Are people inherently evil?

Yes, but they would say that was wrong, when do you think evil was literally introduced?

Everytime you think of the word "evil" what do you picture?

I picture something related to religions, like Satan, the devil.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is wrong, but not evil. Evil is a concept, i hope you understand that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would suggest your thoughts are severely influenced by christianity. I see evil as anti-human, anti-social behaviour.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Evil is something done that is harmful, or hurtful to yourself or other things!

If it is a concept, that is the concept.

More notaby however, evil is a mindset.

When I think of evil, I think of anything wrong! I don't think of anything like satan...

 

orthogonal,

This is a little far back, but we were talking about aggression and violence. I do define aggression in a different way, and because I do I have a bit of a different outlook.

For me aggression, means more "to approach", "to do something", it's what allows us to get things done. If I want to beat someone's face in, I have to approach that person. If I want to pick up a pencil, I have to approach it (not nearly as much of course). This also ties into being a creative person. It takes aggression. It probably sounds a little weird, but is held by some widely known psychologists.

When we want to do something, our body metabolizes energy to do it, when we stifle the expression of such energy (however, sometimes the stifling can be a good thing society-wise), it turns into anxiety. Like a machine that works against itself. Eventually this builds up and something happens. There can be an implosion, which could turn into severe depression, breakdown, neurosis, etc. There can be an explosion, which could result in violence. It all depends on how the person copes.

So for me, violence is a mixture of things. Biologically the amount of approach energy (aggression) a person naturally has. Culturally, how the person has learned to cope with such aggression. Culturally, not having outlets to express aggression.

 

It is a concept.

Right and wrong are not concepts.

Good and evil are.

There is a fine line between them. Ponder about it.

For example, a priest tells you, "You are evil to not teach your children about God!!" But can he say you are wrong?

I was raised as a Catholic, so I guess you could say that. Evil is still a concept. Something that doesn't suit us morally, we call evil.

 

Yes, exactly! I guess it is the easy way out, donig wrong and hurting other people is so easy to do. just go along with the flow and you find always people who find a certain satisfaction in hurting others. And that, indeed, is a mindset. You always have the opportunity to choose the other way, how hard it may be sometimes, because of others hurting you, it's the way you handle this. If you choose to still go on, on the "good" path, there will be many obstacles, it is certainly worth to overcome this and stay your own "good" self. Even in this world of violence.

It is a mindset, you can always change and not react on "evil" done to you, with "evil".

I think the word "evil" is highly overdone. It's again not exactly what I wanted to say, can't find the right words at the moment. I hope you get my point people...

(Talk to you later, when the clouds in my head have disappeared.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

Neutrino,
I used Ree's quote, "A star is simpler than an insect," in my earlier post to buttress my claim that biology is more complex than physics. Hopefully the following two paragraphs taken from two of Martin Ree's books (the second of which contains my earlier quote), will ease your worry that I've somehow taken his quote out of context. By the way, Richard Dawkins makes the same point, perhaps even more forcefully in the early chapters of his book, The Blind Watchmaker. David Deutsch also says as much in his, The Fabric Of Reality.

"The amazing and fascinating complexity of biological evolution, and the variety of life on Earth, makes us realize that everything in the inanimate world is, in comparison, very simple. Things are hard to understand because they are complex, not because they are big. The challenge of fully elucidating how atoms assembled themselves-here on Earth, and perhaps on other worlds-into living beings intricate enough to ponder their origins is more daunting than anything in cosmology." Just Six Numbers, Martin Rees, p.19

"Friendly skeptics sometimes ask me: "Isn't it presumptuous for cosmologists to claim to explain anything bout the vast cosmos?" My response is that what makes things hard to understand is how complicated they are, not how big they are. Under extreme conditions-inside the stars or in the hot early universe-everything breaks down to its simplest ingredients. A star is simpler than an insect. Biologists, tackling the intricate multilayered structures of butterflies and brains, face tougher challenges than astronomers." Our Cosmic Habitat, Martin Rees, p.63

Gilbert and Sullivan's Princess Ida noted that, "Darwin's man, though well behaved, at best is only a monkey shaved." My previous posts to this forum speak often of the tense alliance between the ape and the man in us. We've inherited a genetic proclivity to seek solutions through violence. Fortunately, we've also inherited a brain complex enough to have the ability to override such a predisposition. Civilized men do just this. However, benevolent men are as superior, as malevolent men are inferior to the basic social necessity of civility. Carl Sandberg says as much in his poem Wilderness:

There is a wolf in me...fangs pointed for tearing gashes...a red tongue for raw meat...and the hot lapping of blood -- I keep this wolf because the wilderness gave it to me and the wilderness will not let it go.

