NationStates Jolt Archive

Is a person good :D or evil :mad: to begin with, obviously he is subject to his surroundings, but what if his surroundings were totally neutral? would he/she be good, or evil?

blank sheet of emotion on birth, i say

I'd have to say that a person starts out neutral, but very early on their course is set. Humanity is capable of both great good and great evil - this seems to prove that we must be able to choose good or evil, whether or not we are aware of it.

Emotions are built into our genetic code, you can't have a blank sheet. Different enzymes and what not will contact your synapses in your brain to make you either happy, sad, etc. etc. etc.

All people are evil to begin with.

The concepts of "good" and "evil" are subjective constructs of the human mind, not something you can easily use as a label for individuals.

All people are evil to begin with.

A reason is required

The concepts of "good" and "evil" are subjective constructs of the human mind, not something you can easily use as a label for individuals.

Alright. I can agree with that but how do you define good and evil then

People arent good or evil. Good and evil are based on the choices that you make. People are responsible for their own choices, good and evil are simply a result of what you choose, they are not natures that force you to choose to do one thing or another. The capacity to do good or evil is in everyone.

"It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people." Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman

Huiamnkind just like the rest of the animal is inherently amoral

Whether or not we are "good" or "evil," humans definitely are flawed - some more than others

As a philosophy student (read: sad bastard who actually /chose/ to spend two years reading horribly incomprehensible books by a variety of dead Germans) this kind of question is probably within my remit. ;)

It's always seemed to me that good and evil are terms defined by the society in which you live -- to take an extreme example, one country may believe that ritual cannibalism is a good and righteous act, while another may think that consuming the flesh of the dead is utterly evil. There's the problem -- unless you believe that a single religious text or ethical treatise contains all the answers, you can never get a perfect definition of either good or evil. If a label cannot be defined to everyone's satisfaction, how can it then be applied?

In short.. I think that a group of people or a society can say "We believe that $ACTION is unacceptable to our moral code and unanimously condemn it", which would be that society's own definition of evil. Unless you believe in divine writ, though, it's more difficult to find one that can be applied universally.

-rereads post- Pretentious nonsense, I know. ;)

A reason is required

Alright. I can agree with that but how do you define good and evil then
Why would you need to?

Is a person good :D or evil :mad: to begin with,

Yes.

I personally don't believe in good or evil, but I do believe in self-service, and self-sacrifice. Self-serving could be considered an "evil" that man is born with. As well could self-sacrifice be considered "good". Men desire to enrich their own lives and to be a hero for all men to remember. So men are born with both good and evil.

Is a person good :D or evil :mad: to begin with, obviously he is subject to his surroundings, but what if his surroundings were totally neutral? would he/she be good, or evil?
As always, it depends upon definitions. Is a man who spanks and yells at his children good? Is a starving child who steals a loaf of bread evil? Are goodness and evilness properties of the people or their behaviour? or both?

Good and bad behaviours are dependent upon learning. Goodness of person is a quality I believe in: compassion, kindness and charity. People can learn to over-ride their goodness and behave badly. I believe that, in "neutral" circumstances, people will choose to behave in a manner that is good, regardless of how that behaviour might be viewed or judged by others. They will do what is good for themselves and good for others, and when those two clash for some reason, they will have to think about things, and learning will kick in.

Since humans are herd animals and thus are usually neutral to helpful towards others of the flock, i would say they start a bit on the good side. But morals are personal, so there is no real answer to that question.

Today's lesson, boys and girls, is on humankind and their tendency to be categorizing animals.

Without the ability to categorize, the individual ( and indeed, the clan or tribe ) would have to confront each thing encountered as a separate thing in and of itself ... very time consuming and dangerous ( imagine being unable to generalize from "lion" to "predator" ). So we have this amazing ability to place things in categories so we can manipulate them as symbols.

Where this breaks down and becomes counterproductive is when we apply our categorizing abilities to our own species. This is the true source of racism, sexism, agism, etc. We pick up on visual signals and immediately place people into one or more of several categories. Two of those categories are "good" and "evil."

A much more functional way to approach this issue is to ask the question, "Is this person's behavior functional and useful in this context?" Focus on the behavior, not the person ... on the functionality of the behavior, not whether it's "good" or "evil."

Please comment on this so I know if I've explained myself adequately.

Is man inherently good or evil?

Neither. All humans are products of a mixture of genetics, environment and social conditioning.

Today's lesson, boys and girls, is on humankind and their tendency to be categorizing animals.

Without the ability to categorize, the individual ( and indeed, the clan or tribe ) would have to confront each thing encountered as a separate thing in and of itself ... very time consuming and dangerous ( imagine being unable to generalize from "lion" to "predator" ). So we have this amazing ability to place things in categories so we can manipulate them as symbols.

Where this breaks down and becomes counterproductive is when we apply our categorizing abilities to our own species. This is the true source of racism, sexism, agism, etc. We pick up on visual signals and immediately place people into one or more of several categories. Two of those categories are "good" and "evil."

A much more functional way to approach this issue is to ask the question, "Is this person's behavior functional and useful in this context?" Focus on the behavior, not the person ... on the functionality of the behavior, not whether it's "good" or "evil."

Please comment on this so I know if I've explained myself adequately.
I agree with this. Being a practical person, I am more results-oriented; I don't think in terms of "good" and "bad" behaviour, and I don't believe in "evil".

At birth how comprehensive are you? To define good or evil one must understand the concepts. To be good or evil one must be able to define. How would a baby do so? As we grow we define good or evil through lessons and examples from our environment. In our culture women can vote and we view other cultures who dissallow this as evil or opressive. However other cultures would veiw our cultures rights as evil or unwise. A better question would be what is good and what is evil once you take away the behaviors of humans?

I agree with this. Being a practical person, I am more results-oriented; I don't think in terms of "good" and "bad" behaviour, and I don't believe in "evil".

I think this is a fundamental failing of our time. We see the world in terms of psychological disorders and are hesitant to call things by their true name. Hitler was evil. Stalin was evil. Genocide is evil. Ethnic cleansing is evil. Absolutist fundamentalism in religion is evil.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their true names.

A better question would be what is good and what is evil once you take away the behaviors of humans?
Since good and evil are defined by humans, they do not exist apart from human consciousness.

I think this is a fundamental failing of our time. We see the world in terms of psychological disorders and are hesitant to call things by their true name. Hitler was evil. Stalin was evil. Genocide is evil. Ethnic cleansing is evil. Absolutist fundamentalism in religion is evil.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their true names.
Did you see the movie "Max"?

Did you see the movie "Max"?

Never heard of it.

Good and evil are horrible terms (in my opinion), what is your definition of good, evil? What if you though murder was bad, so a muderer is evil to you, but someone else though murder was good, so that person was good to them. Neutrality is a logical term for birth, due to the fact that neutrals sole meaning is no-stance (or real stance) on any issues with the exception toward instincts.

thanks for your time

I think this is a fundamental failing of our time. We see the world in terms of psychological disorders and are hesitant to call things by their true name. Hitler was evil. Stalin was evil. Genocide is evil. Ethnic cleansing is evil. Absolutist fundamentalism in religion is evil.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their true names.
Obviously, I disagree. We structure our world by means of the word-symbols we use. "Evil" and "good" are moral absolutes which almost never apply, IMHO. That's the primary reason I wrote what I did above. I think it is much more productive to focus on behavior and whether that behavior is effective or not.

Is a person good :D or evil :mad: to begin with, obviously he is subject to his surroundings, but what if his surroundings were totally neutral? would he/she be good, or evil?

Man (and women) is inherrently neural, but will do "evil" things as a child if it doesn't understand something hurts someone else. After, it generally becomes good, but can go to bad.

Since good and evil are defined by humans, they do not exist apart from human consciousness.

bingo.

Inheritly Evil. And Greedy as a Pig.

Obviously, I disagree. We structure our world by means of the word-symbols we use. "Evil" and "good" are moral absolutes which almost never apply, IMHO. That's the primary reason I wrote what I did above. I think it is much more productive to focus on behavior and whether that behavior is effective or not.

Effective? What is effective? The death camps of the Nazis were very effective. I agree that the word evil is bandied about too freely by some (i.e. George W. Bush), but that does not take away from the fact that evil does exist. The rape and murder of a child is evil. The ethnic cleansing in Rwanda was evil. The butchering of women and children in Sudan was evil. Stalin's starvation of Ukrainians in the 1930s was evil.

I need no religion to make that statement (I'm an agnostic). It is a sad world when people are no longer able to recognize evil when confronted with it.

I don't think that any one person or cause can be defined as specifically good or specifically evil. Every evil person has done at least one good thing, and every good person has done at least one bad thing. I suppose if you wanted to you could take a list of everything a person has done, decide whether each thing was good or evil, add them up, and see what the end result was, but it's not as simple as that. Suppose a person murdered ten people, but gave eleven children lollipops. Are they counted as good because they did more good acts than evil, so the lollipops outweigh the murders? And even if you find a good, working scale for how much each act counts, there are still complications. What if a person stood in the right place at the right time and caught a bullet that would otherwise have hit a child? Is that counted as a good act because they saved that child's life, even though it wasn't intentional, and might not have done it had they known the consequences? And some acts are good for some people, but bad for others. What it all comes down to is that there is no good way to tell if a person is good or evil, or even if such boundaries exist for humans.

I don't think that any one person or cause can be defined as specifically good or specifically evil. Every evil person has done at least one good thing, and every good person has done at least one bad thing. I suppose if you wanted to you could take a list of everything a person has done, decide whether each thing was good or evil, add them up, and see what the end result was, but it's not as simple as that. Suppose a person murdered ten people, but gave eleven children lollipops. Are they counted as good because they did more good acts than evil, so the lollipops outweigh the murders? And even if you find a good, working scale for how much each act counts, there are still complications. What if a person stood in the right place at the right time and caught a bullet that would otherwise have hit a child? Is that counted as a good act because they saved that child's life, even though it wasn't intentional, and might not have done it had they known the consequences? And some acts are good for some people, but bad for others. What it all comes down to is that there is no good way to tell if a person is good or evil, or even if such boundaries exist for humans.

Oh my God. You honestly have trouble making a moral distinction between murder and lollipops? Yeats' words surely apply to this generation and our times:

"The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

People arent good or evil. Good and evil are based on the choices that you make. People are responsible for their own choices, good and evil are simply a result of what you choose, they are not natures that force you to choose to do one thing or another. The capacity to do good or evil is in everyone.

Exactly! We have free will.

Effective? What is effective? The death camps of the Nazis were very effective. I agree that the word evil is bandied about too freely by some (i.e. George W. Bush), but that does not take away from the fact that evil does exist. The rape and murder of a child is evil. The ethnic cleansing in Rwanda was evil. The butchering of women and children in Sudan was evil. Stalin's starvation of Ukrainians in the 1930s was evil.

I need no religion to make that statement (I'm an agnostic). It is a sad world when people are no longer able to recognize evil when confronted with it.
Hitler's extermination of the Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, Homosexuals, et al, was "efficient," not "effective." There is a difference. Sorry, but I just don't buy into characterizing any person or group of people as inherently "evil" or inherently "good."

I'd say most people are neutral or crazy. Of the few people who actually sway either way, the evil folks tend to come off as more convincing because a lot of people just like to hear about power and stuff.

"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
"All our righteousness is as filthy rags."
"Why do you call me good? There is none good save God."

Huiamnkind just like the rest of the animal is inherently amoral

I like this... Oh, and I've seen philosphers (Plato in Protagoras, for one) define self-seving as good and self-sacrifice as evil... It's a little more complex I know, but still...
I personally believe that every human has the capability to perform great amounts of evil (the Stanford prison experiment, the Holocaust, the Milgram experiment). We also have the capability for enormous amounts of good (I'm sure you can think of many more examples than I can - people like Mother Teresa, people who sacrificed their lives for their friends, and so forth). We are not inherently evil or good, but we may be conditioned to be, and our choices may make us, good and/or evil.

"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
"All our righteousness is as filthy rags."
"Why do you call me good? There is none good save God."

I agree. This was my reason for arguing earlier. Man is inherently evil.

I agree. This was my reason for arguing earlier. Man is inherently evil.
As some on this board are so prone to say ... prove it!

As some on this board are so prone to say ... prove it!

It's a matter of faith. Which is why I didn't explicitly state it earlier. If you want to scorn it or laugh at it, I'm a big boy and can take my whippings. But we are born spiritually dead. We have a sinful nature. Look at what this has caused: death, destruction, decay.

It's a matter of faith. Which is why I didn't explicitly state it earlier. If you want to scorn it or laugh at it, I'm a big boy and can take my whippings. But we are born spiritually dead. We have a sinful nature. Look at what this has caused: death, destruction, decay.
I hate to be the one to spoil all your childhood illusions, but "death, destruction, decay" are inherent in the nature of the universe. It's called "entropy."

I have always gone with the general definitions of "good" as that which is beneficial to life or the quality of life and "bad" as its opposite, things that are detrimental to life or the quality of life. To label a person "good", "bad" or "evil" because of good or bad actions they have taken in the course of their life is, frankly, stupid. People change. They grow spiritually. Most learn from their mistakes, and there is always room for penance and reparations. Everyone deserves to be forgiven.

Oh my God. You honestly have trouble making a moral distinction between murder and lollipops? Yeats' words surely apply to this generation and our times:

"The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

It was an example. Good and evil are human constructs. One man's good could be another man's evil. Try this example. Say a man has a gun to a little girl's head. You have a gun to his. In five seconds time, he is going to shoot her. You can shoot him, kill him, save the girl. Or you can let him kill the girl. Which is more evil?

I hate to be the one to spoil all your childhood illusions, but "death, destruction, decay" are inherent in the nature of the universe. It's called "entropy."

In the nature of THIS universe. As a result of our actions. See Adam and Eve and all that.

Neither. All humans are products of a mixture of genetics, environment and social conditioning.

I will point out the obvious again... ;)

In the nature of THIS universe. As a result of our actions. See Adam and Eve and all that.
That is the meaning of the myth, yes. But the purpose or intent of the myth is a spiritual lesson, to construct an attitude towards (re)gaining spiritual ground --not as a literal lesson in how evil people are.

That is the meaning of the myth, yes. But the purpose or intent of the myth is a spiritual lesson, to construct an attitude towards (re)gaining spiritual ground --not as a literal lesson in how evil people are.
First, I see it not as myth but as history. Sounds crazy to you, but so does changing water to wine, walking on water, healing the blind, the lame, and the dead.

