Are Human Beings Inherently Evil?

[LitNetIsGreat]

If “evil” is too strong a word (which it probably is) then read “selfish” or “self-centred” but the question remains.

Personally I am pessimistic in my belief that individuals are entirely motivated by self-interest and that there is no such thing as a real act of charity. That on the surface the individual may appear to be kind, but as Shakespeare said in Lear “beneath is all the fiend’s” under that mask of civility lies something much darker, something done entirely for the benefit of the self.

So in short, are human beings inherently selfish, or even potentially evil?

[weltanschauung]

since evil is a judgement of value, i dont think human beings are evil, but sure they are selfish, as i am.
the fact that certainly goes over one's head when thinking about such dilemas is that as humans, we should at least try to control our destructive inclinations everyday, and not just obbey and feed them. we are not just animals.
everyone is potentially evil because we certainly tend to love ourselves more than anyone else, but this condition is present in everyone, and selfishness is a weakness everyone possesses. however, that shouldnt mean, like it does for most people, that fighting the vulgarity of our soul isnt relevant. only by controling our blinding impulses will we be able to truly understand ourselves and others, so why shouldnt we devote our lives to it?

[jinjang]

Personally I am pessimistic in my belief that individuals are entirely motivated by self-interest and that there is no such thing as a real act of charity…
So in short, are human beings inherently selfish, or even potentially evil?

Please do not be as pessimistic as that. That would be indeed a grim picture of human species if true. I do not think an individual is "potentially evil." We may be inherently self-centered, but we do not always act selfishly. A lot of people fight off selfishness, as they do other vices, to engage truly in charitable efforts. Otherwise, all humanitarian efforts would count for nothing. Gandhi and Mother Teresa come to my mind with my sincere respect for them both. Alexander Fleming worked tirelessly to discover penicillin after seeing many deaths in WWI, a more important person for humanity. I bet there are plenty of souls who would wrestle God to save humanity like Jacob did.

[JuniperWoolf]

I asked my psychology professor the same thing. He told me that true altruism exists. He told me about a fifty year old man who was on a life boat with a bunch of other people after their ship sank. A helicoptor showed up and dropped a rope, but there was a storm and no one could catch it. Finally, the fifty year old man grabbed it. Instead of climbing up himself (which would obviously be beneficial to him, since there was a huge storm and he was very likely to be killed), he passed the rope on and let someone else be hauled up into the chopper. He did so ever time they dropped the rope until he was the last one left. When they finally went back for him, he was dead.

This is a bit of an over-the-top "there's hope for humanity" story, but really, according to hedonistic theory what advantage did he gain from his actions? Kin selection and reciprocity theory don't hold up in this example. I was told about many other case studies that prove the same. I've come across a lot of psychological studies that prove that people aren't just self-serving jerks. I can list a few if you want me to (to perk you up a bit), I'll just dig through my textbooks and find them.

[billl]

Well, not that I'm suggesting it was the case, but the guy in the lifeboat might've been gambling that he would make it in the end, and look like a hero. Even if he was, it was a brave and generous gamble, and it certainly helped that someone was willing to take it.

I remember Bill Clinton speaking at some church (on my TV) during his presidency, and he quoted some preacher that had told him that "'character' is doing the right thing when no one is looking." That quote really impressed me.

One thing I like to do is do something generous or helpful that no one will ever know about. Like pick up a sign that's blown over in the wind, or whatever. I don't want to go into it, actually .

[Mr Endon]

If “evil” is too strong a word (which it probably is) then read “selfish” or “self-centred” but the question remains.

Yes, I think that's a better way to express it. But a synonym for 'selfish' with a neutral connotation would be even better.

Personally I am pessimistic in my belief that individuals are entirely motivated by self-interest and that there is no such thing as a real act of charity.

I agree.

So in short, are human beings inherently selfish, or even potentially evil?

Yes for the 'selfish'. As for 'potentially evil', we're as much 'potentially evil' as we are 'potentially good'.

There's something to be said about altruism. For even if you are doing something good anonymously you feel well when you do it, and you might even feel bad if you don't - thus even 'charity' and 'altruism' is motivated by pleasure and appeasement of one's consciousness.

However, we must be pragmatic. The 'goal' of the human being, if there is one, is to be happy. Society ought to encourage an attitude that is not only indirectly concerned with the self but also very much concerned with the welfare of others, and so enables the self and the others to be happier.

So. Yes, we are always ultimately selfish, and I think it's silly to ignore this, but that doesn't mean we can't be altruistic on top of that, thus 'good'. Does this make sense? I can only hope it does.

[virginiawang]

I don't think all human beings are selfish or self-centered. Some people are just like infants and they don't care the value in the practical, materiallized world. They do what is noble. Ralph Waldo Emerson lauded such people in his small book, Nature, and he held that these infant adults were blended into nature. They've become a part of the grand nature. They have beautiful hearts.

[billl]

There's something to be said about altruism. For even if you are doing something good anonymously you feel well when you do it, and you might even feel bad if you don't - thus even 'charity' and 'altruism' is motivated by pleasure and appeasement of one's consciousness.

Personally, I usually feel just a little bit guilty when I'm being altruistic, but I do it anyway--if that makes it any more meaningful.

