Reading Philosophy

This is an essay i wrote awhile back, decided to get it a little exposure.

Is man inherently good or inherently evil? This is a question which has been a concept philosophers have no doubt sought to understand since there have been philosophers in the world. I, myself, have wondered about the answer to this question. If one is to follow Christian theology, then one is to believe that since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, man has been prone to sin, and is therefore inherently evil as a result of holding the information for original sin in their blood. According to other theologies, however, which are based on the premise that man, left on his own, will act according to his will, and that his will is one of love, and so, man is good.

If we want to answer this question, we need to look at man and see if left to his own devices man chooses the path of goodness or of evil. Now, where do we start, who do we use as an example of man and his goodness or evil. If we are to use children, and we will see that children are generally innocent and good until they are exposed to the world around them and thereby are corrupted and their lives are turned to the path they will follow as adults, one in which this innocence has been lost to the world around them, and they have become the very corrupters they once saw. According to this ideology, man is inherently good and only becomes otherwise when exposed to the evils of the world in which we live. The only question raised by this is that for man to be exposed to the evils of the world, the evils must exist in the world. If we use the modern world as the one for which we make these conjectures, then we will see that the 'evils' of the world are actually caused by the people in it. This leads to the other side of the spectrum, that being that man is inherently evil and the innocence of children is caused only by our inability to express our evil due to lack of means and mind power.

The other comparison we can make from the beginning is that of adults in modern society and the 'loss of innocence' our culture is experiencing. If we are to follow this conjecture, then man is inherently evil and the 'grace period' of childhood is quickly diminishing and with each new generation we grow closer and closer to being in touch with this side of us our entire lives. If this is the case, then what will become of the world when this happens, will we become a society where we do nothing more than fight and fuck each other at random as the world around us falls apart? If this is the future which is in store for me, I am not sure I want to see it.

If, however, man is actually good, then what we must do is learn to remove these conflictive sides of modern soicety and work toward building peace for a world in the future which will make our children's lives more peaceful, and our grandchildren's more peaceful still.

It is my personal opinion that man in general is neither inherently good or evil. but somewhere in the middle. What makes us good or evil, is how we choose to carry out the sides of our personality in the world we live in

I've never been able to answer this question. Too many conflicting evidences. Also, how does one determine what is "inherent." We have no access to what is inside a person, we just speculate about motives behind acts and words. However, i'm replying because i'd like to react to this assertion:

Children are generally innocent and good until they are exposed to the world around them and thereby are corrupted and their lives are turned to the path they will follow as adults, one in which this innocence has been lost to the world around them,

i don't think children are innocent. Did you have a good childhood? I didn't. There were too many bullies. And those who were not bullies were still cruel--teasing you relentlessly and insulting you till you break down. Children can be very cruel. Children are selfish creatures. All they can think about is their own needs. In fact, children only become "good" in the sense of caring for others after they have had sufficient exposure to society. Then they mature enough to the point where they realize that the world does not revolve around them. I only started developing true friendships in high school. By that time, people my age were worth relating to.

Anyway, i'm not saying this is an argument for the man-is-inherently-evil side of the argument. I just don't think children are valid proof for the innocence of humanity.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

You cannot be inherently good or evil without an inherent definition of good or evil.

Childoftheblood,

i will agree with you that children usually have a selfish side to them when they first interact with other children (i.E. School) they have been in an environment where they were put first and so they are conditioned to be selfish, even if it is unintentional. I also agree that it takes about until we are about the age of high school before we can learn to interact with people well again. Of course, this does not show anything of our inherent state, and you made a good point that we dont know what is in a person's mind and so my question cannot be truly answered.

Brandon

Man, Good or Evil? This is a very interesting topic. Something that I have thought about on many occassions.

I'm not sure if I really believe that anything or anyone is good or all evil. I don't know if it's even realistic to label it as good or evil.

We all have good and bad qualities. For some, the bad qualities may far out weigh the good. Who's to say what is good and what is evil? For instance, I feel that murder is wrong. I'm sure there are individuals who feel that there is absolutely nothing evil or wrong about it. The same holds true for incest, adultery, stealing, rape, etc. I feel that all of these things are wrong, or evil. I have been able to come to these conclusions based on my own up-bringing. There are those individuals who were brought up totally different than myself, and believe that there is nothing wrong with these acts. To some, it may be a part of life, or something that "just happens." Who's right?

Look at your life. Take away law. Take away religion. Take away everything that has enabled you to shape your idea of right and wrong and where are you? I know it's really unrealistic to do away with such things. However, if it were possible, where would you be? Who would you be?

If no one told you that murder was wrong, would you have a problem killing? If no one told you that stealing was wrong, would you have a problem stealing. Does it mean that you're evil?

Basically, I don't feel that Man is good or evil. I think that man does what man does, because he feels what he feels, because he is what he is... Human.

Interesting that you noted incest and murder. i took an anthro course once and i don't know if this info is outdated but, apparently there are two things that are taboo in all cultures--incest and murder. (Murder is different from killing. A headhunter who takes the head of an enemy tribesman as bloodprice, for example, is technically not murder from the tribe's point of view. also, a culture where rape is acceptable will still frown upon incestuous rape.) Assuming that this information is correct, this tells us that a common sense of right and wrong runs exists among all humans, although this commonality is pretty thin. in short, there is a vague sense of universally recognized "spirit" of good and evil. they only become diverse when this spirit is expressed as codes and laws because every culture will interpret good and evil in slightly different ways.

Look at your life. Take away law. Take away religion. Take away everything that has enabled you to shape your idea of right and wrong and where are you? I know it's really unrealistic to do away with such things. However, if it were possible, where would you be? Who would you be?

I'd be no one. I cannot even be described as good or evil because any category to which i belong only exists relative to my position in a set of other beings of equal status. Who we are is defined by who other people are. We cannot escape this. Perhaps this is one more reason why we cannot define an "inherent" goodness or evil in a person because a person is only good or evil when viewed from a certain relationship. the most corrupt, evil dictator can still be the best father in the world. take away his daughter and his country and he is neither good nor evil.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

This post was edited by childeoftheblood on Aug 08, 2003.

apparently there are two things that are taboo in all cultures--incest and murder

I'd say incest is not one of them - Egyptian Pharaohs had a habit of marrying their sisters in order to keep the bloodline 'pure'.
As for murder... well there's pleanty of cultures that had not too much problem killing people as you exemplify but its hard to have a society function where it's ok for people just to kill each other for no particular reason.

Besides, many organisms avoid 'incest' - it is genetically damaging and hence not a trait that is encouraged evolutionarially. However the sex drive being what it is with no other options for sex it will most likely occur.
I wouldn't argue incest as a simple moral issue - there's also a practical issue here - which I would argue is the same for murder. The problem being for murder is essentially it is defined as unlawful killing - so one society's idea of murder isn't going to be the same as another's.
Either way it's not the act there that's considered morally abhorent - it's the fact that someone's upsetting the balance of society.

I agree.

I've said it before on another thread, but this example is just too perfect. Our notion of morality is in my eyes a result of evolution, it is what a society fit for survival generally has and an unfit society would lack - if you had the chance to observe one, that is. Murder and incest are perfect examples as both are very harmful to a society as a whole and therefore declaring these immoral has to be in any society's interest.

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.

I suggest you think of good and evil not as parallels, but as gradations. read Nietzche's "Beyond Good and Evil". apparently it goes into detail alot more...haven't read it yet...two more weeks and i will have payed my 20-book lay by off!

YAY!
-Mel

Look at me! I'm a prostitute robot from the future!

I really do wish I was back home right now so that I could actually cite some things but all in all I agree if this is to be a debate of logic that man is niether inheretly good nor evil..

