People: Evil or Good Options

[USCavalry]

Are people inherently good or evil? If there is another topic on this screw you it’s old and dead.

i believe everyone is good myself. when people do things, you can explain why they did it, good or evil (which really doesnt support either side of the arguement). but when i couple this notion with my catholic beliefs and take into consideration that sin is the sole reason for evil, humans there for cannot be blamed for any evil things they do.

so far i've made it clear how i see humans not to be evil, but not necessarily good. my gut feelings tell me that there is hope for all people, no matter how "evil" they might be. also, catholics believe that everyhing God created was good (not sure if this includes things not included in genesis and what comes after, ie angels or w/e you can think of).

i have more to say but will wait and see for others' comments

[karmakiller]

People are evil things that sometimes do good things.

[MissHygienic]

People are evil things that sometimes do good things.

Probably the smartest thing I've heard in a while.

This has already been answered by Locke. If there weren't critical consequences, taboos, and restrictions set, we would all be selfish and rude. When put in difficult situations, you usually see the downside of people's personality, and how many of those have you enjoyed? I can say that I know my friends only after they've become angry at me. You know exactly how they will react, then.

You know how you're more likely to tell your close friends off and calling them names as opposed to strangers? It's because with familiarity comes with the unveiling of your true character. There's no facade you need to keep up; you take for granted that they will always be your close friends and your loved ones no matter what.

Take for the internet for example. When you're no one to anybody else, people can say whatever the hell they want because they can. People take every chance they can to attack others. They can pretend to act "badass" to compensate for their weak-willed character in real life.

[kryogenix]

Probably the smartest thing I've heard in a while.

This has already been answered by Locke. If there weren't critical consequences, taboos, and restrictions set, we would all be selfish and rude. When put in difficult situations, you usually see the downside of people's personality, and how many of those have you enjoyed? I can say that I know my friends only after they've become angry at me. You know exactly how they will react, then.

You know how you're more likely to tell your close friends off and calling them names as opposed to strangers? It's because with familiarity comes with the unveiling of your true character. There's no facade you need to keep up; you take for granted that they will always be your close friends and your loved ones no matter what.

Take for the internet for example. When you're no one to anybody else, people can say whatever the hell they want because they can. People take every chance they can to attack others. They can pretend to act "badass" to compensate for their weak-willed character in real life.

Ummmmm... That's the TOTAL OPPOSITE of what Locke thought.

Locke thought that people were inherently good in nature and only through society they became evil.

[NoSex]

Locke thought that people were inherently good in nature and only through society they became evil.

Actually, Locke thought men were a clean slate - a "tabula rasa." He felt that men were neither good nor bad until his education and environment acted upon him in one way or the other. So, according to Locke, and this is important, men are not inherently anything but men.

But, to address the question, again: False dichotomy. Also, loaded question. I posit that "good" and "evil" are not even objective, quantified states. I propose that "good" and "evil" are really meaningless metaphysical inventions which, truly, only reflect the sentiments and tastes of individual men. These qualities have no seat in reality - they only live in the mind of men.

[kryogenix]

Actually, Locke thought men were a clean slate - a "tabula rasa." He felt that men were neither good nor bad until his education and environment acted upon him in one way or the other. So, according to Locke, and this is important, men are not inherently anything but men.

But, to address the question, again: False dichotomy. Also, loaded question. I posit that "good" and "evil" are not even objective, quantified states. I propose that "good" and "evil" are really meaningless metaphysical inventions which, truly, only reflect the sentiments and tastes of individual men. These qualities have no seat in reality - they only live in the mind of men.

I'm pretty sure he thought that men obeyed natural law by default, which makes them good.

But whatever.