Are humans inherently evil?

[Silver Incubus]

Animals, however (or most, at least) do not have that ability. All they have are basic instincts upon which to act. They don't understand the implications of something being inherently "wrong" or "right." They just understand the consequences if they act a certain way.

I really want to know how you know this? Can you talk to animals and actually ask them if they know the difference between good and evil? Or can you read minds and intuitively understand them? IF not, then how can you actually claim any knowledge of the thoughts of an animal?

 

[Blowtus]

They don't exhibit significant language.

 

[Einherjar86]

And studies have shown that they usually act according to expected consequences.

 

[razoredge]

My point regarding animals was that they do have social order, in the case of canis, some rules and regulations, some animals show regard for orphaned non related animals and sometimes even species, there was recent footage of a herd of water buffulo running in and attacking Lions to save one of their own, which is NOT typical.

Then taking some of this and applying it against the idea that we as speaking and developed humans only established right and wrongs due to "religion"... I find a bit bizarre. But I do know the inititive that is at play in the minds of those that play the blame it all on religion card.

 

[Silver Incubus]

And studies have shown that they usually act according to expected consequences.

Humans are no different then animals actually we are animals. They do what they do according to the expected consequences. And animals may not need language to survive so they have not evolved it. It is the consequences of our actions as perceived by others that creates the notion of good and evil. We are all born neutral and it isn't until we are told that actions are one nature or another that we can learn what good and evil are in society.

 

[Blowtus]

Then taking some of this and applying it against the idea that we as speaking and developed humans only established right and wrongs due to "religion"... I find a bit bizarre. But I do know the inititive that is at play in the minds of those that play the blame it all on religion card.

Do you think the hippos would outcast one of their herd that didn't join in chasing the lion? Would they note that hippo down in their minds as 'the evil one'?

 

[Einherjar86]

Humans are no different then animals actually we are animals. They do what they do according to the expected consequences. And animals may not need language to survive so they have not evolved it. It is the consequences of our actions as perceived by others that creates the notion of good and evil. We are all born neutral and it isn't until we are told that actions are one nature or another that we can learn what good and evil are in society.

You're completely missing the point. Animals have no capacity to conceive of morally "right" or "wrong" actions. All they know is what consequences await them in this life. Only humans have crafted this idea of a possible higher order of things that constitutes inherent moral standards; "right" and "wrong" not based on physical consequences, but on unchanging, ultimate law. In the physical world, we can imagine situations where it would be understandable to overlook something like the taking of human life. Someone comes at you with a knife and you fight back, and end up killing them; justifiable. However, there might be a greater natural, unchanging order that says "killing is always wrong."

Inherent moral standards don't allow for any shifting circumstances or situations; but we, as humans, know that this isn't the case. Every situation is different, and there are always circumstances unique to each situation.

Humans are far beyond animals in that we have the capability to conceive of an universal moral standard. However, I don't necessarily believe that humans should always act on that universal moral standard (because, in truth, it doesn't exist). Animals don't act on that standard; not because they're smarter, but because they can't conceive of any universal standard.

 

[Silver Incubus]

You're completely missing the point. Animals have no capacity to conceive of morally "right" or "wrong" actions. All they know is what consequences await them in this life. Only humans have crafted this idea of a possible higher order of things that constitutes inherent moral standards; "right" and "wrong" not based on physical consequences, but on unchanging, ultimate law. In the physical world, we can imagine situations where it would be understandable to overlook something like the taking of human life. Someone comes at you with a knife and you fight back, and end up killing them; justifiable. However, there might be a greater natural, unchanging order that says "killing is always wrong."

Inherent moral standards don't allow for any shifting circumstances or situations; but we, as humans, know that this isn't the case. Every situation is different, and there are always circumstances unique to each situation.

Humans are far beyond animals in that we have the capability to conceive of an universal moral standard. However, I don't necessarily believe that humans should always act on that universal moral standard (because, in truth, it doesn't exist). Animals don't act on that standard; not because they're smarter, but because they can't conceive of any universal standard.

I guess this is where we differ in this discussion. I don't believe that the conception of universal moral ever actually exists outside of an Idealist meme. You even admit that one such universal moral code is non existent. then, if one doesn't actually exist outside of human conception does that mean that it actually has no inherent qualities as well? I don't see any more to my existence then this one, since the evidence is pretty high that once a person dies they are gone forever and while their effects may be ripples throughout history their actions can only be judged by others as good or bad. I don't see a higher purpose the same way you choose to. Societies collectively create moral standards, also seen in packs in the wild. When the enforcers of this system are non existent, the standards break down to the whims of the individuals. The reasons why people believe in these ideological values are because they are persuaded by people who proclaim to possess divine power as I describe in my previous posts. It is just a filter that people put over their worldview and nothing more. Some may have the attribute of universality simply because all of us being human have the same potential to think of the same thing with the right stimulus. The same things are needed for order within society and these things are going to exist in most if not all societies that don't collapse upon themselves.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm going to try and break this down, because I'm a bit confused.

