Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Good and evil do not exist in any objective sense. As such, it is inherently foolish to ask the question of whether or not humans are inherently good or evil. Instead, it is better to state that humans are humans, and that their actions have consequences which are often either unintended, or unappreciated. This applies to both positive, and negative consequences.

If you insist on pressing the good v. evil dichotomy, then the only conclusion one can reach is that all people are both good and evil.

Lordhat wrote:The thought that mass extinction is a bad thing? Ludicrous. It's happened over and over. Even if WE'RE the cause of the next one, it's how life works. Even if we ourselves are a part of the next one, it's still how life works.

The extinction of the human race would be bad by the standards of any rational human. The defense of 'its how life works' is not one grounded in any moral imperative. Its like saying 'people die' after your mother is murdered in cold blood.

No one is good or bad, were all just different shades of grey.

I belive People are good,for the simple fact that even the most sick people belive what they are doing is a good thing. No sane person wakes up and goes "MUAH ha ha ha what evil scheme can I hatch today." The fact that evil people must justify thier deads, even to themselves, leads me to belive that that thing we have called a conscience. I belive that people who haven't one lose the thing that makes them human.

whatwhat wrote:Yeh the statement that humanities actions are just like any other species in nature is a bit flawed. Humanities evolution is evidence of nature overtaking itself and creating something which doesn't fit.

Dude. What are you talking about? Humanity doesn't "fit?" Are you saying that nature "messed up" or something? That is one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.

dogma wrote:The extinction of the human race would be bad by the standards of any rational human. The defense of 'its how life works' is not one grounded in any moral imperative. Its like saying 'people die' after your mother is murdered in cold blood.

But everybody does die. Just because your example includes an unpleasant reminder that would be in poor taste, doesn't make it any less true.

Is doing whatever it takes to survive evil?

warpcrafter wrote:Is doing whatever it takes to survive evil?

If you do it yes, if I do it no.

George Spiggott wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:Is doing whatever it takes to survive evil?

If you do it yes, if I do it no.

Now that's getting to the heart of the matter. Do unto others before they have a chance to do unto you, and check his wallet for cash while you're at it.

Hordini wrote:
But everybody does die. Just because your example includes an unpleasant reminder that would be in poor taste, doesn't make it any less true.

The reality of a process does not mean that it should not be struggled against, only that we should not be preoccupied with our inevitable failure to overcome it. 'People die' is a true statement. 'Species go extinct' is also a true statement. However the truth of these statements does not generate any logical imperative to permit the occurrence of death, or extinction, where it could have been reasonably prevented. Its like saying 'people fail' and then deciding preemptively that your inevitable failure to pass a test justifies your refusal to make any attempt to pass it.

I'm with Dogma on this one. Good and evil are such relative terms (and human ideas I should add) that it is impossible to objectively determine if humans are good or evil.

What's the next topic gonna be? Are zebras black or white?

Humans are inherently good.

This is why in war we are reluctant to kill even our enemies.

Hordini wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Yeh the statement that humanities actions are just like any other species in nature is a bit flawed. Humanities evolution is evidence of nature overtaking itself and creating something which doesn't fit.

Dude. What are you talking about? Humanity doesn't "fit?" Are you saying that nature "messed up" or something? That is one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.

Really? Well i personally don't know of any ecosystem where humanity exists in equilibrium, unlike most other species.

In the world of Criminology...

Theories abound...

All people are born good but... their environment (parents, suburb, country, rich, poor, etc) make them bad.

All people are born bad but... their environment (caring family, helping friends, effective government programs, low crime rate, etc) make them good.

All people are born good but... opportunities arise (to steal, commit fraud, assault persons, kill, etc) make them bad.

There are more, but these three are the main current theories... which one applies to YOU?

Mik

@Whatwhat

Native humans lived/still live in harmony with nature. More of the world did than didn't tell a few hundred years ago.

I believe humans should be naturally good but , they arnt honest to themselves. Which then stems to countless other variations of evil.

I also believe humans have not evolved enough to be able to be freed from their homunculi .
And to my personal believe, religion have raised this issue of this struggle since the ancient times "ālayavijñāna"

Humans are social, cooperative animals, and they have an inherent instinct to be good to each other which aids survival of all. This is borne out by the teachings of almost all human societies.

Under conditions of environmental stress, such as starvation, this basic instinct can become suppressed, causing people to attack other people for the sake of their own survival.

Any population contains a range of whatever quality you want to examine. Thus, in the human population, there are outliers who are either more co-operative or less co-operative than the average; these are the saints a criminals.

Society as a whole can carry a number of free riders but it breaks down once the free riders exceed a critical limit.

sexiest_hero wrote:@Whatwhat

Native humans lived/still live in harmony with nature. More of the world did than didn't tell a few hundred years ago.

Native humans maybe, of which there are very few. Whatsmore the rest of humanity actually impeeds on their way of living and they are now finding it hard. Due to things like deforistation.

As it stands most of humanity wouldn't be able to live if they could only support themselves by their local ecosystem, the main problem being there wouldn't be enough food for everyone. Whatsmore you only have to look at a few statistics to see were actually going to run out of food sooner or later, so Hordini arguing that humanity fit with the rest of nature is a bit laughable to be honest.

whatwhat wrote:
As it stands most of humanity wouldn't be able to live if they could only support themselves by their local ecosystem, the main problem being there wouldn't be enough food for everyone. Whatsmore you only have to look at a few statistics to see were actually going to run out of food sooner or later, so Hordini arguing that humanity fit with the rest of nature is a bit laughable to be honest.

