Are humans inherently good or evil?

Humans are inherently sister fucking primates and the idea that there is a "human nature" fundamentally distinct from the nature of any other animal comes entirely from our own hubris, developed as an ideal long after we sequestered ourselves from the wild at large.

Is life inherently good or evil?

>Are Humans inherently big or small?

Neither. People are defined by their actions.

Yes, humans are asshole that need society to control them.

Fist off, you didn't define either term. Is "good" having empathizing with others or being social?

Also, evolutionary biologists have extensively studied altruism and your second point is false.

rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1654/13

I never signed the contract you boob

case in point

You can define an objective morality without God, but it's an ugly strict idealism.

> satan
> santa
It was been so transparent all this time!

>Historically (as well as recently; Wilson 2005, 2008; Fletcher et al. 2006; Foster et al. 2006; Nowak 2006; West et al. 2008), competing theories have sparked much controversy and this debate has been couched in terms of which theories best explain the evolution of altruism and under what conditions one theory may be superior to another

So it's heavily debated and there is no current consensus despite your claim?

lol people who pull up one study from Google Scholar as if it serves as an internet "I win the debate!!!!!" button.

Let's be honest here, even with God it is an ugly strict idealism.

Its literally the same shit with another uprovable guess
>You have to act like this, because I said its good
>You have to act like this, because I said that omnipotent being said its good

> It thus supports efforts to unify multi-level selection and inclusive fitness theories (Wade 1980; Queller 1985, 1992; Frank 1998; Sober & Wilson 1998), as well as inclusive fitness and reciprocal altruism theories (Queller 1985; Frank 1998; Fletcher & Zwick 2006).

Human nature is, as God created us, inherently good, but our original sin has corrupted that nature such that every human is conceived evil, with a few exceptions such as Mary and Jesus, and born evil, with a few exceptions such as John the Baptist. We can be restored to our good nature through the salvation offered to us by Jesus Christ.

Nice fan fiction about Mary being free from original sion.

Inherent evil is a problem because human beings are only held accountable for their own actions. They never chose to be born, so they are innocent.

So Jesus Christ was carried in a sinful womb, and was the same flesh of a sinful woman?

Yes, but it was purified by its divine nature like he purified original sin from the rest of us.

Your question is a misuse of language and therefore you must remain silent and feel bad

t. proddie

We can use the principles of rationality and logic to determine moral behavior, but I guess you could always claim "who says logic or rationality is good."

> logic
> rationality
They aren't objective, just some laws invented by random people.

So it's heavily debated and there is no current consensus despite your claim?

lol people who pull up one study from Google Scholar as if it serves as an internet "I win the debate!!!!!" button.

Well logic and rationality are abstract orders so they don't exist physically, but they can be considered to be as objective as math in that their qualities are represented in the real world.

t.pythagoras

That "one study from Google Scholar" provides a fundamental explanation for altruism that accommodates all of those heavily debated theories.

> It thus supports efforts to unify multi-level selection and inclusive fitness theories (Wade 1980; Queller 1985, 1992; Frank 1998; Sober & Wilson 1998), as well as inclusive fitness and reciprocal altruism theories (Queller 1985; Frank 1998; Fletcher & Zwick 2006).

Humans are inherently lazy. Being bad or good takes much more energy than being neutral.

not an argument, give me a real proof

>One study makes a consensus

Read a fucking book

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're asking for. I cited an explanation of altruism in evolution, you claimed that altruism in evolution was heavily debated, and I pointed out that what I cited was a fundamental explanation that accommodates all of the debated theories.

What d you want here?

I didn't say anything about a consensus.

>Are humans inherently good or evil?
Oh boy another thread of philosophical navel gazing because you can't make a single statement on such a broad subject without having to "define x" endlessly or everyone pointing to one specific case example against any other case made

Sloth is a sin.

No, it's animal.

Through one mans sin, death entered the world

If people know they can get away with something, they will be dicks. Such as while driving.

Well it depends how choose to define good and evil. I mean they are entirely arbitrary concepts and they change through time. Somethings are certainly built into our biology but alot of morality is cultural. Now the interesting thing is when our cultural ideas of good come up against our biological programming. It is interesting to see how much culture can fight against biology.

>biological programming
Like what?

biojava, bioC# and bioPHP

Sorry, I was wording it pretentiously. I simply meant the habits and urges we feel do to our biology. Although now that I think even morality is based on our biology. We might feel compelled to moral out of seeking of group acceptance in our nature or any other reason

You’re in a room with two doors. There’s a guard at each door. One door is the exit, but behind the other door is something that will kill you. You’re told that one guard always tells the truth and the other guard always lies. You don’t know which guard is which. You are allowed to ask one question to either of the guards to determine which door is the exit.

What question should you ask?

...

> What question should you ask?
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Are you telling the truth?
and then the paradox collapses

Could God create a stone so heavy that even He could not lift it?

