Your opinions please...:)

[Molko]

I have had this question on my mind for a long time and would like to know the opinions of other people on this... Do you think that people are inherently "evil" or only act evil out of influence (or knowledge of it). For example, if people didn't have any knowledge of killing, would they still know how to do it, or know what it is?

Hmmm....I dont know if what I'm trying to convey makes sense.... :) Soz

[imthefoolonthehill]

I believe that there is a dark side to everyone.

Some people are obviously better than others, but human nature is evil. It is human nature to do things that are wrong. If you don't see it around yourself, and need evidence, request it, and i'll give it to you... as it is, i think this statement is self-evident.

[Scheherazade]

Have you read "The Lord of the Flies"?
Have a look at this: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3673 ;)

[imthefoolonthehill]

yeah, its a great one.

[Dyrwen]

Without knowing how, you might end up doing it less efficiently or usefully, yes. You'd certainly have a harder time justifiying it, but you'd probably still find a way to do it.

It just comes down to human nature. Some kids just smack the other kids they disagree with without knowing how beforehand, but that doesn't stop em.

[mono]

I think the answer to this question, molko, depends more on your own beliefs.
You could probably reach all of the very general conclusions, with no stereotypes intended, of course:
Ask a Judao-Christian-Muslim: "yes, all humans are inherently evil, and will never be void of sin/offense to God/Allah."
Ask a Hindu: "both good and evil act in a balance, and both are inherent."
Ask a Taoist: "all humans have their light and dark sides, often in relatively equal amounts; consciousness is represented by a yin-yang."
Ask a Buddhist: "all evil is imaginary."
Ask a Confucian: "with effort, humans do not have to be inherently evil, but only choose to be, just as one could choose to be inherently good."

[subterranean]

Good answer Mono :nod:

But perhaps you need to add what would an atheist/agnostic would say ;), for the sake of comprehensiveness.

[Bongitybongbong]

Don't you think it's a little much.

[mono]

But perhaps you need to add what would an atheist/agnostic would say ;), for the sake of comprehensiveness.

Why I forgot about that, I have no idea. Atheism/agnosticism, I have found, tends to have the most diversity of opinions and beliefs, so the response from one may entirely differ from another's. If referring to science, such as Darwinian beliefs, I imagine the response would revolve around evil being a part of human nature, and attributing a dichotomy to all things (elements, classification in biology, forces in physics), making everything, including human actions, either good or bad (or neutral).

[Stanislaw]

I think that there were good people, and evil people on earth long ago, and intermixing of these groups created the greyish group we have today, a mix of good and evil with some people leaning a little more towards good or evil (depending on heredity of 'evil' or 'good' genes).

I am not a nazi, just clarifying, colour is not important, just good or evil!

[Molko]

thank you sooo much for your opinions and ideas. Quite frankly, I even don't know where I stand on this topic. I believe that people have the propensity to do evil, but it would be interesting to see the disposition of one that doesnt have any influences....Hmmmm

[Jester]

Well, scientifically, humans are animals and some animals seem evil in our eyes but theres actually a reason behind it... for instance in small tribes around the world, twins were regarded as an evil omen and usually exposed to the elements to die, probably becuase the group cannot take care of children, escpecially nomadic groups. It seems an evil thing to do to some poeple but way of life to others... in short, i believe that evil and good are reletive... first you cannot have one wihtout the other and second in many societies that are ever changing so is the way humans view the world and therefore so are their behaviors... what i consider evil, (hitler and the nazis, abusive husbands throwing acid on wives) other people do not.

[Stanislaw]

Abusive hhusbands dousing wives in acid? I have not heard of that, ouch. :(

[Bongitybongbong]

Abusive hhusbands dousing wives in acid? I have not heard of that, ouch. :(
I say that's really horrible.

[imthefoolonthehill]

Jester...

If something exists, it exists 'for everyone'... it can't exist 'for some', but not 'for others'... even if something exists only as an idea, and not everyone has this idea, it still exists 'for' those who don't have that idea... it merely exists as someone else's idea, even if that idea is unknown...

knowledge does not equal existance.

Perspectives change, but reality does not change with it.

Therefore, if something such as morality exists, it exists for everyone, and is the same for everyone...even if everyone sees it a bit differently. (and if everyone sees it differently, nearly everyone is bound to be slightly or totally wrong)

The idea of relative morality is based off the assumption that morals are merely survival mechanisms... an idea that has not been proved, confirmed, or generally agreed upon.

If morals are merely survival mechanisms, then they aren't really morals at all...

[mono]

If something exists, it exists 'for everyone'... it can't exist 'for some', but not 'for others'... even if something exists only as an idea, and not everyone has this idea, it still exists 'for' those who don't have that idea... it merely exists as someone else's idea, even if that idea is unknown...

knowledge does not equal existance.

