Are people inherently evil?

"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."

His. Surely, seeing as everyone who has posted on this thread has a differing definition of Evil, they each apply it to the actions of every human being. How then is mine inherently wrong or inaccurate because it does not equate to yours. The point of a debate forum is exactly that, debate, there is no black and white view so I am only offering what is my opinion. I'm not changing the English language to suit my beliefs I was simply following the line of the thread about what Evil is. You seem awfully eager to be antagonistic over something so minor as a difference in definition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Kater you're making a small error in your judgement here. You say that everyone has a different definition of evil. Well, yes and no. We all have different judgements on what is 'bad' enough to qualify as evil. However, when you state that there must be physical harm involved (or something of the likes) to qualify as 'evil' you are contradicting the dictionary.

If I said killing a man in self defence when there may have been another route out is not evil but you say it is, we are not arguing the dictionary definition of evil. What we are debating is how we perceive and interput the dictionary definition of evil.

You flat out changed the definition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And the dictionary definition is right because it says so? It says in the bible that christ walked on water, is this also right purely because it says so in a book?
The point your missing is that the definition in the dictionary was interpreted by a person just like us, the word he interpreted was further derived from an earlier strand of language which was also interpreted. There is always something lost in interpretation, and even were this a totally accurate definition which single person can define something that, as winessed on this thread, means differing things to different people.
There's a definition for ghost in the dictionary - does this make it correct and totally accurate without recourse to change? Again I restate I was offering what I thought evil was, irrelevant of how a dictionary or you defines it

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're going to have to learn something here. In a debate, you go by the dictionary definition of a word. Otherwise, the debate is useless because everyone's taking about different things.

It is up to you to interput this definition differently as you wish. However, when it says "morally bad or wrong" that means it does not HAVE to encorporate violence. You have to get it through your head that the dictionary definition is what English is. Do you want me to quote more dictionaries?

You can interput the definition of a word in many different ways. But you cannot change it. That is a simple rule of debating.

 

*frantically rummaging through the dictionary trying to find "interput"*

 

kater,

Could you mabey just mentally change each usge of the word evil in this thread to something more like "wrong doing" so we can end all this stupidity now.

ortho,

I was simly making a reference to the fact that you haven't made a post yet without a Rather large number of quotes. To me when someone uses a quote as evidence it kina like they're saying "My arguement isn't good enough to stand up on its won evidence so ill take on line that was said by a well know smart guy that makes it sound like he agrees with me wheather he does or not and that will cover my lack of evidence." Of course i could be wrong.

Oh and a slightly irrelevent point: "There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack-the-Ripper. "


Since nobody knows who jack the ripper was we really don't know for sure he wasn't a woman.


But enough pointless rambling...
Back to the subject at hand

Can you name another motivating factor to cause evil? All you've said so far is that people are complicated (and your only "evidence" for that is a bunch of maeningless quotes) and you've said that ignorance is a motivator. While I think you are partly correct ignorance is involved (it makes people think they are acting in thier best interest when they really aren't) ignorance in itself is not a motivator (i mean how many times do you do something because you're ignorant)

 

Haha! Good point Squid!

 

Neutrino

Since nobody knows who jack the ripper was we really don't know for sure he wasn't a woman.

Testimony of Mrs. Elizabeth Long regarding the murder of Annie Chapman:

Mrs. Long identified Annie Chapman in the mortuary as the woman who had been facing her as she passed down Hanbury Street. Unfortunately, the man Annie was conversing with, who was almost certainly her killer, had his back to Mrs. Long. She did her best to describe him in her testimony to Coroner Wynne E. Baxter:

BAXTER: "Did you see his face?"

MRS. LONG: "I did not and could not recognize him again. He was, however, dark complexioned, and was wearing a brown deerstalker hat. I think he was wearing a dark coat but cannot be sure."

BAXTER: "Was he a man or a boy?"

