- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Humans: Inherently Good or Inherently Evil?
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:17 am to StringedInstruments
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:17 am to StringedInstruments
quote:
Why operate in such rigid binaries?
For the purpose of argument, these are the two extremes. There are plenty of answers that say somewhere in between.
0
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:21 am to JiminyCricket
If only there was a book that we could use as a guide.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:24 am to LSUfan4444
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:24 am to Bert Macklin FBI
It’s both. We all have good and evil inside of us. Most animals are the same way. Sometimes a cat will kill an entire herd of prey just for sport. At other times a baby will get protected by a member of a completely different species.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:25 am to Penrod
quote:
Most animals are the same way. Sometimes a cat will kill an entire herd of prey just for sport.
Why is that objectively wrong?
quote:
At other times a baby will get protected by a member of a completely different species.
Why is that objectively good?
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 9:26 am
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:27 am to LSUfan4444
Neither good nor evil, about 70 years ago there was an excellent Movie/Musical, South Pacific, that had an excellent song , "We have got to be carefully taught"
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:29 am to Bert Macklin FBI
It's not really about good or evil. The majority of people live their lives seeking various levels of Pleasure and avoiding various levels of Pain. Most of our laws are based on that majority view, along with values, culture & tradition.
The majority view of what is considered in the pleasure column may change with time (ex: slavery once good/beneficial is now abhorent) whereas some acts/behavoirs (ex: serial killing, child rape, theft, etc) will likely always be in the minority, even tho those acts bring the deviants a level of pleasure.
The majority view of what is considered in the pleasure column may change with time (ex: slavery once good/beneficial is now abhorent) whereas some acts/behavoirs (ex: serial killing, child rape, theft, etc) will likely always be in the minority, even tho those acts bring the deviants a level of pleasure.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:29 am to LSUfan4444
quote:
If only there was a book that we could use as a guide.
Look I am a catholic but acting like the Bible is a straight forward life guide is silly. I agree with the morals Jesus teaches us but if someone tried to use the Bible as a guide 100% word for word they would think that we should stone adulterous women to death.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:33 am to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
My guess is that most of you will argue that people are inherently evil.
Civilization itself tends to argue against that. A lot of selfless cooperation was required to get us where we are today.
Now, are people inherently self-interested? Sure, but those who survived and thrived throughout the 10000+ generations also generally developed characteristics compatible with polite society, including acceptance, fondness for family/offspring and some admirable altruistic (or downright heroic at times) qualities.
Now, under stress, more will fold than rise to the occasion. And there is a decent percentage of just unredeemable c_unts. No reasonable person would deny that. But that isn't the norm and that isn't the default human experience.
Hell, enlightened self-interest is one of the great things about humanity.
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 9:34 am
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:35 am to JiminyCricket
quote:
Why is that objectively wrong?
Killing for the sake of killing is inherently wrong. Sometimes you have to kill in self defense and sometimes you have kill for food. But killing for sport with no intention other than to kill is wrong.
I feel like someone will bring up hunting for sport but hunters generally eat the meat they kill. Hunting is also sometimes used as population control. Without population control the masses of that animal or other animals on the food chain will suffer due to lack of resources.
quote:
At other times a baby will get protected by a member of a completely different species.
Why is that objectively good?
How could you argue that its anything but good?
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:35 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Civilization itself tends to argue against that. A lot of selfless cooperation was required to get us where we are today
Where are we?
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:36 am to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
At other times a baby will get protected by a member of a completely different species. Why is that objectively good? How could you argue that its anything but good?
Well, what if the hunter is trying to feed its own offspring?
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:39 am to Bert Macklin FBI
Inherently dumb
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:40 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
Where are we?
Compared to the Stone Age? The Iron Age? Medieval times?
Light years ahead.
This is one of the negatives about modern, 21st Century humans. No perspective on the fact we're living in literally miraculous times.