That still fits with nature. All natural creatures eventually contend with the burdens of success. Run into the limits of their environment. And go into a state of contraction. Assuming they don't adapt, of course. You're assuming that nature if nice, warm, fluffy balance in which nothing bad ever happens and cool breezes always blow. Sorry, that picture is inaccurate. Nature is savage and competitive, it only looks nice because we are almost universally assured of our ability to maneuver through it given out technological adaptations.

Ok, all your doing there is disagreeing with my definition of nature. I was staiting that "nature" in it's simplest terms is a balanced. As it stands humanity exists outside of any system of balance and comsumes until what it is consuming runs out. Every other mamal (and most animals in general) expand to a numbr which is balanced with their souroundings (ie takes enough to survive but not too much for things not to renew) then exist in equilibrium with the rest of their ecosystem.

Yes you could argue that the prduction of a super race which overtakes everything else is "nature," but thats just debating the definition of the word nature. My statement was simple, mankind doesn't fit when compared with most other species on earth.

edit: In fact it could be argued the thing in nature we actually share most in common with is a virus. Take until what we are taking is depleted then move on.

dogma wrote:

Hordini wrote:
But everybody does die. Just because your example includes an unpleasant reminder that would be in poor taste, doesn't make it any less true.

The reality of a process does not mean that it should not be struggled against, only that we should not be preoccupied with our inevitable failure to overcome it. 'People die' is a true statement. 'Species go extinct' is also a true statement. However the truth of these statements does not generate any logical imperative to permit the occurrence of death, or extinction, where it could have been reasonably prevented. Its like saying 'people fail' and then deciding preemptively that your inevitable failure to pass a test justifies your refusal to make any attempt to pass it.

I didn't say "don't try to prevent it." I said it doesn't bother me when it happens. It's not the end of the world. Even if it happens enough to be the end of humanity, it STILL won't be the end of the world. Do I lack human moral imperative? Probably. But then, seeing what human moral imperative inflicts on humanity, I'm ok with that.

There are plenty of other species that are overpopulated in some areas, whatwhat, and have no other natural predators besides humans. There are other species that waste resources, and take more than they need.

I really don't get the idea that humans are something separate from the rest of the natural world. We came into being in the natural world, we developed in the natural world, we continue to exist in the natural world, and we affect the natural world, just as everything else within it does. So what makes humanity so unnatural?

Hordini wrote: So what makes humanity so unnatural?

Nothing, but our collective 'ego' won't let us see it that way.

This thread is a waterfall of pointless bickering.

ShumaGorath wrote:This thread is a waterfall of pointless bickering.

In that case, I suggest we all get nude and ride down that waterfall of pointless bickering in a giant barrel.


Figuratively speaking.

That sounds like a GUYSPAM if I ever saw one!

It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious.

whatwhat wrote:Ok, all your doing there is disagreeing with my definition of nature. I was staiting that "nature" in it's simplest terms is a balanced.

The problem is that nature isn't balanced at all. Not even in the simplest terms. Unless by the simplest terms you meant an environmentalist wet dream. Nature is in 'balance' because it is in constant flux. A process which can cause the explosive expansion, or extinction of any species at any given time. And no, I am not disagreeing with your definition of nature, only your understanding of that definition which seems to ignore the realities of temporal perspective.

whatwhat wrote:
As it stands humanity exists outside of any system of balance and comsumes until what it is consuming runs out. Every other mamal (and most animals in general) expand to a numbr which is balanced with their souroundings (ie takes enough to survive but not too much for things not to renew) then exist in equilibrium with the rest of their ecosystem.

That's because there are other environmental factors which hold them in check. It isn't like wolves just decide to stop eating sheep because they no longer want to do so. They stop eating sheep because hunting is dangerous, and energy intensive so it only makes sense to hunt when the hunt is necessary. If the hunt could be made less energy intensive (perhaps because a new source of game could be found), the wolves would hunt more. Right up until the hunt became so unproductive as to cause a population contraction. This happened all the time when America was first settled. It was only an active effort to keep the wolf population in check which inevitably broke the cycle.

whatwhat wrote:
Yes you could argue that the prduction of a super race which overtakes everything else is "nature," but thats just debating the definition of the word nature. My statement was simple, mankind doesn't fit when compared with most other species on earth.

Except they do, perfectly. We're simply better at the game than every other species on the planet.

whatwhat wrote:
edit: In fact it could be argued the thing in nature we actually share most in common with is a virus. Take until what we are taking is depleted then move on.

Yes, we all saw the Matrix. The thing is that the virus analogy is a poor one as it necessarily ignores the migratory patterns of most wildlife. Any given creature will take what it can from its environment, and move on when there is nothing left to take.

Frazzled wrote:Humans are animals. We are semi-predators without the usual built in inhibitors about wacking our own kind. We survive because we are the strongest. Proper civilization and religion protects us from ourselves.

Animals fight for territory and resources all the time. On the other hand if we not inherently good we would probably still not be around.

sexiest_hero wrote:@Whatwhat

Native humans lived/still live in harmony with nature. More of the world did than didn't tell a few hundred years ago.

LOL!
Which of us are not native humans.
On top off that you would anthropomorphize Nature like you could talk to it and get along.