MRS. LONG: "Oh, he was a man over forty, as far as I could tell. He seemed to be a little taller than the deceased. He looked to me like a foreigner, as well as I could make out."

BAXTER: "Was he a labourer or what?"

MRS. LONG: "He looked what I should call shabby genteel."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/jack/jackannie.htm

 

Neutrino wrote:

Ach, look, now I've quoted you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, I knew what you were getting at Neutrino. I tend to sprinkle quotes liberally throughout my vocal conversations, so you likely wouldn't enjoy talking to me as well. It has to do with the way I'm wired.

A good quote is an elegant means to compress a fair amount of thought into a succinct and easily remembered package. Mathematical equations often fit this criteria. If I wished to discuss probability functions for electron orbits, would you think it improper of me to quote Schrodinger's Wave Eqation? If I were to write a paper on electromagnetic radiation, should you be surprised to find Maxwell's Equations quoted therin? Does the scientist who thinks of electromagnetic radiation in terms of Maxwell's equations merely display "A facility for... the absence of original thought"?

Progress throughout our past ten thousand years of written language has come from building upon the good ideas of our predecessors. It's entirely reasonable to want to place one's own thoughts within the proper context of our vast human legacy of recorded ideas.

"To read is to borrow; to create out of one's reading is paying off one's debts." George Christophe Lichtenberg

Michael

 

Orthogonal...

And if the original thought of our predecessors was wrong, but so well worded it has now become canon?

It seems here, that you are saying we should evolve thought from what was previously thunk.... but the snare here is that we are thus unable to take a different path.

 

Hey there Squid,

Thanks for the reply.

To quote myself, "... building upon the good ideas of our predecessors." The qualifier "good" is important. Better ideas tend to leave good ideas in the dust. In fact, I've always found that a good idea begs for a better idea.

The inventors of the vacuum tubes, for example, doubtless understood that their crude devices would one day be superceeded by better designs. The semiconductor paradigm-shift was aided, rather than hindered by our use of vacuum tubes. Vacuum tubes, even elegantly designed vacuum tubes, were an idea that begged for a better idea.

I'm thinking now of James Burke's book and PBS television series from fifteen or twenty years ago titled, Connections, where he follows the development of one new idea that leads to the next idea, which leads...

One thing leads to another,
Michael

 

Ummm... good. I'll get back to you on this... I know i disagree with something here, but i'm a little too drunk to articulate it.

 

You wouldn't happen to be Dave that own an Audi TT would you?

 

But only to give a reference point so people knew what you were talking about.

An equation and a quote are not the same and you know it. In many cases a specific equation is the only way there is to say something. Quotes are easily taken out of context to say someting they don't really mean its a bit harder to do that with equations. Quotes that sound good can still be flat out wrong while equations are mathmaticly proven concepts.

I hope that you didn't honestly believe that crap you posted.

Ive seen Connections and Connections 2 multiple times. I own every book written by James Burke. I agree with his ideas. And it is irrelevent. Just because everything is built on the past dosen't change the fact that quotes are more or less pointless.

The only advantage of quotes is that yes they allow you to phrase things better but there are two major problems with them:

1. Just because sombody said something dosen't make it right. Einstein said that "God does not play dice" but it seems that he was probally wrong there. If you use a quote just because its well phrased and then defend it with a logical arguement its fine. But you haven't been doing that. You've just been using a quote as if its actually evidence in iitself.

2. Eaisy misinterpreted when taken out of context. Like earlier when you use Martin Rees' quote "A star is simler than an insect" as proof that human behavior is complicated. In context what he was actually saying that due to the number of forces involve it is easier to explain how a star works than to describe the cellular and chemical interactions that keep an insect alive. In context your quote was irrelvent to the debate even though out of context it sounded good for you side.

But we've taken this thread off topic enough. If you want to contiue our bickering start a new thread or we can use private messages.