Perspectives change, but reality does not change with it.

Therefore, if something such as morality exists, it exists for everyone, and is the same for everyone...even if everyone sees it a bit differently. (and if everyone sees it differently, nearly everyone is bound to be slightly or totally wrong)
I entirely agree with you here, fool, and I think neither George Berkeley, nor Immanuel Kant, nor John Locke could have written your point better.


The idea of relative morality is based off the assumption that morals are merely survival mechanisms... an idea that has not been proved, confirmed, or generally agreed upon.

If morals are merely survival mechanisms, then they aren't really morals at all...
This one I feel curious about; if you could explain a little bit more, I would like to understand - the connection of morality and survival mechanisms? Or do you imply that there exists no connection, and the thought proves ridiculous?

[Bongitybongbong]

Or do you imply that there exists no connection, and the thought proves ridiculous?
I think fool means just what you said because survival skills are literally survival of the fittest.....or craftiest. :brow:

[imthefoolonthehill]

Thanks Mono...


As a matter of personal opinion, i DO NOT believe that morals are merely survival mechanisms.... it doesn't make sense... Why would lying be wrong if morals are survival mechanisms?

It doesn't really make sense.



Obviously, some morals do help society survive... but not all of them, so i don't believe there is a direct connection between the two... i don't even think one came out of the other.

[Jester]

well fool you managed to put what i was thinking better and it does exist for everyone but for each person its viewwed in a slightly different way... but each existence is slightly altered by its perception. For instance There is a tree out there, and its existence is known... scientifically its just a tree, factually its jsut a tree but to a bird, its a home for the night, to an ant a great big monstocity (if you care to stick to humans) for the one bearing an axe its firewood, or lumber for someone being chased, by lets say a parent, its a refuge, santucary and hiding spot. THerefore though its simple existence is that it exists (and I'm not arguing with you here) however with the perception you get multiple forms of existence....

(Stanislaw acid burns are quite frequent in South Asia. Every graduation at my old high school would donate a sari for each person graduating (there abouts) to a charity that helps these women. And usuallly they have a spokewoman come to accept it who is an acid burn victim... many of the times its over quabbles (not sure if this is a word) of dorwies)

[imthefoolonthehill]

Lol... multiple forms of existence...

First of all... acid burns are some of the most painful things in the world...

that is truly revolting.


secondly...

about multiple forms of existence... I agree that the tree can have multiple uses... but it only exists as one thing. Even if no one ever saw the tree, the tree would exist, and would house the little ants that keep warm inside it (or whatever...they are probably cold blooded, right?)

... ... do ants have blood?... ... they have to, right... ... ?

Ok, now you have me distracted.

Ok...

lets try that again...

Yeah, the tree has multiple uses, but it only exists as one thing... "in the eyes of the lumberjack, its firewood" ... well... sure, it could be firewood... it doesn't mean that there is some alternate dimension where the tree exists only as firewood whereas in another alternate dimension it exists as the nesting grounds for african swallows...

Its the same bloody tree... just some people only see part of what it really is. It still is all it is, nothing more, nothing less... it doesn't change with perception.

Now the only argument anyone can rationally have against this is in the level of Quantum mechanics... and thats REALLY beside the point.

but...if you WANT to go there, i guess i can...

[subterranean]

Posted by Fool : If something exists, it exists 'for everyone'... it can't exist 'for some', but not 'for others'... even if something exists only as an idea, and not everyone has this idea, it still exists 'for' those who don't have that idea... it merely exists as someone else's idea, even if that idea is unknown...

I don't entirely agree on this. When man defines situations as realy, they are real in their consequences. Something which exist according to someone may not exist for me and I don't care whether it is still exist for that someone, to me it doesn't exist.


Posted by Lizzy Poo : (Stanislaw acid burns are quite frequent in South Asia. Every graduation at my old high school would donate a sari for each person graduating (there abouts) to a charity that helps these women. And usuallly they have a spokewoman come to accept it who is an acid burn victim... many of the times its over quabbles (not sure if this is a word) of dorwies)

Yea I watched it on Tv several times..horrible act. Even some men did this unhuman act to girls who reject their loves..Retarded trashes they are (those men I mean).

[imthefoolonthehill]

Sub... what the heck?

how can something exist for someone, but not exist for you?

If something exists for one person, but not for another, then delusion is involved.

Otherwise, reality isn't real, and we should all just go around bending spoons with our minds.

[subterranean]

Ok, then in my country some people believe that there's this woman ghost who like to kidnap babies and eat them and therefore they wont bring their child out around 6 pm in the afternoon, cause they consider that's the time when the she-ghost come out from her hidings.

Now Fool, do you think that the she-ghost also exist to me?

That's why I said when man defines situations/something as real, they are real in their consequences.