Second, it points out that we do need saving. We do need redemption. If we weren't this way, we wouldn't need salvation.

In the nature of THIS universe. As a result of our actions. See Adam and Eve and all that.
Ok. Now I understand why you indicated that it's a matter of "faith." I happen to believe that the Genesis account in the Bible is a metaphor and should be understood as one, not the literal truth. We're not going to agree on this.

We are all survivalists. Not good or evil, we want to survive and pass our genes. It's our instinct.

But then education and your experiences tell you how you do it. By association with others, helping them and then being helped, or by taking advantage of others.

That's why Bush and his puppeteers are evil.

We are all survivalists. Not good or evil, we want to survive and pass our genes. It's our instinct.

But then education and your experiences tell you how you do it. By association with others, helping them and then being helped, or by taking advantage of others.

That's why Bush and his puppeteers are evil.
I think of that more as ignorance. They can know what is right, as well as anyone, but deliberately ignore it in favour of living in their own version of righteousness.

Mine is not a religious belief, but rather an existential one. We are all "condemned to freedom" and who we are - our "nature" - is determined by our actions. No one is born evil, or good for that matter (although I chose to believe people are basically good), but we become good, evil, or indifferent based upon our actions. Hitler was not born evil and had no basic evil nature. He did, however, become evil through his own free will.

After reading "Lord of the Flies" a few years ago, I began to think that man is ultimately evil. Spiritually, however, I prefer to believe that everyone is basically good. Everyone has morals, they are just stricter or looser depending on the individual. There is something that one will do every time, or something that one will never do. I cannot truly hate someone if there is even one redeeming quality. This one guy who I'd love to hate donated blood and that means he has some goodness to him.

Furthermore people have different values placed on things. In the end, most energy would be spent saving their own life, but others may be altruistic and save others. It's a matter of perception.

I think of that more as ignorance. They can know what is right, as well as anyone, but deliberately ignore it in favour of living in their own version of righteousness.

Yes, worse than doing harm to others for being uneducated is being educated and still doing harm for personal gain. Now THAT's evil.

After reading "Lord of the Flies" a few years ago, I began to think that man is ultimately evil. Spiritually, however, I prefer to believe that everyone is basically good. Everyone has morals, they are just stricter or looser depending on the individual. There is something that one will do every time, or something that one will never do. I cannot truly hate someone if there is even one redeeming quality. This one guy who I'd love to hate donated blood and that means he has some goodness to him.

Furthermore people have different values placed on things. In the end, most energy would be spent saving their own life, but others may be altruistic and save others. It's a matter of perception.

Ok, moral reletivism, then? How do you decide your own morals?

Oh my God. You honestly have trouble making a moral distinction between murder and lollipops? Yeats' words surely apply to this generation and our times:

"The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

I'm not the one having trouble making the distinction. I'm pointing out the complexities in deciding who is good and who is evil.

"After reading "Lord of the Flies" a few years ago..."
You honestly base your opinions of mankind on a short book that society in general is forced to read in schools? Seems silly to me that one would resort to that, yet I contradict myself, for I devoutly believe the teachings of the Holy Bible...so I see how that book could influence your opinions. In my opinion, I think the book terrible and that Jack was 'evil' to begin with, due to his environments during an earlier age.
Anyway, I believe that 'mankind' is inheritly what society considers 'evil' and and then soon after birth is taught what is 'right' and 'wrong' in that society.There you have it- and I thought it all up while watching Disney's Aladdin with a two-year-old...

Anyway, I believe that 'mankind' is inheritly what society considers 'evil' and and then soon after birth is taught what is 'right' and 'wrong' in that society.There you have it- and I thought it all up while watching Disney's Aladdin with a two-year-old...
How so? Did you see The Lion King?

Everyone, just play Knights of the old Republic II, and figure it out like that.

Is a person good :D or evil :mad: to begin with, obviously he is subject to his surroundings, but what if his surroundings were totally neutral? would he/she be good, or evil?

I think we start out with potential and our surroundings and genitics make the person. Here is a quote for the Baha'i Faith that helps me understand.

In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man's spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man's Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.

Man has the power both to do good and to do evil; if his power for good predominates and his inclinations to do wrong are conquered, then man in truth may be called a saint. But if, on the contrary, he rejects the things of God and allows his evil passions to conquer him, then he is no better than a mere animal.

Saints are men who have freed themselves from the world of matter and who have overcome sin. They live in the world but are not of it, their thoughts being continually in the world of the spirit. Their lives are spent in holiness, and their deeds show forth love, justice and godliness. They are illumined from on high; they are as bright and shining lamps in the dark places of the earth. These are the saints of God. The apostles, who were the disciples of Jesus Christ, were just as other men are; they, like their fellows, were attracted by the things of the world, and each thought only of his own advantage. They knew little of justice, nor were the Divine perfections found in their midst. But when they followed Christ and believed in Him, their ignorance gave place to understanding, cruelty was changed to justice, falsehood to truth, darkness into light. They had been worldly, they became spiritual and divine. They had been children of darkness, they became sons of God, they became saints! Strive therefore to follow in their steps, leaving all worldly things behind, and striving to attain to the Spiritual Kingdom.

Pray to God that He may strengthen you in divine virtue, so that you may be as angels in the world, and beacons of light to disclose the mysteries of the Kingdom to those with understanding hearts.

God sent His Prophets into the world to teach and enlighten man, to explain to him the mystery of the Power of the Holy Spirit, to enable him to reflect the light, and so in his turn, to be the source of guidance to others. The Heavenly Books, the Bible, the Qur'án, and the other Holy Writings have been given by God *62* as guides into the paths of Divine virtue, love, justice and peace.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 59)

The title of this post just shot amusing memories of Philosophy 101 through my brain....lol....good stuff.

I can't remember though. Lol.

My personal opinion is that good and evil do not exist. There is benevolence (acts of kindness) which you might equate to good and malevolence (acts of cruelty) which you might equate to evil. In all beings are the tendencies toward both. Circumstance reflects what we lean towards. If we go back to the situation with the child and the gun most people would say kill the man because he wants to kill the child. This would be an act of "good" because it is saving what seems to be another "good" person, or at least without cause for death. Now let's do the same thing and say that it is a grown man, and the one with the gun is a cop. Let's assume you have no grudges against cops, government, military, or other such establishments. Would you then kill the cop? You would assume this man has done something. But what if this cop has a grudge and/or is out for blood. Or even back to the child, what if the child was the child of the head of a terrorist organization that had attacked nineteen major cities throughout Europe and brutally butchered all men, women, and children in their way. Sacking and looting everything in sight. Then would it be "good" to let this child die? A dilema that presents answers due to the experiences of the past and their effect on your internal good v.s. evil war over your ideals and morals. Therefor to sum all of this up my belief is that man is not inherently anything but the product of his life and circumstance. A balance of good and evil that regardless of their actions attempts to right itself in that person's actions. Whatever walk of life you come from you have some ideals, some morals that drive you. This balance affects your actions accordingly. If in your culture you are supposed to kill the first born son of an enemy household to do good, and you spare one to do evil then you are balancing out how you are. Cruelty can be good and kindness can be evil. But for now I will leave it at the fact that man is a product of both good and evil, and while he may at one time lean one way, he will balance back out. Just as a scale with equal weight must also balance.

with out the other to compare against neither would exist

My own take on this would be to say that individual men (or women) are capable of going either way...but mankind, or the term I prefer (from poet e.e. cummings) "manunkind" IS inherently evil. Not good. Not kind, just, fair, loving, tolerant...nothing but greedy, selfish, arrogant, rotten to the core, beyond all hope of salvation and redemption.

We all SPEAK to the greater aspirations of kindness, mercy, love, tolerance, forgiveness, generosity, charity...but our ACTIONS speak to a very different reality.
We still labor under a capitalist system, that, by necessity, creates intolerable deprivations for some...so that others may have more than their fair share.
We fail to provide adequate health care, food, clothing, and shelter to all of the people in our country, much less our world. If we spent as much time and energy making this world a better place for all...as we do on obtaining this or that newest ittle bauble...imagine how much nicer, kinder, gentler a world we could all have!
We still fight wars over stupid, outmoded ideology, caring more about our differences than our common ground...we fight bitterly over the last rancid bits of the world's resources, killing and maiming as many young men and women (both military and civilian) and innocent children, as it takes to satify our greed.

Sure, we speak with our voices of the higher aspirations...but with our daily actions, we speak to the exact opposite.

As Ben Franklin once wrote, in his Poor Richard's Almanack: "I'm sorry, sir, I cannot hear your words...your actions are speaking too loudly."

And, on a closing, let me share with you the poem by e.e. cummings out of which I extracted my term for the human race, "manunkind..."

pity this busy monster,manunkind,

not. Progress is a comfortable disease:
your victim(death and life safely beyond)

plays with the bigness of his littleness
-electrons deify one razorblade
into a mountainrange;lenses extend

unwish through curving where
when until unwish returns on its unself.

A world of made
is not a world of born-pity poor flesh

and trees,poor stars and stones,
but never this fine specimen of hypermagical

ultraomnipotence.

We doctors know
a hopeless case if-listen:there's a hell
of a good universe next door;let's go

- e. e. cummings

well, I have thought of all this with a lot of depth, but I like to keep my responses short, sweet, and to the point, so here we go. I think all humans aren't born with a clean, neutral sort of nature, but a nature that recognizes needs and tries to fulfill them, much like animals. As we get older, our circumstances, both societal and physical, and personal ideals determine our level of control over such base selfishness. I don't think anyone is truly EVIL in nature, just unwilling to let anything get in the way of what they want/need, and unbound by morals, still living in more of an animalistic sort of state.

