Are we all secretly evil?

[Erimgard]

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]

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]

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--

 

[Erimgard]

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

 

[Richard Lynch]

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.

 

[Erimgard]

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

 

[Richard Lynch]

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".

 

[Erimgard]

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?

 

[Suki]

If there was a day without rules then I would shoot myself dead to save myself from getting tortured to death XD

 

[Kimicatdemon]

Play video games and not go to work..that's all...(I wouldn't go to work because it'd be like saying "I'm easy to shoplift now!" ) DX

 

[Suki]

I was thinking, because there would be no rules and someone made up new rules for the rules to be back...what would happen because there are no rules?

 

[Razer302]

If there were no rules the whole word would fall apart. There would be mass looting, killings and anybad thing you can think of. The world needs rule to survive.
But it would be quite funny to see what would happen if there were no rules.

 

[marshmello]

Yh, but hopefully it will never happen and if it does then goodness knows what i'd do. Goodness knows what everyone is going to do!!

 

[Utapau]

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.

 

[Legobricks]

I'd drive around in my dad's Land Rover killing people and blowing things up with an SA-80 (standard British assault rifle) and box of grenades stolen from the nearby army barracks. Also I'll steal a kevlar vest and helmet so don't think you can kill me. xD

 

[Erimgard]

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

 

[UchihaSasuke]

hmm, im good all the time but i have a little fun sometimes ^^

i would steal from malls, take someones car, and skip school everyday!!!!!

 

[Utapau]

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.

 

[Erimgard]

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

 

[Utapau]

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.