People: Evil or Good |
Debate Rules
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
- Topics are not to bash others.
- Immature behaviors/comments will not be tolerated.
- Please remember, not everyone thinks like you. People have different ways of thinking and different perspectives. Let's respect each other's thoughts and responses.
- PLEASE, search before making new topics--especially popular topics like "God" and "Abortion" etc.
- PLEASE, read through the thread or at least a couple pages before posting. We have to maintain a certain level of maturity in here.
  |
 Dec 24 2007, 02:15 PM
Post
#26
|
|
 in the reverb chamber.  Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,022 Joined: Nov 2005 Member No: 300,308  |
QUOTE(kryogenix @ Dec 17 2007, 01:56 PM)  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. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 24 2007, 06:52 PM
Post
#27
|
|
 Sarcastic Mr. Know-It-All Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 2,089 Joined: Dec 2003 Member No: 29 |
QUOTE(NoSex @ Dec 24 2007, 02:15 PM) 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. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 10 2008, 08:06 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 45 Joined: Feb 2008 Member No: 622,075 |
Wow, MissHygeienic was completely wrong about these philosophers!!!
Hobbes had a more negative view or people. Hobbes thought people were naturally evil and that society give people layers of civilization. This civilization builds one's conscience to do right and wrong. Locke was a little more positive and thought people were good. He thought society is what messed people up. If you want to have a good understanding of Hobbes philosophy, definitely read Lord of the Flies.
Reason for edit: Merged. Please don't double-post; use the Edit link. - Cristy (Synesthesia)
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 24 2008, 01:14 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Member Group: Banned Posts: 17 Joined: Apr 2008 Member No: 643,710 |
I actually believe people inherit traits from their past bloodline. So in terms of reincarnation, it could be true to say that you will reincarnate, but in the form of the next person to be born in your family tree. And you'd only reincarnate as a specific trait, whether it's biological/psychological.
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: