Today, we will be discussing the Nature of Mankind. Is man inherently good? Is he inherently evil?

If he's inherently good, why is it at our base nature to make wars and combat with one another?

If he's inherently evil, why did we ever come up with morals and ideals to live by? Was it just a fluke?

Please make some detailed responses. I know some of you want to say "lol man is not good nor evil, he is just man. xbox is huge" or some such nonsense. And if you must give that answer, provide a good basis for it.

Let's hear it, laddies.

Hence, there can be no absolute good or evil until everyone everywhere agrees on a religion.

Which makes discussions of this nature tricky, to say the least.

With that teaser, I go to bed and return in about 24 hours.

Discuss.

quote:

---

Bloodsage stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Good and evil are not absolutes. Further, they are the products of religion; there is no good or evil without religion.

Hence, there can be no absolute good or evil until everyone everywhere agrees on a religion.

Which makes discussions of this nature tricky, to say the least.

With that teaser, I go to bed and return in about 24 hours.

---

Can't quite agree there. In "godless" communist countries there is a still a view of right versus wrong, it is just wildly different from most religion based societies.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Mr. Parcelan absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Which raises an interesting aspect: if we had never discovered religion, would morals have been discovered? How would we have turned out?

Discuss.

---

Here, we have to distinguish between morals, which are the product of religion, and ethics, which are the product of rational thought.

Again, more tomorrow as I drag myself off to bed, kicking and screaming.

quote:

---

Alaan impressed everyone with:
Can't quite agree there. In "godless" communist countries there is a still a view of right versus wrong, it is just wildly different from most religion based societies.

---

Even communist countries have religion. Show me a purely communist country that is entirely athiest. While people may not be public with their chosen religion, a lot of them still live by one, even if it is forebidden.

quote:

---

Everyone wondered WTF when Mr. Parcelan wrote:
Which raises an interesting aspect: if we had never discovered religion, would morals have been discovered? How would we have turned out?

Discuss.

---

Not an argument either way but a random quote that seems rather appropriate. Don't remember who said it though.

"If there was no god, man would have created one."

Or something quite close to that.

From that point of view you could say that a certain portion of humanity that disagrees with the principles set forth by tradition and society is and always will be 'evil' while those that accept and live by them are 'good', if you take those people and put them into a society of their own the definitions shift around again.

For example, if you take your average career woman in the west and send her to Iran, she will be percieved as evil by them while everyone who holds the same values dear as she does will consider her brave from the outside.

If you continue to argue along this line however you end up with only the most subservant of people being 'good' and everyone else falling into the 'evil' category which is pretty depressing imo.

Of course one can go and set arbitrary moral standards such as 'murder is evil', 'killing is evil' or 'stealing is evil', yet those are completely arbitrary and not verifiable in any way, this is also one of the major draws of religion, the presence of a verifiable surpreme moral standard in the form of scripture.

In short, without a strict definition of good or evil you cannot answer the question given, but even if you had those you would still have to find traits that all men have in common which would prove almost just as hard.

quote:

---

Alaan painfully thought these words up:
Not an argument either way but a random quote that seems rather appropriate. Don't remember who said it though.

"If there was no god, man would have created one."

Or something quite close to that.

---

"If there was no god we would have to invent him." I think it was by Voltaire.

Without holding an advanced degree in anthropology, I can't say for sure, but I'd venture a guess that morality is derived from the instinct of cooperative survival in early man. Early man didn't arbitrarily kill his fellow tribesman; to do so would be detrimental to their tribe. Over time, those who managed to get along with people had an easier time surviving.

There is, however, a caveat: morality may be a universal human trait, but it is not absolute. There is no question of human morality for which there is a single answer in all conceivable circumstances. Religion has introduced absolute morality, but human morality predates all religion, or, if you like, is capable of operating independent of religion. One can derive morality from religion, but if one doesn't have a religion, that fact does not preclude his morality.

quote:

---

Verily, Mr. Parcelan doth proclaim:
There's actually no religion in this thread, but it felt right.

