Humans: Good or Evil?

Originally posted by Halitose
In a word "personal-utilitarianism".

But I agree with you that this is very simplistic, because what about a man with a family to care for? Will his decisions not also have an element of pleasure for the whole family?

That is where I personally can't see people merely acting on their own pleasure. Where does looking out for you fellow man come from? Morals? Principles? These things generally don't give the individual much pleasure.

Are you saying someone can't have more pleasure in taking care of his family than indulging in personal hedonism?

Originally posted by Palynka
Are you saying someone can't have more pleasure in taking care of his family than indulging in personal hedonism?

Going hungry so that your child can eat isn't very pleasurable. So therefor according to BDN's definition evil...

(Just working off the premise that "pleasure = good" and "pain = evil"😉

It seems a very shallow definition. Any suggestions on an alternative?

Originally posted by Halitose
Going hungry so that your child can eat isn't very pleasurable. So therefor according to BDN's definition evil...

(Just working off the premise that "pleasure = good" and "pain = evil"😉

It seems a very shallow definition. Any suggestions on an alternative?

My point is that you would get more "personal utility" from feeding your children properly than from feeding yourself properly.

I guess I have to read the whole thread since I jumped on your last post without knowing the context but I don't have time now. Sorry if I misinterpreted you.

Originally posted by Palynka
My point is that you would get more "personal utility" from feeding your children properly than from feeding yourself properly.

I guess I have to read the whole thread since I jumped on your last post without knowing the context but I don't have time now. Sorry if I misinterpreted you.

No prob.🙂

Originally posted by Palynka
My point is that you would get more "personal utility" from feeding your children properly than from feeding yourself properly.

I guess I have to read the whole thread since I jumped on your last post without knowing the context but I don't have time now. Sorry if I misinterpreted you.

The point I was trying to make is that defining good as pleasure and evil as pain will invariably result in personal hedonism...😀

So before we can even look at whether man is essentially good or inherently evil, we still need to come up with a viable definition for good and evil.

Originally posted by Halitose
Is man inherently good, but has been gnarled and warped by societies, cultures and religions to do evil things?

OR

Is man inherently evil and been gnarled and warped by societies, cultures and religions to do good things?

OR

...[text shortened]... ral and been gnarled and blah blah blah to do either good or evil?

I think it isn't so much if man is inherently good or evil. Man works to do what is "right" with himself and if it happens to coincide with what he does, then that is a bonus:

A young boy or girl decides to be a firefighter when they grow up because it is "right" with them to save people from burning fires. I think this is what coincides with what is commonly determined as "good".

A psychopath commits a violent rape and murder of children and continues to do so. Perhaps later there might be some sort of realization or revelation that "this is evil" but, in the moment, it felt "right". Granted this person isn't playing with a full deck and perhaps they continue to do this because this continues to feel "right" for them.

Good and Evil have varying definitions. Some pretty clear cut as described above but others more open to interpretation.

Originally posted by Halitose
Is man inherently good, but has been gnarled and warped by societies, cultures and religions to do evil things?

OR

Is man inherently evil and been gnarled and warped by societies, cultures and religions to do good things?

OR

Is man neutral and been gnarled and blah blah blah to do either good or evil?

I rather think the first proposition. Before the dawn of our conciousness, back when we were hunter/gatherers, what was our purpose? Provide care, shelter and food for ourselves and our offspring. I'd be inclined to label those as "good" things. Robbing banks, killing for money, drunk driving, raping and pillaging for kicks...these are all "evils" that the trappings of society enable.

Originally posted by David C
I rather think the first proposition. Before the dawn of our conciousness, back when we were hunter/gatherers, what was our purpose? Provide care, shelter and food for ourselves and our offspring. I'd be inclined to label those as "good" things. Robbing banks, killing for money, drunk driving, raping and pillaging for kicks...these are all "evils" that the trappings of society enable.

Why do you believe this? Isn't it just as possible that simply the
ability to do those bad things reveal what is already within man?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why do you believe this? Isn't it just as possible that simply the
ability to do those bad things reveal what is already within man?
Kelly

Interesting. Perhaps, but wouldn't this go against your creed? Am I not correct in assuming that you believe that man was good until tempted by the serpent?

Originally posted by David C
Interesting. Perhaps, but wouldn't this go against your creed? Am I not correct in assuming that you believe that man was good until tempted by the serpent?

Oddly enough, that is the belief, but then after the temptation, even the babies starting popping out bad.

Originally posted by Halitose
Is man inherently good, but has been gnarled and warped by societies, cultures and religions to do evil things?

OR

Is man inherently evil and been gnarled and warped by societies, cultures and religions to do good things?

OR

...[text shortened]... ral and been gnarled and blah blah blah to do either good or evil?

Well to figure out if man is inherently good or evil all you would have to do is look at the nature of an infant, for all men begin in their purest form as babies. Is a baby good or evil? At one point I would have answered good, but I have now been led to believe otherwise.

Parents spend a majority of their time teaching children to be good. A little tiny child will instinctively hit, slap, kick, pinch and bite another person in order to gain the greater pleasure.

Even with this evidence of inherent evil I choose to believe man to be conditioned to be good. For as adults we gain great pride in our selfless acts, whereas commiting wrong causes great feelings of guilt and shame.

Bottom line: I don't know

Edit: My baby is evil 😞

Originally posted by mokko
Well to figure out if man is inherently good or evil all you would have to do is look at the nature of an infant, for all men begin in their purest form as babies. Is a baby good or evil? At one point I would have answered good, but I have now been led to believe otherwise.

Parents spend a majority of their time teaching children to be good. A little tiny ...[text shortened]... s great feelings of guilt and shame.

Bottom line: I don't know

Edit: My baby is evil 😞

Nah.
Saying a man is purest as a baby is like saying an oak tree is purest as an acorn. An oak tree is purest when it's been blown many times (by the wind of course, keep it clean), tall and majestic with a rich coat of oak leaves; all gnarlybarked and twisted too.
What the hell was I talking about?
Oh yeah, good and evil: we made them up, what we like is "good", what pisses us off is "evil." Sugar tastes nice, it's good. Sugar rots your teeth, it's evil!

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Nah.
Saying a man is purest as a baby is like saying an oak tree is purest as an acorn. An oak tree is purest when it's been blown many times (by the wind of course, keep it clean), tall and majestic with a rich coat of oak leaves; all gnarlybarked and twisted too.
What the hell was I talking about?
Oh yeah, good and evil: we made them up, what we ...[text shortened]... hat pisses us off is "evil." Sugar tastes nice, it's good. Sugar rots your teeth, it's evil!

No but infancy shows human nature in it's purest form. I'm not talking 2 days old, but as a baby grows it still is capable of basic human emotions and communication. We're not talking about likes and dislikes, well I wasn't, it's about good and evil. Human nature, actions towards each other, if I'm not mistaken. There is good and evil and it's different for each person. An easy way to detect what's good and what's evil is what makes your stomach knot up and feel sick? That's how you know it's wrong. What makes you tingle and swell inside (keeping it clean!) That's goodness. Man is more prone to good because it makes him feel better. Even men who do evil in the name of good suffer from the physical effects of taking wrong actions.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Pleasure we like, pain we don't...so good and evil by human
standards is a personal taste, at least on a very simplistic shallow
level.
Kelly

Let's take a look at this from the perspective of superstition.

What creatures do traditional societies commonly fear? Snakes...owls...creatures associated with death. Death is considered evil. Anything that brings about dissolution--of the body, of the tribe--is considered evil. Hence propitiatory rites and all the rest.

What do traditional societies commonly enjoy?
Bountiful game, crops...good weather...fertility. Pleasant associations, all. These are the things people would pray for.

I'd say then that the distinction between that which enhances life (good) and that which detracts from life (evil) is basic, rather than simplistic.

Baboons are stern moralists. Their expressions remind me of John Knox and John Calvin. Their law is strict--no sex but for procreation; no monkeying around.