sorry if this is already a topic.


Okay. The question presented here is "what is the nature of man?", which basically means...do you think that all mankind is mostly evil or good? Also, are you born good/bad or do your surroundings mold who you are?

good luck with this one

this is what i have to say about this topic in another thread in the lounge:

well if you go by religion, the catholic religion says that your born with the original sin, which I guess makes you evil (or bad? or something not good) and when you are baptized you become good in the eyes of the church.

Personally, I think its your life experiences.

Then again, some people grow up in great surroundings and turn out evil.


It depends on the person.


Its human nature to want things... so it all depends on how far you will take that desire.

I agree with Fae, but I think humans are born niether good nor evil. They are simply .. humans. Whatever that may influence them or however their thoughts are created determines whether they are more good or evil. Humankind generally I think is evil. They are taking advantage of technology to create things like factory farming for food, leather, fur coats, etc.

I believe they are born neutral. It is the process of life in that which they choose or be forced to be either evil or good.

for the sake of stimulating the debate, i'm going to challenge those who have answered so far.

if you think that a human is born neutral and chooses to be good or evil as he/she experience life, what is your definition of being good, neutral, and evil?
and if being neutral is neither good nor evil, why do people say babies are innocent?

Kudos
Gotta give it up and agree.

After some thought. I don't think thats true. There are babies that are just straight out evil!! Then there are those that are just "innocent."

There is no answer, but I think that it all depends on the parentals.

I personally think a "Good" person is someone who actually does good things just cause as it is not altered because of the reward or punishment. A "bad" person on the other hand, is someone who does actual bad things and not have even 1 spec of regret or guilt. In other words, I believe most of the world is neutral and it is rare to find someone who is truly evil or good. As for the baby, I suppose people think they are innocent just because they can not be capable of evil acts.

first.... LOL at the last sentence of the first paragraph, gigi. okay. done.
is morally wrong not considered as bad or evil? since i wanted to debunk humans are born neutral, your explanation is leaning towards they are born evil.

so lets break down evil. harmful doing in spite, with malicious intent, or by greed is evil right? these things also characterize things that are morally wrong. so what spite, malicious intent, or greed that cause harm is a crying, or dirty-diaper baby committing? also, isn't 'causing trouble' by crying depends on perspective and situation? if a baby is hungry and cries because he/she needs food and is considered making trouble, then any human with the need to eat and ask for food is also causing trouble by the same logic. ordering food at the restaurant would also be causing trouble. and 'trouble' also depends on perspective. in my opinion, feeding my baby because he/she is hungry isn't trouble. if i'd consider it as such, maybe i should never have had the baby.



generally speaking, don't babies make people happy by just being themselves?

Well yea since they are full of giggles and usually cute.

People have both good and evil qualities.

i know, that's why i "lol-ed" at it. i really did. haha. evil babies. anyway...



so from what i'm understanding, you're saying that babies are evil because they become an inconvenience when they ask for food, change of diapers... etc?

also, if i have a beautiful voice (don't believe it ) and i'm singing to myself but you hear me as you're walking close and decided to stop and listen. i don't know that i have an audience and sing away. my song makes you happy. should i have credit for making you happy by singing the song?

hmm, is it really fine for someone to consider torture a good thing? generally, wouldn't evil be something that harms us physically and mentally on purpose?

now lets get into specifics. since we are discussing the evil nature of human, is it the 'evil' nature babies that causes postpartum depression or should this condition be blamed on the nature of women, who are naturally—genetically and hormonally, proned to postpartum depression?

First of all, we are all born without having the knowledge of good and bad. It is a natural instinct for us, however, to do what we can to survive. If we are screaming at the top of our lungs at 2 AM, we aren't aware that our parents won't be very happy. However, we do learn that we will get food or have our diapers changed. As we grow older and learn the difference between good and evil, it is up to us to decide what to do when certain occasions arise. For example, if we have a bag of M&Ms for a snack and our friend forgot their snack, the "good" thing (in many people's eyes) would be to share. However, if we know that our parents are going through hard financial times at home and we know that that bag of M&Ms is the only thing we'll have to eat all week long, is it still considered "evil" or selfish not to share them? What if we do share them? Would we be considered stupid for lacking common sense of our own good? Of course, there are many unjustifiable things that happen in this world that, without a doubt, should be considered evil. All of mankind, except those who are mentally impaired or those who aren't old enough yet, should know the consequences of their actions. Whether they are "good" or "evil" depends upon their judgements and decisions.

then my question to you is must we have knowledge of good and evil to be good or evil?