Today, we will be discussing the Nature of Mankind. Is man inherently good? Is he inherently evil?

If he's inherently good, why is it at our base nature to make wars and combat with one another?

If he's inherently evil, why did we ever come up with morals and ideals to live by? Was it just a fluke?

Please make some detailed responses. I know some of you want to say "lol man is not good nor evil, he is just man. xbox is huge" or some such nonsense. And if you must give that answer, provide a good basis for it.

Let's hear it, laddies.

---

Man is naturally irrational, stubbon in will, and easily swayed by emotion.

Whether this is "good" or "bad" is wholly dependent on the observer.

What I just said is also wholly dependent on the observer - me.

Draw your own conclusions.

With that being said (Props to Quoteland ) I will say that while I do not get my views from this nor did I know it existed until many years after my views were established, my views are shown so close it's scary in Mark Twain's "The Lowest Animal."

Morals are imposed by the social group of what is accepted behavior and what is not. (kinda like you guys and proper grammar) Later laws were invented to add additional controls to the way people acted and to legitimize the actions of those who climbed to the top of the social strata.

We are inherently evil. given a chance the majority of people will be self serving and have no qualms about stepping on their fellow man to get what they want. They will lie, cheat, steal or even kill if there is an end benefit for them most cant even get beyond short term immediate gratification.

Most recent example of man's basically evil and uncaring nature? Look at that woman who was trampled in Wal mart.. those people didn't care what was happening to her as long as they got theirs. Polite society forgot its self that day.

(2) Man is a product of too many things to flat lable 'Good' or 'Evil'. You have not only religious influences (or lack thereof) but social, enviornmental and other factors that will indirectly and directly effect Man.

(3) Without 'Evil' you can have no 'Good' is also a VERY important thing here. Without one you can't accurately define the other's scope. The core of this argument of course feeds item 1 as well as brings the question of 'Who decided this originally' to the table.

quote:

---

Somthor said this about your mom:
We are inherently evil. given a chance the majority of people will be self serving and have no qualms about stepping on their fellow man to get what they want. They will lie, cheat, steal or even kill if there is an end benefit for them most cant even get beyond short term immediate gratification.

---

How does that make one 'Evil'? I'd call it Neutral (to steal the alignment scale from D&D for a bit) myself. Looking out for number one has always been a grey area in the terms of 'Good' and 'Evil'. It's definately not 'Good', as that's what religion and general society would like to claim, but to say it's 'Evil' is going too far because if it were 'Evil' then 90% of the animal population would fall to this too. However lacking what is generally refered to as 'Free Will' how can an animal be said to be 'Good' or 'Evil'? It is living by the laws as it understands them... survival.

So.

I think that humans are naturally fairly neutral creatures on the "good/evil" continuum, given over to cooperation for the greater benefit of the group so long as it does not infringe too much on the one. Before humans had concepts for religion (I'd go so far as to say even pre-animism), humans had this in-bred idea that working together would benefit them. What's beneficial for the group tends to benefit the individual. Thus humans are fairly neutral/selfish, but with in-bred instincts that, if your definition of good is "benefitting more than just themselves and their children", would make humans neutral/selfish/good, roughly in that priority.

Of course, as any system gains complexity, the notions shift. Basic survival traits evolve into philosophies. The Devil, as they say, is in the details. But you have to start worrying about the details to give the Devil a place to stay. As the system gains complexity, as humans are successful and given more time to lollygag about, they inevitably get counter-cultural ideas. It's one thing that you see happen in every culture all around the world. So long as everyone is working towards one goal, people tend to have very little in the way of good/evil problems. It forces them to return to their essential racial balance. If they have time to luxuriate in their success, you inevitably see dissension.

Once you have dissension, people break up into factions. They almost always identify themselves as "good" and the other side as "evil". There is now more to right and wrong than "benefit the populace and in doing so push forward your own happiness". You have DETAILS now, and the so-called Devil is in them. You start to mark how far people have to go in order to give the society what it wants. Whole massive nations of people can now be "evil" because they disagree. People add mysticism, magic, and spiritual elements (the ultimate terror weapon of the old world), and suddenly you have religions. With religions come heresies. And evil "cults".

And yet any given body never sees themself as something negative. Christianity was originally a cult. So was Islam. They were radical tangential sects of Judaism. Jainists broke ranks between whether the skyclad (naked all the time) were more right than those who wore clothes. Buddhists broke ranks over whether they should stick to the original non-magical, non-mystical philosophy of Buddha, or if they should heap religious elements onto the belief system.

As if that wasn't complicated enough, you start to see all sorts of political systems develop on top of the religious. And ALL systems, democratic, republican, monarchistic, feudalism, communist, whatever...ALL of them have good sides and bad sides. As if that wasn't complicated enough, stretch this new flesh over the muscles of the religions that are connected by the tendons and ligaments of philosophy to the skeletal structure of mankind.

I think humanity is what I said it is: Neutral/selfish/good. I do, however, think that every new social iteration adds another ever-shifting layer of filters to how you read it, however, and there are always deviant elements in the system, especially one with close to seven billion individual parts.

Here's the idea as far as I see it. Man as by his nature is one that will come into conflict with his enviroment. Hunting and other practices. Man is a violent creature in this regards. This violence is carried over to other parts of life due to the struggle between varying levels of power in a mainly heirachial society. This can be seen in territorial disputes, mating, etc. Due to this man will often use force or some other means of coercion to obtain his desires. This also applies to the groups that man forms.

Basically as such we are creatures driven by the rule of survival of the fittest. The stronger (can be physical, mental, etc) will subjugate and exploit the weak. As a response to this the weaker groups band together and protect themselves through numbers. Even in this situation the stronger ones among the weak will rise to positions of authority or power and will exploit their weaker group members.

On the macroscopic end of this is society. What we see as laws are merely restraints placed by the weak to level the playing field. This widespread control by the weak has been able to be established by years of doctrinating societal members from birth in what is acceptable behavior. The reason why the strong are reined in by the weak for the most part is due to the number of those without power. However the interdependcy between the weak and strong is clearly marked by the weak's need to be led and governed by the strong while the strong clearly need the weak in order to fulfil their objectives.

In regards to the concept of good and evil, it is merely a convention made by society. Marking such behaviour that would unlevel the playign field or endanger the group, the weak have trained themselves and their descendants to view these types of behaviours as evil. The good behaviours are extolled as long as these behaviours run with the mainstream accepted behaviours of the group. Such acts that take advantage of the groups inabilities are deemed as evil. Also ones that would allow the more powerful or violent members of a group to control or subjugate others have been included as evil.

So basically my opinion is that man is just as evil or good as any other animal which is to say he is neither. However as a form of control we've created the notion of morals and of good and evil in our socities as a means of protecting ourselves from those stronger than us.

I've been looking into Buddhism lately, and I noticed that the essential part of it is as such: "Desire is suffering. To end desire is to end suffering."

A) Is this the right thing to do? Would it be wise to deny ourselves the basest of human emotion?

B) Is it even possible? Can anyone truly become totally free of desire?

What I'm getting at is: Man prides himself on being above the animals, but how far can he elevate himself before he goes too high and chokes?

So, I personally like my first option. Even the suffering is appealing, being the only way to define and value the pleasurable. Stagnation is much less fun.

quote:

---

Mr. Parcelan had this to say about Punky Brewster:
I'm shifting the topic matter slightly, but feel free to continue the above discussion.

I've been looking into Buddhism lately, and I noticed that the essential part of it is as such: "Desire is suffering. To end desire is to end suffering."

A) Is this the right thing to do? Would it be wise to deny ourselves the basest of human emotion?

B) Is it even possible? Can anyone truly become totally free of desire?

What I'm getting at is: Man prides himself on being above the animals, but how far can he elevate himself before he goes too high and chokes?

---

Buddhism says that desire is the cause of suffering, but it doesn't say that you shouldn't own or possess things. The Buddhist principle is to walk the middle path between extremes.

And taken as a philosophy it's not a bad idea, but I think it's ultimately unrealistic. Taken as an ideal to TRY to live up to, it's great. But I don't think it's something that any mass number of people can truly live up to.

Taoist philosophy is much easier to swallow.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Karnaj absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
It works like this: morality is a universal human trait. It's certainly not derived soley from religion. Take me, Joe Atheist as an example. I don't kill people not because religion tells me not to; I don't kill people because as I've encountered them it'd be the wrong thing to do.

Without holding an advanced degree in anthropology, I can't say for sure, but I'd venture a guess that morality is derived from the instinct of cooperative survival in early man. Early man didn't arbitrarily kill his fellow tribesman; to do so would be detrimental to their tribe. Over time, those who managed to get along with people had an easier time surviving.

There is, however, a caveat: morality may be a universal human trait, but it is not absolute. There is no question of human morality for which there is a single answer in all conceivable circumstances. Religion has introduced absolute morality, but human morality predates all religion, or, if you like, is capable of operating independent of religion. One can derive morality from religion, but if one doesn't have a religion, that fact does not preclude his morality.

---

I have to disagree: good and evil are inherently religious concepts. Questions of good and evil are morality, and essentially religious in nature. Which doesn't necessarily invalidate the rest of your argument, since one could make a case that the drive toward religion is an intrinsically human trait.

It's important, however, to distinguish morals from ethics. Ethics may be defined as moral philosophy, but I find that simply confuses things. I prefer to think of ethics as the concern for right conduct, as opposed to morality, which is concerned with good and evil.

It's an RCH-fine line, but an important one. Morality, in this sense, is not a topic for reasoned debate, but rather for religious study. Ethics, on the other hand, is the province of reason and logic, where people deliberately attempt to better the world.

I offer this distinction to avoid the inevitable descent into competing dogma.

quote:

---

Bloodsage still thinks SARS jokes are topical, as evidenced by:
I have to disagree: good and evil are inherently religious concepts. Questions of good and evil are morality, and essentially religious in nature. Which doesn't necessarily invalidate the rest of your argument, since one could make a case that the drive toward religion is an intrinsically human trait.

---

I could see that if you treat good and evil as absolutes, but I'd say someone who steals is evil, but someone who steals bread to feed his family is not. Perhaps it's just a case of wire-crossing on definitions.

quote:

---

It's important, however, to distinguish morals from ethics. Ethics may be defined as moral philosophy, but I find that simply confuses things. I prefer to think of ethics as the concern for right conduct, as opposed to morality, which is concerned with good and evil.

---

OK, that makes sense, but if something is ethically wrong, would it be wrong to say that it's evil? If we decide that a serial rapist's crimes are ethically wrong, could we not call him evil without delving into the realm of religiosity? Or do the connotations associated with good and evil automatically dredge that stuff up?

quote:

---

It's an RCH-fine line, but an important one. Morality, in this sense, is not a topic for reasoned debate, but rather for religious study. Ethics, on the other hand, is the province of reason and logic, where people deliberately attempt to better the world.

---

Six of one, half a dozen of the other, I suppose. If you substitute "ethics" wherever you see "morality" in my post, my argument would probably hold.

quote:

---

I offer this distinction to avoid the inevitable descent into competing dogma.

---

There's no competition. Karnajism is the superior human moral code, and everyone knows it.

quote:

---

Mr. Parcelan had this to say about dark elf butts:
I'm shifting the topic matter slightly, but feel free to continue the above discussion.