[amarna]

i guess it is quite common to overrate the own altruism and to underrate the altruism of others. so i think other people are a little better and we ourselves are little worse than we reckon.

[PeterL]

If “evil” is too strong a word (which it probably is) then read “selfish” or “self-centred” but the question remains.

Personally I am pessimistic in my belief that individuals are entirely motivated by self-interest and that there is no such thing as a real act of charity. That on the surface the individual may appear to be kind, but as Shakespeare said in Lear “beneath is all the fiend’s” under that mask of civility lies something much darker, something done entirely for the benefit of the self.

So in short, are human beings inherently selfish, or even potentially evil?

I believe that you tried to refine your question, but you simply left it more uncertain. As stated you imply that there is a similarity between evil and selfish. In effect, you have suggested that what each individual wants is somehow evil. I would contend that what each individual wants is fundamentally good. Those things that are called evil arise when there are conflicts among the individual desires.

So what do you think is evil about the personal desires of individuals?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Please do not be as pessimistic as that. That would be indeed a grim picture of human species if true.

. I can list a few if you want me to (to perk you up a bit), I'll just dig through my textbooks and find them.

Oh, I'm not being down about it. I just think that people do act within their own self-interest and that you could read each act of kindness as motivated by such interest.

Yes, I think that's a better way to express it. But a synonym for 'selfish' with a neutral connotation would be even better.



I agree.



Yes for the 'selfish'. As for 'potentially evil', we're as much 'potentially evil' as we are 'potentially good'.

There's something to be said about altruism. For even if you are doing something good anonymously you feel well when you do it, and you might even feel bad if you don't - thus even 'charity' and 'altruism' is motivated by pleasure and appeasement of one's consciousness.

However, we must be pragmatic. The 'goal' of the human being, if there is one, is to be happy. Society ought to encourage an attitude that is not only indirectly concerned with the self but also very much concerned with the welfare of others, and so enables the self and the others to be happier.

So. Yes, we are always ultimately selfish, and I think it's silly to ignore this, but that doesn't mean we can't be altruistic on top of that, thus 'good'. Does this make sense? I can only hope it does.

Yes some good points there, and it does make sense.

I believe that you tried to refine your question, but you simply left it more uncertain. As stated you imply that there is a similarity between evil and selfish. In effect, you have suggested that what each individual wants is somehow evil. I would contend that what each individual wants is fundamentally good. Those things that are called evil arise when there are conflicts among the individual desires.

So what do you think is evil about the personal desires of individuals?

Yes I suppose it is two questions bunched up into one, so it is probably best to address each one, though in a way one could be seen as an extension of the other. Here is a verse from Baudelaire which probably motivated this thread it part:

If slaughter, or if arson, poison, rape
Have not as yet adorned our fine designs,
the banal canvas of our woeful fates,
It's only that our spirit lacks the nerve

(from To the Reader, trans by James McGowan).

In other words, would the an individual commit such acts of wrong (evil) if they could get away with it or if they didn't lack the nerve?

If we take it as given that humans are motivated by greed and self-interest (though some people don't) then are such thoughts that far behind?

Don't get [me wrong] I'm not saying that they are or aren't, I am merely raising the subject and possibility as an interesting speculation.

[PeterL]

Yes I suppose it is two questions bunched up into one, so it is probably best to address each one, though in a way one could be seen as an extension of the other. Here is a verse from Baudelaire which probably motivated this thread it part:

If slaughter, or if arson, poison, rape
Have not as yet adorned our fine designs,
the banal canvas of our woeful fates,
It's only that our spirit lacks the nerve

(from To the Reader, trans by James McGowan).

In other words, would the an individual commit such acts of wrong (evil) if they could get away with it or if they didn't lack the nerve?

If we take it as given that humans are motivated by greed and self-interest (though some people don't) then are such thoughts that far behind?

Don't get I'm not saying that they are or aren't, I am merely raising the subject and possibility as an interesting speculation.

This attempt to clarify only further muddles. Arson, rape, and bloody murder might be good or evil acts, depending on the situation. It isn't a matter of whether one can get away with an act that might be criminal; it is a matter of whether it is advantageous. If I have to kill someone to stay alive, then it is a good thing, even though the legal system might look askance on it.

[LitNetIsGreat]

This attempt to clarify only further muddles. Arson, rape, and bloody murder might be good or evil acts, depending on the situation. It isn't a matter of whether one can get away with an act that might be criminal; it is a matter of whether it is advantageous. If I have to kill someone to stay alive, then it is a good thing, even though the legal system might look askance on it.

I'd find it hard to see arson, rape and poison as "good acts". Good rape?

[PeterL]

I'd find it hard to see arson, rape and poison as "good acts". Good rape?

Yes, it is all a matter of definition, which you neglected. Good is that which leads to the extension of alleles through time and in a larger part of a population. Using that definition, anything that destroys anything that would not advance the good would be good. Therefore, arson and murder would be good, if they killed people who did not possess that allele. Rape would be good in any case where either person involved possessed that allele.

[Scheherazade]

Good is that which leads to the extension of alleles through time and in a larger part of a population.

This is, wherever you have taken it from, a very disturbing definition.

By that definition, would it be OK to murder or rape someone not intellectually or physically up to a certain "standard"? Should we pull the plug on the educational and training programmes helping them? Or maybe we should not offer medical treatments to such people if they are not well?