Buying through this banner helps support the forum!
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 86

Thread: Are Human Beings Inherently Evil?

  1. #46
    TobeFrank Paulclem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Coventry, West Midlands
    Posts
    6,363
    Blog Entries
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkBastable View Post
    Mother Teresa is a very apt subject of the philosophical question of motive and outcome, in terms of good and evil.

    Teresa herself rejected any idea that she was particularly kind or selfless - she said that she was simply doing what God told her to do. If God had told her to open a lap-dancing club, that's what she'd have done. She didn't take any credit or responsibility for the life that she led, because she didn't feel that she chose it. She was just following orders.

    (As an aside, it's interesting that her justification for her actions was exactly the same as Goering's.)

    So - if we can't demonstrate that her motive for her actions was Good (or, indeed, Evil), perhaps we can look at the outcome of those actions. I think we can only judge whether she Did Good Things or not, in terms of other Things she might have Done.

    What she did, in effect, was say to the poor and uneducated young women of an overpopulated and disease-ridden city, "God wants you to have lots and lots of babies, and I'll look after them..." The outcome was that many many babies were born into poverty and hopelessness, of whom an unknown proportion actually made it to healthy adulthood, at the expense of all those who didn't - not to mention the perils of labour and motherhood for the women involved, and the general deleterious effect of adding to overpopulation and the stretching of thin supplies of food, water and shelter.

    You don't achieve what MT achieved without terrific organisational skills, a lot of determination and a healthy propensity for cutting through crap. So Mother Teresa was one tough cookie of a streetfighting nun. But what she might have done was put all that effort and ability in to distributing condoms and dispensing family-planning advice.

    Or she might have campaigned for the introduction of free vasectomies.

    Or she might have done absolutely nothing but spend her life in contemplative prayer.

    We all make our own call on this, of course, but I'd say that of the courses of action I suggest, the one she actually took resulted in the worst outcome, taking the thing in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number. I think that she was the instrument of a particularly insensitive and condescending form of repression.
    This is a very unfair and academic appraisal of Mother Theresa. You neglect to consider that she was working in India with a Hindu and Muslim population over which she had - especially at first - no influence.

    Family planning? I know the catholic stance on this - which I do not agree with - but what is the stance of people in poverty in Hindu slums? To have more children to provide income. This on top of the fact that she began her work in 1950 - when family planning wasn't very advanced in the West, let alone a third world Indian slum.

    As a catholic nun dedicated to helping the poor there is no payout, and the point The Atheist made about working for sainthood is at best speculation. No-one can really know her motivations, and is to become heavenly or heaven sent selfish in this case? The struggle she faced is rather flippantly portrayed in my view. She made a difference to people who would have suffered and died horrible deaths.

    I visited one of her missions in Mumbai which housed orphan Indian children who most often had some disability or learning difficulty. Hindu families dropped off their newly born children who had serious genetic defects and left them in the care of the Nuns there. Upsetting doesn't come close.

    If she was being selfish - I think it an irrelevance thrown up by the trendy attitude to Mother Theresa that grew after her death by people - Germaine Greer was one - who merely concerned themselves with their own prejudice against Catholics and Catholic ethics.

    Mother Theresa worked within the constraints of her experience and faith. What she did really goes beyond religion, but is an example to everyone what of self-less altruism can achieve. That's why she is revered across cultures and religions.
    Last edited by Paulclem; 03-03-2010 at 10:10 AM. Reason: Fickle finger typing

  2. #47
    Jethro BienvenuJDC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Mid-Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    13,843
    Blog Entries
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulclem View Post
    This is a very unfair and academic appraisal of Mother Theresa. You neglect to consider that she was working in India with a Hindu and Muslim population over which she had - especially at first - no influence.

    Family planning? I know the catholic stance on this - which I do not agree with - but what is the stance of people in poverty in Hindu slums? To have more children to provide income. This on top of the fact that she began her work in 1950 - when family planning wasn't very advanced in the West, let alone a third world Indian slum.

    As a catholic nun dedicated to helping the poor there is no payout, and the point The Atheist made about working for sainthood is at best speculation. No-one can really know her motivations, and is to become heavenly or heaven sent selfish in this case? The struggle she faced is rather flippantly portrayed in my view. She made a difference to people who would have suffered and died horrible deaths.

    I visited one of her missions in Mumbai which housed orphan Indian children who most often had some disability or learning difficulty. Hindu families dropped off their newly born children who had serious genetic defects and left them in the care of the Nuns there. Upsetting doesn't come close.

