Are people inherently evil?

Aaah. I see; you're a Kantian.
Nice.

Why is that?
I see no need whatsoever.

We cannot.

Given the above (incorrect) premiss, this is correct.

You think this is the only alternative?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good and Evil...

Something one knows they are every day until they are not. A good person knows a evil act and spots them easily, a evil person knows a good act and spots them easily.

I find it is what we don't see that we notice the most.

Morals have nothing to do with Good and Evil.

Morals are a socio-based logic, good and evil is not. It is not evil to kill a child molester who is let off on a technicality but it is indeed morally wrong to do so.

Conflict between Good-Morals-Evil-Intentions

What one intends is to ones self only, you only know your true intentions cause it takes all the words you know to explain yourself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Depends where you live doesn't it. In many cultures there are many differences in the way they see good and bad or right and wrong. Some cultures have no education for women as an example as a good thing as they see it but many others do not see it like that. Are they bad if they do not educate their women? Some societies allow for the use of drugs like pot while others forbid it and jail offenders for using pot.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To judge wether or not people are evil you need to define what evil is.

If morality is objective then we have a set of morals of which we can use to identify evil acts.

If morality is subjective then each person will have his own view on what evil is and we have no way in determining which subjective opinion is greater than another's, this means that what one person might call an evil act another might find it perfectly well. Who is right?

One person could define evil as going against any instinctual urges that is felt by man, which would make people, from their perspective, inherently good (I think Ayn Rand believed this or something close to it).

Another person could define many instinctual urges felt by man to be evil, such as lust. This would mean that people, from their perspective, are inherently evil.

There's no way in determining wether or not people are inherently evil if moraility is subjective.

That's the problem. Many religions believe in an objective morality set forth by a God but we can't prove the existance of any of those Gods.

I suppose if everyone in the world came to a consensus on wether or not certain acts are evil, then we might have a premiss from which we can determine what is evil and isn't. For example, if everyone agreed that murder is wrong then we can surely define murder as evil.

 

I agree. But to define something is not to assert any objective ontological status. The definition alone suffices.

No such need. All that is required is to define which acts are to be classified as immoral.

Just as there's no way to make the determination if morality is objective. The problem here is a question of the nature of a person to behave, not of how we choose to describe that behaviour.

 

Which would require objective morals or a consensus on subjective morals. Still, someone else might not define some acts as evil whereas others would. As evil is defined as going against morals it is dependant on wether morality is subjective or objective as to wether we can objectively judge what is evil and what isn't.

If morality is objective then there are set standards on what is good and what is evil; it is not required that you believe in those standards as they simply are.

Indeed, the former of which you speak would require there to be an objective morality and with the latter subjective morals suffice.

 

Given that the former is impossible, the latter must suffice (as it does..).

Close, but not quite.
In practice, the judgment is not contingent upon anything but an ad hoc 'objective' standard, which is to say, a consensus. It is we who determine what 'objective' is.

Given the impossibility of making this kind of discrimination, the point is moot.

Not at all. Behaviour precedes judgment.

 

Certainly most believe they are acting in others interest, but in reality you are doing it because it feels good. You give to charity because it releases dopamine in the same way that taking advantage of others to become rich releases dopamine. There is no difference. This is supported by evidence.

Read up on modern neurobiology. All your actions are mediated by neurotransmitters. You would not do something if it did not make you feel good. Animals deprived of dopamine don't even move or eat, let alone act in others interest. What relevance does the last sentence have at all? I fail to understand how you've concluded I have created some religion.

 

what is evil and what is not is merely what we have perceived throughout mankind. labels, simply. one can argue there is only evil and less evil. taking, or greatly hindering one's life is perceived as the ultimate act of sin, yet the afterlife is considered to be spiritual... positive. i find it to be over-analyzed, and misunderstood.

mass amounts of alcohol numb my pain.

 

most of the time people aren't evil..they're just different.. hence their interests clash..

 

Desperate people do desperate things in desperate times. So do mentally unstable people who do not reason very well or who have disorders that are not being treated.

 

Absurd.
If it is not evil to kill that child molester, it is not morally wrong.
Morals are not logic. People's morals are based on what they perceive as or believe to be good & evil.

 

human beings are born free of sin, just like trees and flowers, which are free of sin. When trees and flowers get sick, they are not sinning, there are simply some structural damages. when human gets sick, that is not sin, that is just organ damages.

The sin is a result of knowledge and communication, it is because of knowledge, human becomes sinnful. There are different types of knowledge, the one causes sins are essentially: any ideas associate with selfishness.

Sexual sin is a very complicated area because it relates to human's biological function. If it is only biological, then there is no sin. That's why when animals have sex, there is no sin. But human beings have higher thinking abilities, it makes human being very different. It is therefore, when coming to sex, society's rule becomes very helpful to avoid certain acts.

Sin, it is for people who do not fully understand the reason of being human, it is also for people who are physically mature but lack mental understanding; for people who have great knowledge of laws and rules, if they sin, this is essentially a form of ending his or her life.

Hope my views are helpful.

 

There is no such thing as sin.

 

lol yes there is!!!

 

there is right and there is wrong. post #194 must be referring to the things that would not be considered wrong (although they may not be the ideal) unless there was not a religious influence.

 

Yes there is, but it's completely subjective.
Objectively seen there is no sin.

 

1) You can be "acting in others interest" inspite of it not feeling good.

2) The two are not mutually exclusive. You can be "acting in others interest" and also "doing it because it feels good."

Done. Even got a degree in Cognitive Science in the process.

D'uh.

Happens all the time.

Dopamine is not the only neurotransmitter nor is it the only "feels good" which releases it and "feeling good" is not the end all be all of motivation and neurotransmitters are only part of the picture.

No one ever said dopamine wasn't a key neurotransmitter and inflicting Parkinson's on animals will of course slow them down.

 

lol i used to put it like that too..i used to think that's the relativity theory..
i'll put it's solution in one sentence..:

isn't something subjective to everyone objective?

 

So many words, so much nonsense, so little understanding.