I guess this is where we differ in this discussion. I don't believe that the conception of universal moral ever actually exists outside of an Idealist meme. You even admit that one such universal moral code is non existent. then, if one doesn't actually exist outside of human conception does that mean that it actually has no inherent qualities as well?

No, it doesn't. Inherent qualities are unchanging and innate. If morality only exists within each person's perception of it, then it can have no inherent qualities. Its qualities might change from person to person. Only a universal moral standard can have inherent qualities.

I don't see any more to my existence then this one, since the evidence is pretty high that once a person dies they are gone forever and while their effects may be ripples throughout history their actions can only be judged by others as good or bad. I don't see a higher purpose the same way you choose to.

Can you explain this more? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

Societies collectively create moral standards, also seen in packs in the wild. When the enforcers of this system are non existent, the standards break down to the whims of the individuals.

Societies collectively create moral standards, and then proceed to debate whether or not their moral standards should be the universal guidelines for moral standards. A pack of wild animals has no conception of morality beyond its own kind; no potential "universal" norm. Humans, however, have the capability to debate and ponder this. Many groups of people have a specific set of moral standards that they believe should be regarded as a universal norm; but humans frequently refuse to take into the account the differences in circumstance and situation between themselves. Human beings are the only species that create moral standards and then proceed to interpret and debate them.

The reasons why people believe in these ideological values are because they are persuaded by people who proclaim to possess divine power as I describe in my previous posts.

I would agree with this. I also believe it's possible for some people to develop an idea of absolute morality on their own, without papal intervention.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I'm going to try and break this down, because I'm a bit confused.



No, it doesn't. Inherent qualities are unchanging and innate. If morality only exists within each person's perception of it, then it can have no inherent qualities. Its qualities might change from person to person. Only a universal moral standard can have inherent qualities.



Can you explain this more? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.



Societies collectively create moral standards, and then proceed to debate whether or not their moral standards should be the universal guidelines for moral standards. A pack of wild animals has no conception of morality beyond its own kind; no potential "universal" norm. Humans, however, have the capability to debate and ponder this. Many groups of people have a specific set of moral standards that they believe should be regarded as a universal norm; but humans frequently refuse to take into the account the differences in circumstance and situation between themselves. Human beings are the only species that create moral standards and then proceed to interpret and debate them.



I would agree with this. I also believe it's possible for some people to develop an idea of absolute morality on their own, without papal intervention.

Alright, for 1, it is then understandable that since there is no inherent morality, then humans cannot be inherently evil.

The second paragraph is just me stating that I believe death is the ultimate end of this existence. That if someone were to look at my actions they could determine for themselves if I was good or bad. My view is that something can't be good or bad until after it has happened. Therefore no GOD is judging my morality and moral choices.

As much as societies debate, and because they can debate upon the standards that are wanted in the society, makes them non absolutest moral standards, which of course was not always the case and still isn't in some places. Many times those debates go "This book is God's word" therefore if this book says its immoral then it is. This obviously present in the gay/lesbian area. Or even the abortion arena.(I am using them as example and don't want to get into them). Moral standards tend to be dictated by those who are fundamental or religious, and that is where people like me and many others on this board have it in for religions. Morality to me seems like a restraint on your personal freedom to do as you please. My real question is other then for law enforcement reasons, why even have moral standards? Why not decree, that each person's morality should be interpreted by the cause and effect method. If your actions causes a negative that is needless, then it is bad, otherwise it is fine. And why do we follow moral standards anyways? Its because of the pack mentality. If you asked thousands of people if they could get away with a certain crime and never be found out for it, would they do it? I bet most would say yes if it was in the right context. The only thing that stops them is either the law (the alpha males in the pack's rule) or judgment by society, and subsequently becoming an outcast and having to fend for oneself. And this is where I see no difference. Sure we can create all these nifty sayings and complex what if? to test the boundries of moral standards, but ultimately we act as the mob acts and do what authority tells us to do, the same way , at least mammal, packs operate. A great example is what is going on with elephants in africa. No elder bulls to enforce so all the young bulls are killing and trying to mate with hippos. Without learning of morals to begin with, we are all just acting upon instincts. Being surrounded and supported by loved ones is something most mammals crave, and being outcasted is usually feared. I mean the idealogical belief that we are the rulers of the world has now almost created a world where animals are going extinct and the environment is slowly corroding away, and this was based of the same book that most moral standard have been based on.