Here's my opinion. Who cares if people are "good" or "evil." Both terms are not accurate labels to give because every person has different traits and actions they dub either good or evil. The same is with "right" and "wrong." Unfortunately, religion is guilty of blowing this whole debate out of proportions. My opinion is reflected on a quote from Adolph Hitler. Yes, from Hitler. Deal with it...

"The sole judge of right and wrong is success." -Adolph Hitler

I think that if something furthers my success, or the success of a cause which I believe in, than it is good or right. Like giving my money to a person on welfare. I think that this is wrong, or "evil" if you will, because it does not further my success in anyway, and through the loss of that money, I am pulled from success further than before. We all are.

Anyways, thats my thought on the subject.

People are inherently good, but imperfect.

"The sole judge of right and wrong is success." -Adolph Hitler

In the future with quotes could you be more specific. That to me was just confusing.

Perhaps reread my entire post. You may be able to figure out what I mean. And let it be known that the quote was not in exact words I dont think. (I was too lazy to look it up.)

Man, like any other part of nature, is neither good nor evil. The very terms good and evil are too subjective in nature to be used in any logical fashion. What we are is a spectacularly successful species of animal capable of complex and abstract thought that has overcome the challenges of basic survival SO well that we have the recreational time on our hands to muse over illusory matters such as the nature of two imaginary states of being that we made up ourselves.

Frankly, putting one's self or another person to the quasi-ethical question of "who do you kill?' involving a grown man with a gun and a small girl child is a bogus activity that proves little or nothing about the person answering the question. The question itself is a loaded gun that holds hostage our civilized desire to be non-violent as we are conditioned to be with the dual blades of knee-jerk instinct to save our own children (we are led to project our own offspring into the role of the child in the question) and our inherently violent instincts towards adult males (which constitute both a threat to our offspring to the female mind and competition for mates and resources to the male mind) in such a scenario. In the end, you gain no insight into the answering person's inherent good or evil as measured by modern societal standards, as ANY answer to the scenario is damning by such standards.

Perhaps reread my entire post. You may be able to figure out what I mean. And let it be known that the quote was not in exact words I dont think. (I was too lazy to look it up.)
I knew what you meant, just the quote seemed out of place. Maybe I'm just not clever enough to build bridges to it though.

Frankly, putting one's self or another person to the quasi-ethical question of "who do you kill?' involving a grown man with a gun and a small girl child is a bogus activity that proves little or nothing about the person answering the question. The question itself is a loaded gun that holds hostage our civilized desire to be non-violent as we are conditioned to be with the dual blades of knee-jerk instinct to save our own children (we are led to project our own offspring into the role of the child in the question) and our inherently violent instincts towards adult males (which constitute both a threat to our offspring to the female mind and competition for mates and resources to the male mind) in such a scenario. In the end, you gain no insight into the answering person's inherent good or evil as measured by modern societal standards, as ANY answer to the scenario is damning by such standards.
EXACTLY!

Man, like any other part of nature, is neither good nor evil. The very terms good and evil are too subjective in nature to be used in any logical fashion.

Humans are indeed part of nature, but subjectivity is not a curse, nor is logic the answer to all life's questions. People are part of nature, but unlike animals, which survive on instinct and make no moral choices, humans are condemned to be free. We must make subjective ethical and moral decisions in our lives. Whether we are people of faith or people of science we must all make choices between right or wrong, countless times each and every day. The accumulation of those choices defines a life.

Who decides if those choices are "good" or "evil?" We do, subjectively. However, those subjective choices are also part of each of our own existential life decisions. To turn one's back on evil by saying there is no evil is also a choice.

Do I have a problem condemning as evil men such as Pol Pot or Kim Il-sung or Idi Amin simply because their actions and our judgment of those actions are subjective? Not at all. We are not components in a mathematical equation seeking objective answers in a mechanical universe. We are human beings with free will who must make moral choices and live with them.

People are not born good or evil, but their choices make them good or evil and failure to recognize, condemn, and fight evil is in itself a type of evil.

"Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.
Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

- Elie Wiesel

Here's my opinion. Who cares if people are "good" or "evil." Both terms are not accurate labels to give because every person has different traits and actions they dub either good or evil. The same is with "right" and "wrong." Unfortunately, religion is guilty of blowing this whole debate out of proportions. My opinion is reflected on a quote from Adolph Hitler. Yes, from Hitler. Deal with it...

"The sole judge of right and wrong is success." -Adolph Hitler

I think that if something furthers my success, or the success of a cause which I believe in, than it is good or right. Like giving my money to a person on welfare. I think that this is wrong, or "evil" if you will, because it does not further my success in anyway, and through the loss of that money, I am pulled from success further than before. We all are.

Anyways, thats my thought on the subject.

To me, that would make you evil. To me, the ends do not justify the means. I believe (basically) that which brings the most happiness is good, and that which brings the least is evil. (It's very very general, and for given definition of happiness. Unfortunately, I don't have time to expand...) Therefore, welfare is good, because it causes you a little unhappiness while bringing happiness to many. To you it may seem evil, but then, to me selfishness is evil... And that attitude is indubitably selfish.

To me, that would make you evil. To me, the ends do not justify the means. I believe (basically) that which brings the most happiness is good, and that which brings the least is evil. (It's very very general, and for given definition of happiness. Unfortunately, I don't have time to expand...) Therefore, welfare is good, because it causes you a little unhappiness while bringing happiness to many. To you it may seem evil, but then, to me selfishness is evil... And that attitude is indubitably selfish.

Your philosophy is called Utilitarianism and was first proposed by a Brit named John Stuart Mill.

He is goodevil, or evilgood, or goevodil. He is a contradiction of two opposites.

Humans are born neither good nor evil... since both are just terms we use to describe sets of actions that agree/disagree with our social consciences.

Humans are born fundamentally selfish - which is a survival characteristic.

This is partially mitigated by the fact that humans are also something of a nervous species... fear being another survival characteristic.... which makes humans a gregarious species - and that creates a need to adapt to social interactions.

So - human's are a pragmatically social, selfish species - but neither inherently 'good', nor 'evil'.

Your philosophy is called Utilitarianism and was first proposed by a Brit named John Stuart Mill.

Actually, Plato proposed something similar two thousand years before... And I'm not totally Utilitarian, it's just the basic starting point for my life code...

You cannot define man as inherently evil or good, its impossible to tell until they have intercted with others. This goes back to the old question of Nature v.s. Nuture. Is it the surroundings a person grows up in that causes him to be evil or good, or is it that his lot is already writen as soon as born. I must say that it would be Nuture. A baby who grows up in a loving family with no want and taught to help others, will end up being a modestly good person. A baby that grows up in a family where he/she is neglected or pushed buy siblings or peers, while end up being modestly either reclusive to others or thrash out and not know when another is trying to be nice or mean evil.

This same question has been under discussion since the time os Socrates. If anyone woild like to research it I recomend this book:

"Leviathan" Author Hobbs

Humans are indeed part of nature, but subjectivity is not a curse, nor is logic the answer to all life's questions. People are part of nature, but unlike animals, which survive on instinct and make no moral choices, humans are condemned to be free. We must make subjective ethical and moral decisions in our lives. Whether we are people of faith or people of science we must all make choices between right or wrong, countless times each and every day. The accumulation of those choices defines a life.

Who decides if those choices are "good" or "evil?" We do, subjectively. However, those subjective choices are also part of each of our own existential life decisions. To turn one's back on evil by saying there is no evil is also a choice.

Do I have a problem condemning as evil men such as Pol Pot or Kim Il-sung or Idi Amin simply because their actions and our judgment of those actions are subjective? Not at all. We are not components in a mathematical equation seeking objective answers in a mechanical universe. We are human beings with free will who must make moral choices and live with them.

People are not born good or evil, but their choices make them good or evil and failure to recognize, condemn, and fight evil is in itself a type of evil.

"Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.
Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

- Elie Wiesel

Terms like good and evil are too subjective because they are relative to the society a person is raised in AND from person to person within a given society. They are not absolutes, yet people use their individual perceptions of what is good and evil as absolutes, USUALLY when in conflict with someone else who has a slightly different set of definers to those terms.

An ethical vegitarian will most often tell you that the consumption of meat is evil. If cows could speak, they would definately agree. Yet most of us would say that the consumption of meat is natural and good. This is an example of a misapplication of the words good and evil that clearly creates an unresolvable arguement. Both sides of an arguement will attempt to use their perceptions of good equating what they like and evil equating what they dislike to discredit the other rather than finding some more rational, factual arguement. Apply this to such arguements as choice vs life and the issue becomes even murkier. It also gives permission for the arguers to become agressive with one another. If one says "this is evil", then it becomes easy to demonize not just the subject, but the opposing side of the debate.

THIS is why I object to the use of such overly subjective and consistantly misused terms.

How is one to live a moral and compassionate existence when one is fully aware of the blood, the horror inherent in life, when one finds darkness not only in one's culture but within oneself? If there is a stage at which an individual life becomes truly adult, it must be when one grasps the irony in its unfolding and accepts responsibility for a life lived in the midst of such paradox. One must live in the middle of contradiction, because if all contradiction were eliminated at once life would collapse. There are simply no answers to some of the great pressing questions. You continue to live them out, making your life a worthy expression of leaning into the light

Good and Evil are just spooky ways of saying what is ultimately beneficial for humanity or a functional stable society, or detrimental to it. Therefore I would say that humanity has a natural tendency toward what is good for itself, at least insofar as it is clever enough to figure out what is ultimately in its own best interest.

How is one to live a moral and compassionate existence when one is fully aware of the blood, the horror inherent in life, when one finds darkness not only in one's culture but within oneself? If there is a stage at which an individual life becomes truly adult, it must be when one grasps the irony in its unfolding and accepts responsibility for a life lived in the midst of such paradox. One must live in the middle of contradiction, because if all contradiction were eliminated at once life would collapse. There are simply no answers to some of the great pressing questions. You continue to live them out, making your life a worthy expression of leaning into the light

Sounding a little depressed there my friend

But personally I agree with you, it is astounding how long such questions have been debated for with little to no resolution achieved.

