Debate: Is Human Nature Inherently Good Or Evil? page 4 (locked)

91 posts

Flag Post

i should have added “goodness” after the inherent…

 
Flag Post

My apologies there, KoD, I was still assuming you were talking about inherent behavior, as most of the thread’s been about last couple of pages, rather than the thread topic – inherently good or evil.

You are right of course, without an inherent benchmark for ‘good’ you don’t have an inherent benchmark for evil, and the whole thing falls down.

 
Flag Post

@ vikaTae First, I should clarify that this is reaserch that was done on my own over a period of about 2 and 1/2 years on library computers for the Internet. Also going through books when my 1 hour a day limit on the computer was up. The reasearch was mostly about the brain, how it works and how that can be affected by external broadcasts of electromagnetic radiation. I do not have a degee, but I have also learned that there are a lot of people that do have degrees that are not very bright. personally, I read what is presented as factual and then I try to logically debunk it instead of just accepting it. By the way, that is why I do not list sources. If everyone just accepted sources, people would still think that the world was flat.

I think that a main problem with what I wrote and what you replied is terminology. I tried to explain when I first posted that article online that I was trying to write it so that a 6th grader could understand it.

Evoked potentials are part of the learning process in that however they occur to the external stimuli that produced them, they will occur in the same way at whatever age the person is. As in the evoked potential pattern when a newborn first sees blue will be the same evoked potential paterrn as when that same newborn sees blue when they are 100 hundred years old. That is if the exact same shade of blue is used as the stimuli. (There are a myriad of things disscussable here about eyesight problems and whether the person tries to compnsate for them.) The point I am trying to make though is that the evoked potential patterns, as soon as they first occur, are going to be part of the learning process. That applies to the EVPs that occur when the baby hears itself cry. Those EVPs are established in the brain.

I was trying to point out that autonomous functions are not the same as the so-called “sub-conscious”. I also realize that things like the hearbest shows up as a potential pattern. (before you came into the discussion, I tried to separate out what I meant by calling them functions as opposed to behaviour in the context of this thread as well.)

It appears that what you are calling instincts, I am calling normal developmental functions. I put the word instinct into the category of a response that is preprogrammed instead of a response that is learned. A lot of people think that when they put their hand or arm up to block something from hitting them in the face, it is instinctual and it really is not.

Again, The crying is something that the newborn can do, if it does not have some sort of abnormality preventing it, but the newborn does not know that it can do it. As soon as the newborn does do it, however, the learning process that it can has begun. You can not say that it is an instictual behavior, (this may be another example of terminology differences here), as not all newborns cry at birth. The same as some babies cry more than others as infants. Yes, there will also be the potential patterns resulting from the muscle movement associated with crying, The correlation between those potentials and the potentials that occur from the newborn hearing itself cry will begin at this point. That is, what I would call, a function of the brain.

When I wrote how someone may have been programmed to percieve said stimulus, I was referring to later in life than a newborn. As in someone that was constantly told that a specific thing was bad and produced a negative emotional response to it without thinking about it. I was using programmed as in a brainwashing type sense. (Terminology may be a differnece here as well in regards to brainwashing and brainrinsing if you use the technical defintions.)

When I was referring to the brain projecting the thoughts, I was referring to telepathy or from one person to another.

Yes, you are correct in that I misspoke about the waveform development not being limited by the distance and body parts in the way between mother and fetus. I really was just trying to point out that the brains were developing different and not as a single unit. As in the potentials that occurred int he mother’s brain were not transmitted and occurring in the brain of the child. Again the article was about radiation broadcasts affecting the brain.

All that stated, my answer to the question in the thread tital would be that humans are not born good or evil.

 
Flag Post

Obviously, one must define “good” “evil” and “human nature” before even attempting to answer this question. For the purposes of my reply, “good” will be “helping others, being responsible, and helping the human race, in one way or another, no matter how small”. “Evil” will be “being selfish, being wasteful and contribute nothing to us as a society”. “Human nature” will be “the way humans generally are”. I think that humans are inherently neither. Obviously, humans have the capacity to be both good AND evil, but the way human nature is can make it tricky to see. I think the majority of people are good, but given the proper circumstances, they can EASILY be persuaded into being evil.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by cdledzep13:

“Evil” will be “being selfish, being wasteful and contribute nothing to us as a society”. &#8220p>

I disagree. Evil contributes to society, not in a positive way, but it is definetely not wasteful. Take alcohol and drugs. They cause many deaths per year and generate a heck lot of cash. It has a definite result and so is not actually wasteful.
We also kill people in other countries, yet this can define us as a society. Canada was first respected because of their army’s excellent fighting in WW1, and that lead to Canada becoming a country independent from Britain.
Are we seperate from evil? No. We require evil as much as we require good. Much like we need darkness as much as we need light. Sometimes we must lie, and sometimes truth is more appropraite. Balance is the key to life and to ignore either side is to strip yourself of so much potential. Someone who always tells the honest truth is just as bad as the constant lier.

 
Flag Post

In my opinion we are all evil because of the fact that we judge others and everytime we just can’t stop evil thoughts from popping into our mind. But, the definitions of good and evil vary, while one person might think that somebody is doing good, another may think that they are evil. So, definitions should have been giving for this post.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Chris2Fly:

In my opinion we are all evil because of the fact that we judge others and everytime we just can’t stop evil thoughts from popping into our mind. But, the definitions of good and evil vary, while one person might think that somebody is doing good, another may think that they are evil. So, definitions should have been giving for this post.

Yes, we have evil thoughts popping into our heads, but we also have impulses that tell us that action is wrong and to not do it. Yes, some of these impulses are made by society, but some of them are natural. Such as the natural barrier that stops us from killing our family. Yes, some people do kill their family, but usually because they were negatively influenced by society.
In the end, I’m saying that Good and Evil are developed in us from both natural and social influences. We need both to be true humans, and without both, we merely succeed in under-developing ourselves. If we cant tell the truth, no one trusts us. Then again, if we cant tell lies, no one trusts us with their secrets, so we cannot make friends.

 
Flag Post

The fact that society exists is proof that humans are not as evil as everyone makes them out to be.
It will only exist when everyone can work together- some people will always take advantage of a situation, but it’s a tiny, tiny minority in most societies. They are not terribly good, but they are not that bad- more good than bad. Human nature cannot be rendered into absolutes. It’s more complex than that. You can break it up into parts, but everyone is some part good, some part bad. I’m just saying they’re more good than bad.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by 1132:

The fact that society exists is proof that humans are not as evil as everyone makes them out to be.
It will only exist when everyone can work together- some people will always take advantage of a situation, but it’s a tiny, tiny minority in most societies. They are not terribly good, but they are not that bad- more good than bad. Human nature cannot be rendered into absolutes. It’s more complex than that. You can break it up into parts, but everyone is some part good, some part bad. I’m just saying they’re more good than bad.

Of course, one could argue that the only reason people work together is to get a reward out of it. The only reason I would give my money to the cashier in a store is so I can get that bottle of coke without being arrested. If there was no chance of me being arrested, I might just steal the coke.

 
Flag Post

Still, there are plenty of ways in which people can take advantage of a situation. Yes, everyone is only working together because they think they’ll get something out of it. But think of the number of students you’ve seen or know have cheated- the people who disregard stop signs in parking lots because it’s private property- the people who only take a people- and all the others who will abuse the system in little ways. I’m sure everyone has done it, just a little bit, but there are certainly people who constantly bend the system to their will. They are, by and far, a minority, because the majority of people are to decent to do something like that even if they can get away with it. It’s what guilt is for, after all. Maybe we are simply avoiding pain and punishment and seeking reward, and those that bend the rules simply have a lessened ability to feel guilty. But I prefer to think on the bright side- that people will help other people, even if only because they’re guilted into it. Guilt is then proof that we are good, is it not? The fact that we have it, even if it’s not something we can really control.

 
Flag Post

I believe you cannot classify the human race to a title such as “Good” or “Evil”, because essentially they do not exist. I believe it’s in people’s nature to be generally neutral. Who a person decides to be will be decided on their upbringing and their own beliefs.

I think that every person is different and has different values, but that’s not to say they cannot be good or evil as you put it. Everybody makes their own decision and has the freedom to do what they may, even if they don’t believe so. Their freedoms do have consequences, but if somebody would like to become a mass murderer, they have the ability to do so, no matter the consequences.

I don’t believe the human race steers toward a particular title, that sometimes people make mistakes and people can change, but it is in our nature to do things that some would classify as “Evil.” The general population is run on Greed, on thinking they deserve something more so than somebody else. People think the world owes them something, and that can lead to corruption of their mental state. My point being, is that people will make mistakes and do wrong, but without wrong, how could you even classify right?

People will either learn from their mistakes, or let them swallow them. It’s not up to you or I to judge them.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by hangman95:
Originally posted by Chris2Fly:

In my opinion we are all evil because of the fact that we judge others and everytime we just can’t stop evil thoughts from popping into our mind. But, the definitions of good and evil vary, while one person might think that somebody is doing good, another may think that they are evil. So, definitions should have been giving for this post.

Yes, we have evil thoughts popping into our heads, but we also have impulses that tell us that action is wrong and to not do it. Yes, some of these impulses are made by society, but some of them are natural. Such as the natural barrier that stops us from killing our family. Yes, some people do kill their family, but usually because they were negatively influenced by society.
In the end, I’m saying that Good and Evil are developed in us from both natural and social influences. We need both to be true humans, and without both, we merely succeed in under-developing ourselves. If we cant tell the truth, no one trusts us. Then again, if we cant tell lies, no one trusts us with their secrets, so we cannot make friends.

I see what you are saying.

 
Flag Post

naturally neutral

no one cares and it takes a lot of effort to do good things.

we are more comforatable not caring

(though lot of people would consider neutrality(apathy and such) to be evil, but it is not)

 
Flag Post

it is these alignments that cause trouble.

people that are neutral dont seek war.

rather spend your time having sex and playiing video games instead of wasting time on nonsense