Are Human Beings Inherently Evil?

[Paulclem]

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.

But if the changes in society invoke changes in behaviour, then that suggests that ther isn't an inherency in the nature of humans.

I can see why you invoke primordial man as an example, but really that's ducking the issues. We can't really make assumptions about that, as we know little of their mindset and what drives them.

I'm also not sure of the self interest and health idea either. People definately panic, and in that situation, then no rational decision is possible. Is that self interest or instinct? Can you make a moral judgement about it? Morality must involve intent.

[IceM]

Isn't instinct just an innate self-interest? We instinctively breathe because it helps us survive. We instinctually feel hunger when we're hungry in order to nourish our bodies to continue survival. In a "fight or flight" esque moment our heart instinctually beats faster so that blood can be transported to the muscles faster.

Self-interest can be controlled consciously, I realize. But instinct helps to unconsciously serve self-interest.

I feel like I'm losing my point. I've had trouble explaining my ideas recently, but I think self-interest is what makes Man selfish; not a lack of virtue.

[Paulclem]

I take your point, I don't think you're losing it - but I think there's a difference between instinctand self interest. In terms of the OP - inherent evil -I think that instinct is not a choice but a reaction. Evil itself requires a choice, though the animalistic instinct is self serving.

Perhaps what we're doing is refining the terms, because we both seem to be making sense.

[Scheherazade]

OP:

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?

What do you think?

[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.

I was wrong when I wrote it so many years ago. What I wrote seems like a joke.

[Alexander III]

I think William Blake answers this perfectly in a two cycle poem:


A Divine Image

To Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
All pray in their distress;
And to these virtues of delight
Return their thankfulness.

For Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
Is God our Father dear,
And Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
Is man, His child and care.

For Mercy has a human heart,
Pity, a human face,
And Love, the human form divine,
And Peace, the human dress.

Then every man, of every clime,
That prays in his distress,
Prays to the human form divine,
Love, Mercy, Pity, Peace.

And all must love the human form,
In heathen, Turk, or Jew;
Where Mercy, Love, and Pity dwell
There God is dwelling too.


The Human Abstract

Pity would be no more,
If we did not make somebody Poor;
And Mercy no more could be,
If all were as happy as we;
And mutual fear brings peace,
Till the selfish loves increase;
Then Cruelty knits a snare,
And spreads his baits with care.

He sits down with holy fears,
And waters the ground with tears;
Then Humility takes its root
Underneath his foot.

Soon spreads the dismal shade
Of Mystery over his head;
And the Caterpillar and Fly
Feed on the Mystery.

And it bears the fruit of Deceit,
Ruddy and sweet to eat;
And the Raven his nest has made
In its thickest shade.

The Gods of the earth and sea,
Sought through Nature to find this Tree,
But their search was all in vain;
There grows one in the Human Brain.

[tonywalt]

OP:What do you think?

We are inherently selfish and inherently have the potential for evil. But, we also have the inherent potential for doing selfless acts.

We also, inherently have the ability to say inherent three time in three sentences!!!

[Calidore]

Some are also inherently poor at math. :-)

[Paulclem]

Inherent says that the state is unchanging, which can't be right. There are plenty of people who have committed, if not evil, then criminal acts, but who become reformed. This would not be possible if inherency were true.

Evil is quite difficult to define as well.

[NikolaiI]

Inherent says that the state is unchanging, which can't be right. There are plenty of people who have committed, if not evil, then criminal acts, but who become reformed. This would not be possible if inherency were true.

I was planning to post on this thread, to answer the OP in the negative, and give some reasons why, but I saw this and wanted to reply. I'll leave for another day my belief or understanding that all beings have a Buddha-nature.

I want to point out a logical flaw in your post. Now I will have to ask you to bear with me, for I always look for the exact meaning of combinations of words. To begin with, to be clear, I too, firmly believe in the inherent good in humans. However, what you've stated doesn't logically follow. You say "There are plenty of people who have committed, if not evil, then criminal acts, but who become reformed. This would not be possible if inherency were true." To see the flaw in this, reverse the values of good and evil. You would then be stating, "There are people who have committed good acts, but who became reformed (remember, in reverse). This would not be possible if they were inherently good."

In other words, or perhaps to state it more clearly, you can't logically state that people are inherently good or bad, based on their first being good, and then being bad, or their first being bad, then being good.

[Scheherazade]

Some are also inherently poor at math. :-)

Any admissible evidence to support this claim of yours?

I love Lord of the Flies.

[osho]

I do not think humans are inherently evil and in fact nobody is inherently evil. Evil or good does not come with birth and in the course of our involvement or alliance with the world we live in we have been acquiring these attributes, maybe in our endeavor at adjusting or in our struggle for survival we are changing our behavioral patterns. Certain external conditions necessitate certain types of behavior. Think that you are living in a world of business and if you are too good you cannot make money. Even in your ordinary course of life or in your everyday life when it comes to dealing with your family members or with contemporaries or with rivals your saintliness will push you behind and you have to be a bit of evil as the circumstance demands

[Paulclem]

I was planning to post on this thread, to answer the OP in the negative, and give some reasons why, but I saw this and wanted to reply. I'll leave for another day my belief or understanding that all beings have a Buddha-nature.

I want to point out a logical flaw in your post. Now I will have to ask you to bear with me, for I always look for the exact meaning of combinations of words. To begin with, to be clear, I too, firmly believe in the inherent good in humans. However, what you've stated doesn't logically follow. You say "There are plenty of people who have committed, if not evil, then criminal acts, but who become reformed. This would not be possible if inherency were true." To see the flaw in this, reverse the values of good and evil. You would then be stating, "There are people who have committed good acts, but who became reformed (remember, in reverse). This would not be possible if they were inherently good."

In other words, or perhaps to state it more clearly, you can't logically state that people are inherently good or bad, based on their first being good, and then being bad, or their first being bad, then being good.

existing as an inseparable part; intrinsic

Definition from an online dictionary.

You'd be right if I said that humans were inherently good, but I didn't. My take on Buddha nature is that it is a potential within living beings, and not a part as such - which would suggest a soul and eternalism which is denied by the teachings.

If humans were inherently good then they would be unable to do evil or change. The same goes for inherently evil. I think that the potential for good and evil exists in humans, but that these are not permanent qualities, hence the changeabiliy that can be seen from people.

No doubt there are different interpretations though.

[NikolaiI]

existing as an inseparable part; intrinsic

Definition from an online dictionary.

You'd be right if I said that humans were inherently good, but I didn't. My take on Buddha nature is that it is a potential within living beings, and not a part as such - which would suggest a soul and eternalism which is denied by the teachings.

If humans were inherently good then they would be unable to do evil or change. The same goes for inherently evil. I think that the potential for good and evil exists in humans, but that these are not permanent qualities, hence the changeabiliy that can be seen from people.

Hm... I see your point. I misunderstood, and thought your stance was that humans are inherently good. Since you're not, then I don't see a logical inconsistency in your previous post.

[Paulclem]

No worries. I didn't put it very well.