+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ramble City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=44)
+--- Thread: A Question on Human Nature (/showthread.php?tid=2954)
A Question on Human Nature - Laser Link - 24th May 2005
I have a quick question that I wanted to ask you guys. Do you believe that human beings are inherently good or evil. I'm not looking for a discussion or a debate (hence it is not going in thr debate forum, where this kind of question might seem to fit in better). Please just answer the question and maybe a couple sentences about why you think that. I believe this is a key viewpoint into why people believe what they do, and I was just curious what you all thought. Since we have a pretty good range of beliefs here, and since I know most of you pretty well, I thought you would be good people to ask. Thanks!
A Question on Human Nature - Laser Link - 24th May 2005
*Just read all the OB1 is leaving stuff on TC*
Why is it that I always manage to post a thread that could be taken out of context precisely when something happens that makes it look like I am trying to aggravate a bad situation.
*sigh*
A Question on Human Nature - Great Rumbler - 24th May 2005
Why is it that the one time I happen to be gone from TC for half a day everyone goes crazy?
A Question on Human Nature - Dark Jaguar - 24th May 2005
It was odd wasn't it?
Okay, here's my thoughts.
No, we AREN'T the evil universe. After careful research, I've concluded that nobody is inherantly good or evil. It's just the choices they make, or if they drink a potion that unleashes their evil side and makes them go on a killing spree.
A Question on Human Nature - Great Rumbler - 24th May 2005
My thoughts on the subject of the thread: There's always a choice, it's up to each person to make the right ones.
A Question on Human Nature - Dark Jaguar - 24th May 2005
Indeed. Every heart has both light and darkness that will never fade, but you can sure strengthen one side over the other, and it's about the choices you make, and um... the road you take...
A Question on Human Nature - The Former DMiller - 24th May 2005
I don't believe humans are inherently good or evil. I believe you can be influenced by your surroundings early on in life that may lead to your choices later in life, but it still comes down to those choices that makes a person good or evil.
A Question on Human Nature - Dark Jaguar - 24th May 2005
When it all comes right down to it, our lives are ruled by the stars. :D
No seriously, <a href="http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html">I'm kidding</a>.
A Question on Human Nature - lazyfatbum - 24th May 2005
Wow... huge question.
1.) Defining evil; The dictionary wont give you an understanding, it simply says that causing harm is evil. But evil really is to do wrong when you know it's wrong. Our greatest heros, our saviors and our beloved icons are all people who have done wrong in the hopes of creating something good, when it's the laws themselves that are formed from evil.
2.) No gene has been found to contain information that dictates morals or dicision making.
3.) The act of commiting a wrong in the pursuit of causing harm in some way to another without remorse and with only the benefit of creating said harm cannot be transfered through genetics but instead is instilled through memory and more importantly upbringing.
If evil could transfer or carry on, then it would work in opposite as well. A good natured person would inherently bare goood natured children, but this isn't the case at all.
That good natured person you see now has had life experience that created him/her to that point, so until that child has similar life experiences he or she cannot carry that same judgement, hence the entire learning process that has some major catagories. In the simplified catagories below, it is usually noted that the perception of morals and what is right or wrong, is usually grounded in 'B' as ideals and is then expanded upon (experimented with) in 'C')
A - Birth to 3 years, important pleasure affirmation (oral), guidance of instinct and the core connections of child to adult which will carry on in the rest of their lives, even after becoming an adult.
B - 4 to 8 years, pleasure affirmation expands to anal centric control during deffication (the ability to control your anus) while still relying on oral pleasure from food to kissing. Important emotional bindings and understandings are formed, boundries are experimented with and the first foundation of learning to cope with any given situation is formed. This is also the time where the child's personality is manufactured through blatent and surface-oriented life experiences, as per the depth of the child's ability to understand them. For example, an ubringing during this time where a child is punished for un-clear reasons (to the child) causes the child to become more secretive, and will create a more ego-centric adult, more inclined to disobey authority. It should also be noted by age 6, the pleasure zones are again expanded upon through the genitals, from the age 6 on out, the genitals become the most centric part of our percieved understanding of physical pleasure.