[imthefoolonthehill]

nope... i don't think the ghost exists anywhere but in people's imagination...

so in a sense, yeah it exists to you... exists to you as a figment of someones imagination...which is all it exists AS.

but someone's delusional here...and i have a sneaky suspicion its the people who believe in the ghost....though i could be wrong.

either way, no matter who could or couldn't see it, if the ghost exists, it exists for everyone, not just those who can see it.

[Jester]

yeah, Kushi dear, if she ever comes back did a big report on dowry violence in which she talked about the acid victims.... and I've done minimal research on it too, I hate learning about things that make me sad but since I will not and never beleive that Ignorance is either bliss or power...

anyway fool, yes it still is a bloody tree but you said dimensions... well... lets define dimension (for me) it means alternate realities besides this one... my world is my reality, likewise your world is your reality and some unknown person has another unknown reality... and there a tree has multiple existences in its own reality (though i don;'t think a tree is conscience? who knows, maybe they are) and in everyone elses... it still is just a tree when you come down to it but it is also so much more... but how does this relate to inherently evil...

Reletive morality was what you called it, I agree but still evil may exist but again it has multiple dimensions, worlds, realities, shapes and forms... I guess evil and trees can't be combined in the way I have and that might be my flaw or lack of persuasionness because after all evil is an abstract idea and tree is a known to exist object... what about unicorns then, or that whopping tree from harry potter....???? :)

I once had a thought that what if what we read that we think is fictional sci fi or fantasy is actually the truth... its what exists somewhere out there... we don't creat it yet we've been there sometime, in our dreams or soemthing and so we can rewrite it... i often thinking that when i read the work of geniuses... again dimensions and realities and reletiveness coems into play....

everything is reletive to me

[imthefoolonthehill]

alright jester... dimensions... there are four that i know of...

Length Width Heigth... and time.

now you kinda lost me with these 'alternate dimenions' stuff...

i have a very basic understanding of dimensions...

something can exist in the same length, heigth, and width as something else... and be completely different because of time...

for example, cars on a freeway often occupy the same space, just at different times...

but the car exists as it is, and as nothing else... no matter how many dimensions it occupies. How can it be any other way?


Jester.... dreams are not reality, in any dimension... they are chemical/electrical signals in your brain.

as for relativity... yeah, everything relates to something else... if you stretch it far enough... but that does not eleminate the possiblity (read: the reality) of a constant.


also, nice word association football, i'm proud.

[subterranean]

nope... i don't think the ghost exists anywhere but in people's imagination...

so in a sense, yeah it exists to you... exists to you as a figment of someones imagination...which is all it exists AS.

but someone's delusional here...and i have a sneaky suspicion its the people who believe in the ghost....though i could be wrong.

either way, no matter who could or couldn't see it, if the ghost exists, it exists for everyone, not just those who can see it.

If I consider the she-ghost exist, even if it's only in those people imagination, then I'm as ridiculous as they are..No, it exists to them but not to me..No thank you!

[imthefoolonthehill]

wait a minute...so you don't think this ghost thing exists in their imaginations?

you don't think this banshee exists as a thought?

[Jester]

um where'd the ghosts come from and who's football?

[subterranean]

Fool, how do you define "exist / existence"?

[imthefoolonthehill]

don't worry about the football comment, the ghosts came from a sub's post a little ways up... we are still talking about reality.

[Jester]

but whether ghosts exist or not... hmm............ thats all on your opinion personally i don't like to believe in ghosts.

[imthefoolonthehill]

No... the question isn't whether or not ghosts exist... the point is that if they exist, they can't just exist for some people, they have to exist for everyone...

sure if they exist maybe only some people can see them... but perception does not alter reality.

(i personally don't beleive in ghosts...but can't prove they don't exist)

[subterranean]

OK you two Im outta here..Have a nice and safe weekend :nod:

[Jester]

bye sub, enjoy... its only ten or so here... and im so bored and no good movies to watch...

and fool, i agree if a ghost exists and is proven to exist one cannot deny thier existence simply based on the fact that they dont beleive in them... however to me, good cannot exist unless thier is evil in the world and likewise absolute evil cannot exist without absolut good so I'm left with a strange predictament as to what is real and what is merely what we have come up with... is good real or merely a word to recognize some actions, does love truly exist and likewise can any abstrac idea be proven to exist and if so can one be forced to recognize it...?

[imthefoolonthehill]

now theres a question that deserves more thought than i care to give it...

another thing to ponder: is good the absense of evil, or is evil the absense of good, or are both actual things?

Can there be such a thing as good unless there is an absolute good?

[Jester]

i don't beleive in absolute good, and enver have... theres a little malice in everything... like that no unselfish deed thing but likewise there can be acts of good and acts of jsut pure goodness but that person or that thing is not completly good... SO yeah their are acts of pure evil (such as sophie's choice (ill leave it at that)) and acts of such goodness (the ending of Stienbeck's Grapes of Wrath) but for those who read those books you can agree that those characters were not completly and absolutly good.

