'ello!

Are people inherently good or evil? Please reply, because I have to type an essay on it for my Civics class, and I don't have any ideas...:(

Thanks!
- %bluesoul%

hey,

I would say we are a bit of both. Knowing that people have the capacity to cause both good and bad, I would suggest that yes, people are inherently evil, but they are also inherently good.

I think it should be said that, after considering current events, the concepts of good and evil are subjectively defined. Also, can evil be used in an effort to cause a good end? Is there a greater of two evils?

Evil and Good: Two of many four-letter words in the English language. Words are meant to symbolize physical things, or ideas, or emotions, or states of mind etc… Ideally, within a culture, every person has an identical symbolic representation of every word used in that culture. This ideal is what makes communication possible using words. So we see that the very representation of a word is, at best, only culturally defined. To answer the question “Are people inherently Good or Evil? ”, I would start by asking –“ From what point of view? ”. Look at the Events of 9/11. Most Americans (one cultural set of people) would agree that the people behind these men are/were Evil. And most fundamentalist Islamic terrorists (another cultural set of people) would agree that those men were/are Good. If you were to poll every person on the planet and ask: “Are you Good or Evil? ”, I believe that the vast majority would say they were Good. If you were to devise a questionnaire that allowed you to judge a person’s inherent Goodness or Evilness, based upon your own Good/Evil criteria, and had every person fill in the answers you might find that there are many, many, Evil people in the world. Depending on how strict your criteria is, you might find that MOST people are Evil.

So this is the problem with the nature of these words: Humanity is the measuring stick used to measure traits of Humanity.

I'll answer your question with a rhetorical question my social teacher said in class last year:

Has a baby ever stopped crying in the middle of the night, thinking
'Maybe my parents want to sleep, I can just wait till the morning'?

It's already been said, but we are really just inherently human. Evil and good are words we created to define what WE feel is good and evil, like we created time and infinite. We all have the potential to be just as good and just as evil as anyone else.

All people consider themselves good. Ask the person who commited the hate crime by killing a peace loving Sikh. He will tell you the same thing.

Unless one feels guilty, in which case he may consider himself evil.

Wow, I think I agree with every post under this thread, so far.

Good and Evil are strictly relative concepts.

As some may already know, I strongly disagree with the relativistic view on ethics.

But still: Start off with defining what do you mean with good and evil. What do de concepts stand for?
Well if you really think they are relative, you'll have a short essay indeed!

"Since the concepts of good and evil are ideas made by man, and therefor relative. All men are born equal. All men are born good."

(Aha, makes you wonder: "why should we want to retaliate on terrorists?" if that relativistic view were true. hahaha relativism = stupidity).

If you choose to have good and evil defined first, you may want to think of what elements of human nature are intrinsic/inherent and view them in the light of what you have defined good and evil to be.

Merlijn

I think people are born both with the capabilities to do both evil and good. But we are more alligned to do evil. Lets face it, you don't have to teach a child to steal or covet another peers toys or chocolate candy. It is a lot harder for a parent to teach a child to do good than to do evil.

But do you think that a child knows instinctively what is inherantly good and inherantly evil at its most basic levels.

The flesh will always want to do what is contrary to the law of God. I believe this is because of the sinful condition. This is why we must exercise self control.

*Feel free to quote me if you like just in case you need to ask permission. This thread would be an alright souce of references.

Even the evil will think that they are good. There is that within us that allows us to justify our actions. As such even those who would snuff out thousands of lives believe that they are right and just for their cause.

Well.. relativistically speaking, we are all neither good nor evil.
Interestingly enough Merlijn, this makes it an absolutist moral theory.
Ethics was created by humankind; ergo Bluesoul, your answer is the only good one.

I think the amount of good and the amount of evil are in balance. Everytime I go to the church, the preacher preaches about the evil and sin and so on. That means he knows that the members practice evil and it is his job to keep them towards good. Otherwise he would have said: Guys, keep up the good work.

Originally posted by Merlijn
(Aha, makes you wonder: "why should we want to retaliate on terrorists?" if that relativistic view were true. hahaha relativism = stupidity).

That's an extremely narrow argument. In fact, it sounds more like an attempt to offend those of us who believe good and evil are relative, than a genuine attempt at debate.




If you choose to have good and evil defined first, you may want to think of what elements of human nature are intrinsic/inherent and view them in the light of what you have defined good and evil to be.

Merlijn

I think you should read your your own words here, carefully, Merlijn. This paragraph supports relativism as related to good and evil.

Thanks for the remarks, felix. I understand your reactions.
However, the following was, of course, a tip for Bluesoul for writing a paper on the subject.

"If you choose to have good and evil defined first, you may want to think of what elements of human nature are intrinsic/inherent and view them in the light of what you have defined good and evil to be. "

I think you should read your your own words here, carefully, Merlijn. This paragraph supports relativism as related to good and evil.
This is not to say that I support relativism. I just do not think it is wise to write an essay defending a position, without first defining the essential terms.
I do strongly believe in absolute good and evil. But I do not believe that there is anybody on this world who precisely knows them. It is just like the number pi. I believe it exists as a constant, but I also know nobody in the world know exactly what the exact value of pi (in decimals) is.
Understanding you do not know what 'A' is exactly, is something else then stating 'A' does not actually exist.

Secondly, I do apologies for the remark I made. I hope nobody was hurt by it. I agree that in an emotional state I wrote something that is not a "genuine attempt to debate" (quoted from felix). The thing is, I do get emotional when I see so many people defend relativism. And it hurts me. The reason is exactly that a consequence of true relativism is that it leaves no room for any objection against terror, torture, killing, and the like. Most relativists give me the impression to have never realized the consequences of their hold-high believes of relativism.

Well of course there must be equality!
But equality does in no sense equal relativism.
If you defend the idea that everybody is entitled to their own opinion and to do what they themselves see fit, as long as they do not hurt/hinder/kill/.... others, you defend equality NOT relativism!
Relativism implies that everybody may do what they like, no matter the consequences. Because relativism says every set of values is as much true as any other. So, when you are a relativist you should not really care if somebody is a mass-murderer or tortures people, because you deny yourself every ground to reject their ideas and to have objections to their actions. You do entitle yourself to retaliate, but that is just because 'nothing really matters' (which is what relativism actually implies).

I sincerely hope I did not hurt feelings again. Because my intentions are quite the opposite: I want to give people to realize that IT DOES MATTER indeed what happens to themselves, those who they love and others. I believe that one can only truly be rational when one is not a relativist.
There is no rationality in believing in that there is no objective truth, neither in ethics, in morality, nor in any other field. I say this because I do not see a real difference between natural sciences and ethics. That is why my 'motto' is "Evil is as objective a phenomenon as the suffering that it results in."

Live long and prosper.
Merlijn

Well.. relativistically speaking, we are all neither good nor evil.
Interestingly enough Merlijn, this makes it an absolutist moral theory.
Ethics was created by humankind; ergo Bluesoul, your answer is the only good one.

Not quite, Glaucon, ethics is a normative field of study, morals is a descreptive/prescriptive (depeds on the situation) field.
There is also a thread I started about the subject in "philosophy>ethics, morals, justice" (or what was it called again?)

May the stars shine forever on your path.
Merlijn

First, I would like to say that I don't like labels. I also reject an absolutist view of existance. I believe there are many perspectives and things are relative. I don't think there can be a purely objective view on events. Good for who? Evil for who? I think man's mind is nothing more than a useful tool that has been warped into 'thinking' it has some type of universal and timeless knowledge. Man has placed himself so far above all other life and everything else in existance based on his own pre-defined scale. How absurd is this? I think there is much to be learned from the life on this planet and the functioning of other animal brains. Now I understand that if we are to be organized at all into a societal network, that it could be quite destructive not to have some set of laws and principles to live by, but does this necessarily prove their absolute truth? Just because these things may be necessary to the continuation of human existance doesn't mean they are not errors. Life itself is no argument.