I've been looking into Buddhism lately, and I noticed that the essential part of it is as such: "Desire is suffering. To end desire is to end suffering."

A) Is this the right thing to do? Would it be wise to deny ourselves the basest of human emotion?

B) Is it even possible? Can anyone truly become totally free of desire?

What I'm getting at is: Man prides himself on being above the animals, but how far can he elevate himself before he goes too high and chokes?

---

A.) The point of Buddhist thought is not so much to force yourself to not desire things. If one is following Buddhism, the basic activity is to shift your perspectives on existence to the point that you can understand and appreciate existence with or without those things which you might desire. It is not "I will not give in, and desire to have that rice." Instead, it is "If I have that rice, I will not be hungry for a few hours. But I will still be hungry again. I can wait until food is given to me, then, instead of requesting it when it is not my place to do so."

It is acceptance of the way things are, on a grand scale, such that you do not seek to change them simply for your own sake. As for the wisdom of doing such... who can say? I certainly can't, and I follow the philosophical basis of the faith. I think it's designed that way.

B.) I'd imagine no one will ever know. "The man who proclaims himself enlightened, is furthest from enlightenment." If you go bragging that you've transcended desire, you're desiring recognition for doing so. So I'd imagine that, if it does happen, it doesn't exactly get broadcast all that far.

To answer this question:

quote:

---

OK, that makes sense, but if something is ethically wrong, would it be wrong to say that it's evil? If we decide that a serial rapist's crimes are ethically wrong, could we not call him evil without delving into the realm of religiosity? Or do the connotations associated with good and evil automatically dredge that stuff up?

---

I pose another question: what does one gain by calling something evil?

Without religion, nothing. While it's not incorrect to use the label "evil" for wrong behavior, I don't see that it adds anything other than an emotional stink and fear of an afterlife.

Right and wrong without religion is a tricky proposition, as it's obvious from casual observation that people are emotional creatures, on the whole. Religion, and the concepts of good and evil, provide that emotional link not present in rational ethics, thus ensuring a larger set of adherents to any code using the device. The down side, though, is that the same tendency toward emotion creates hostility among adherents of different codes precisely because there is no basis for discussion, only emotion and belief.

Ultimately, then, using labels such as good and evil encourages strife and discourages rational thought.

quote:

---

Bloodsage still thinks SARS jokes are topical, as evidenced by:
Karnaj,

To answer this question:

I pose another question: what does one gain by calling something evil?

Without religion, nothing. While it's not incorrect to use the label "evil" for wrong behavior, I don't see that it adds anything other than an emotional stink and fear of an afterlife.

Right and wrong without religion is a tricky proposition, as it's obvious from casual observation that people are emotional creatures, on the whole. Religion, and the concepts of good and evil, provide that emotional link not present in rational ethics, thus ensuring a larger set of adherents to any code using the device. The down side, though, is that the same tendency toward emotion creates hostility among adherents of different codes precisely because there is no basis for discussion, only emotion and belief.

Ultimately, then, using labels such as good and evil encourages strife and discourages rational thought.

---

But I like being called an evil motherfucker!

Whoa, you're right. It is emotional.

quote:

---

Mr. Parcelan was listening to Cher while typing:
I'm shifting the topic matter slightly, but feel free to continue the above discussion.

I've been looking into Buddhism lately, and I noticed that the essential part of it is as such: "Desire is suffering. To end desire is to end suffering."

A) Is this the right thing to do? Would it be wise to deny ourselves the basest of human emotion?

B) Is it even possible? Can anyone truly become totally free of desire?

What I'm getting at is: Man prides himself on being above the animals, but how far can he elevate himself before he goes too high and chokes?

---

If you no longer need a clock do you smash it against the wall? Or do you just set it aside until it comes in handy?

That's just paraphrasing something I read that explained the whole concept to me a whole lot better. I personally consider myself a Buddhist, but am not a regularly practicing one.