There is a hog in me...a snout and a belly...a machinery for eating and grunting...a machinery for sleeping satisfied in the sun -- I got this too from the wilderness and the wilderness will not let it go.

There is a baboon in me...clambering - clawed...dog faced...yawping a galoot's hunger...hairy under the armpits...ready to snarl and kill...ready to sing and give milk...waiting -- I keep the baboon because the wilderness says so.

Oh, I got a zoo, I got a managerie, inside my ribs, under my bony head, under my red - valve heart - and I got something else: it is a man-child heart, a woman-child heart: it is a father and a mother and lover: it came from God-Knows-Where: it is going God-Knows-Where --

For I am the keeper of the zoo: I say yes and no: I sing and kill and work: I am a pal of the world; I came from the wilderness.

Regards,
Michael

 

Fine. I agree that your probally right but again all your examples are talking about the bilogy that makes the animal "work" which is totally irrelevent to the motivations that cause evil. I agee that bilogy is complicated but animal behavior is amazingly simple. animals just want to survive in a reasonable level of comfort. Nothing else.

And in the words of Dorothy L Sayers "A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Despite the fact that I do little else but read, ponder, and think; I rather doubt that I've had an original thought in my entire life.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Michael

 

Orthogonal

Every time I see some teenage sciforums user mention some moment of clarity or realisation, I think "Yep, that was me years ago". And I also know that almost every teenager in the history of the human race has had such moments. As for philosophical considerations in general, I'm sure everything any of us ever discusses or thinks about right and wrong, religion, the nature of the universe, et cetera, has all been considered zillions of times by millions of people. That doesn't negate the value of such thoughts, however. If anything, it should provide some sense of relief that others out there are also thinking.

 

Xenu,

Thanks for the reply. That's an interesting view of aggression which I've not heard before.

I generally agree that our traits are not neatly compartmentalized and isolated from one-another. My capacity to love is affected by my honesty, patience, and aesthetics, etc.. I've long suspected that man's aggressiveness might fuel both his unusual violence as well as his unusual creativity. This was summed up nicely in a quote by Camille Paglia:

"There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack-the-Ripper. "

Michael

 

I'm not sure any of your definitions adequately cover what I personally believe evil is. Its certainly not a concept though I can see why that was argued, I don't think its 'doing wrong' either other than as a gross generalisation. Doing wrong suggest anything from pinching a candy bar to genocide. I think Evil is the ultimate expression of man's darker nature. Linked almost certainly to physical violence, Evil I don't think can be expressed through words, not in the sense that I can't explain it but in the sense that what someone says cannot be evil, it can be vicious, malevolent and malicious but not Evil. Evil I think is a category that is reserved purely for the most atrocious acts and also for those who commit such acts, knowing full well what they do and still continually do it.

 

What about ENRON, they didn't physocaly hurt anyone, however they did do damage to bank accounts, and almost distroy lives because of bad buisness, and they did this knowing full wel lwhat they were doing. Yet this is not evil?

Just because physical violence is not done doesn't mean that it isn't evil.

 

But what ENRON did was damaging only to materialistic items, it did not take lives, it did not rape women, mutilate children. I accept it was terrible but Evil, I genuinely don't think so. Such events occur not frequently but fairly often IMO, but tell me how many holocausts have there been? Before you argue I'm not saying frequency has anything to do with the definition.

 

"evil; Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant; Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful"

Don't go pulling a Nelson (hmmmm. Can I make this an official term at sciforums?) and trying to change the English language to suit your beliefs.

 

I won't go pulling a Nelson (sure). But I was explaining that just because physical harm wasn't done, doesn't mean that its not evil.

 

Not directed at you Ender, directed at Kater who seems to have his/her (I don't know, so I won't assume either way) own definition of evil and thinks it applies to every human being.

 

ok i wasn't sure!!

 

What ENRON did was steal people's futures. It took from them their life savings in many cases. Short of killing some one that is pretty evil. In some cases it may well result in dying because of not being able to meet the high cost of getting medical help and in obtaining drugs to help or remedy their ailments. That's pretty evil to me.