Are we all secretly evil? Page 4

Started by marshmello April 6th, 2007 9:05 AM
  • 5057 views
  • 144 replies

Melody

Banned

Female
Cuddling those close to me
Seen March 4th, 2018
Posted March 2nd, 2018
6,459 posts
18.6 Years
I agree...The urge to survive is what causes evil...Ambition and Selfishness mixed together magifies that instinct into the evil within...some of us can control that urge...And in a way it's ok to be a tiny bit selfish and ambitious...It's what makes us dream...IMO Man doesnt start out evil...He is made evil by his environment,Influences EX:other people, and his general nature which is determined by his/her life experience...
Age 32
Male
Cerulean Cave
Seen November 9th, 2010
Posted August 17th, 2008
1,090 posts
16.2 Years
I definitely agree that the environment into which a human is born can effect his life severely, but it's no excuse. it's not impossible to lead a good life just because you were born into a bad one.
and to clarify, I didn't mean to say we are born evil, per se, just that we all are born with evil desires. it's basic human nature to want what is best for ME.
Age 33
Seen June 18th, 2007
Posted June 15th, 2007
20 posts
16 Years
I actually would not consider the selfishness evil, because it is purely natural. Of course wild animals, who can ALSO distinguish between right and wrong (I believe) fight to survive -- I would not consider this evil.

Humans not only seem to have the will to survive, but the will to survive lavishly, clouded from the authentic by the artificial. The metaphoric "cloud" here would be civilization; it provides convenience for nearly everyone, keeping those in it from authentic life.

This, however, is not so bad at all. I would barely consider it evil. There is something however that is at the root of alot of evil...

Are ya ready for this?

It's Peace. The desire for peace creates alot of destruction and evil. I would not buy into the "Renunciation of the will" literally, but take it on a bigger scale: the will to have peace is what causes dehumanization and artificial destruction. What can we do? Accept that there is never complete peace -- I think, the day that there is, is the day that the universe ends.

It is civilization that is truly evil and artificial - it is meant to be the facilitator of peace and the ensurer of order.
Age 32
Male
Cerulean Cave
Seen November 9th, 2010
Posted August 17th, 2008
1,090 posts
16.2 Years
so at what point is it no longer acceptable or authentic? must we all live primitively, and if so, how primitively? at what point does it shift from survival to overly lavish?
I'm sorry but I really can't follow the logic that lavish living is the root of evil (if I'm understanding you correctly)
I don't believe you can classify one type of evil as the root of it all. it has to be a mental or pyschological thing. yes, overly-lavish civilization is often a bad thing, but I don't see how it is the root of evil.
you and I have different thought processes, I can see that. I doubt either one of us will be able to convince the other of our stance. I respect your opinion, but I cannot agree with you.
I DO however agree that true peace on earth cannot be reached by mortal means
Age 33
Seen June 18th, 2007
Posted June 15th, 2007
20 posts
16 Years
The lavish living thing was just an extension of selfishness, which I do not consider to be the most evil of all evils.

The quest for physical peace, however, IMO, is. However, because there will always be "evil", there will always be those who try to realize peace...

But in nature, as you said, there is no true peace. It's unnatural -- things are born and they are destroyed by something. Something always threatens existence -- the not accepting of that IS what I personally feel is evil...

Anyway, I thought it was a cool discussion we had here, I enjoyed hearing your viewpoints -- Erimgard and Poketrainer2004.
Age 32
Male
Cerulean Cave
Seen November 9th, 2010
Posted August 17th, 2008
1,090 posts
16.2 Years
and I enjoyed talking to you as well
It's always nice to have a civilized debate where everyone is respectful and no one leaves angry despite their differences. perhaps we can debate another time :)

Melody

Banned

Female
Cuddling those close to me
Seen March 4th, 2018
Posted March 2nd, 2018
6,459 posts
18.6 Years
I definitely agree that the environment into which a human is born can effect his life severely, but it's no excuse. it's not impossible to lead a good life just because you were born into a bad one.
and to clarify, I didn't mean to say we are born evil, per se, just that we all are born with evil desires. it's basic human nature to want what is best for ME.
I wasnt Implying that...I was simply metioning that the way we are raised influences wherther or not we come out evil when we grow up...

Kota

Age 29
Male
Boring, OR
Seen October 7th, 2016
Posted October 7th, 2016
156 posts
16.1 Years
I think the role we grow up as regards what happens to our life style. I mean, sure there are people who had a rough life and are doing great now. Like Oprah?

Well in most cases there are people who had mean parents, been bullied at a young age. It's not their fault though. Their parents were either really sick or something of that nature. In every heart there is light. No matter what. With every light a shadow lurks behind. You have to learn to control your emotians and feelings.
That's what seperates people that are good, and people that are bad.

Kota--

IGN: OR - Koda
FC: 5258 - 3680 - 7524

Age 32
Male
Cerulean Cave
Seen November 9th, 2010
Posted August 17th, 2008
1,090 posts
16.2 Years
I wasnt Implying that...I was simply metioning that the way we are raised influences wherther or not we come out evil when we grow up...
exactly
I think we share the same view on this
Age 35
Male
Pennsylvania
Seen August 14th, 2012
Posted March 29th, 2012
954 posts
16.4 Years
There has been some genetic research on the idea that "evil" in the sense of a serial killer-like evil is actually hereditary/genetic. But that hasn't been proven quite yet!

I believe all humans are instinctively evil. If you check out ANY developmental charts in psychology, the beginning two or three stages (mainly when we're kids) show sign of being evil: not being able to share, egocentrism, lack of a conscience... it's only after we're raised and we are conditioned with the social "norms" of society (and especially the idea of "consequence") that we become able to save-face and "act" good in front of others.

I feel that religion and law are two primary examples of what keep people in line. The only thing that makes people act good is the FEAR of either going to Hell, or going to Jail. If it weren't for this fear of consequence, I feel that all humans would act equally evil, perhaps not to the extent of a serial killer, though. Different kind of evil.

People don't do good for the sake of doing good... people do good because they don't want to face the consequences, and because "good" is simply not "bad", because we have to remember that "good" and "bad" are relative morals to either the individual or the collective.
Exterminate All Rational Thought

Richard
0215 9525 7958
Age 32
Male
Cerulean Cave
Seen November 9th, 2010
Posted August 17th, 2008
1,090 posts
16.2 Years
There has been some genetic research on the idea that "evil" in the sense of a serial killer-like evil is actually hereditary/genetic. But that hasn't been proven quite yet!

I believe all humans are instinctively evil. If you check out ANY developmental charts in psychology, the beginning two or three stages (mainly when we're kids) show sign of being evil: not being able to share, egocentrism, lack of a conscience... it's only after we're raised and we are conditioned with the social "norms" of society (and especially the idea of "consequence") that we become able to save-face and "act" good in front of others.

I feel that religion and law are two primary examples of what keep people in line. The only thing that makes people act good is the FEAR of either going to Hell, or going to Jail. If it weren't for this fear of consequence, I feel that all humans would act equally evil, perhaps not to the extent of a serial killer, though. Different kind of evil.

People don't do good for the sake of doing good... people do good because they don't want to face the consequences, and because "good" is simply not "bad", because we have to remember that "good" and "bad" are relative morals to either the individual or the collective.
to an extent, I agree with the first two paragraphs
however, I disagree with the second too.
for one thing, acting 'good' because of your religion entails far more than just fear of Hell. In fact some religions and denominations do not believe in the concept of hell, yet they still maintain a moral lifestyle. it's not always fear that motivates one to do good.
also, in the absence of religion, who's right is it to define what is 'good' or 'evil'? who's right is it to determine the moral or immoral? if one has no belief in a higher power, then how can morality be determined? does might make right in such a setting? curious on your views
Age 35
Male
Pennsylvania
Seen August 14th, 2012
Posted March 29th, 2012
954 posts
16.4 Years
to an extent, I agree with the first two paragraphs
however, I disagree with the second too.
for one thing, acting 'good' because of your religion entails far more than just fear of Hell. In fact some religions and denominations do not believe in the concept of hell, yet they still maintain a moral lifestyle. it's not always fear that motivates one to do good.
also, in the absence of religion, who's right is it to define what is 'good' or 'evil'? who's right is it to determine the moral or immoral? if one has no belief in a higher power, then how can morality be determined? does might make right in such a setting? curious on your views
Well, in the absence of religion, the law usually takes care of people's "lack of morals". However, as I said, morals are relative to what a society deems. Our morals as Americans (in a broad sense) are different from the morals of people in a 3rd World Country, same way as Catholic's morals are different from, say, Muslim morals. It all depends on who's looking, and it's people's misunderstanding of moral relativism that causes terrorism, hate crimes, and just plain racism. Those people believe in Absolutes, that their way is the correct way, and all others are the wrong way. And yes, to a degree, might does make right. It's similar to when you're a kid, and you argue with your mother:

"Can I get this?" - you
"No." - Mum
"Why not?" - you
"Because I said so." - Mum

This is very similar to morals within religion, but no so much within law. Many things are deemed "immoral", not for any concrete reason, just because "God says so" (or "The Bible says so”, whichever you prefer).

I think the only moral that is even close to being considered "absolute" is the idea of not murdering someone. But if you look at the Crusades, the Inquisition, Sodom and Gomorrah, and even 9/11 (which was indeed a faith-based act), you see that religion has never had a problem with killing people; to many of them it's negotiable; it all depends on who's doing the killing and who's getting killed. This is the fantastic contradiction of religion's take on "morals".

Legal morals are slightly different, but these days with the continuing racism (ie, the idea that African Americans do more crimes than Caucasians), it's becoming increasingly difficult to hold the legal system in high regard when it comes to a "fair trial".

These are some of the best examples that support my theory of "moral relativism".
Exterminate All Rational Thought

Richard
0215 9525 7958
Age 32
Male
Cerulean Cave
Seen November 9th, 2010
Posted August 17th, 2008
1,090 posts
16.2 Years
Well, in the absence of religion, the law usually takes care of people's "lack of morals". However, as I said, morals are relative to what a society deems. Our morals as Americans (in a broad sense) are different from the morals of people in a 3rd World Country, same way as Catholic's morals are different from, say, Muslim morals. It all depends on who's looking, and it's people's misunderstanding of moral relativism that causes terrorism, hate crimes, and just plain racism. Those people believe in Absolutes, that their way is the correct way, and all others are the wrong way. And yes, to a degree, might does make right. It's similar to when you're a kid, and you argue with your mother:

"Can I get this?" - you
"No." - Mum
"Why not?" - you
"Because I said so." - Mum

This is very similar to morals within religion, but no so much within law. Many things are deemed "immoral", not for any concrete reason, just because "God says so" (or "The Bible says so”, whichever you prefer).

I think the only moral that is even close to being considered "absolute" is the idea of not murdering someone. But if you look at the Crusades, the Inquisition, Sodom and Gomorrah, and even 9/11 (which was indeed a faith-based act), you see that religion has never had a problem with killing people; to many of them it's negotiable; it all depends on who's doing the killing and who's getting killed. This is the fantastic contradiction of religion's take on "morals".

Legal morals are slightly different, but these days with the continuing racism (ie, the idea that African Americans do more crimes than Caucasians), it's becoming increasingly difficult to hold the legal system in high regard when it comes to a "fair trial".