First, I would like to say that I don't like labels. I also reject an absolutist view of existence. I believe there are many perspectives and things are relative. I don't think there can be a purely objective view on events. Good for who? Evil for who? I think man's mind is nothing more than a useful tool that has been warped into 'thinking' it has some type of universal and timeless knowledge. Man has placed himself so far above all other life and everything else in existence based on his own pre-defined scale. How absurd is this? I think there is much to be learned from the life on this planet and the functioning of other animal brains. Now I understand that if we are to be organized at all into a societal network, that it could be quite destructive not to have some set of laws and principles to live by, but does this necessarily prove their absolute truth? Just because these things may be necessary to the continuation of human existence doesn't mean they are not errors. Life itself is no argument.

Merlijn-

To better understand your point of view I would like to discuss your statement:

"I say this because I do not see a real difference between natural sciences and ethics."

At the risk of putting words into your mouth, I will follow the only logical thread I can think of to validate this statement:

1) The natural sciences are governed by a set of ubiquitous laws that dictate every cause-effect event in the universe. These laws are stable and absolute. Humanity will never fully understand or characterize fundamental laws of the universe.

2) There is no real difference between natural sciences and ethics.

3) Ethics then, must be governed by a set of ubiquitous laws that dictate every cause-effect event in humanity. These laws are stable and absolute. Humanity will never fully understand or characterize fundamental laws of ethics.

If statement #3 is true, we would expect that an action would be countered with a consistent effect - in every case. We all know that this is not the case in this "realm". Innocent people are put to death for crimes they did not commit. Rapists, and murderers walk the streets free. So the only way to validate statement #3 is to say that there is some other "realm" where these ethical actions meet their consequences. And with this assumption comes another: belief in another "realm" coincides with the belief in the afterlife and God. Combine this belief with statement #3 and you have the following:

4) God has one ubiquitous set of laws governing human ethics. These laws are stable and absolute. We can never hope to fully understand these laws. We can do whatever we wish here on earth but will be subject to the effects of our actions in the afterlife when we are judged.

My problem with statement #4 is this: if every person is subject to the same law for their ethical actions in life on earth, why is there so much dissent when it comes to agreement upon what those laws are? More importantly, what evidence do you have that the ethical laws you believe are "correct" are more accurate that the laws somebody else believes are "correct"?

FlowerPower

===
1) The natural sciences are governed by a set of ubiquitous laws that dictate every cause-effect event in the universe. These laws are stable and absolute. Humanity will never fully understand or characterize fundamental laws of the universe.

2) There is no real difference between natural sciences and ethics.

3) Ethics then, must be governed by a set of ubiquitous laws that dictate every cause-effect event in humanity. These laws are stable and absolute. Humanity will never fully understand or characterize fundamental laws of ethics.
===
so far I am with you.

===
If statement #3 is true, we would expect that an action would be countered with a consistent effect - in every case.
==
Why is that?
I certainly do not think so.

===
We all know that this is not the case in this "realm". Innocent people are put to death for crimes they did not commit. Rapists, and murderers walk the streets free.
===
Unfortunately that is true. Unfortunately, people commit crimes.


===
belief in another "realm" coincides with the belief in the afterlife and God.
===
That also is not true. those two do not coincide.
For example, how about the Platonic realm of Ideas? (no God there)
That kind of realm of absolute truths is actually what I am thinking of.

===
4) God has one ubiquitous set of laws governing human ethics. These laws are stable and absolute. We can never hope to fully understand these laws. We can do whatever we wish here on earth but will be subject to the effects of our actions in the afterlife when we are judged.
====
I am not a believer in that sense.

===
My problem with statement #4 is this: if every person is subject to the same law for their ethical actions in life on earth, why is there so much dissent when it comes to agreement upon what those laws are?
===
If the above rationale you described were true, maybe because
"Humanity will never fully understand or characterize fundamental laws of ethics. "

===
More importantly, what evidence do you have that the ethical laws you believe are "correct" are more accurate that the laws somebody else believes are "correct"?
===
I do not have evidence for that, except for that which I defended in my piece on ethics (see thread in "philosophy>ethics, morals, justice>A basis for rational and objective ethics" ).
Again: my insight may be clouded. And it is the only insight I can trust. That applies also to you, and to everybody else. Therefor, I think Equality is very well defendable.
Relativism, however is not.
A question: do you love somebody?
Maybe you will understand my problems with relativism if you do.

