Are humans by nature good or evil?

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Im 32 years old, who likes to believe in free will but is aware of the animalistic nature of his humanity

reply to post by saabacura


Most humans in my opinion have no understanding of right and wrong.

I have never harmed anyone or done anything to anyone as i knew it was wrong, and i have had unbelievable harassment in my life.

I reckon most have no understanding what is good and bad, you just mainly do what it feels good to do. Like destroying lifes makes you feel good, as its your positive thinking that brings you happiness, lol.

Most humans do not know what is right and wrong.

What makes me laugh is the amounts of people who look upto alex jones and glenn beck. Both of these people would laugh at you being tortured by america for no reason, and christians look upto these two, lol.

The ptb have you played on all sides.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Im 32 years old, who likes to believe in free will but is aware of the animalistic nature of his humanity

What animal nature of humans, i am human and have harmed no one, so why do others do it. Its because they are born not knowing right or wrong, although they are told they are.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Im 32 years old, who likes to believe in free will but is aware of the animalistic nature of his humanity

If you have free will, and are aware of it, then you are more than it, and have another nature which isn't purely animalistic.
And that's my point, that we have self awareness which is able to stand apart from ourselves and be aware of ourselves, but who and what is THAT self? In other words, the human being is in possession of a transcendant self, or a spiritual self, and I would purport that that, not our animal origins, is our TRUE nature and who and what we REALLY are.
There are many I realize who've not transcended their animal nature, but they are of a lower order of human being, and may be thought of perhaps as sub-human or less than fully human, and to be fully human is to be, at least in part, divine ie: having a transcendant self or identity.
See there's this extremely simplistic, materialist view of the human being and life, which atheists subscribe to, but it's not congruent with the truth and reality, and for the most part, they tend to be younger people with a healthy dose of rebelious teenage angst, and simply lack the awareness or the education or experience, to know that the human being is not a mere animal, a mere thing, which is absurd, and insulting to the intellect. That's the only reason I asked, as I couldn't believe that well informed people could still hold that view, or applaud that view (i noted the stars you got for that simplistic and narrow viewpoint).

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Maybe people starred the post because they agreed with it, why do you believe your theory or belief holds any more weight than mine? I maybe a young man at the age 32 but have had enough experience to form my own theories on the true nature of man.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


To most of your post I was thinking "Yes, the good old theory of mind which we apparently possess, the ability to think abstract thoughts and visualise the thoughts of others, permitting empathy (= self, consciousness or, if you're going to dabble in the beyond, soul)". So all well and good, until:

to know that the human being is not a mere animal

I object, I object, I object so intensely to this Descartesian world view that saying it three times is not enough. I would never suggest that human beings are "mere" animals, but I would state with confidence that we are animals.

Consciousness does not come in discrete "either/or" packages, it is a continuous scale. At one end, there is none, and at the other, there is perfect empathy, but the vast majority (including humans) fall somewhere in between.

reply to post by TheWill

I should have said "more than", or not JUST. How's that?

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
We are both. God created us as a likeness of Him, and since he is the Author of good and evil, so we are.

You have got to be kidding... about the God part.

reply to post by woodwardjnr

Forgive me I didn't mean to come off that way, but what you offered isn't a theory about the true nature of man at all.

reply to post by saabacura


"Are humans by nature good or evil?"

Both, to varying degrees, oscillating wildly from individual to individual, depending on circumstance and perception.

Moving on...

reply to post by the.lights

Depends on how they define "God". If God as a first/last cause and the alpha and omega of existence, then of course it makes perfect sense, and can even be supported by some interpretations of modern quantum science. Don't be so presumptuous regarding what people mean by God or by man as made in the image of God, for all you know they are referring to consciousness itself as a first cause or a prime mover of existence.

In other words don't ASSUME!

Originally posted by PieKeeper
Good and Evil are subjective, just like the morals of our societies. Some societies find it good to kill blasphemers, while others find that imposed death of any kind is evil. Ultimately it's a pointless question to ask.

I agree that it is subjective, but surely a society that kills a blasphemer is inherently evil, or chops off someone's head for adultery? In no way is the OP's question pointless. It lies at the very heart of our existence..

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Better, although, being apparently tied to the fence that I am sitting on, I would be hesitant at creating the "us/them" distinction for any particular trait, including consciousness, when exhaustive evidence that we are the most self aware is lacking.

For people who are not so stubbornly indecisive, though, "More than" in the context of this thread is probably more than sufficient.



On an unrelated note, I find it strange that we place such value on consciousness when spite is as unique to it as kindness is.

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

On an unrelated note, I find it strange that we place such value on consciousness when spite is as unique to it as kindness is.

You caught me! I should have handled the debate better than I did. It's just hard when you see everyone moving forward and really enjoying new vistas of self discovery and mutual understanding, and then along comes some atheist with these arguments which are starting to get really old and outworn, and so my first reaction was that it surely must be a teenage viewpoint.

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
By nature we are simply alive.

Any tendency toward good or evil is learned behavior.

Good or evil is interpreted by the perspective of the observer.

Like having a good attitude is whether or not you are useful to those who consider you to be their subordinate.

Your question cannot be answered.

I disagree. You have a conscience. It would appear that some humans have a more advanced, better developed conscience than others - therefore they are more likely to display, peaceful, altruistic or moral behaviours than others.

Good and evil may be learned behaviour, to a degree. But each one of us has a free will and a conscience to decide what we believe is the wrong or the right thing to do. It is how we exercise this that is most important.

The question can of course CAN be answered, but is also open to interpretation. One mans meat is another mans poison. Clearly, the extermination of 6 million Jews in WWII was an evil act perpetrated by many thousands of individual humans with free will but lacking a fully developed conscience. The person, or people, who cure cancer will be widely considered as having been responsible for achieving something 'good'.

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13

Originally posted by saabacura
How would you describe human nature in general?
Are we inherently good/loving/compassionate beings? Or inherently bad/evil/cruel being?

Or, Are we inherently born neutral...

What are your opinions on the nature of humans?

BOTH. Good because most have good intents but can be distracted and pressured into what others may want to be involved in. LIKE POLITICS and parties within them GANGES-HIRED FORCES-MOBS-CARTELS ect. And many get involved in these peer groups only out of mis guidence and wanting to belong which can lead to BAD practices if you are a follower and not your own leader.

Bad because something within causes some to seek power over others = gain egos over others ect. this causes the populace to become seperated overall in intentions and wants. So again humanity possess both. As if created with one force and modIfied by another force.

PEACE good question.

edit on 1/7/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)

What you are trying to say here is 'don't blindly follow the psychopaths'.

The answer is simple. Restrict or curtail societal psychopathology - reduce evil in society.

I see none of that being done at present...

Originally posted by the.lights
What you are trying to say here is 'don't blindly follow the psychopaths'.

The answer is simple. Restrict or curtail societal psychopathology - reduce evil in society.

I see none of that being done at present...

Depends on how you see and what you look for. I see evil on the wane myself, and that it's already been undone, by itself, as a house divided against itself, collapsing. My hope is that the 21st century, aside from isolated incidents, will bear witness to the fall of evil, could you imagine that?
The process has already begun, wherever you and I take a stand as the end of evil, which I can do quite effectively, particularly as a true Christian knower.
When we're in the right space, consciously, spiritually, evil must flee from our very presence, and everywhere we go we tread it under foot.

The fact that we can even ask this question, reveals that we are GOOD because we have the ability to discern good from evil. Therefore the distinctions exist, and we can consciously choose to be better than the alternative - which is to not know or not care, in which case that is indicative of an unconscious animal.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by the.lights

 

Depends on how they define "God". If God as a first/last cause and the alpha and omega of existence, then of course it makes perfect sense, and can even be supported by some interpretations of modern quantum science. Don't be so presumptuous regarding what people mean by God or by man as made in the image of God, for all you know they are referring to consciousness itself as a first cause or a prime mover of existence.

In other words don't ASSUME!

edit on 7-1-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

Don't ASSUME either...

The commentor, and possibly yourself, suggest that you ASSUME that there is such a thing as a creator. I ASSUME nothing. Since we, as a species know nothing about such things.

Once you accept that despite all theological and scientific research/theory we know next to nothing, then you can start to believe in a reality where such a thing as a Creator may, or may not, exist. Thereby doubling the possibilities for your potential for understanding this reality rather than limiting it to a Creator-only based view of reality.

Surely that is a better view.

reply to post by DeltaChaos


On the 2nd day of creation when G-d created the firmament and divided the waters, he never says, as he does on the other days "and it was good".

For a pagan relativistic 'everything ie equal' attitude, this phenomena can be ignored or imagined as something different. But its clear and understood in kabbalistic thought that G-ds abstaining from saying 'it is good' on the second day (the root of evil) indicates that evil is intrinsically bad, or not real.

Another proof profferred from the bible is the verse in Isaiah where G-d says "i make light and create darkness, i do good and create evil. I G-d do all this". The kabbalists note the use of the word "asa" to make, which essentially means nothing more than to act. Assiah is also the root of the word 'to act'. Breiah conversely, which is translated as 'to create' refers to something created ex nihlo. In other words, evil has to be CREATED in order to exist, whereas good is the very essence of what G-d is (which explains the proximity between the word God, and Good. The extra vowel implies what G-d does ie; he is good).

Evil is an aberration which G-d does not want mankind to engage in. Our very purpose, the bible suggests, is to transform the very animalistic and unconscious aptitude for humans to be evil, into a conscious and responsible attitude where we choose good and do good because it is 1) Right, 2) allows us to connect with G-d.