This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

Are humans inherently evil?

Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by Kasz, Jul 29, 2008.

  1. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Well you mentioned dogs and that is something I have a fair amount of experience with. I have observed some interesting behavior. They have a fairly respectable form of governmental structure, method of teaching, laws and regulations, all quite interesting. They can be rough too, yet the only form of abuse exists over breeding rites. Their loyality is astounding and not just of man. I have even seen sadness during another dogs last days.

    You believe we got where we are due to religion and I hope to hell we would have gotten here without it, especially considering that I believe during the past 100 years or so, most religious types in the western world are mostly wishful posers, primarily living outside a life of "faith" and in these past 100 years {give or take} is when we have seen the most advancements in mankinds compassion toward others. In fact I believe history would show little compassion in terms of say the Church in passed centuries. Seems to have been more disciplinary than thoughtful of others.

    Just two of my primitive beasts in their prime youth, both males, both still alive.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. monoxide_child

    monoxide_child New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    without religion, self-preservation would supercede everything else and humans would eventually evolve into what Neitzche called the "ubermensch"
     
  3. monoxide_child

    monoxide_child New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    according to Neitzche, pure altruism is the purest form of psychosis
    altruism in its non-pure form is pretty much bribery
    you are nice to others with the expectation that they will be nice to you in responce
    when you purchase something at a store (instead of stealing it) you're not buying it instead of stealing it because you want the store to have your money, you're buying it instead of stealing it because there's punishment for theft and you want the thing bad enough to pay for it
    the guy behind the counter doesn't really want you to have the the thing you want to have, he wants you to buy stuff instead of stealing stuff because he wants your money
    so the transaction is basically bribery, "i'll give you money in exchange for _________" fill in the blank
     
  4. monoxide_child

    monoxide_child New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so with out christianity, we'd all be acting like the followers of Nietzche that consider his works to be a blueprint for a "better" society
     
  5. monoxide_child

    monoxide_child New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    change the word "tribal" into "pack" "flock" "herd" etc etc and this sentence explains why animals act different than humans
     
  6. monoxide_child

    monoxide_child New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    according to Nietzche, doing "good" that's out of "the goodness of your heart" is a form of psychosis
    and we're back to the part where i say "yes, humans really are inheirantly evil"
     
  7. monoxide_child

    monoxide_child New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    this is because in the past humans were stupid in these "modern times" (your term) "we've now become inteligent enough to realize that Christianity is bullshit" (Bill Maher's words)
     
  8. monoxide_child

    monoxide_child New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    true natural selection doesn't really happen untill you have the pre-parenthood killing (or sterilizing) of those that shouldn't breed,
    ie the slowest zebra doesn't become old enough to breed because he's been eaten by a crocodile, that kind of thing hasn't really happened to humans in a long time (if ever)
     
  9. Blowtus

    Blowtus Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Straya
    Ok - if you refine your point to be that moral absolutism is largely religiously based, I've got no problem :)
    When you say just 'morality' though, that's a little broad, as it seems we've agreed.


    I think there might be more to animals acting different than that ;) But if your point was that it's not limited only to tribes then yes, of course.
     
  10. monoxide_child

    monoxide_child New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    just pointing out what i saw
    that sentence kinda looked like he was talking about animals instead of people
     
  11. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Huh ? :zombie:
     
  12. Einherjar86

    Einherjar86 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,359
    Likes Received:
    1,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Vheissu
    You've seen instincts and conditioning. You haven't seen any kind of inherent moral system within the animals. They don't have the mental capacity to conceive of right and wrong. All they know is what they will likely be punished for.

    Are you on a Nietschze tangent tonight? And what is the purpose of this post? Do you think that humans evolving into the "ubermensch" is a bad thing?

    I think we are in general agreement. Sorry for the misunderstandings. I am speaking of moral absolutism, so I guess that works. I think the only difference is that I only view morals as "absolute." Anything that can possibly change isn't morality, in my definition.
     
  13. Silver Incubus

    Silver Incubus Dead Hands Justin

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,731
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    (Near) London, Ontario, Canada
    So where is this "goodness" located other then in the logical faculties of the mind, and the emotions created from them. When helping people, and doing the 'right', 'correct' or morally right thing and you have a good feeling is reliant on the conditioning of that individual. So can humans be inherently good or evil? Not by definition, since being born is a blank state where learning begins. Most humans learn to associate the goodness feeling, to making others feel the same good, by the psychological empathy(ie being able to imagine themselves in a similar situation or even based off of real life situations). Doing the wrong things morally are also learned, and associated with the negative feeling, the one that is known as 'feeling bad'(which is different even if slightly in all humans).

