Are people inherently evil or inherently good?

[Livewire]

People are an amalgamation of their cultures, experiences, environments, etc, which are all wild subjective and can vary, so I wouldn't say people are inherently either which way because they can be shaped and molded depending on all those variables and circumstances. What's considered "evil" in one culture may not be considered evil in another one, or even in the same culture years apart. I personally believe that humans and most creatures in general are very social, altruistic creatures and will naturally, inherently want to "stick together" in most cases.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Humanity as a whole is despicable. Humanity is merely the "lowest animal"; we're the only animal that has ever been slaves or have enslaved, the only cruel animal which destroys or kills something we do not need and we are the only group that has ever been hellbent on the death of those with different political alignments, ethnicity, religion or what have you. It begs to question; do animals, those who are not the "rational" animal, ever commit such atrocities over mere ideologies? Does the tiger kill over a mere difference of religion, or kill prey it has no use for? We are not rational. We claim to be the only "rational" animal, but we're the only one who've committed these crimes. From the social collectivists such as the toxic Neo-Progressive spouting how all the outsiders of their groupthink should be silenced to patrons of Capitalism, who've abused their workers to the point of disrepair in mere years, humanity has yet to seem rational in my eyes nor inherently good.

Humanity is cruel and evil. We revel in the suffering of others. Every country is guilty of something.

 

[Tamashi_Seishiro]

It depends on what they have gone through. Innocent people tend to be carefree, and happy about their lives. While those that saw the reality. They find ways to be happy, and best others. All people would do anything to succeed, or find comfort, even risking their names, having them a bad reputation.The people who have knowledge of reality influence most of the innocent, giving them a glimpse of reality in the hard way, and that's why we saw people, hurting other people. So were just all desperate to get comfort.

So yeah. 98% of humanity is tainted of evil because of wanting to achieve goals quick, but hurting way. While 2% of humanity is trying their best to achieve comfort without hurting others.

 

[Margaery Tyrell]

I don't think humans are inherently good or bad, these concepts are built upon centuries of musings and speculation across a wide spectrum of peoples and cultures. "Good" and "bad" aren't much more than societal and moral ideas. Our perspective is shaped largely by our environment and how we react to these things - humans are inherently human, as dumb as that sounds. How we act and what constitutes the morality of these behaviors is how one's self comes to understand it, so naturally humanity can't be judged on objective standards or any single set of principles.

 

[pokecole]

Humanity as a whole is despicable. Humanity is merely the "lowest animal"; we're the only animal that has ever been slaves or have enslaved, the only cruel animal which destroys or kills something we do not need and we are the only group that has ever been hellbent on the death of those with different political alignments, ethnicity, religion or what have you. It begs to question; do animals, those who are not the "rational" animal, ever commit such atrocities over mere ideologies? Does the tiger kill over a mere difference of religion, or kill prey it has no use for? We are not rational. We claim to be the only "rational" animal, but we're the only one who've committed these crimes. From the social collectivists such as the toxic Neo-Progressive spouting how all the outsiders of their groupthink should be silenced to patrons of Capitalism, who've abused their workers to the point of disrepair in mere years, humanity has yet to seem rational in my eyes nor inherently good.

Humanity is cruel and evil. We revel in the suffering of others. Every country is guilty of something.

A lot of these points about comparing animals to people are inaccurate. We are definitely NOT the only animal that kills things we don't need; things like house-cats even kill prey for mere sport, as do many other species. Yes, tigers in fact do kill prey they have no use for. Often male tigers will kill cubs, even their own mind you, for no reason other than that they don't like other males. Yet people invented the concept of mindless murder, right? Animals kill each other over territory all the time, yet when people do it, it's "immoral" and "irrational". Why is this? It's because of that same fact that we view ourselves as more rational than other species, and therefore put our acts through more judgement than others, while animals do very similar things in nature. It's quite the double standard.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

A lot of these points about comparing animals to people are inaccurate. We are definitely NOT the only animal that kills things we don't need; things like house-cats even kill prey for mere sport, as do many other species. Yes, tigers in fact do kill prey they have no use for. Often male tigers will kill cubs, even their own mind you, for no reason other than that they don't like other males. Yet people invented the concept of mindless murder, right? Animals kill each other over territory all the time, yet when people do it, it's "immoral" and "irrational". Why is this? It's because of that same fact that we view ourselves as more rational than other species, and therefore put our acts through more judgement than others, while animals do very similar things in nature. It's quite the double standard.

There is a differences between protecting your territory and causing a genocide over economical troubles after WWI. And even then, the lion has the reason for killing those cubs, and is unconscious about it's morals. It's reason is to pass down it's own genes once taking over a pride, since those babies aren't his.

The difference between a mere house-cat and a human is that the house-cat actually kills prey and brings it to their owners or kittens in an attempt to teach them to hunt. First, they bring the corpses for the first few lessons, then they start bringing half-alive animals after the first lesson.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

There is a differences between protecting your territory and causing a genocide over economical troubles after WWI. And even then, the lion has the reason for killing those cubs, and is unconscious about it's morals. It's reason is to pass down it's own genes once taking over a pride, since those babies aren't his.