C - 9 to 25, the mind formed to it's full potential will now use what it has as a basis to create more depth in character and self-awareness. Most 12 year olds will be focused on how others view them without even wondering about who they are first (a lack of confidence in their surroundings and/or social structure), this mentality leads to failures in relationships and failures to communicate to any level of depth which in turn causes the person to later focus on themselves as they enter their teen years; going out of their way to become iconically (and easily) percieved as important and as an individual (which is commonly misjudged to be to a good trait). Depending on the level of depth the person has, the paths that branch from this vary to extremes. Some people may never leave the stage of putting other people's perceptions of themselves above their own (or their family's) which of course alienates themselves from everyone around them. In others, they could find a path that takes them in a direction that will lead them to a perspective on life in whole or part that will be healthier with more planning and an emphasis on judgement and guidance (to seek and ultimately to give).
D - The grey area, here's where everything gets thrown out the window. Entire lifestyles, perceptions, boundries, guidelines, anything that is formulated or crafted as a general 'rule' is bent. As the person gets older they experiment on a deeper level, testing their limitations. Unfortunately, by ages somewhere around the 60's, this is shut down and the person is ready to settle with a grounded singular perception. Their 'growing' complete (for the most part); They spend the rest of their lives knowing exactly who they are and are more inclined to enjoying and exploiting life rather than try to understand it or manipulate it.
I have no idea what you're up to LL, but I hope I helped a little. :)
A Question on Human Nature - Laser Link - 24th May 2005
It's kinda hard to explain what I'm getting at. :) Some people think that humans are born with completely good intentions, but can do bad things out of selfishness, or anger, or pride, etc, or bad situations. Another opinion is that people are naturally selfish, prideful, blah blah blah, but can choose to make good decisions and do "the right thing" in spite of their situation (good or bad). Now I know "the right thing" is something we could argue about forever, as we don't all have the same value system. So just keep it at stuff like not killing, not stealing, you know, the pretty basic stuff most Americans (and people in general, with a few exceptions) agree on.
It seems like the general consensus here is that we are not born one way or the other, but upbringing and choices make us who we are. And while I won't argue that it is our actions that define us, do you guys think we naturally tend to lean more towards doing "the wrong thing" or doing "the right thing".
Does that make more sense? :) Oh, and thanks for all the replies so quick. Keep em coming.
A Question on Human Nature - lazyfatbum - 24th May 2005
Boy you just dont stop :D
Okay, this will look like story time, but bare with me. When I was 7 years old I was at the grocery store and I had just gotten a huge pack of gum. I rarely got gum so this was a treat for me. I couldn't open it until I got outside so I waited and waited, finally we were outside. I opened up the gum and that's when I saw an old man sitting next to a trash bag. He was holding a sign that says "Need food". Without hesitating I gave him my pack of gum.
Why did I do this:
1.) Life experience has shown me what it's like to live without food (my family was very poor at one point) so I understood the value of getting food.
2.) I understood that he didn't have money to get food and I did, we just got bags and bags of it but I knew not to ask my mom to give him that food because I understood that the food she got was for the entire family. The gum was mine alone so it was free to share in my mind.
3.) After giving him the gum, I never once thought if I was doing the right thing (or wrong) until a complete stranger came up to me in the parking lot and hugged me. My mom then told me that what I did was very sweet.
In essense, I did what came natural to me, but only because of the understanding I had at the time.
A few nights ago, I was walking out of the grocery store holding some smokes. I saw a bum waiting outside asking for change. I asked him directly if he had eaten today, and he said no. With my understanding now, I know that if I gave him change it would probably go to booze or drugs. So I asked him to come with me and pick out something from the deli. He got a sandwich and a drink and ate it all before I paid for it. His happiness with getting food made me happy too, and I used those same principals I had when I was 7 years old to reach the conclusion that I should help him.
