NationStates Jolt Archive

For many years, i believed that people were naturally good but easily overcome by evil.
That was when i was a child. During my teenage years, it immediately became apparent to me that, even fitting in socially and being a practicing christian, I WAS EVIL. I wasn't just a good person with a couple bad streaks, i was a bad person. I was evil, my thoughts often turning to sex, violence, and alcohol. I found my morality dissolving into nothingness, and i still don't have it back today.
Of course, i usually restrained myself. I did so because my religion says i should, and of course because i was intelligent enough to know that my restraint was good for society.

I got to know other people better and learned that they were similar to me. (at least the guys were). My question is this: are people naturally evil? Is it society that keeps us from being evil? Would an ordinary person resist the opportunity to become a tyrant of the world, if the alternative was to have no power at all? Would we eat and drink to ecxess if it wasn't bad for our health?
I'm trying to make a poll attached to this. If it doesn't work, i'd like some opinions anyway.

Haha, people are so cynical.

My question is this: are people naturally evil? Is it society that keeps us from being evil?
No - I honestly believe that a human is born free from knowledge of either good or evil, yet unless pushed otherwise, they would lean toward good (however, I think morals are too relative to confine good and evil to one ideaology)

Would an ordinary person resist the opportunity to become a tyrant of the world, if the alternative was to have no power at all?
I don't think so . . .

Would we eat and drink to ecxess if it wasn't bad for our health?

People still do that . . .

yes, but i mean would you commit gluttony if it wasn't bad for you? Would you get bombed every night if there wasn't a hangover?

Good and evil are socially constructed concepts,. So we are both evil and good.

Every individual has inborn evil within him.. Every man, woman, and child has some inherent evil that is restrained only by civilization (and religion, if one does choose to follow a specific doctrine).

Golding's choice of children in Lord of the Flies illustrates clearly his view of the darkness of man's soul regardless of age.

Good and evil are socially constructed concepts,. So we are both evil and good.

Good and evil are abstract absolutes. You don't get a vote.

well, spurland may have a point. Ever read Nietzsche?

People are neither inherently good or evil, but are capable of choosing what they are.

Define "good." Define "evil."

Frankly, an objective definition doesn't exist. Christains define them (usually) as acting/thinking either in the interests of God (good) or against them (evil), but that doesn't hold up for people of no religion, or even from different ones. The fact of the matter is, as far as anyone can really tell, morality is entirely subjective. It's all a matter of what you believe.

So, my answer to this would be, that the question is meaningless. Human beings are. We're animals, with intelligence, so our behavior strikes some sort of balance between instinct and logic. Such abstractions as "good" and "evil" are manmade, in an effort to compartmentalize and make some sort of sense out of what is, ultimately, an unthinkably complex and confusing universe.

Evil: Following all human instincts. Basically, evil is doing whatever your body tells you to do. Whether it's to eat as much as possible, to drink as much as possible, to have sex as much as possible, or to be violent when possible (the latter two are controlled by hormones.) Basically, evil is a total lack of restraint and a lack of sympathy for your fellow man.

Good: Willing to sacrifice for others, willing to take risks for those deemed to be allies. Restraining oneself, not just for health reasons, but so that others can enjoy themselves.

As a practicing Satanist I'd say that from the Jeudo/Islamic/Christian POV human beings are naturally evil. However if we define evil as an action that purposly harms another (rather than relegating our basic desires, such as the desire to reproduce, as sinful, being how lust is one of the 7 deadly) then humans are neither evil nor good.

Humans are living beings. We try to survive. If an action aids our survial then we do it if we are able. This leads to some 'good' actions, such as helping our friends, forming commited relationships etc, and some 'bad' actions such as theft etc.

Sometimes socioty forces us to be 'good' sometimes it forces us (or at least leaves us no choice but) to be 'evil'. Some socioties, such as Christainity, make our natural desires 'evil' so we have to fall in line to be forgiven. Self preservation and the desire to reproduce - anger and lust/orginal sin - are two of the biggest sins in christanity (after idoltery). And all three of those sins are designed to keep followers bound to their god and church forever asking for forgivness to avoid the (empty) threat of hell.

On the other hand some controls (such as laws against murder) are good!

We would all eat and drink to excess, so long as we could and it remained pleasuable. But is that evil? By christain standards yes, its gluttony. But by nature eating is pleasuable because it aids survival, and when it ceases to aid survial it ceases to be pleasurable (eg feeling full, getting fat stomach aches, heart attacks etc). Remove the natural inhibitor and we would do it as much as possible. BUT is that evil? Is it evil to enjoy life and have fun? Nature says 'no' relgion says 'yes'.

Left to their own devices, and defining evil as an act that purposly harms another, humans are essentaily good.

In todays socioty by todays standards of religious and legal morality humans are evil.

To summerise:

By your definition yes we are all evil
but is your definition correct?

*edit*

Grr just as I post you post!

Ok by your new definitions my arguement stands. However what makes following our instincts 'evil'. If our mate (in the biological sense) is attacked and we can defend them, albiet at a cost to ourselves we will defend them as a natural instinct. Is it self serving? Yes. But does it help another? Also yes. By our natural instincts we would not help an enemy/preditor, so if a serial killer is attacked/tryed and we could help we (read: most people naturally) wouldn't help. Is it wrong to to help someone who wishes you harm?

In your poll you say civilisation helps people overcome evil but really it only makes it worse.

Evil: Following all human instincts. Basically, evil is doing whatever your body tells you to do. Whether it's to eat as much as possible, to drink as much as possible, to have sex as much as possible, or to be violent when possible (the latter two are controlled by hormones.) Basically, evil is a total lack of restraint and a lack of sympathy for your fellow man.

I disagree. I don't think everyone would eat and drink everything they can. While many people do because we live in a strongly consumerist culture, many people don't eat anymore than they are hungry for.

I also don't see how sex can possibly be considered evil if you don't rape anyone. I also think violence is more of a product of society than of "human nature". We live in a society founded on "might makes right", hense social hierarchy.

Good is an action motivated by kindness or love and evil is an action motivated by hate or power hunger. A good action would include helping others in need and an evil action would include telling others what to do and thus denying them the opportunity to make moral choices.

I disagree. I don't think everyone would eat and drink everything they can. While many people do because we live in a strongly consumerist culture, many people don't eat anymore than they are hungry for.

I also don't see how sex can possibly be considered evil if you don't rape anyone. I also think violence is more of a product of society than of "human nature". We live in a society founded on "might makes right", hense social hierarchy.

Good is an action motivated by kindness or love and evil is an action motivated by hate or power hunger. A good action would include helping others in need and an evil action would include telling others what to do and thus denying them the opportunity to make moral choices.

I think he's assuming eat more than we need to survive, less than it becomes unpleasurable. IE would you eat for fun instead of nuitrion (i can't spell dyslexic).

Also sex is one of the 7 deadly sins. Relgion has made it evil for the reasons I outlined above. I also don't see whats wrong with it so long as you don't directly involve anyone who doesn't want to take part (ie having sex in a mosque during ramadan is probably wrong :P)

Also I gotta bash this new defination of evil


Evil: Following all human instincts. [...] doing whatever your body tells you to do. [...] sex as much as possible [...] (controlled by hormones.) Basically, evil is a total lack of restraint and a lack of sympathy for your fellow man.

If wanting to have sex as much as possible is natural
And happens to everyone
Then how is a lack of restraint a lack of symapthy
Surely its compassion as everyone wants to do it

Evil: Following all human instincts. Basically, evil is doing whatever your body tells you to do. Whether it's to eat as much as possible, to drink as much as possible, to have sex as much as possible, or to be violent when possible (the latter two are controlled by hormones.) Basically, evil is a total lack of restraint and a lack of sympathy for your fellow man.
See, that proves my point here. You can't hold an objective discussion on whether or not humanity is inherintly "evil" if you define "evil" as human nature. Basically, all you're asking is if people agree with your definition of "evil," which you didn't even explain until I asked.

This also begs the question: are animals all inherintly evil? They do, for the most part, whatever instinct dictates...

Evil: Following all human instincts. Basically, evil is doing whatever your body tells you to do. Whether it's to eat as much as possible, to drink as much as possible, to have sex as much as possible, or to be violent when possible (the latter two are controlled by hormones.)
actually, if you followed all your bodily impulses you wouldn't consume to excess, have sex to excess, or be violent in most circumstances. all of those are maladaptive behaviors which your biology does not direct you to engage in, and which your instinct will discourage you from practicing. you must remember that hormone and neurotransmitters both upregulate AND downregulate all the behaviors you describe.