May all your days be happy ones.
Merlijn

Evil is not born when a baby gets born.
Evil comes later in life.
Nobody is born with evil in his/her mind or body or what you may think.
Evil is something found out by humans.
That is the reason why there is so much paranoya in this world.
Why is everybody so afraid of other people??
You find that normal?
I think it is a shame......

People should care more for eachother in stead of being jealous of the new car from the neighbours or what so ever.
It is ridiculous people can feel that much dislike against another human.
Only humans are like this, not the animals, only humans.......
Ridiculous!!!!
:confused:

Thank you so much everyone! I know I'll write a great essay now! You guys have just saved my life! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Not quite, Glaucon, ethics is a normative field of study, morals is a descreptive/prescriptive (depeds on the situation) field.

Merlijn: not exactly. For Ethics to have any normative force whatsoever, it must necessarily involve some prescriptive elements.

Hi Glaucon,
Thanks for your remark. Unfortunately, I have to disagree.

Actually it is the other way around: a prescriptive theory is only valid when based on a normative theory. Normative theories may very well exist without any prescriptive elemments. Normative theories are about what "ought to be". For example:

My normative statment is "Life is holy".

My prescriptive statement "Killing is wrong"

Normative theories are purely theoretical and may very well be completely irrelevant to actual existence.

"If the basis of descriptive models is observation and the basis of normative models is reflection, then the basis of prescriptive models is design. "(p.27)
J. Baron. "Thinking and Deciding", 2nd edition, 1994.

May love and wisdom accompany you always
Merlijn

good must be balanced with evil, you cannot have pure good and so the same with evil. If there was no evil on this earth, there too would be no good, its hard to explain. Good creates evil and to evil, its not to say one good act here creates a bad act there, its as a whole. This won't help you, but just something to think about. To destroy all evil, you destroy all good, its the only way.




Tom

No Tom, I disagree.
Evil is made up in this world by humans.
And no other then by humans.
The Cosmos gives only Love...
The Cosmos, not the bible, be careful here.
All evil doing to eachother here on Earth is invented by humans and only by humans.

Because of their yealousy and their paranoia and so on.
Humans...

light creates dark
without light dark is not dark just the normal
light on/light off, 'oh its dark'
humans are only a bi-product off the universe, if the universe only holds love, then why are we so full of evil,
'because you cannot have good without evil..;/

"Your good Ashley... I'm Bad Ashley.... 'Goodie little two shoes... Goodie little two shoes'..... You make me Sick:p!"<BR>Ash Splits into two(good and bad Ash) in Evil Dead: Army of Darkness.

What is Evil?

What is Good?

Is Electricity (or energy) Evil or Good?

Energy is good.
Tom, you think in the wrong direction, you make it all eachothers opposite. That is not what they are, they are eachothers replenishments (I hope this is the good word).
Like, for instance, a man and a woman complete eachothers lifes, they are complementary to eachother.
That is how you have to look at all those 'opposites' you mention. Then the whole picture changes.
If you pay good attention, where ever you go, you will see this everywhere come back.
No human comes into this world with evil within.
The evil is brought to a child by its parents and the neighbourhood. Why? Humans nowadays are very hostile, paranoia, greedy, jealous at one another. All material 'worries'.

If you bring a child into this world and you give it love and no reason to be evil, the child won't feel evil. It comes to the child, as soon as it comes into the great, big world. At school, with friends.
You see? All evil is brought into human lifes by humans themselves, here, on Earth.
But you are never ever born evil.
Evil is human.

Then this, if you do evil to somebody, you will get that back. One way or the other. If you do evil, evil will come back to you.
You get what you give my friend, you get what you give, really.
If you are not evil, there will be less trouble in your life then you will have if you lie and cheat. Because it comes back to you, always, one way or another.
You do good, you get good. Think about it.
It is really no fun like this. I can't write it down the way I really want. My english is not good enough, sorry. I hope you understand what I mean. If not, then please, say so. Ok?

:)