While I am not sure I agree with any of the three premises, I most agree with the inherantly neutral notion. I would say that man is inherantly a paradox duality, and becomes as he chooses. No more, no less.
Originally posted by Halitose But isn't society merely a construct of human thought and tendencies? Where do morals etc come from?
Morals are a concept which has grown out of the balance between instinct and productivity. What is an instinctive desire for an individual may not be beneficial for the continuance of the group, so society instills a sense of 'law' (for want of a better word) which may in the short term go against the instincts of the individual, but in the long term benefit the structure and advancement of the group. Over the centuaries this concept has taken on the label of morals.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Human desire--whatever its object--drives human behaviour. Society has distinguished between licit and illicit behaviour.
Since society is merely a name for social, physical and philosophical constructs that are merely products of human thought, action, etc; where do these responsibilities and distinguishments arise? If every individual by your definition was only doing good (pleasurable) things, where did this team spirit for the greater good arise? Was it so that more people could benifit from pleasurable things? I just have a problem tying up personal motivation for good and evil, which by your definition are pleasure and pain, to a moral sense where the good thing is not necisserily more pleasurable.
Originally posted by Halitose Since society is merely a name for social, physical and philosophical constructs that are merely products of human thought, action, etc; where do these responsibilities and distinguishments arise?
That's a big "merely" (the second one).
In the first place, people learn right from wrong in childhood.