The difference between a mere house-cat and a human is that the house-cat actually kills prey and brings it to their owners or kittens in an attempt to teach them to hunt. First, they bring the corpses for the first few lessons, then they start bringing half-alive animals after the first lesson.

Then explain the dolphin and chimpanzee behaviors I aforementioned. There have been reports of them doing acts that humans would be deem "immoral" such as rape.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Then explain the dolphin and chimpanzee behaviors I aforementioned. There have been reports of them doing acts that humans would be deem "immoral" such as rape.

Do they have a conscious? If not, they are excused from their deplorable actions. They don't even acknowledge the fact they exist; all they know is to eat, sleep, crap, reproduce and repeat as well as their instincts.

 

[pokecole]

There is a differences between protecting your territory and causing a genocide over economical troubles after WWI. And even then, the lion has the reason for killing those cubs, and is unconscious about it's morals. It's reason is to pass down it's own genes once taking over a pride, since those babies aren't his.

The difference between a mere house-cat and a human is that the house-cat actually kills prey and brings it to their owners or kittens in an attempt to teach them to hunt. First, they bring the corpses for the first few lessons, then they start bringing half-alive animals after the first lesson.

So we're bad because we have morals and don't always act upon them? Animals can't even have morals if we're following the logic that they're unconscious, so how would that make them less evil? Killing other things just to pass on your own genes rather than keeping someone else's is just as petty as killing another other people because of genetic differences.

There are plenty of instances of house-cats killing prey for literally no reason, and I don't understand how you can say otherwise. Not every cat that kills something eats it or has kittens; they kill for fun a lot of times if it's available.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

So we're bad because we have morals and don't always act upon them? Animals can't even have morals if we're following the logic that they're unconscious, so how would that make them less evil? Killing other things just to pass on your own genes rather than keeping someone else's is just as petty as killing another other people because of genetic differences.

There are plenty of instances of house-cats killing prey for literally no reason, and I don't understand how you can say otherwise. Not every cat that kills something eats it or has kittens; they kill for fun a lot of times if it's available.

Is it really a waste of food to give your owner a present in the form of a caught and slaughtered mouse, bird, bug or what have you? Unlike animals, we, humans, aka the "rational" animal have a consciousness that tells us that we even exist. Comparing that to an animal, such as a feline, would be idiotic; for a feline is loose in it's moals for it's lack thereof of it acknowledging it's own existence. And again, you cannot compare a lion killing cubs to pass down it's old genes and that of a genocide; as the Lion goes by instinct alone and not that of bigotry.

Also, man is the only religious animal. Man has a true religion- many of them, in fact. Because of differences of theologies, the globe is just a glorified graveyard bloodstained over war; of which, religion is a major cause. Why is this important? It is merely a consequence of our own "rationality", or dare I say, a sugar-coated irrationality we humans seem to have. This is one reason alone; and while not everyone of the religious sect are warmongers, it is still scary that even in this day and age, a slight difference in your ideology can cause an untimely demise. This is true bigotry; not going by your mere animalistic instinct of which you have NO control and killing the cubs of a former pride leader.

 

[ProfChaos]

"Good" and "Evil" are human constructed concepts that adjust and are constantly redefined to suit the time and particular society in question.

That said, we are all born "innocent"... overall selfish but genuinely remorseful when we do harm to others (once our brains are developed enough to understand when that happens) All n' all we care about ourselves (and our families) much more than anyone else, but we do all have a certain level of compassion for our fellow man. Basically, yes, we are more so "good" from the start with the capacity for evil.

Both of which can be nurtured or suppressed later.

 

[Cerberus87]

A lot of what we deem "evil" is explained by "instinct". Rationality is the continuous suppression of instinct in order for mankind to live peacefully together.

However, I believe that, while much of the time instinct fuels evil, I think it's in combination with the ability to think rationally. However, despite being logically built, the associations evil people make inside their heads to perform evil actions are to the detriment of the community as a whole, hence why they're considered "evil".

 

[Thepowaofhax]

A lot of what we deem "evil" is explained by "instinct". Rationality is the continuous suppression of instinct in order for mankind to live peacefully together.

However, I believe that, while much of the time instinct fuels evil, I think it's in combination with the ability to think rationally. However, despite being logically built, the associations evil people make inside their heads to perform evil actions are to the detriment of the community as a whole, hence why they're considered "evil".

Is it really instinctive to starve millions of people in the name of a political idea? Is it instinctive to go through ethnic cleansing, such as the Nepalese in Bhutan, and is it instinctive to shoot down those who wanted democracy in their country? If not, I believe that instincts don't cause more evil than our so called "rationality."

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Do they have a conscious? If not, they are excused from their deplorable actions. They don't even acknowledge the fact they exist; all they know is to eat, sleep, crap, reproduce and repeat as well as their instincts.