For your last point, I still don't beleive that absolute morality can ever exist, so no one can think of it. As long as someone disagrees with a moral standard it can never be absolute, simply because by the definition of absolute it would have to mean everyone in society, since GOD is not a credible source for morals.

 

[Einherjar86]

Alright, for 1, it is then understandable that since there is no inherent morality, then humans cannot be inherently evil.

I know. I said this back when this argument began. Humans aren't inherently evil.

As much as societies debate, and because they can debate upon the standards that are wanted in the society, makes them non absolutest moral standards, which of course was not always the case and still isn't in some places. Many times those debates go "This book is God's word" therefore if this book says its immoral then it is. This obviously present in the gay/lesbian area. Or even the abortion arena.(I am using them as example and don't want to get into them). Moral standards tend to be dictated by those who are fundamental or religious, and that is where people like me and many others on this board have it in for religions. Morality to me seems like a restraint on your personal freedom to do as you please. My real question is other then for law enforcement reasons, why even have moral standards? Why not decree, that each person's morality should be interpreted by the cause and effect method. If your actions causes a negative that is needless, then it is bad, otherwise it is fine. And why do we follow moral standards anyways? Its because of the pack mentality. If you asked thousands of people if they could get away with a certain crime and never be found out for it, would they do it? I bet most would say yes if it was in the right context. The only thing that stops them is either the law (the alpha males in the pack's rule) or judgment by society, and subsequently becoming an outcast and having to fend for oneself. And this is where I see no difference. Sure we can create all these nifty sayings and complex what if? to test the boundries of moral standards, but ultimately we act as the mob acts and do what authority tells us to do, the same way , at least mammal, packs operate. A great example is what is going on with elephants in africa. No elder bulls to enforce so all the young bulls are killing and trying to mate with hippos. Without learning of morals to begin with, we are all just acting upon instincts. Being surrounded and supported by loved ones is something most mammals crave, and being outcasted is usually feared. I mean the idealogical belief that we are the rulers of the world has now almost created a world where animals are going extinct and the environment is slowly corroding away, and this was based of the same book that most moral standard have been based on.

We follow certain moral standards because, as you said earlier, most societies would collapse without them; but we shouldn't follow them for the sole purpose that they're universally "right," as many want us to believe. We should follow them because they make logical sense (i.e. you treat someone well and they will treat you well, much akin to how animals behave).

For your last point, I still don't beleive that absolute morality can ever exist, so no one can think of it. As long as someone disagrees with a moral standard it can never be absolute, simply because by the definition of absolute it would have to mean everyone in society, since GOD is not a credible source for morals.

I've been saying this throughout the entire thread. My purpose for separating men from animals was simply to show that men have the capability to conceive of a universal moral standard, but I wasn't advocating one. I think we've been arguing over nothing due to a lack of communication.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I know. I said this back when this argument began. Humans aren't inherently evil.



We follow certain moral standards because, as you said earlier, most societies would collapse without them; but we shouldn't follow them for the sole purpose that they're universally "right," as many want us to believe. We should follow them because they make logical sense (i.e. you treat someone well and they will treat you well, much akin to how animals behave).



I've been saying this throughout the entire thread. My purpose for separating men from animals was simply to show that men have the capability to conceive of a universal moral standard, but I wasn't advocating one. I think we've been arguing over nothing due to a lack of communication.

For some reason I thought you had been arguing for inherent evil.

 

[monoxide_child]

Are you on a Nietschze tangent tonight? And what is the purpose of this post? Do you think that humans evolving into the "ubermensch" is a bad thing?

not saying that humans evolving into "ubermensch" is good or bad, just explaining why it hasn't already happened

 

[Deicidal]

I think many species are evil. You ever see the movie Faces Of Death?? Nuff said. It's not just tribes in Africa that kill for their food, people in western countries almost never realize that, because we seem cleaner. We watch movies that reenact actual murders and torture. We laugh at when people who are different suffer. We are some sadistic people.

 

[Einherjar86]

You think certain species of animal are evil?

 

[Achtland]

Parrots are evil.

 

[Deicidal]

You think certain species of animal are evil?

The ones that eat their young, etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

at that being "evil."

 

[Blowtus]

The ones that can't form orderly queues for the food are evil little fuckers too.

 

[monoxide_child]

I know. I said this back when this argument began. Humans aren't inherently evil.



We follow certain moral standards because, as you said earlier, most societies would collapse without them; but we shouldn't follow them for the sole purpose that they're universally "right," as many want us to believe. We should follow them because they make logical sense (i.e. you treat someone well and they will treat you well, much akin to how animals behave).



I've been saying this throughout the entire thread. My purpose for separating men from animals was simply to show that men have the capability to conceive of a universal moral standard, but I wasn't advocating one. I think we've been arguing over nothing due to a lack of communication.

i agree with this, except for the first sentence