The question is can we take this to a religious/Philisophical debate. Because if you go by logic it would be impossible to write a proof saying that man is good or evil based on the fact that there is no guideline for what is good and what is evil.
The problem is that infact man makes man's own choice. The power of choice is an increadible thing..But when you look at some other things sometimes there is NO Choice.

1. A muslim who runs into a crowd and blows himself up in the middle of a jihad to us may be considered evil, but he belives that he is doing the right thing for Allah and that he is a blessed martyr. Most americans call someone like that an insane terrorist..

2. England once waged jihad on pretty much the world killing thousands of people who did not want to be christian. They are considred by Americans to be the Good guys.. They were pushing "Good christian value's" on people But in the end they did in fact slaughter thousands of people...

So if we are to take this to a religious stand point you still have to be able to compensate for the plethora of religions to choose your debate from. Which in fact lets it stand that Man cannot be good nor evil when it all comes down to it no matter which religion you choose to cite refererences from even if their holy book or their teachings say that At birth a babe is the most innocent of all creatures. I disagree completly .. I feel that assumption allows people to use Parents/Society as a scapegoat for wrong doings...How many serial killers have decided they did it because of their bad childhood and blah blah.

Man CANNOT be good NOR evil..and when it comes down to it no matter which direction the debate goes it all comes down to the fact that we have the power of

1. Free Thought

2. Choice

Those two powers coexist together in a never ending ethical and moral debate of good and evil and in the end cancel eachother out which leaves the question unable to be answered.

Insert Witty Quote Here

1. A muslim who runs into a crowd and blows himself up in the middle of a jihad to us may be considered evil, but he belives that he is doing the right thing for Allah and that he is a blessed martyr.

The Islamic faith both prohibits and condems suicide entirely. Even if those that commit suicide are celebrated as martyrs, such acts are strictly forbidden under the Islamic doctrine. (See http://answering-islam.org/Index/S/suicide.html) While there is a benefit for being a martyr, such suicide attempts are only condoned by dangerous radical groups, whose primary purpose is to produce fear in others as opposed to trying to expand the religion. Under no circumstance does this meet a prerequisite of martyrdom.

Not only that, but suicide is the mark of an amateur - especially if it is not needed (e.g. when a remote or timed detonation would work instead).

So if we are to take this to a religious stand point you still have to be able to compensate for the plethora of religions to choose your debate from.

Not really - all religions provide a basic set of teachings that identify basic moral code and behaviour. While there are differences between the moral codes of religions, the basic morality common to all major religions is generally the same either by using written laws (e.g. Leviticus) or abstract concepts (e.g. Karma)

There are a few ancient religions that required the use of human sacrifice. Even though it can be considered wrong under other religions, it is sanctioned in the same manner as the legitimate jihads of Islam or the English Crusades.

Man is neither good nor evil I guess to some extent I accept Rousseau's tabula rasa theory: I think we are largely the product of our circumstances. Man can do good and evil things, but we are living in a civilizational system that too often rewards evil.

Take the very idea of Capitalism, in which we champion people who succeed by taking from others, and in which they are encouraged by the system to perpetrate harmful acts to further their costly sucesses and excesses. Prior to civilization, we likely didn't have many of the horrible acts, or at least the frequency of them, that would prompt such a question: man, good or evil? We were too busy living to have widepsread mischief or the time to ponder it. We certainly didn't even imagine we would even have the capability or desire to slaughter thousands or even millions of people in one fell swoop. So as civilization has advanced, our thirst for evil acts, as well as our technological ability to facillitate them easily and on a greater scale, has grown tremendously. As time goes on, and more and more people scrabble for fewer resources, more and more evil will be perpetrated. Competition brings out and exacerbates evil, as does perversion and idleness: all of which are escalating dramatically in our culture.