Yes, but it would be still lifted by God's God.

>Which door would the other man tell me is the exit?

Then I go through the other door.

Surah Ghafir [40:73] - Al-Qur'an al-Kareem - القرآن الكريم Then it will be said to them, "Where is that which you used to associate [with Him in worship]

Aishah (May Allah be pleased with her) said: The Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) visited me after returning from a journey, and I had a shelf with a thin cloth curtain hanging over it and on which there were portraits. When he saw it, the colour of his face changed (because of anger) and he said, "O Aishah! the most grievous torment from Allah on the Day of Resurrection will be for those who imitate (Allah) in the act of His creation.'' `Aishah said: We tore it into pieces and made a cushion or two cushions out of that. [Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

"Allah will taunt the Christians in hell, saying: Where are all my partners that you used to believe in?"

about 33% are evil
about 33% are good
about 33% are apathic and swing around regarding their morals

based upon personal experience of course

is allah really that petty?

>Sun Wukong, also known as the Monkey King, is a mythological figure who features in a body of legends, which can be traced back to the period of the Song dynasty.[2] He appears as a main character in the 16th century Chinese classical novel Journey to the West. Sun Wukong is also found in many later stories and adaptations. In the novel, he is a monkey born from a stone who acquires supernatural powers through Taoist practices. After rebelling against heaven and being imprisoned under a mountain by the Buddha, he later accompanies the monk Xuanzang on a journey to retrieve Buddhist sutras from India.

All gods are.

The master said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray.[57][58][59][60]

"Jesus son of Stada is Jesus son of Pandira?"

Rav Hisda said, "The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandera."

"But was not the husband Pappos son of Yehuda and the mother Stada?"

No, his mother was Miriam, who let her hair grow long and was called Stada. Pumbedita says about her: "She was unfaithful to her husband."[61][62][63][64]

On (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover, Jesus the Nazarene was hanged and a herald went forth before him forty days heralding, "Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and instigated and seduced Israel to idolatry. Whoever knows anything in defense may come and state it." But since they did not find anything in his defense they hanged him on (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover.

Ulla said: "Do you suppose that Jesus the Nazarene was one for whom a defense could be made? He was a mesit (someone who instigated Israel to idolatry), concerning whom the Merciful [God] says: Show him no compassion and do not shield him (Deut. 13:9). With Jesus the Nazarene it was different. For he was close to the government.[54][65][66][67]

so what you associate altruism and greed with pure good and evil? strange.

of course, human nature is different. Not every animal behaves the same way. Not to say it is some higher form of nature but distinct in its own right.

it is true tho nerd

What is good and evil?

Good is doing god's will and evil is disobeying god's will.
I suppose they have free will inherently so they can choose one or the other, so humans are naturally neither.

>Inherent evil is a problem because human beings are only held accountable for their own actions.

Held accountable by who? Certainly you don't mean other people. People get away with or get falsely convicted of crimes all the time. God then?

What about inactions?

What about involuntary actions/inactions?

What about causality chains and unintended consequences?

What about words?

What about thoughts?

>They never chose to be born, so they are innocent.

And if the entire species is under a collective death sentence handed down by God since long before their births? Humans have a fallen nature. An unborn child has a predisposition toward sin. It would choose to sin if it could. So that our sins might be limited God has limited our lives.

Anyway:

If I fall asleep while driving and mow down a class of kindergartners crossing the street, am I "held responsible"? I didn't choose to hit them. Am I "innocent" then?

If I pass out in an alley behind a nigh club and the club catches on fire but no one can get out because I'm blocking the exit door, am I "held responsible"? I didn't choose to make those people burn to death. Am I "innocent"?

"Individual responsibility" is a convenience of human legal systems and modern liberal thought that has no bearing on the question of how good or evil applies to the unborn.

Held accountable by God, for their deeds and actions.
Laziness is a sin so they'll be held accountable for that too.
Involuntary actions? No. Like what?
As for causality chains, if you do God's will and cause something bad to happen, for instance feeding a poor person which saves their life and they go on to kill someone, then no, you are not held responsible because you were doing a good deed.
Words and thoughts too.

If you knew that it was possible you would cause harm and still took the risk, you are still held responsible. It's like manslaughter.

>Good is doing god's will and evil is disobeying god's will.
Sounds like relativistic bullshit to me

>is ios better than android?

If he says yes then he's the liar.

OH SHIT THIS AGAIN

Perhaps human beings are variables, not constants? I've got a crazy idea that Darwin himself supported.

What if human beings are a product of their environment? Put them in a rat race and they'll act like rats no matter how much money you give me. Put them in a comfortable environment and they'll be social. There wouldn't be a need to compete for resources in a non-competitive environment.