    Little kids, and babies, have no concept of mortal sin, that stealing will have dire consequences of eternal damnation or that lying is bad or wrong until their parental figure tells them so. At the same time there is a pragmatism to the way children work. The means that gets them their ends is the one that is most likely employed. Even studies of feral children in the wild is enough to prove that it is learned behavior of morality and it is not inherent.

    Taboo is another interesting part of morality. When something is bad, there lies a feeling that taboo gives you that can also make you feel good. So when stealing may be wrong to most people, because they think about how they'd feel if it was them who was being robbed, when the association with the rush and good feeling of stealing becomes a motivation for that good feeling, they can by-pass their more rational thinking for the reward of that pleasure. It is also the same way fetishes are born. It is the whole, good feeling, for a specific stimulus and the associations built into the brain.

    It seems that the way people are programmed(society and experiences with their internal representations) to act are two basic ways. They are either toward to- or they are away from-. Some peoples processes are motivated as towards to- success, toward to- feeling good. While others are away from- failing, away from- feeling bad. These emotional and logical motivators are never completely set in stone. A great example is religious dogma. Some christians are away from- hell while others are more towards-heaven. These differences in humans can be the difference say from one person asking you if you have heard of Jesus because they are toward to- heaven/virtue and you being there and others who are away from-hell/sin and are concern about you burning in hell and calling you a sinner.

    This may help you to understand at least why I think this way. Based on the evidences of how people act and what is motivating them. This is where my problem with religion comes in. Because religion can take someone who already functions fine with the real world, and then imposes all these things to feel bad about, or good about, without any real evidence of why, other then people claiming a book says so or that the prophet of god says so.

    To explain the last point further, the metaphor "The map is not the territory" is like this. Your own personal map, being that which you have learned and the knowledge you posses from your experiences(external and internal) is not the same as the real world is represented. When a foreign map of morality is then set in front of that person, there then becomes a conflict. Your map says X where the other map says Z. Very often when small children are impressionable they can be taught and often incorporate this other map as their own, changing how they experience the world around them. It is well known, that humans distort, delete and generalize in communication, and more often then not, it reflects what they do internally to represent that to themselves. Religious types tend to distort, delete, and generalize to very extreme levels. That is why it becomes so frustrating when talking to one about things of proven science to their impoverished maps of the world. Young earth creationists have distorted their map so much that look for evidence that what they believe is reality. Then delete anything that proves that what they believe is false, and they tend to generalize the type of people who do not agree with them as something negative compared to others who agree with them.

    uhh im so tired right now, more later
     
  14. Blowtus

    Blowtus Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Straya
    This is a complete misunderstanding of Nietzsche, as far as I understand him. He was no proponent of simple survival as being equated with 'best' or even 'good'.
     
  15. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    What, now your a dog expert ? Did you even comprehend what I was talking about ? I was not once refering to their behavior toward humans, I was refering to the function as a pack, amounst themselves. Conditioning ? Did you even notice that they were Malamutes... the most primitive breed of dog. Dont tell me what I have seen, I am not stupid and have 3 decades exposure to various packs of these dogs.

    Does this mean you are saying humans do ? Or that humans do now because religion told them so ? :rolleyes:
     
  16. Einherjar86

    Einherjar86 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,359
    Likes Received:
    1,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Vheissu
    Okay.

    Yes, humans have the capacity to conceive of right and wrong. Considering the fact that we are always debating over what's "wrong" and "right" it seems pretty obvious that we have the ability.

    Animals, however (or most, at least) do not have that ability. All they have are basic instincts upon which to act. They don't understand the implications of something being inherently "wrong" or "right." They just understand the consequences if they act a certain way.
     
  17. Norsemaiden

    Norsemaiden barbarian

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Britain
    There's nothing inherently evil about me and Adolf Hitler...

    Talk of "evil" is so medieval.
     
  18. Dolly Despair

    Dolly Despair Well hello there ;D <3

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Wales ._.
    edited by Blowtus: seemingly offensive opinions are not a problem here, posting with no reasoning or relation to thread content is.
     
  19. xgramx

    xgramx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Evil is just a personal perspective.
     
  20. Vimana

    Vimana Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2007
    Messages:
    11,833
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Partially yes but there are things that pretty much everyone will agree are evil.
     

Share This Page