What did I JUST say! Bottle :P

I'm fairly sure the arguement is that if there where NO restrains. No negative consequences, no natural stop urges, would we do it for the hedonistic sake of it.

Ok from now on I'm gonna use 'Sin' and 'Evil'. Sin is Steevograd's definition of Evil, Evil is debatable.

But again yes the point is made that the same natural (sympathic) desires that drive us to sin are countered by natural (parasympathic) desires that tell us to stop once no further benifit can be attained.

Which brings up an intresting arguement of do we need soicoty and law? Would anarchy work just as well providing there where no social biases (such as Nasty Nicks waiting to abuse the system) and we acted on desire and instinct.

I think he's assuming eat more than we need to survive, less than it becomes unpleasurable. IE would you eat for fun instead of nuitrion (i can't spell dyslexic).

Also sex is one of the 7 deadly sins. Relgion has made it evil for the reasons I outlined above. I also don't see whats wrong with it so long as you don't directly involve anyone who doesn't want to take part (ie having sex in a mosque during ramadan is probably wrong :P)

Why is pleasure immoral, though?

Evil is something that was spawned BY civilization. If we were living in a state of nature, gorging ourselves with food would be a sign of richness and power. Now, we think it's evil because we're inwardly jealous that he has something we don't, which is another thing about human nature.

Evil is something that was spawned BY civilization. If we were living in a state of nature, gorging ourselves with food would be a sign of richness and power. Now, we think it's evil because we're inwardly jealous that he has something we don't, which is another thing about human nature.

I think wealth and power were created by civilization. Before it existed, the concepts didn't exist.

I think wealth and power were created by civilization. Before it existed, the concepts didn't exist.

Oh I think they existed. Even with instinct I think we'd all feel kind of mad that someone is happier and better off than we are.

Well, humans are not completely evil. This we know. In my opinion, there is nothing but the natural - "supernatural" forces do not exist, therefore, all that caused good in humans is natural. Therefore, humans are not naturally evil.

Humans have a mixture of good and evil.

Why is pleasure immoral, though?

Must... kill... noobs....

READ THE REST OF THE GODDAMN THREAD!

The point is that pleasure is immoral because socioty, specifically relgion, has made it so. As much as this thread is about if we are good or evil it is about the fundamentals behind good and evil - their true definition.

By the way the 'offical' sataic definition of good and evil is:

"Good is what you like. Evil is what you don't like" - Anton LaVey

Not only does this accuratly summerise how satanists live but it also works on a wider scale as too how our (socioties) definitions have come about from some egotistical hebrews and survived due to social inertia.


Now wealth and power may have well been created by civilisation but they're just an extension of natural drives, as witnessed in the animal kingdoms social hieracies. Civilisation merely enhances these things.

For many years, i believed that people were naturally good but easily overcome by evil.
That was when i was a child. During my teenage years, it immediately became apparent to me that, even fitting in socially and being a practicing christian, I WAS EVIL. I wasn't just a good person with a couple bad streaks, i was a bad person. I was evil, my thoughts often turning to sex, violence, and alcohol. I found my morality dissolving into nothingness, and i still don't have it back today.
Of course, i usually restrained myself. I did so because my religion says i should, and of course because i was intelligent enough to know that my restraint was good for society.

I got to know other people better and learned that they were similar to me. (at least the guys were). My question is this: are people naturally evil? Is it society that keeps us from being evil? Would an ordinary person resist the opportunity to become a tyrant of the world, if the alternative was to have no power at all? Would we eat and drink to ecxess if it wasn't bad for our health?
I'm trying to make a poll attached to this. If it doesn't work, i'd like some opinions anyway.

People are far too complicated to easily fit into a large number of categories, much less two. I don't think it's a matter of asking if people are good or evil. It's more a matter of asking why they do a particular thing at a specific time.

Evil is something that was spawned BY civilization. If we were living in a state of nature, gorging ourselves with food would be a sign of richness and power. Now, we think it's evil because we're inwardly jealous that he has something we don't, which is another thing about human nature.

Learn to not want.

Why is pleasure immoral, though?

Pleasure itself is neither moral nor immoral, it simply is. When the pursuit of pleasure harms others, then the pursuer is being immoral.