I guess that through somebody's eyes, yes you can be good or evil without knowing it because, as I said before, everybody has different opinions on what they consider to be good and evil. However, I do not really truly believe that you can be good or evil unless you are conciously know that you are being good or evil.

in my opinion, you don't have to know that you're doing a good thing to do a good thing, the same with evil.

if a child is drowning in a calm river (and i know how to swim), instinctively i would, and so would many others, jump in to save the child. consciously, i would not be thinking that saving the child is a good thing to do, i would do it because if i didn't save her, she would die. that saving the child's life is a good thing will click right after the rush of the save is over. this is how many people think and i know you would be doing the same for the child. consciousness of doing good/evil, or being aware of doing good/evil, isn't necessarily a must in order for a person to do good/evil.

No, you don't need to know that you're doing a good thing to do a good thing, but if you're doing something portrayed as "evil" you usually know it first. If it is unintentional, it's very hard to argue that it is evil. That's why murder cases, pleading insanity is a touchy subject because if you don't know that you're killing somebody (unintentionally), then you shouldn't suffer the consequences of doing it (or so some people argue).

When you see a child drowning, you might not say to yourself "Oh, no! A child is drowning! I want to be good and save it!" However, you do know that it is a bad thing that the child is drowning and you want to make things good, and save the child.

well, it finally comes to this:
there you go! that's my point! that's one of the reasons why i think people are born good instead of neutral!


do you think this "knowing" is conscious or unconscious?

Human? doh, was born as a monkey, and with the years that goes by him, growing up, he tends to be like others, he tends to copy the bad things from others but most of them inside are so,so,so harmless.

That "Masks" that most of the human's are using all the times to impress the persons around him, will make`it more evil because somewhere in time he/she will forget who he/she really is/was.

Masking your own personality with other person's characters and trying to copy something is the most dissgusting thing i ever saw in my entire life, it seems there is a problem this days if you just wanna be diferent, be special in your own way, but hell yeah, its more easy to copy someone then be just yourself.

This happens with more then 70% of this Globe Population in 2005.
And yes all of you are nothing else then a Copy, that's why "they" want so much the "Cloning Thingy" , why dont you create what others didnt ? why dont you make yourself better then worse using others ticks/outlook hairstyle and many other things that are purely Copy's.

PS:Why dont you just get a Poster with the one you like so much that you are even addicted and go to a Xerox and make yourself one with your Idol. Doh.

PS: I know you're laffing because i sound too Irrelevant to even understand me, but this is Me and My Opinion, but hell yeah i laff because you all are the same. A Copy.


Example: When Beckham, the football player went to China or Korea i don't remember too good, all those ppl cut their hair and got "Beckham's Hair Style" lol, its so funny to see kinda 100-200K of ppl with the same Haircut/Hair Style. LOL! Way too funny.

C'ya

whaaat?

if you really believe in what you just posted, don't you mean "we're all the same"?

if not, what makes you different?

No, that's how you "saw" or understood my point, but i really HATE that things, and NO(to answer your question, im not a part of that "we" since i dont like this things) i only like to be special in my own way, not by being a Copy of someone else, who isnt really Me.
I dont really have the time to type and explain you what makes me different because for sure it will be waste of time for me and for those who will read, because like i saw this days its more nice to read what others in their personal life then to see a "geek","freak" (that's how the addicted fans are naming those who dont like to Copy someone "they" Like or already addicted to) writing some things about how or what is making him different from others. (That's why ive choosed that quote on my sign)

i'm sorry, you really lost me after "No".

what do i "seen"? and what things do you really hate?