All we can do is live out our life and hope for the best

Is a person good :D or evil :mad: to begin with, obviously he is subject to his surroundings, but what if his surroundings were totally neutral? would he/she be good, or evil?
Man is inherently nothing but man: his moral status is dictated by his own actions, not a predetermined force. Granted there's a desire to pigeonhole the entire race, but it's not quite that cut and dry.

To put it into perspective, folks who believe in Original Sin tend to beleive that man has an inherent propensity towards evil unless he happens to speak the correct sequence of words and actually mean them. Similarly, their avowed opponents of the largely secular Left, beleive that man is inherently good; at least, he is good to the extent that he is [for the most part]deserving of any and all aid possible.

I have equal disdain for both sides of this coin.

Pick up a D&D Player's Handbook and flip to the descriptions chapter. You'll find man is inheritantly Neutral ;)

Actually, Plato proposed something similar two thousand years before... And I'm not totally Utilitarian, it's just the basic starting point for my life code...
It wasn't Plato so much as it was Parmenides.

As a philosophy student (read: sad bastard who actually /chose/ to spend two years reading horribly incomprehensible books by a variety of dead Germans) this kind of question is probably within my remit. ;)

It's always seemed to me that good and evil are terms defined by the society in which you live -- to take an extreme example, one country may believe that ritual cannibalism is a good and righteous act, while another may think that consuming the flesh of the dead is utterly evil. There's the problem -- unless you believe that a single religious text or ethical treatise contains all the answers, you can never get a perfect definition of either good or evil. If a label cannot be defined to everyone's satisfaction, how can it then be applied?

In short.. I think that a group of people or a society can say "We believe that $ACTION is unacceptable to our moral code and unanimously condemn it", which would be that society's own definition of evil. Unless you believe in divine writ, though, it's more difficult to find one that can be applied universally.

-rereads post- Pretentious nonsense, I know. ;)
That sounds like moral relativism...don´t you think there are moral absolutes?
Wouldn´t you say that you can establish universal truths without using divine writ? For instance, can´t we believe that slavery is wrong and evil no matter the society we analise, simply by adressing the several international treaties and conventions prohibiting slavery, without thumping on a Bible or other holy text?

Those things are just as much 'divine writ' as the Bible - set down from the outside.
And as for it being by Parmenides... Fine, my philosophy isn't great (come back next year, when I'll probably be doing it in college) - I just know Plato wrote about it, in Protagoras I think. And yes, I do know he was taking the "devil's advocate" position...

I'm new to the forum so first things first...

"Hi everyone" :)



I have several ideas about life in general that broadly fit in with this topic.

I like Sheldrakes theory of morphic resonance as it ties up with other ideas I have regarding Karma, inextricably linked particles, dreams and other wierd and wonderful things.

So without arguing about the description or labelling of good and evil (for this I shall refer to them as positive and negative) I believe that there is a mixture of energies floating around us continually, and that we can influence which of these energies influence us. So when we are born these energies are floating around waiting if you like, for a new body to enter. This energy is the construct of the being, that is, the being is a series of parts that are put together but the resonance of the energies determine the way in which the being developes.

So, for example, if your parents are living with lots of negative energy (at all levels, personally, the region in which they live, or even the hemesphere) then the growing baby and resultant child will be born with a larger than average amount of negative forces acting upon them. And vice-a-versa with good energies.

This then continues through life. As we all know, it only takes us to be around a few grumpy, angry or frustrated people for any length of time (say in a workplace) before our emotions change and become similar. This, I believe, is both psychlogical (adapting to an environment) but also a downard spiral as the more negative we are the greater the influence of the negative energies surrounding us have on us (we attract it). Again, this works in reverse.

So in the greater picture, if more and more people become negativly charged the energies of the world slowely shift in a negative direction meaning that there is more negative energy available to influence people at birth.

Also, with the idea of inextricably linked particles, if we produce a negative energy in our part of the world we have a direct connection with another opposite particle elsewhere in the universe. So an evil person in one part of the world really can produce an evil person in another part of the world.

And when we die our energy is just waiting to be sucked up by another being. I think this is why some people who are tuned in can relive past lives, it's because at some point (probably during birth) they absorbed a resonant energy that contained a memory of the previous owners life. Science has already proven that if you teach a rat in one country how to operate in a maze or perform a new task, that following rats around the world learn that trick far more quickly, and over time do not need to be tought that trick at all as they are born with the "knowledge".

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the subject.

In answer to the question, then yes, I believe that people are born one way or the other, but that's not to say that they cannot influence the swing the other way.

The good news is that if we all think happy thoughts and be nice to each other then eventually the resonant energies will become more positive meaning that future births will start with a greater chance of having and retaining a positive influence.