    If she was being selfish - I think it an irrelevance thrown up by the trendy attitude to Mother Theresa that grew after her death by people - Germaine Greer was one - who merely concerned themselves with their own prejudice against Catholics and Catholic ethics.

    Mother Theresa worked within the constraints of her experience and faith. What she did really goes beyond religion, but is an example to everyone what of self-less altruism can achieve. That's why she is revered across cultures and religions.
    Well thought response, Paul!
    Les Miserables,
    Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
    Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.

  3. #48
    the beloved: Gladys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkBastable View Post
    What she did, in effect, was say to the poor and uneducated young women of an overpopulated and disease-ridden city, "God wants you to have lots and lots of babies, and I'll look after them..." The outcome was that many many babies were born into poverty and hopelessness...
    Is this outcome indisputable? Or was the birthrate unaffected by Mother Teresa, with poor Indians always having 'more children to provide income'. Is there evidence?
    "Love does not alter the beloved, it alters itself"

  4. #49
    TobeFrank Paulclem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Coventry, West Midlands
    Posts
    6,363
    Blog Entries
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Gladys View Post
    Is this outcome indisputable? Or was the birthrate unaffected by Mother Teresa, with poor Indians always having 'more children to provide income'. Is there evidence?
    I've just looked up the population of calcutta in the 1950's - 4 million plus, with many of those in poverty and living in slums.

    Slums and begging were and are still rife in large Indian cities. This is combined with the caste system and little welfare provided for the poor. The caste system allows no social mobility, though it begins to break down in anonymous urban environments.

    Hindu culture promotes a large family, though there is no specific ban on contraception.

    Anyone who has ever been to a large Indian city will understand that the poverty there seems endless - children - pregnant Mothers - the elderly - the diseased - the disabled. Anyone who tries to do anything there is to be admired.

    So you have a large slum population of large families, and all the rest, living in poverty ministered to by a small catholic mission that relied upon volunteers and donations. It would take a lot to affect the birthrate.

  5. #50
    Registered User virginiawang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Taiwan
    Posts
    367
    Hi Neely, I believe in the beautiful nature of a human being. I believe in love. I love evilness, because it is necessary in our world, which is more complicated than we know of.
    However I do agree with you in a superficial friendliness. When my parents smiled to me as mush as they could, I knew something wrong took place.
    I believe in power.
    Last edited by virginiawang; 03-05-2010 at 08:12 AM.

  6. #51
    TobeFrank Paulclem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Coventry, West Midlands
    Posts
    6,363
    Blog Entries
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Neely View Post
    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?
    Is it the case that sellessness, by it's very nature - quietly doing good deeds, etc. is much less visible than evil or selfishness?

    We are bombarded by negative reresentatives of the human race in the newspapers, TV and internet, yet we often aren't subject to the good deeds of others in the same way. Think of the many people who give up large portions of their lives to be a carer. You won't see that on the TV much, or read it in a book or have films made about it.

    Consider the studies, films and programmes made about serial killers and the same made about someone like Ghandi. (I hesitate to mention the Nazis due that law that The Atheist mentioned about bringing in the Nazis to an argument in another thread). Which portion of The Divine Comedy do we like the best? Evil - the flaws of evilness ans selfishness are interesting.

    I don't think that because we are subjected to this media bombard means that we are inherently selfish or evil, though it may well be harder to be good or unselfish.

  7. #52
    Philologist Nietzsche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Boiling Springs, SC
    Posts
    156
    It's a mix. Evil and Good were concepts developed later on centered around whether things were beneficial or not. Sometimes people harm us, sometimes they don't. It's not fair to say that humans are ONLY naturally good, or ONLY naturally evil. One of the problems with most philosophical arguments or concepts is they take extremes, like altruism vs egoism, good vs. evil, etc. the middle ground is usually the best place to be.
    "I teach you the Übermensch. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? … What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to the Übermensch" -- from Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche

    “Let the future tell the truth, and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I have really worked, is mine.” - Nikola Tesla

  8. #53
    TobeFrank Paulclem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Coventry, West Midlands
    Posts
    6,363
    Blog Entries
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Nietzsche View Post
    It's a mix. Evil and Good were concepts developed later on centered around whether things were beneficial or not. Sometimes people harm us, sometimes they don't. It's not fair to say that humans are ONLY naturally good, or ONLY naturally evil. One of the problems with most philosophical arguments or concepts is they take extremes, like altruism vs egoism, good vs. evil, etc. the middle ground is usually the best place to be.
    I'd agree with that. Clearly there are cases of both.