These are some of the best examples that support my theory of "moral relativism".
to be honest with you, I can't think of any rules set forth by the God of Judaism/Christianity that do not have a reason behind them. I cannot say for other religions, as I have not studied any other religion extensively.
my question to you, is not what our society or other society's deem as immoral, but whether or not a society not influenced by religion should even believe in morals. as you've said, different cultures determine different things as moral or immoral, therefore who's right? are there any morals? should we practice any form of 'morality'?
just as you said, most deem murder as unnaceptable...but the there are the gray lines. What about in 'holy war' ? what constitutes murder? (abortion and such debates)
so the answer I was looking for was not so much, what do cultures deem as immoral, but what should they?
Age 33
Seen June 18th, 2007
Posted June 15th, 2007
20 posts
16 Years
to be honest with you, I can't think of any rules set forth by the God of Judaism/Christianity that do not have a reason behind them. I cannot say for other religions, as I have not studied any other religion extensively.
my question to you, is not what our society or other society's deem as immoral, but whether or not a society not influenced by religion should even believe in morals. as you've said, different cultures determine different things as moral or immoral, therefore who's right? are there any morals? should we practice any form of 'morality'?
just as you said, most deem murder as unnaceptable...but the there are the gray lines. What about in 'holy war' ? what constitutes murder? (abortion and such debates)
so the answer I was looking for was not so much, what do cultures deem as immoral, but what should they?
His theory of moral relativism is right -- no one can say what cultures should deem moral. It is true, that there exists opposite forces -- some call it good and evil, yin and yang, "the dark side" and the "light side" of the force - but different people are different magnifications of each fragment of the universe - confining them to one part of it that is not their innate belief(which is subject to change) is certain to lead to conflict - some people think yin is the way to go, and others are on the yang side of things.

It should be mentioned, that conflict between dark and light is a natural part of the universe, and trying to stifle the conflict is in fact adding to it by default -- I am not saying this conflict is bad, but I am just saying it exists.

The strive for peace is a common goal of all sides -- thus it is usually the creator of alot of conflict. I, however, realize that complete peace, very fortunately does not exist: The Universe IS the struggle between light and dark, never will one completely overtake the other. I love this.
Age 32
Male
Cerulean Cave
Seen November 9th, 2010
Posted August 17th, 2008
1,090 posts
16.2 Years
His theory of moral relativism is right -- no one can say what cultures should deem moral. It is true, that there exists opposite forces -- some call it good and evil, yin and yang, "the dark side" and the "light side" of the force - but different people are different magnifications of each fragment of the universe - confining them to one part of it that is not their innate belief(which is subject to change) is certain to lead to conflict - some people think yin is the way to go, and others are on the yang side of things.

It should be mentioned, that conflict between dark and light is a natural part of the universe, and trying to stifle the conflict is in fact adding to it by default -- I am not saying this conflict is bad, but I am just saying it exists.

The strive for peace is a common goal of all sides -- thus it is usually the creator of alot of conflict. I, however, realize that complete peace, very fortunately does not exist: The Universe IS the struggle between light and dark, never will one completely overtake the other. I love this.
moral relativism is basically just a nice way to say that there are no morals. which is the answer I was expecting. without a higher power, there can be no absolutes, and thus, why SHOULDN'T we do whatever we want?
I do not believe the strive for peace is the common goal of all sides, but instead, the strive for self contentment. we all strive for good things. and in the absence of morality, it does not matter if our contentment means the suffering of others
Age 33
Seen June 18th, 2007
Posted June 15th, 2007
20 posts
16 Years
moral relativism is basically just a nice way to say that there are no morals. which is the answer I was expecting. without a higher power, there can be no absolutes, and thus, why SHOULDN'T we do whatever we want?
I do not believe the strive for peace is the common goal of all sides, but instead, the strive for self contentment. we all strive for good things. and in the absence of morality, it does not matter if our contentment means the suffering of others
Sort of; it is saying everyone has morals, just everyone's are different.

As for contentment leading to the suffering of others, that is a natural part of every sophisticated civilization, other than communes.
Age 32
Male
Cerulean Cave
Seen November 9th, 2010
Posted August 17th, 2008
1,090 posts
16.2 Years
and even in communes, as a socialist style of living is idealy perfect, but humanly flawed. since we've already discovered that humans want what's best for THEM a large scale commune will not function properly because the system will be abused.
though a commune system works great in small settings
Age 33
Seen June 18th, 2007
Posted June 15th, 2007
20 posts
16 Years
and even in communes, as a socialist style of living is idealy perfect, but humanly flawed. since we've already discovered that humans want what's best for THEM a large scale commune will not function properly because the system will be abused.
though a commune system works great in small settings
Heh, I wasn't suggesting it.