And again, not any point did I wonder if what I was doing is right or wrong.
So based on that example, the idea of being good or bad is totally pointless, as it all came down to my perception based on life experience.
A child will always want to pet an animal and feed it, the act of giving is inherent. We want to give good news rather than bad, we want to make people feel good, both for ourselves and for them. But your upbringing can change that. Under certain circumstances, a child who would normally want to pet an animal or feed it might want to cause it harm to feel superior, as they advance, they may even bring that mentality in to social situations by either physically harming another person for their lunch money or being verbally abusive. But again, it has nothing to do with being right or wrong, that equation never enters the mind. It all comes down to personal reflection based on life experiences.
A Question on Human Nature - N-Man - 24th May 2005
On a scientific basis (considering the scientific method is still the only acceptable way to prove any phenomenon) it's better to state this argument in terms of "nature vs. nurture" rather than "good vs. evil", as good and evil are undefined and entirely subjective terms.
Stuff like lazy's sharing can probably be traced down to an instinct of survival of the species - you naturally, instinctively feel good because you're helping your species thrive - so in this case, yes, sharing would come naturally. Thus humans have a naturally "good" side.
Now on the other hand if lazy had been attacked, and someone had tried to take his food, he probably would have fought back - even instinctively as a kid. He would have been fighting to keep what is his rather than sharing it. Similarly if lazy had been very hungry, and having trouble surviving, he might himself have attacked another member of the species to take his belongings - most probably without paying attention to whether that individual truly needed them or not.
In a nutshell I think that instinctively - inherently - an individual will be aggressive when attempting to survive, and generous when all his needs are satisfied. I believe all other behaviors are learned. For example someone who was poor and became rich, and felt the world helped him through his hardships, may grow to become generous and giving; whereas someone who was poor and became rich, but felt persecuted by his surroundings, may become greedy or selfish. In that way it's much more complicated than inherent goodness or badness.
A Question on Human Nature - Smoke - 24th May 2005
I believe all humans are inherently evil.
I define evil as anything that is disobedient or contrary to God.
A Question on Human Nature - A Black Falcon - 24th May 2005
Yes, of course... :)
A Question on Human Nature - N-Man - 24th May 2005
I define your mother as contrary to God
A Question on Human Nature - Smoke - 26th May 2005
So you're saying my mother is evil? Wait, that means you agree with me. :p
A Question on Human Nature - Laser Link - 27th May 2005
Thanks for all your thoughts. How about this now: Ignoring the whole nature vs nurture thing, what about right out of the box, so to speak. No add-ons. :)
What I mean is what do you think about newborn babies? This is usually the example I've heard in discussions like this. Suppose they haven't received any good or bad influences, or those influences even out perfectly, or that they haven't influenced the kids thinking.
A Question on Human Nature - A Black Falcon - 27th May 2005
I just don't think we know the whole answer... I mean, it's obvious that there is both a genetic and environmental aspect, but how important each one is... there is no way to test a "control", so it's kind of hard to say...
A Question on Human Nature - lazyfatbum - 28th May 2005
LL... 'Right out of the box'..... lmao
Considering that we have less intelligence than a duck for the two weeks of our life I think it's safe to assume that we have no latent unconscious ability to extrapolate anything other than crying for food which could be described as pain. Let alone any conscious thought that goes beyond being upset or dissatisfied. More than any other animal, we're a clean slate at birth; we have the weakest instinctive prowess. Couple that with the weakest body structure for a mammal our size and you have a little bundle of nothing that needs to be taught everything.
Most theories suggest that the reason we're so inept at birth is because of our skull size and our massive brain pans. Suggesting that even after a 9 month cycle we're born premature so that our brain pans can grow after we're birthed