Any animal with high intelligence and a social complex has a conscious. If you're so convinced that humans are inherently evil, then do you think this planet would be better off with Artificial Intelligence or Extraterrestrial civilization than us humans, because they too believe humans are inherently evil, which is why they try to exterminate us in the world of fiction.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Any animal with high intelligence and a social complex has a conscious. If you're so convinced that humans are inherently evil, then do you think this planet would be better off with Artificial Intelligence or Extraterrestrial civilization than us humans, because they too believe humans are inherently evil, which is why they try to exterminate us in the world of fiction.

Just because a highly intelligent animal is highly intelligent doesn't mean that said animal can acknowledge it's own feelings; even if it can see itself in a mirror and distinguish it from others of it's species, we do not know if it can feel emotions. Therefore, we cannot fully determine if it's unable to feel emotions, thus leading to be unsympathetic and therefore psychotic . Artificial Intelligence would be a more glorious, epic form of our own irrationality; because unlike those who can stray, a machine can only follow. Therefore, it will follow the commands of it's leader willingly with no hesitation, and therefore be worse than humanity. And for extraterrestrial creatures in fiction, it is not of certainty; for example, in the RTS Grey Goo, the four-armed civilization (that I do not remember at name) had only attacked humans because they thought they were the origin of one of their enemies, and after they understood the misunderstanding, fought some nanomachines.

However, from what I do belive, our planet is better off with either humans or another so-called "rational" civilization from another sentient species. Rationality comes with the cost of being inherently evil. Just as man exploits man, that civilization will exploit it's own members.

 

[Cerberus87]

Is it really instinctive to starve millions of people in the name of a political idea? Is it instinctive to go through ethnic cleansing, such as the Nepalese in Bhutan, and is it instinctive to shoot down those who wanted democracy in their country? If not, I believe that instincts don't cause more evil than our so called "rationality."

Ahem...

However, I believe that, while much of the time instinct fuels evil, I think it's in combination with the ability to think rationally.

So not pure instinct.

My definition of rational is probably not accurate, I'm using it to mean the ability to associate ideas and facts and act based on your conclusions, but of course people may come to evil conclusions and feel perfectly fine with it and even think it's the right thing to do. These associations (causality, as it may) most of the time aren't cemented on "reason" (logic), because they're linked to superstition (misjudgment of reality), lack of information (or misinformation), wrong morality and also, why not, instinct. You may think that for your people to survive you need to exterminate another, despite this other people being much weaker and either incapable of or unwilling to harm you.

On "morality" BTW I can only quote Kant (from Wikipedia):

This [universal moral] law obliges one to treat humanity – understood as rational agency, and represented through oneself as well as others – as an end in itself rather than (merely) as meanshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_(philosophy) to other ends the individual might hold.

Kant came up with this in late 18th century and you'd be impressed to find out how much of what happened in the world back then was considered "immoral" under this law. In fact, I can't think of a single thing we consider "wrong" today that isn't ruled "immoral" under this law.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Ahem...

So not pure instinct.

My definition of rational is probably not accurate, I'm using it to mean the ability to associate ideas and facts and act based on your conclusions, but of course people may come to evil conclusions and feel perfectly fine with it and even think it's the right thing to do. These associations (causality, as it may) most of the time aren't cemented on "reason" (logic), because they're linked to superstition (misjudgment of reality), lack of information (or misinformation), wrong morality and also, why not, instinct. You may think that for your people to survive you need to exterminate another, despite this other people being much weaker and either incapable of or unwilling to harm you.

You still said that most of it is due to "instinct". My point is that is is merely mostly our irrational thoughts. We go into unruly masses to exterminate our own kind for many reasons and even for pay; for exploiting the land that they control, for the potential enslavement of those people (of which humans are the only slave), political differences in ideology, and different religions. Do animals care about political differences? Does a tiger have a religion and kill it's own kind because it's own religion is against that other? Are animals going out to attack others in unruly masses over such trivial things? No. These animals are not. What does that say about us?

 

[Cerberus87]

You still said that most of it is due to "instinct". My point is that is is merely mostly our irrational thoughts. We go into unruly masses to exterminate our own kind for many reasons and even for pay; for exploiting the land that they control, for the potential enslavement of those people (of which humans are the only slave), political differences in ideology, and different religions. Do animals care about political differences? Does a tiger have a religion and kill it's own kind because it's own religion is against that other? Are animals going out to attack others in unruly masses over such trivial things? No. These animals are not. What does that say about us?

Would you mind reading my edit? ^^

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Would you mind reading my edit? ^^

Going by his definition, using the philosophies of Hobbes and other English philosophers can easy allow me to show my point even more. These philosophers, such as Hobbes believed humans will act immorally according to their tainted, corrupted nature if there is no order. Of which, if there were no order, there would be atrocities left and right.

 

[Daydream]

Morality is relative, in my opinion. I don't think a person can be classified as inherently good or evil when those two concepts depend on perception. Everyone will differ somewhat as to what they think constitutes an evil act or an evil person. I don't think a quality can be inherent if the way we recognise/relate to it is based on our personal opinions (regardless of how they may have been formed).