Human nature

[Minty-Hippo]

Is it in human nature to be of negative disposition and be selfish and evil? Or are all humans capable of something incredibly good? I for one live on the theory that until conventional trainings all humans are evil selfish things whos only mission is to meet there needs. Discuss

[Draconias]

Yes, humans are selfish- as they should be. Your first concern should always be your own health and protection because you are no good to anyone else dead! It is not evil or somehow sinful to be concerned with yourself, your own wellbeing, and your own life. That is how it should be.

You fall into the class of what I call "Humanist Cynics." You believe the worst you possibly can about humans because you don't have your priorities in the proper order and do not understand why certain things are the way they are. Concern for others should be commended, yes, and active disregard for others discouraged, but concern for self should be accpted as a necessary, neither evil nor good, necessity.

[Dr-Worm]

At 1/23/07 12:08 PM, Myownmax wrote: Is it in human nature to be of negative disposition and be selfish and evil? Or are all humans capable of something incredibly good? I for one live on the theory that until conventional trainings all humans are evil selfish things whos only mission is to meet there needs. Discuss

Actually, I think history, psychology, and philosophy make it appear to be the other way around, sorta. According to Locke, when a baby is born, their mind is completely blank (tabula rasa is the technical term). The values and environment they are raised on/in determine their disposition and morality (good or evil). I think, though, that most people are generally born with the instincts not to do injustice against other people. It is the "training" of them that can corrupt them (take the Hitler Youth vs. American children for example.)

[Not-a-panda]

After talking about it a few months ago I have come to beleive that good and evil is forced upon us. What is evil for one person may not necessarily evil for another. Our sense of good and evil is determined by those around us and what they bring us up to beleive.

[Altarus]

It is human nature to be kind and helpful toward those with similar genetic makeup. However, to those with different genetic make-up, we are supposed to be vicious and unforgiving. This is the doing of evolution. It explains why families and stuff get along so well, but why people in completely different countries that know nothing about each other deem fit to judge each other.

[Dark-Vegeto]

My view on human nature is that it is niether good nor evil, and I believe so because the actions that are part of human nature are can be either good or evil, depending on the circumstances at the time. Humans by nature fight each other, which is an evil, but if he was trying to kill a lot of people then you are doing something for the greater good of humanity, and thus is an act of good. Or the big question: Killing another person, I can anwser this, if it saves more than just your life then, you have commited an act of good, but if it is just yours or you murder him, or to get revenge, it's an act of evil. Humans are by nature flawed and desire to know everything, but this has equal amounts of goods and evils.

[Dealy-rizazamatizazz]

Maybe? I think humans can be either, sometimes both, it depends on how you were raise, but if we were as nature intended, we'd just sleep, eat, and have sex all day like animals.

[Electric-Bla]

At 1/29/07 04:42 PM, Dealy-rizazamatizazz wrote: ...but if we were as nature intended, we'd just sleep, eat, and have sex all day like animals.

And the problem with that is?

But I don't know, It's 100% in my nature to be as helpful and kind to those around me as possible. Although that could be as you guys said and a conditioned behaviour.

[D2Kvirus]

Human nature says you shouldn't wake up at 6:30 in the morning five days a week and go to a job that doesn't fulfill or satisfy you in any way apart from the sightly-too-small paycheque at the end of the week that gets swallowed up by taxes and numerous payments/repayments - which is the reason people that work 9-5 get colds a lot more than people that get to have a lie in and can pick and choose their hours accordingly.

[sk-champloo]

human nature is to find the most attractive partner possible and keep having sex with them until one of you gets bored and goes to find a better, more attractive partner.

[thrakish]

guys... we're all just living on the planet of the apes, dont dwell on it with such persistence. before i can even speculate on the manorism of men, i must evaluate what a man actually is. in essence, we are only seperated from other primates because our pricks are circumcised. =I

[Kenzu]

Human nature is nothing more than the personal search for endorphines and dopamines.

Some people get them by getting rich and buying everything they want, others look for love, others take drugs, others kill for fun....

...and some people try to make others happy by helping them, being good friends and partners and thus they are happy as well.

[TheNoLifeKing]

Personally I don't think it's normal for one to value another over themsleves. Its not being selfish its natural instinct. Everyone wants to sucessed in life so stomping on others is going to happen. We must fight to survive as our primative offsprings once did. Tis the way of life.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Humans are by birth, animals. If Lord of the Flies teaches us anything it's that we are animals controlled by the laws of society.

But in the same instance, we are also capable of tremendous acts of generousity and kindness.

I think this just really reflects the duality of man that Jung talked about.

[Dre-Man]

No men are born altruistic, no, I do not believe that.

[morefngdbs]

At 1/25/07 12:34 AM, Not-a-panda wrote: After talking about it a few months ago I have come to beleive that good and evil is forced upon us. What is evil for one person may not necessarily evil for another. Our sense of good and evil is determined by those around us and what they bring us up to beleive.

;
Perhaps that is so.
Esp. if what is held to be good is something you are comfortable with, so then what makes you uncomfortable could then be called evil or wicked, wrong ,whatever the appropriate label one wishes to use.
I was raised that I should treat the people I meet & interact with the way I wish to be treated.
It seems to work with almost everyone.
Show them some respect, you get some in return.
Now that hasn't been the case 100% of the time.
That's why when a person attempted to mug me & my girlfriend they ended up being stomped on.
Not the way I would typically react when meeting someone new, but it seemed to be the way to go at the time.
:)

[Athlas]

At 2/5/07 05:11 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:
I think this just really reflects the duality of man that Jung talked about.

Might I add Nietzsche to this discussion?

Nietzsche, as most of you probaly know, believed that 'good' and 'evil' were merely superficial human philosophies, failed attempts at indexing the universe into two. He believed that once we could free ourselves from the prejudgemental moral codes imbedded in our society, we could become a higher being, an "Übermensch", as a he called it.

I, for one, agree with him. I don't think anyone is actually capable of attaining anything significant by freeing himself from the chains and strains of society, but I do believe good and evil are extremes, and dangerous paths to walk when comparing and thinking about oneself and your surroundings. Good and evil are philosophies for the simple-minded that should be avoided.

I say there's no such thing as good and evil, good and evil are nothing more then our own definition of life.

So about the claims of the topic starter: I don't think there is a single creature on this planet that's 'evil'. An 'evil' deed could be done with 'good' intentions, or a 'good' deed could be done with 'evil' effects.

For instance, look at the Hurricane Katrina disaster that struck the southern US last year (or has it been 2 years since?). People who had lost their family and friends, their house and pets, all of their worldly possesions, suddenly had to look out for thmselves. They had no food or blankets, so they took what they needed to survive from stores that had been struck by disaster. The stores' owners were missing, and even if they had managed to survive, the decaying goods in their stores were hardly going to be of any value to them once they could pick up their lives after the flood. Taking what you need to survive in times of disaster isn't robbery, it's common sense. What good is the law when you're starving to death? So what did uncle sam do once he'd reached the struck cities? He opened fire on innocent civilians who hadn't received any assistance from their government. I'm not denying there were common looters among them, out for nothing but their own gain, but that hardly counts as an excuse to allow soldiers to abuse their power.

So, basically, according to the law, they were doing an 'evil' deed, which is forbidden. From their own point of view, they were doing a 'good' deed (obviously not the right word, but it comes down to that), namely trying to survive.

It all comes down to perspective. And if history teaches us anything, it's shown us that human perceptions are horribly flawed.

*end rant*

(my apologies for this long, insignificant post)

[Dre-Man]

Don't you know that they have scientifically observed young children (who have not had rules and moral pounded into their heads yet) and found that they are naturally brutal beings? Humans are naturally animals.

[random8982]

At 2/6/07 04:17 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Don't you know that they have scientifically observed young children (who have not had rules and moral pounded into their heads yet) and found that they are naturally brutal beings? Humans are naturally animals.

While it is a reasonable assumption that without the rules of society a human would grow to be a savage, I would love to see a link to this study.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 2/6/07 04:15 PM, Athlas wrote:

At 2/5/07 05:11 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

It all comes down to perspective. And if history teaches us anything, it's shown us that human perceptions are horribly flawed.

While I can understand that view of life, it begs into question other beliefs.

I mean, it is impossible to compute those beliefs with most or all religions, because those religions have rules of life of what you have to live by, whats good and whats evil.

Along with that is if you believe in the rights of man and republicanism. If you believe in those thoughts as well, you know that men are entiled certain rights by natural order, and that the infringement on those rights is also evil.

So to accept Nietzche's view, you would have to drop other views.

[Dre-Man]

At 2/6/07 04:45 PM, random8982 wrote: While it is a reasonable assumption that without the rules of society a human would grow to be a savage, I would love to see a link to this study.

I didn't get it off of a website... sorry :(

[Athlas]

At 2/6/07 05:30 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 2/6/07 04:15 PM, Athlas wrote:

At 2/5/07 05:11 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

It all comes down to perspective. And if history teaches us anything, it's shown us that human perceptions are horribly flawed.

While I can understand that view of life, it begs into question other beliefs.

I mean, it is impossible to compute those beliefs with most or all religions, because those religions have rules of life of what you have to live by, whats good and whats evil.

I think religion became obsolete quite some time ago.

Like Nietzsche said, "god is dead". He ceased playing any role in society as technology and social complexity rose over the past centuries.

Along with that is if you believe in the rights of man and republicanism. If you believe in those thoughts as well, you know that men are entiled certain rights by natural order, and that the infringement on those rights is also evil.

The way I see it, human rights are above laws and moral codes. I believe in the indisputable freedom of the individual. By that, I mean 'real' freedom: to be free of society in and its rules in every single way, so long as no harm is done to another, because that would be a violation of his or her rights.

So to accept Nietzche's view, you would have to drop other views.

Very true.

But then again, I doubt anyone will ever accomplish becoming an "Übermensch" the way Nietsche described it.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 2/7/07 08:36 AM, Athlas wrote:

At 2/6/07 05:30 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 2/6/07 04:15 PM, Athlas wrote:

At 2/5/07 05:11 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Like Nietzsche said, "god is dead". He ceased playing any role in society as technology and social complexity rose over the past centuries.

Belief but the fact still holds true that the majority of the worlds population believes in one religion or another.

The way I see it, human rights are above laws and moral codes. I believe in the indisputable freedom of the individual. By that, I mean 'real' freedom: to be free of society in and its rules in every single way, so long as no harm is done to another, because that would be a violation of his or her rights.

But the belief that there are universal rights to every man means that in parallel there is a negative, a restriction of rights.

Very true.

But then again, I doubt anyone will ever accomplish becoming an "Übermensch" the way Nietsche described it.

Never like Nietsche much, was always more of a Loche fan.