[imthefoolonthehill]

anything completely good could not be earthly...i don't think anyone would argue with that... that may be where the idea of God came from... if God is merely an idea.

[Jester]

true, but even God does not seem good, sorry to religious readers but from what I read of the Bible, he is as mean as the next guy, destroying Babel, all of Egypt... (I admit I haven't gotten very far in the bible) and then the old roman and greek gods were human as well, they just had more power... I wonder if these stories are turth in the form of humans gaining powers... I read a novel over Christmas break about a race that destroyed itsefl but had one or two left with the ability to create worlds by writing them out... this seems to me an idea of god and one of these guys was insane, the power got to him... he becmae one of the roman gods and would endanger his subjects lives and destroy his world if they pissed him off... so really good and evil unearthly true but perhaps just a little bit out of human comprehension

[Green Lady]

If you look at the stories of Bable or Egypt, you'll find a reason for the destruction. The people were wicked, not God. When God says He'll do something, He'll do it. He makes promises and even makes promises to the people but if they don't keep their side of the bargain, how can He uphold his side? So, I wouldn't think of it as evil, but more like precise, strict and unwavering in decision. What's better, a indecisive leader or one that sticks to what they believe?

[RobinHood3000]

Hmm...James Buchanan the Indecisive? Or Adolf Hitler the "Principled"? I'll admit that Hitler is an extreme example, but the door swings both ways.

Fool, I think you're taking for granted that existence is an absolute. To cure you, I would recommend that you take a look at the philosophy of George Berkeley, who says that existence exists only so long as it is perceived.

Plus, I think evil is being improperly defined throughout this thread, at least from my perspective. Mythologically and psychologically speaking, "Evil" is distinct from the "Shadow," which in mythology represents an archetype that does things for their own gain, whereas Evil does things for the sake of causing other people harm. Unless a person is SERIOUSLY deranged, they're usually more Shadow and sociopathic rather than genuinely EVIL. Everyone has the occasional tendency to forget to care about others, but that doesn't mean that they're inherently evil.

[starrwriter]

I believe that there is a dark side to everyone.
Some people are obviously better than others, but human nature is evil.
No, you had it right in the first sentence: human nature has a dark side. But it has a good side, too. Everyone is capable of good and evil and it's a matter of choice if a person suppresses his evil impulses or re-directs them to harmless substitutes. Love, self-sacrifice, compassion etc. are also parts of human nature.

Why a tiny percentage of people become monsters (serial killers, child rapists, etc.) is an issue no one really understands IMO.

A Hawaiian police detective I once knew used to make a joke when he arrested a violent criminal: "Is is mad or he is bad?" My answer is maybe both.

[crisaor]

I believe the human self has potential for both of them, and that certain factors (i.e. upbringing, education, laws, social condition, power of will, etc.) usually tend to shift tendences towards one way or another.
Regarding the potential for both good and evil, I'm not exactly sure how to express it in percentages. Perhaps in this case oneself views (i.e. optimistic, pessimistic, nihilistic, etc.) help determine the "default" settings for both good and evil, and then it's the different stimuli one has to deal with that more or less determine which way you end up going.
Anyway, that was just a manner of generalising the issue in order to provide a simple answer. I believe anyone can (could) do and evil act despite his noble nature, and viceversa.

[starrwriter]

I believe the human self has potential for both of them, and that certain factors (i.e. upbringing, education, laws, social condition, power of will, etc.) usually tend to shift tendences towards one way or another.
Regarding the potential for both good and evil, I'm not exactly sure how to express it in percentages. Perhaps in this case oneself views (i.e. optimistic, pessimistic, nihilistic, etc.) help determine the "default" settings for both good and evil, and then it's the different stimuli one has to deal with that more or less determine which way you end up going. Anyway, that was just a manner of generalising the issue in order to provide a simple answer. I believe anyone can (could) do and evil act despite his noble nature, and vice-versa.
Not to describe specific social philosophies as good or evil, but your post reminded me of a joke:

A liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet. Funny, no?

Some think people are born good and get corrupted by a sick society. Others think poeple are born evil and get "socialized" into blocking their harmful impulses. I think 99.9% of the human race has a conscience, but not everyone uses it to guide their actions. Which means an awful lot of hypocrisy exists -- do as I say and not as I do.

[crisaor]

Not to describe specific social philosophies as good or evil, but your post reminded me of a joke:
A liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet. Funny, no?
In that case, I inform you that I've been mugged several times already. ;)

I think 99.9% of the human race has a conscience, but not everyone uses it to guide their actions. Which means an awful lot of hypocrisy exists -- do as I say and not as I do.
Good point.