>
>We can use the principles of rationality and logic to determine moral behavior, but I guess you could always claim "who says logic or rationality is good."

well rationality and logic wouldn't be able to explain which rewards in the afterlife await those who put morality above their profit as opposed to those who don't

>evil

>
>>Good is doing god's will and evil is disobeying god's will.
>Sounds like relativistic bullshit to me

at least conjectural god effectively comes up with rewards and punishment as opposed to the pointlessness of virtue for its own sake (like caring about those who are unable to retaliate, which will make emotivists scream about "sociopathy" if you aren't crippled by empathy like them but anti-relativists aren't usually emotivists)

>"Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong."

Humans are right.

>emotivists scream about "sociopathy" if you aren't crippled by empathy
Which is retarded anyhow, since empathy has jack shit to do with being good.

I believe it is good, not from a moral standpoint, but from one of survival. The main reason humans were able to rise was because of teamwork. If we all acted like asses, we would go lone wolf and never have the ability to make civilizations. All things come from a point of greed, and good is no different.

Evil is just misguided or misappropriated good

2148803
>Which is retarded anyhow, since empathy has jack shit to do with being good.

well since they are unable to show what's the point in putting morality above profit or whim (i.e. answering the famous question "or what?") then they try to shame greedy or sadistic people (although they often are the same people denouncing heteronormativity and social construct by encouraging to "be yourself and don't be ashamed of your inclinations")

Indeed, God is hedonistic in a sense. One is driven to the greatest pleasures and away from the greatest displeasures.
If one views the heavenly to be rewarded as greater than earthly pleasure, it is merely a matter of temporal placement. But being that a present pleasure and a future pleasure are qualitatively the same, one sees that a greater future pleasure is more desirable.
There is also the cost of a sinful earthly pleasure, great displeasure which one would want to avoid more so than the displeasure of altruistic behavior.

Humans are inherently biased towards their own self interest. Everything else is secondary (excepting cases where an individual places a certain thing or concept above their notion of self).

hear, hear

I would say Neutral and gullible

Good and evil are antiquated morality structures which are only useful in the vaguest "I know it when I see it" sense, and break down utterly when subjected to quantitative analysis.

From a historical sense they can trace their beginnings as codified concepts to the reign of Cyrus the Great and the foundation of the Achaemenid Persian Empire, with Cyrus representing our earliest archetype for a "good" ruler (comes from humble origins, forgives his defeated enemies, shows compassion for conquered people, rules justly and fairly) which contrasts with the "evil" Babylonian status quo that he supplanted (bloodthirsty conquerors who oppress their own citizens without recourse with a state dominated by a privileged religious/land owning class who rig society in their favor while hoarding the fruits of its output).
Of course history is written by the victors and that entire story is probably Kim Jong-il-grade propaganda meant to legitimize the Persian state, but what remains true is that for the first time in history rulers were subject to an ethical mandate which they faced deposition for betraying, and it is out of this discussion about good and evil that we get the rise of the modern major world religions and the first true concepts of philosophy.

It was Nietzsche who (in)famously codified the "death" of good and evil as useful constructs, noting that they only really work when subjected to a universal omnipresent viewpoint ("monotheism") and modern humans tend to analyze human morality using more scientifically quantifiable concepts like evolutionary biology and psychology which dispenses with the either-or dichotomy in favor of a more subtle, nuanced understanding.

That's basically the opposite of what Dawkins says.

They have the capacity for both. Depending on circumstance they will do good or evil (unless they have some kind of mental disorder).

Good and evil don't exist, only what's good for me and what's bad for me does.

>good
>evil
Good and evil are concepts tied to the human race, they have no place in the grand scheme of things. We are merely a tiny spec of dust compared to what's out there, we don't even know if what's out there thinks in a similar way to us.
Still, in human society, it's useful to know what at this relative time and place is considered to be good or evil by the people that surround you and see the action you are committing, so that you can at least avoid social backlash.
Just my 2 cents, and they're worth nothing

Human behavior is the end result of a long process which favors the perpetuation of individuals who have characteristics that improve their chances to reproduce and pass on their genes. Whether this makes man good or evil is up to you.

Humans arent born spooked, they become spooked over time.

Half of them are inherently good, other half is inherently evil. Ever heard of psychopaths, autists and females? They are in evil part.

Depends.Depends how the human(man or woman)is raise.If the human is raise in a wealth family,with good and lovely parents and with good friends,maybe that human be more altruist than others.But,if the human is raise in a bad family,with abusive parents,and have bad(or don't have)companies,maybe that human have more antipatthy,narcissism,machiavellianism,etc.

Or if they are raised rich they become snobs, and if they're raised poor they grow up to want to help other downtrodden folks.

Humans are inheritly good.
When given a choice between a good and an evil deed that requiere equal effort, a human will always choose good.
Evil only exists out of necessity (lack of ressources, lack of trust, lack of information and so on)

They are a posteriori judgements. Same with altruistic/selfish or anything like that.

No it doesn't.

Is there an answer to this?

What would the other guy say is the exit

People are people, good and evil are concepts, i fail to see how the former could be either of the latter