    People are capable of both, but to say inherent implies that there can be no change. I think humans can change either way according to circumstance.

    Is the original question about Nature or Nurture?

    Inherent implies nature.

  9. #54
    Jethro BienvenuJDC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Mid-Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    13,843
    Blog Entries
    10
    People learn how to excel at evil things...
    Les Miserables,
    Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
    Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.

  10. #55
    TobeFrank Paulclem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Coventry, West Midlands
    Posts
    6,363
    Blog Entries
    36
    I agree. I think it is harder to be "good".

  11. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulclem View Post
    Is the original question about Nature or Nurture?

    Inherent implies nature.
    Yes, I meant in terms of nature not nurture when I opened this thread. You must understand that I must have had a bad day at work or been in one of those melancholic moods with this one in mind. I sometimes think in black like this, (we all do I suppose) but most of the time I am not as bleak - though Mrs Neely would say that I am always grumpy... We could equally turn the question around I suppose, and ask is if mankind is inherently good? I dunno, I suspect that either one is not a simple, maybe it is better to see it as a varying continuum, but alas thoughts like this are too much for me at this time of night and I’ve personally somewhat lost interest in OP at this time.

  12. #57
    A Student
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    516
    There will always be outliers. There will always be situations in which Man portrays the harrowing depths of his soul, and instances where they show the graciousness in one's heart. But Man is selfish, not from a loss of virtue but from a desire to survive. Man is born to survive. So I'd consider selfishness more of a self-interest in one's health more than a genuine, inherent contempt for others.

  13. #58
    Jethro BienvenuJDC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Mid-Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    13,843
    Blog Entries
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by IceM View Post
    There will always be outliers. There will always be situations in which Man portrays the harrowing depths of his soul, and instances where they show the graciousness in one's heart. But Man is selfish, not from a loss of virtue but from a desire to survive. Man is born to survive. So I'd consider selfishness more of a self-interest in one's health more than a genuine, inherent contempt for others.
    I can agree with that...
    Les Miserables,
    Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
    Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.

  14. #59
    TobeFrank Paulclem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Coventry, West Midlands
    Posts
    6,363
    Blog Entries
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by IceM View Post
    There will always be outliers. There will always be situations in which Man portrays the harrowing depths of his soul, and instances where they show the graciousness in one's heart. But Man is selfish, not from a loss of virtue but from a desire to survive. Man is born to survive. So I'd consider selfishness more of a self-interest in one's health more than a genuine, inherent contempt for others.
    Does survival come up in a modern western society? There are crises, such as fires and accidents, but even here there have been notably unselfish acts in the panic and confusion. In reality, in our societies, we are rarely faced with survival situations which is better for us but it is easier to be unselfish.

    I just wonder whether we can assume this position, or is it that our communal survival is the stronger instinct seeing as we are a social speces.

  15. #60
    A Student
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulclem View Post
    Does survival come up in a modern western society? There are crises, such as fires and accidents, but even here there have been notably unselfish acts in the panic and confusion. In reality, in our societies, we are rarely faced with survival situations which is better for us but it is easier to be unselfish.

    I just wonder whether we can assume this position, or is it that our communal survival is the stronger instinct seeing as we are a social speces.

    As I said, there will be outliers.

    I typically refer to the primordial humans. While Man began to organize into civilizations as we evolved, we did so because it best increased our chances of survival. While perhaps the human is the most advanced creature on Earth (perhaps, mind you), we're still animals. We still have instincts that drive us towards furthering our life span. Not all individuals act selfishly* in times of crisis as you pointed out, but I'd be willing to bet the majority act out of self-interest to better their health and survival.

    It's easier to cite the primordial humans because (and this upcoming statement is purely an assumption) morality and public sentiment was less relevant as it is now. I'd wonder how often people would act generously in times of crises if morality was less developed as it is today.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What is the most boring book ever?
    By Robert E Lee in forum General Literature
    Replies: 462
    Last Post: 07-20-2013, 04:06 PM
  2. human nature
    By imthefoolonthehill in forum General Chat
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 08-05-2011, 02:41 PM
  3. Human Weakness Ethan Frome -- An Analaysis
    By beroq in forum Ethan Frome
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-19-2009, 06:32 PM
  4. Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job
    By Robert Sutherla in forum Religious Texts
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 04-09-2007, 11:14 PM
  5. John 1:12
    By KarenM in forum Religious Texts
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 01-10-2005, 07:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •