclinded to be violent. Hierarchy rewards what you would call evil with power and prestige.

Anarchism, by contrast, doesn't. If someone is violent in a free society, they would have no recognized organization to be violent and would be viewed as thugs no matter what kind of evil they did, whether rape or ruling over others.

In fascism, the powerful elite rule without opposition. In democracy, the people vote themselves largesse from the public treasury - as Alexander Tyler says - leading to louse fiscal responsibility always followed by a dictatorship. In communism, prices are fixed and government holds absolute power. All these systems are linked in their dependance upon mankind's carnal nature. All ascribe to the profoundly un-egalitarian reality of life: that people are not equal and that some will lead while others will follow. A naturalistic system would be preferrable once people grasp this concept. I favor either fascism or anarchy.

Anarchy, easily. While in a sense, good and evil are obsolete, there are definitely moral guidelines, though I don't think they're as cut and dry or authoritarian as fundamentalists would like.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

The concept of evil, being a creation of the human mind and being used almost exclusively as a means of demonizing opposing tribal groups through the use of taboo and mysticism. Humans are inherently evil in the eyes of some and inherently good in the eyes of others. Perspective is necessary to declare something good or evil by nature.

Our Earth: I really get what you are saying! Perception is reality, and to base a decsion on something, yo must first have a sping board to jump from...

Do you believe that at our basic primordial selves we, humans, tend to sway toward death and chaos, or to peace and harmoney. For me, I think we follow nature, which comes from orginized to disorginized... I think they call that The Chaos Theory, but I'm not sure. If there are any scientific types out there maybe they can give ne the proper name.

There have been a lot of interesting comments made here, I hope to continue to see new ones.

People are products of their environment.

Evil societies produce evil individuals.

Man created rules in order that we might live with other people. Most of these are standard. If you steal food from another person, he has less food and cannot live. He wants to live, and feels he has every bit as much right to live as you do. If you continue to steal from him, he must either leave and live elsewhere, out of your thieving reach, or if there is a group who feels the same way, YOU must leave. It turns out that most of the world's societies feel this way.

That is why I brought up Antisocial Personality Disorder. People with this disorder are simply an amplification of the worst selfishness and self-centeredness in all of us. The definition of the disorder is that they refuse to abide by the rules that make it possible for people to live together in groups.

If they lived on their own, without the company of another human soul, then they could do whatever it is they pleased. "Morality" wouldn't come into it. They wouldn't have to be social at all. However, in a world full of people, they generally tend to go against all that makes society possible.

These things may be a human construct, but if you know a better way for people to be able to live with other people, I'd like to hear it. Good and Evil are simply another way of speaking of the rules people live together under.

evil is an invention of a human mind. the mind must come first before it can create the concept of evil, so the mind cannot be evil in its nature unless it choses to define itself that way.

Even animals have societies, they have rules of conduct that must exist in order for them to live in groups, Bottle. There is "good" behavior, that allows them to live in relative peace, and "evil" behavior, which breaks up the order of their society.

It's NOT exclusively the invention of humans. It's not about the mind, neccessarily. It's about behavior, and willingness to subvert one's self-interest in order that other people or animals will be willing to live with you.

This supports the idea that the mind is not evil by nature, usually, but that it may become that way, whether it defines itself that way or someone else it has to live with does.

Yes, mental illness is the other reason...however using that as an excuse that all humans are born evil is wrong. (Not that you were, i'm just trying to prove my point that humans aren't born evil)
The mentally ill are on average more law abiding than "normal" people.

unfortunately that isn't true. the mentally ill are far more likely to commit crimes, though most of them are what could be considered unintentional...for example, charges of vagrancy, disturbing the peace, or even theft are often levied against people who are in a state of such deep mental disturbance that they are unaware of their actions.

persons suffering from the mental illnesses called personality disorders are far more likely than "normal" people to be arrested for violent crimes, and persons with sociopathy or psychopathy are far more likely to be arrested for both violent and non-violent crimes. this is largely because most mentally ill people are not as equipped to evade the law, or fail to see that the law applies to them.

this is not to say that mental illness always means a person will break the law, or even that they are very likely to do so, merely that mental ill people are over-represented in prison populations. the key factor is care availability; the biggest risk factor is lack of treatment of a mental condition, and the number of criminals with untreated disorders vastly outweighs those who have actually sought treatment. most people who are getting help for their illness are not a threat to anybody, it's the ones who slip through the cracks of poverty or negligence that can be a danger to themselves or others.

Even animals have societies, they have rules of conduct that must exist in order for them to live in groups, Bottle. There is "good" behavior, that allows them to live in relative peace, and "evil" behavior, which breaks up the order of their society.

It's NOT exclusively the invention of humans. It's not about the mind, neccessarily. It's about behavior, and willingness to subvert one's self-interest in order that other people or animals will be willing to live with you.

This supports the idea that the mind is not evil by nature, usually, but that it may become that way, whether it defines itself that way or someone else it has to live with does.

animals do not have morality, nor is altruism supported by nature. animals follow a give code of behavior because of instinct and necessity, and those rule will change if you adapt their environment or social group; they are not hard and fast rules of right and wrong, but rather pragmatic strategies for survival.

if you want to refer to practical, survival-oriented actions as "good," and self-destructive or futile actions as "evil" then that's your choice. i don't define them that way, and i certainly don't refer to non-adaptive actions as "evil" because that would mean that playing videogames is evil. :)

I'd call playing videogames pretty neutral, in terms of society and survival. It's not something that would either help or hinder survival. Animals play too, and they even masturbate. These things are "non-adaptive", if you like, but neutral in the context of survival.

I'm talking about the basic rules any society must have, animal or human, (although I don't always see the difference), in order to live in groups. These may be adapted to suit circumstances, but certain things stay consistent as behaviors that will either enhance the security of a society or destroy it.

Humanity has developed a certain set of consistent things which will either destroy or enhance our survival potential. These have remained consistent more or less since the time we began to live in groups. This is why religion is permeated with "morality". It was something people would listen to, and was once a huge part of what kept the fabric of society from unravelling.

I'd call playing videogames pretty neutral, in terms of society and survival. It's not something that would either help or hinder survival. Animals play too, and they even masturbate. These things are "non-adaptive", if you like, but neutral in the context of survival.

I'm talking about the basic rules any society must have, animal or human, (although I don't always see the difference), in order to live in groups. These may be adapted to suit circumstances, but certain things stay consistent as behaviors that will either enhance the security of a society or destroy it.

Humanity has developed a certain set of consistent things which will either destroy or enhance our survival potential. These have remained consistent more or less since the time we began to live in groups. This is why religion is permeated with "morality". It was something people would listen to, and was once a huge part of what kept the fabric of society from unravelling.

Religion is no longer linked with morality nowadays... Deontological analysis took over the hard core religion based morality because of Kant... awsome guy really, but why do you view things in the context of survival? why not see things in their utility?

I'd call playing videogames pretty neutral, in terms of society and survival. It's not something that would either help or hinder survival. Animals play too, and they even masturbate. These things are "non-adaptive", if you like, but neutral in the context of survival.

I'm talking about the basic rules any society must have, animal or human, (although I don't always see the difference), in order to live in groups. These may be adapted to suit circumstances, but certain things stay consistent as behaviors that will either enhance the security of a society or destroy it.

Humanity has developed a certain set of consistent things which will either destroy or enhance our survival potential. These have remained consistent more or less since the time we began to live in groups. This is why religion is permeated with "morality". It was something people would listen to, and was once a huge part of what kept the fabric of society from unravelling.

Religion is no longer linked with morality nowadays... Deontological analysis took over the hard core religion based morality because of Kant... awsome guy really, but why do you view things in the context of survival? why not see things in their utility?

Not all are evil. but people are inheratly driven to distroy what is around them. i wrote a paper about it. we destroy the world around us to make our lives better when in the long run it makes our lives worse.

Not all are evil. but people are inheratly driven to distroy what is around them. i wrote a paper about it. we destroy the world around us to make our lives better when in the long run it makes our lives worse.

Bottle's Pet Peeve Of The Day!!

i really can't stand it when people talk about how "we" all do something when it comes to complex behaviors. "we" don't do that, because i don't do that. we don't all destroy the world around us to make our lives better, unless you are refering to our breaking down food and other molecules to sustain our lives, and if you are then i fail to see how that makes our lives worse in the long run. just because some people are morons doesn't mean "we" all are.