Hmmm...I think of unconcious as instinct/reflex. Many people use the excuse of doing something "evil" because they have never been in the situation before and didn't know what to do. Sometimes, this can be true but, through your life, you aquire judgement skills based on your past experiences and their outcomes. Ever since we were infants, we have been facial expressions and so by the time we are old enough to make important decisions, such as whether to save a drowning child or not, we know that we have other things to base our decisions off of other than ourselves. I think certain reflexes are acquired over a period of time from past experiences. When you raise your hand to slap somebody and they flinch, they flinch because it is a reflex (one they aquired from past experiences). So in answer to your question, I think that "knowing" can be either concious or unconcious...or sometimes both.

Good and evil are completely subjective. End of story.

evil, because we all are the ones responsbile for slowly destroying our planet day by day.

i believe a person's surroundings can greatly change them but not determine the course of their life like others have said humans are born pure beings and life and the world influence them and the main influence in this world is evil and corrupt

true, but in the same sense you're also saying that evil is a kind of pseudo-problem or something that has no solution. so then if we cannot battle evil since it's all in our perceived thoughts and not something factual or tangible, what is the purpose of overcoming evil? what is the purpose of valuing good?

anyway, the whole point of this debate is to prove that one's subjective views on the nature of man is right, or at least better than others'. thus, the story goes on.

which goes on and on until all sides run out of breath. So in a way, end of story.

Not necessarily. There can be a point where one person can admit that the other person's views make more sense. Sure, it doesn't happen much here in the debate forum, because most people are busier trying to "prove" how smart they are and would never stoop so low as to admit they might have erred in their thinking, but in theory, a debate could potentially come to an end at some point.

I love you.


This topic isn't about the nature of babies though. Its the nature of mankind. Man, as well as any animal, wants to survive. That is its nature. Mankind is naturally selfish, wanting more assurance it will survive.

I don't see this as evil. Wanting for yourself before others is a natural, reasonable trait. Its religion that defames this characteristic. Honestly, I don't buy it. God would not have built selfishness into us so that we ignore it. I believe this is just another defamation of the earlier Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is widely known for determining good and evil. Who tells them what's good and what's evil? God, supposedly. But we don't know that. Its a fact that the Catholic Church defamed many things for the sole purpose of religious control. For example, the Catholic Church defamed Judaism in Spain and 'sponsored' the Spanish Inquisition. It defamed Satanism as well, and made it what many think of it today (If you didn't know, Satanists do not actually worship the devil. They are normal people, like you an me, but they somewhat worship human nature in its entirety.) Another example is the outlawing of sexual desires of priests and nuns.

I'm not trying to offend any Catholics here. I know you didn't do anything, and I know the modern day Church didn't either. I'm just stating how whats good and evil is carved in stone, although many evils are just human natures that cannot be controlled.

Yeah.


We're talking about human nature. Meaning, if there was no outside influence, what would we be like?

And anyway, I don't remember the last time I started a forest fire or doused a lake in oil. We're talking about humans in general, not capitalist leaders. And anyway, who declared it evil? Why is wanting personal satisfication over wanting to save the world evil? Some people just have different values. Does that make them evil?

This is almost the same point I made before. Society has carved what is good and evil in stone, although if you think about it, there is no good and evil. There is only perspective on life.

so if wanting to survive is not selfish and selfish is evil, why would the nature of man be evil, or are you defending otherwise?
*nods about the Church*.


What would be considered as "outside influence"?


Um, the respond to that is still a "no", by a long shot. according to that logic, we shouldn't question anything nor try to work out disagreements because it's all subjective. what's true to you may not be true to me so we should all shut our mouths and never start out a sentence with "I think" or "in my opinion". there is no point to the this debate forum. there is no point in black and white. what's white to you may be black to me.


agreed. however sheridan, even if a debate between two people comes to an end by mutual agreement or by one yielding to another, the story goes on. opinions are like imaginations in that they are endless in capacity and limitless in variety.

Oh, I was just describing how it shouldn't be considered evil. It is a natural feeling.

Like horniness. That's also looked down on. But hell, its human nature.

Also, about outside influence, I meant if we had nothing that we have today, lived like animals, how would we act? Basically, our actions would be, or be similar to our natural actions in any situation.

Astrology gives us basic characters and personality so with that, we’re able to influence others that can shape up someone’s life. Influence is both evil and good depending on your point of view.