 

If you carefully re-read what I wrote, you will note that I did not say an equation and a quote were the same thing. An equation is not a quote, a sentence is not a quote either, but both an equation and a sentence may be quoted! A quote is a grammatical device for repeating another man’s idea without the associated guilt of plagiarism. Words between quotation marks only become quotes when a source is included, before or after the quotation marks. We do exactly the same when we quote an equation or a theorem. However, in mathematics the quotation marks are implied when we include a source along with a group of symbols (i.e., Taylor’s Series, Lagrange’s Theorem, or L’Hopital’s Rule). Earlier I wrote:

By this definition, equations make some of the best quotes. Equations are compactly expressed ideas. My personal notebooks are filled with equations that I’ve pulled from their original documents. I'm careful to always include the author of a mathematical or philosophical idea in my personal journals.

It does not matter if I were to write Pythagorean’s Theorem symbolically or if I simply wrote it out in words, the idea is the same. Mathematics is no more about symbols than music is about notes. Mathematical symbols are merely a shorthand notation to replace words, and the words represent ideas. These ideas were not handed down from the gods, they were invented or discovered by men, and as such, the ideas contained in them are subject to error.

For nearly two thousand years, Western men thought that Euclid’s geometry represented the ultimate description of space. Then men such as Lobachevsky and Riemann came up with new ideas on the subject. Einstein’s decidedly non-Euclidean concept of space likely put the final nail in Euclid’s coffin as a representaton of space. Of course, the three interior angles of a plane triangle still sum to 180 degrees today the same as they did before Riemann and Einstein. However, I’d be “flat out wrong,” to use your words, if I tried to tell you that space is Euclidean in nature, even though the contents of Euclid’s Elements are all “mathematically proven concepts”. Mathematical ideas may be taken out-of-context as well as any other ideas.

Did you think I was speaking to you about James Burke? I was replying to Squid Vicious’ question concerning the continuity of ideas. What I wrote to him had nothing to do with quotes.

Evidence? I don’t understand? I’ve been talking about philosophy here, either pure philosophy, or the philosophy of science and mathematics. Science relies on evidence to support hypotheses. Did you think I was doing science here, Neutrino? Philosophy relies on reason to amplify suppositions. You are free to disagree with my suppositions, yet it helps a great deal if we both agree to use the same reasoning. A philosopher is free to draw ideas from any source; a quote, a rabbit eating grass, or a random thought that comes into his mind when he's driving to work. Are you telling me in effect, that you have some sort of evidence for your own philosophical conjectures? Hmm…

Chimpanzee gang murder is “...marked by a gratuitous cruelty – tearing off pieces of skin, for example, twisting limbs until they break, or drinking a victim’s blood – reminiscent of acts that among humans are regarded as unspeakable crimes during peacetime and atrocities during war.”

Do you think the motivations for Chimpanzee gang murder are “amazingly simple”? Anthropologists and primate specialists are fairly baffled by this behavior. You might lend them a hand by explaining it to them in your “amazingly simple” terms of Chimps only wanting “to survive in a reasonable level of comfort.”

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A second point; did you notice I did not give a source in my above quote about Chimpanzee gang murder? I'd like to remind you that you wrote:

Do you think I have ever observed Chimpanzee gang murder? Are you even slightly curious where I might have come up with such a description of their behavior? Perhaps I dreamed it last night? Maybe I’m just making it up? You’d never know unless I told you a source for my information. If I gave you a source, “my” words would become someone else’s words, and you would have the luxury of finding the source to check if I quoted them fairly. You would also be able to judge the reliability of my source. But since you say that, “quotes are more or less pointless,” it appears that none of this counts as much to you. You seem to be saying that the only ideas we may speak of, are the ones that originate in our own heads, for fear we might be guilty of taking another person's ideas out-of-context. I simply disagree. I think it's important to both read other people’s ideas, and to give them the credit when I use their ideas in my discussions.

Neutrino, this is not the way a gentleman debates a point. If you come away with nothing else from your exchange with me, I hope you would take away the understanding that it's possible for two men to hold different opinions, and still treat each other with respect. Implicit in the rules for civilized debate is the precept that you do not characterize my thoughts as crap. I’m asking that you apologize for having done so.

Michael

*Unless otherwise noted, all quotes are from Neutrino Albatross.
*Chimp quote taken from page 70 of, Demonic Males; Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, by R. Wrangham and D. Peterson.

 

This is the bit I dont like...
You've said here the qualifier "good" is important... But in my experience it is not whether or not an idea is "good" which makes it canon, but how popular it is. Most of your examples have been technologically based, and in that area your idea runs true, but in philosphy I dont agree that this is always the case.

Sorry i've just had my appendix out, i'm still a little woozy. Good drugs they give you in hospital... been away a few days.

 

Going back eons and will exist until armageddon is Priority #1 --> "Self-preservation". A catalyst for bad behaviour but...

The word evil is a concept defined by a multitude of evolving societies.

I eat beef so I could be evil in the eyes of a Hinduist. They don't pray to Jesus or Yahway so a Christian or Jew might think them evil (or sadly in need of conversion and enlightenment ).

Am I evil? I can be but don't dwell on developing evil tendencies.

"Think honestly" Miyamoto Musashi

 

Yes.
Or No.
Depending.

 

Are people inherently evil? Yes and people are inherently good. It is our primitive instincts that does what is best for us, which is in good thought, and selfish, but for others it is evil because it is not in best interest for them. It is in our nature to act by instinct. That intent is the intent to only do good for themselves, or what they want, which creates the evil, and which is selfish, survival instinct. So this "good(selfish)" we produce for ourselves is actually evil, only to others.

BTW, why would anyone or ANY being want to do evil out of nowhere if it does not benefit them??? Everyone and everything works to their best interest. Even animals don't kill for no reason. It's all about instinct and what's best for yourself. Anyone understand?

It is the instinct to live, but being selfish in most cases is considered evil, or wrong; but not for the one being selfish. Therefore good and evil must exist in the world. For example, you need to be selfish, by instinct, to survive for the good of yourself and your family, but in doing so, it creates some evil in it, maybe you killed an animal to survive, or other humans might starve because you need to eat.

To ask if we are inherently evil, we must go back to being primitive, where it is only basic survival.

Because morals has nothing to do with evil, but humans interpretation of what evil is. Compared to society’s morals, which is evil or good; for example, what a native might do might seem evil to a European, but good to a native. Therefore morals don't have strong ground on what evil is.

Has anyone ever read Joseph Conrad's novella, Heart of Darkness? It explicitly talks about evil. I learned much from his book.

Simple as this, most of evil today is based on morals and there is that natural good and evil in this world that must co-exist.

 

...hold the phone....

ok guys. Here's the scoop. We ARE born naturally evil because we were/are born in sin. We all have the tendency to go evil. We have the choice whether to go evil or good. Hitler went evil. Mother Teresa (sp) went good. One person said that if we were born good...then we would look out for the goodness of others...and do we? no! Unless you make that choice...but still it is very hard. I am a strong christian and I still struggle with put others first. Evil is REAL. It is real. Look at all the lunetics (sp) in the world right now. And how many bad things have been done!
I don't agree with this statement: "When I think of evil, I think of anything wrong! I don't think of anything like satan..." WHAT!?! Satan isn't evil?!!? He is the root of all evil! He is the master the King of evil! He was the one that introduced evil into this world! When Eve took the fruit from the tree...it was satan that tempted her. it was satan that lied to her. it was satan that convinced her to take the fruit which was wrong because God said so. Period.
We have the choice whether to be evil or good. But we were/are born into evil. Period.
That is the christian view. Hope its not too late to post something.
I respect everyone's views. Please respect mine too.