Man is inherently good/evil

Spuds said:
When was the last time you had to teach a child to be bad? It's inherent in all of us but through our upbringing most of us learn how we should act towards each other
Click to expand...
Bad = Evil ?
 
Man appears to me strangest of beasts but I'm waving towards the eastern tradition, a duopoly of forces with extremes that can effect people in differing ways.

That said there is an entire spectrum of behaviour and thought, a balanced individual is able to adapt his behaviour and thought when the need is deemed to warrant action.

Sadly people get trapped into patterns of behaviour and robotised to react in certain ways possibly putting them into the good or evil brackets.
 
As an animal, I believe we are inherently selfish and unconcerned with those who dont matter to us..Whether that is evil is up to you to decide.
 
D.P. said:
People are born neither inherently evil or good, they simply exist. We as adults invent the terms good and evil, for the concepts do not exist in the animal world.

What is good and evil is determined by society and chnages with society.

The concept of good and evil also require non-deterministic human behavior.
Click to expand...

Although indulgin Freud for a second, Eros and Thanathos within the ID would suggest that humans have both constructive and destructive impulses - perhaps what we know as 'good and evil'?
 
I like helping other people. I'm a good person, so I think.

If I wanted to be evil, I'd be really evil ;-;
 
cleanbluesky said:
Why the perceived difference between man as a group and man as an individual?
Click to expand...

Man as a group encompasses the average behaviour of all those within the group. I would argue strongly that the group as a whole is neutral and balanced. There are both good and evil people within the group, and that is why you cannot say 'man is good' or the opposite and have it have any meaning.

Judging the actions of an individual is a lot simpler.
 
Dolph said:
Man as a group encompasses the average behaviour of all those within the group. I would argue strongly that the group as a whole is neutral and balanced. There are both good and evil people within the group, and that is why you cannot say 'man is good' or the opposite and have it have any meaning.

Judging the actions of an individual is a lot simpler.
Click to expand...

Do you mean 'mankind' or ANY given group?
 
cleanbluesky said:
Do you mean 'mankind' or ANY given group?
Click to expand...

Mankind. If you start taking a selective sample, then I'm sure you could declare certain groups 'good' or 'evil' based on a subjective assessment of the behaviour of people in that group.
 
We are inherently good, I beleive this with all my heart but due to conditioning from society, bad upbringing and other factors that effect us psychologicly we find it hard to be good or do the right thing allot of the time, I believe thats part of the learning process though, to try and break through our internal conflicts and primeval instincts that often guide us on the wrong path and try and better ourself, I really do believe there is good in all of us.
 
Last edited:
cleanbluesky said:
So why do you continue to do them?
Click to expand...

I never said I continued to do anything, I said I have part of my personality which i find evil, I didn't say I acted on them.

KaHn
 
As has been said good and evil are man made contructs and entirely subjective. There are two primal forces that make up the foundation of the universe the yin and yang, construction and destruction or growth and decay. These are what we generaly associate with good and evil.

In a cosmic sense both of those forces are in total balance with each other. At our level of perecption though it can appear that one force is more predominant than the other. For example there maybe many 'evil' people on this earth though there 'evil' is counter balanced by the goodness of a single saint and vice versa like many peoples 'goodness' will be counterbalanced by wars, mass murderes and so on. So neither one is more predominant than the other, they are both in balance.

lowrider007 said:
surely if we were both then we would'nt make any progress, clearly we have
Click to expand...
The progress we (humanity) have made has been at the expense of thousands of years of slave labour, conquest, mass murder and human misery. We're fortunate to have been born in a time and place that hasn't had to experience this, as of yet anyway.

EDIT also our 'progress' or 'construction' is offset by the 'destruction' of our enviroment.
 
Last edited:
Man is selfish. The selfish streak can make him do things which may be interpreted as good or evil depending on the perspective and circumstance.

Nobody does anything that does not help them or make themself feel better in one way or another.

If that selfish streak shows itself as doing something which is only beneficial to oneself, then that may be evil (or neutral).

If it makes him do something that is beneficial to others, then that comes across as good (or neutral).

If something is done that benefits some but is detrimental to others, then each side will see the person as good/evil.

There is no altruism where a person helps others just for the sake of helping others. It makes the person doing the deed feel better or less guilty about or something else. Or avoids making him feel guilty about not doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom