Just wondering withoutgod, HOW are peoplee inherently evil? Are we evil beings as babies or something?
Are people inherently evil?
- Thread starter ??!!?!?_particlename
- Start date
CyberLogic
Registered Member
In my opinion, human beings aren't born naturally evil. Look at infants and young children. None of them are evil. They are creative, happy, and playful. I think the society has a lot to do with how a person behaves and acts. The environment too. But I believe that every human being has the potential to do an evil act. Its just most of us have learned to keep it dormant.
Surely 'evil' and 'good' depend on peoples definitions too. While the majority would agree on whether something was an evil act or not, there are no clear cut boundaries. Most of peoples definitions come from what they have been taught (IMO) and so people are not inherently evil or good, they are just inherently human. They will control their actions by what they have been taught.
Truthseeker3
Registered Member
People are Evil they just don't want to accept it. Look at how they treat each other. There is very little sympathy. You want historical proof? Rome. You want modern proof? America. Look at how kids tease and are cruel to one another and how people at the workplace relish in a coworkers failures. People are pure evil but there might be a few rare exceptions.
Now there's a jaundiced view....
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
Islam views human beings as naturally good and aspiring to the worship of One God. Though human beings are also weak to their desires and can be tempted into evil, yet God can forgive many mistakes which humans may commit. The goal in Islam is the reach a higher level of human understanding of his place on Earth and with His Creator, in which he is no longer tempted by evil (this is called Ihsan, enlightenment.
The Breaker
Registered Member
This question is flawed from the beginning. Asking whether people are inherently evil assumes a universally accepted definition of evil. Good and evil are relative terms, so human beings are neither good nor evil at any time their lives.
I like how the definition included "MORALLY wrong or bad". Aren't morals relative to whoever holds them? What someone may consider morally bad may be ok for someone else.
I guess somebody can consider someone "evil" if the person who is being considered also understands that what they are doing is socially/morally wrong and still performs the evil deed anyways, or rather someone who desires to commit moral wrongdoings or harm upon other people. However, the number of people who truly do those things or do that degree of hatred isn't that many.
A lot of times, criminals don't commit a certain crime because their intentions are true evil. For example, bank robberies are not committed for the most part because people enjoy stealing from the bank... most likely they enjoy the the money... or even the thrill of robbing a bank.
Sometimes people kill or hurt people, but out of revenge or anger. Drunk driving I wouldn't consider evil, but rather an irresponsibility that deserves to be punished accordingly.
However, there are a small number of "evil" people. But I don't believe that they were born that way. Just as goodness, as relative as it is to some people, is cultured and developed after a baby is born, evilness could probably be cultured, but not always due to external stimuli. Even in some of the most benevolent of environments and upbringings, a serial killer/evildoer could still develop, maybe by random chance.
The navy/soldier who sat from the tower of a college and shot all those people, apparently an autopsy determined that he had a brain tumor. Thus his actions were due to a medical condition.
I guess some people can develop, while who knows why, into serious, determined evilness. They learn what society deems immoral, and use those moral guideless to commit things that society has defined as evil acts or wrongdoings. Some people over time derive these forbidden pleasures that they may feel defines who they are. Some people who cannot be famous choose to be infamous, and it becomes a part of their identity.
There just may be a correlation between neural circuitry and how people develop into morally evil beings. It may be some mutation or genetic, or due to environmental factors (the latter being the most reasonable IMO). But the same could be said of people who become geniuses or innovative successful people, but those people aren't as socially undesirable.
I guess somebody can consider someone "evil" if the person who is being considered also understands that what they are doing is socially/morally wrong and still performs the evil deed anyways, or rather someone who desires to commit moral wrongdoings or harm upon other people. However, the number of people who truly do those things or do that degree of hatred isn't that many.
A lot of times, criminals don't commit a certain crime because their intentions are true evil. For example, bank robberies are not committed for the most part because people enjoy stealing from the bank... most likely they enjoy the the money... or even the thrill of robbing a bank.
Sometimes people kill or hurt people, but out of revenge or anger. Drunk driving I wouldn't consider evil, but rather an irresponsibility that deserves to be punished accordingly.
However, there are a small number of "evil" people. But I don't believe that they were born that way. Just as goodness, as relative as it is to some people, is cultured and developed after a baby is born, evilness could probably be cultured, but not always due to external stimuli. Even in some of the most benevolent of environments and upbringings, a serial killer/evildoer could still develop, maybe by random chance.
The navy/soldier who sat from the tower of a college and shot all those people, apparently an autopsy determined that he had a brain tumor. Thus his actions were due to a medical condition.
I guess some people can develop, while who knows why, into serious, determined evilness. They learn what society deems immoral, and use those moral guideless to commit things that society has defined as evil acts or wrongdoings. Some people over time derive these forbidden pleasures that they may feel defines who they are. Some people who cannot be famous choose to be infamous, and it becomes a part of their identity.
There just may be a correlation between neural circuitry and how people develop into morally evil beings. It may be some mutation or genetic, or due to environmental factors (the latter being the most reasonable IMO). But the same could be said of people who become geniuses or innovative successful people, but those people aren't as socially undesirable.
Evil Exists?
Algernon and The Breaker are definitely on the right track. There cannot be any such thing as something that is "inherently evil" - evil only exists as a human idea, as an interpretation of an action. If nobody ever acknowledged the "existence" of evil, it would truly not exist.
But really, The Breaker's dead on - there is no objective "evil", so the question of humans being *inherently* evil is flawed from the start.
Algernon and The Breaker are definitely on the right track. There cannot be any such thing as something that is "inherently evil" - evil only exists as a human idea, as an interpretation of an action. If nobody ever acknowledged the "existence" of evil, it would truly not exist.
But really, The Breaker's dead on - there is no objective "evil", so the question of humans being *inherently* evil is flawed from the start.
Ah, Xev, is it inappropriate to say, right here right now, I did love thee? Just seeing your name in this resurrected thread makes me want to hum the 'melody' of 'Rhinestone Cowboy'.
As for humans being inherently evil I would say that possession of a brain configured in the way the human brain is certainly gives us the capacity to 'act' in an unseemly manner and not give a fig about the consequences. Such behaviour might then be construed as being 'evil' as it may well be detrimental to certain individuals, as well as groups. However if the individual acting in said unseemly manner is doing so without any capacity to act in an alternative way; would it be proper to label said actor as 'evil' or just being true to him/helr self? Or would it, indeed, be a truism to label said person 'inherently evil' as 'Inherently' leaves little individual choice in the matter?
As for 'evil' itself; if it is to be associated with 'acting badly' and assuming that humans have a choice as to whether or not they can act badly perhaps the 'evil' is in choosing not to act goodly.
To choose or not to choose would seem to be the question.
My babies aren't innately selfish.
I remember my son could barely speak and he had his favorite beanie cow which he was almost inseparable from. My nephew (who is 20 years older) was trying to make just this point and said "let me have your cow." My son gave it to him without a second thought.
Both the older kids break off bits of treats to share with the baby and my son, who is starting to figure out money, wants to contribute to charity to help the poor.
All from kids who have no religious background.
I'm glad to hear that about your children but it doesn't mean they're not innately selfish.
That is all evil can possibly be.
That is all evil can possibly be.
That is quite some insight. that also made me wonder, while given the choice, in my opinion it would be easier to do the good things. In fact, doing something morally justified seems to hold no social taboos; ie, nobody would condemn you or hate you for it, you just might be loved or acclaimed by others. In addition to that, doing something morally unjust would definitely cause people to either hate you or criticize your behavior, especially if they were allowed to know. But some people want people to know, either they want themselves to be hated or it is some form of self-punishment to create an environment in which they feel they deserve to be in.
With self-punishment then, would that not be judging one-self and understanding that one's own deeds were evil? Is that not why we confess our sins? In order to consider it a sin, it must have been defined through religious means as something that was one of the 7 deadly sins or evils. Thus would the self-punishment of criminals, in that they want to kill themselves or torture themselves qualify as redemption or choice to be good?
Being inherently evil, or thus lacking the choice to be good, I guess you could say that there was no choice given so it wasn't the person's fault. However if given the choice, and they chose "EVIL", would that be considered evil. Besides... who benefits from being evil anyways? (that could be relative however).
Food for thought: If a baby was placed in a society where evil was considered the "right" thing to do, where people respected and honored you for killing people and stealing things and doing bad deeds while being nice or caring was a sign of weakness... how would this experimental baby react? Would it develop signs of "weakness?" Would the baby fight against the flow and manifest signs of benevolence, generosity, and selflessness in this type of society? While this may seem to be an arbitrary example, it is quite in fact somewhat inspired by real life. What happens to kids that grow up in gang neighborhoods? Or kids that are raised by extremist religious terrorist groups? Thats not to say that goodness would not still find its way into these young humans but at the same time it is rather hard to express or cultivate those socially defined goodness in these environments.
Damn, took me 5 mins to realize it was a 7 year old thread!
Anyhow, if we define "evil" as to cause harm and suffering to others, then the answer is yes, humans are naturally evil, but it is not their fault.
The logic/explanation is really simple. Since there is are very few places on Earth where the population can go without hitting resource boundaries, humans need to fight for these resources and by doing it they cause harm and suffering to others.
The question is rather similar to : Are lions naturally evil, (or they just like to kill)?
Anyhow, if we define "evil" as to cause harm and suffering to others, then the answer is yes, humans are naturally evil, but it is not their fault.
The logic/explanation is really simple. Since there is are very few places on Earth where the population can go without hitting resource boundaries, humans need to fight for these resources and by doing it they cause harm and suffering to others.
The question is rather similar to : Are lions naturally evil, (or they just like to kill)?