Entertainment/leisure
Availability of food, water, energy
Health care
Those 3 things would shock Americans just 80 to 100 ago, much less 1000.
And much if it was altruism or certainly facilitated by a combination of altruism and enlightened self-interest.
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 9:41 am
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:45 am to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
Killing for the sake of killing is inherently wrong.
I'm not disagreeing with you in principle. I'm asking why it's wrong.
quote:
But killing for sport with no intention other than to kill is wrong.
Again, not disagreeing, just asking why it's wrong.
quote:
How could you argue that its anything but good?
I agree it's good. But by what measure do we say that it is good?
I agree 100% that it's a good thing to protect innocent life and a bad thing to take innocent life for entertainment only. That's not the question. The question is what objective (meaning not influenced by personal feelings or opinion) measure says that it is wrong?
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 9:47 am
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:46 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Compared to the Stone Age? The Iron Age? Medieval times? Light years ahead.
Some of us are. Some civilizations were completely wiped away by what you called “selfless cooperation”.
quote:
This is one of the negatives about modern, 21st Century humans. No perspective on the fact we're living in literally miraculous times. Entertainment/leisure Availability of food, water, energy Health care Those 3 things would shock Americans just 80 to 100 ago, much less 1000.
Not all people are American. Some people still struggle, even fight over food/water/energy.
The road to where we are today as Americans was painted in the blood of those who opposed us.
Not decrying that fact or calling it evil, but it wasn’t done “for the greater good” it was to benefit those who it benefitted and to take from those who were in the way. To the victors go the spoils.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:46 am to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
we should stone adulterous women to death.
Is that what you take away from that passage? That it should be disregarded because it discusses principles that were normalized thousands of years ago?
OR should you interpret the same passage very very differently. That he is without sin cast the first stone. Meaning, only the sinless should criticize the sinner for their actions and behavior. Only Jesus was without sin and he did not condemn the sinner so the "guide" is to condemn others sinners less not to stone adulterers.
I am not totally understanding what your point is but the bible offers many instances of good and evil, sin vs riotousness and has different passages on your very question where theologians have even further explained some scriptures where it is believe Jesus actually used rhetoric in his teachings. Mark 10:17-22 is a good example of this IMO. Here, the point many believe is that "good" is more about following him, leaving earthly possessions and wealth behind.
The only way to heaven is through grace. It cannot be earned. It cannot be achieved. Eternal life is given, by choice, from God because we are born in his image that is an image of goodness and love.
quote:
17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’[a]”
20 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”
21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:56 am to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
I'd argue that young kids are more inclined to be tolerant and kind to each other.
I’ve raised five. I’d argue otherwise. They don’t need to be taught to be selfish, self centered, rebellious, and quarrelsome. It’s built in. The trick is to teach, encourage and mold them to control themselves and become reasonably civilized. By any means necessary.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 9:57 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
The road to where we are today as Americans was painted in the blood of those who opposed us.
frick you. Americans help victims of flood, famine, displaced civilians, earthquakes all over the planet.
No one else cares or has the capability to provide 1/100th of the food, medicine, shelter assistance we provide to billions of poor people.
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 9:59 am
Posted on 5/16/24 at 10:00 am to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
Inherently Good or Inherently Evil?
The question is irrelevant. We have the capacity for both, because we can choose to be good or be evil - Or choose God or not. That's the way God made us. We were not built evil, we were built with the ability to choose evil - to reject God. Just like we are not inherently good - but we can choose to be good - by aligning to God. We are worthy of "good," we can be good - but we have to achieve it - it takes work. And we can do that even if we are "Evil," at some point.
We are capable of an enormous amount of good by aligning ourselves to God's will, understanding our earthly situation, understanding what "good," is, what suffering is, what the world "is."
But - literally - the whole point is the choice. That our souls are restless here, that's it's easier to reject God, to follow our passions, be driven only by our base desires. The modern social struggle right now is an escalating tension of "good" pursuits that are actually quite evil in application.
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 10:01 am
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News