It seems to me that the more civilization has advanced, the more evil has been perpetrated, both in percentages and numbers. So I can't say that man is evil in and of himself, but rather is capable of unspeakable evil when put into the wrong circumstances. This is not to absolve people from responsibility for their actions, but rather to understand that their is a better way of life that is available to us, a way of life in which we minimize evil's grip on us. The evidence to me indicates that our civilization, to the contrary, brings out the worst in us. This gives me grounds for cautious optimism.
Mac

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Your emphasis on civilization as a catalyst for evil reminds me of an important fact concerning this issue--that we cannot isolate one man or woman and ask whether this individual is evil because many of the evils committed in this world are not done by individuals but by groups. in other words, things we dare not do as individuals are done with no second thought when we become part of a group. I knew someone who cheated on his wife and went whoring when on a job assignment. he wouldn't normally do this himself, but the male corporate culture was too strong and he had to oblige when his senior manager offered him a woman. and yes, take capitalism--individually, employees are generally not the type of people who would dump toxic waste carelessly, rip people off with over-priced contracts, or whatever. But when the guilt becomes collective, it's easy to shrug it off. just sign an approval form here, just make a nice proposal, etc., and we wash the blood out from our hands. hey, we all need a job, right?

one reason i quit my job, actually, is the guilt. i'm part of the company's propaganda machinery. I'm a brilliant speaker and I do great presentations. I'm good at what I do. But there are some things I knew about the company and our operations, things I wasn't comfortable with, that I chose to ignore if i was to be happy in my job. it just got to a point where i had to confront myself because i found that i no longer felt guilty, that i relished the experience, the rush of being able to exploit people's desires, naivete, and greed while keeping some crucial things hidden from them--damn i was good. Normally, this isn't the sort of thing i would do by myself. But with so much affirmation and recognition in the corporate sub-culture, how could I feel bad?

If we're looking for evil, individual evil is easy to spot. but if we want to really know whether man is good or evil, just look at the corporations we choose to idolize.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

I was aware of that angle, but I hadn't thought of it specifically here. You bring up a good point. An individual would call the police if his neighbor were murdering people and he knew about it. But when it becomes institutionalized, like in Nazi Gernmany, people ignore the smell of rotting and burning flesh at nearby death camps, willing to ignore, aid and abet the most heinous acts for the "greater good." It just shows you the power of mythology is really amplified when adapted by an entire culture. I think this phenomenon is called groupthink. The unspeakable acts of evil that have been perpetrated thus should give us hope that, given the right story to live out, we as a species could create a world that is as good as Nazi Germany was evil.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

I'm less optimistic. Do you think groupthink can be used to serve good instead of evil? My experience and knowledge is only of the latter case, except for tribal epics. Can you give me a non-tribal example where groupthink was a good thing?

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

Well, aren't tribes a good enough example?

I think that all of our civilization is a monoculture sharing fundamentally the same groupthink, that's why we cannot cite good examples of it in our culture.

The Nazis, the Bolsheviks, the Americans, and the Romans, for example, had different cultures in all but the most fundamental ways. Those shared fundamentals are to blame for much of the bad groupthink. They include the delusion that man is a supreme being fit to rule the world, that power needs to be concentrated in the hands of a few, that the masses must be dominated, and that man is inherently flawed and in need of salvation--be it earthly or heavenly. I'm sure there are a few other shared beliefs I'm leaving out.

Now, contrast the detatchment and debasement of such cultures and their traditions of privilige and abuse with a native American culture. It's quite a different story. Not perfect, but they lived lifestyles which allowed them to prosper and succeed without massive expansion, warfare, stress, murder, insanity, etc.

...to be continued...

Ewige Blumenkraft!

I thought that this was a very good essay, well thought out, and well depicted, i only have one descrepency...What is good or evil? How do we know what is good and what is evil, just because our society has determined what defines good and evil, doesnt mean that it is the deffinitive explanation, what is good or evil is determined by the individal, we have the blessing of free-will and as such we are able to make up our own minds, we are shown what society and religion deem as right and rong from an early age, then once we are old enough to make our own decisions we have a choice of whether to agree with thes beliefs or not, so in conluding i believe that there is no set deffinition of what is right and what is wrong, there is only choice.

Thanks liam, and i understand where you are coming from with the idea of what determines good and evil.