<< If you can't see that the NY firefighters' altruistic acts of heroism aren't a clear testament to Man's good nature, you are being cynical.
They did what anyone else would do in their place. How can we call it altruistic when we know that they knew they would be glorified and turned into heros? Then they go and pose for calenders, do endorsements. These "altruistic acts of heroism" are a marketing label, they just did their jobs, and got caught up in the energy of the moment, a collective cause. >>
I think that was a bit extreme... I would explain it by saying that these firemen were socially conditioned to act altruistically. However, if you are talking about how people naturally are (naturally is a vague term, but I take it to mean something like "default" state), then I would say people are naturally selfish.
<<
<< Man isn't inherently anything...man is a SPECIAL creature, in that via its ability to reason, it can identify and objectify anything, including its impulses (feelings, instincts, hungers/lusts) and other qualities due to said impulses (jealousy, etc...) B/c of this, man also is able to "like" stuff and "dislike" stuff; to condemn or revere...thus, these impulses and such, cultivated by reason, and society, create the concepts of good and evil... >>
It's a lot simpler than that, actually. Any pro-survival behaviour brings pleasure (good). Any contra-survival behaviour brings pain(evil). Pleasure and pain are the only motivating factors in life. That's it! >>
That also sounds a bit extreme. Human behavior cannot be explained merely in terms of pain or pleasure. Even animal behavior can't be explained in such terms... take for example salmon who swim alllllllllll the way upstream just to lay some eggs. Where is the pleasure in that? Surely it doesn't involve avoidance of pain....
man was born evil, because we all are born greedy (thats why communism failed) and hunger for power, thats why we have goverments to keep order
man was born good because we dont kill each other to fight over for food and shelter like animals do.
second thought we probably would kill each other if we were put in the wild with no technolgies to rely on.
we dont kill each other not because we have morals but because we are fearful of the consequences in a cilviled society
man was born good because we dont kill each other to fight over for food and shelter like animals do.
second thought we probably would kill each other if we were put in the wild with no technolgies to rely on.
we dont kill each other not because we have morals but because we are fearful of the consequences in a cilviled society
<< Wow, what a loaded question. I would have to say that man is born with the tendancy to experiment with what he sees as evil, but the desire to aspire to what he perceives as good >>
I dig that.
"It's a lot simpler than that, actually. Any pro-survival behaviour brings pleasure (good). Any contra-survival behaviour brings pain(evil). Pleasure and pain are the only motivating factors in life. That's it"
I beg to differ, hon'!
If that theory were true, then we would have little issues with junk foods, crimes, etc.
Evil usually Brings Pleasure and good is the harder to obtain. So, it's quite the opposite of your statement, unless you're trying to infer that evil is the right path that sustains man. I don't find that to be true, for only that which works contrary to the benefit of man or man's interest is usually tagged as evil. So, junk food wouldn't be tagged as bad if it turned out it worked best for people's health, for instance. The healthier foods are often the least appealing in taste. Yes, there are some foods that taste bad and are bad for the body; but more often than not, healthy foods don't taste good and even taste horrible. The only way your theory would work is if you put it to mean what ultimately gets into your body and the resulting effect. But if taht is so, then is it really pleasure when nature has it displeasurable in our taste buds?
In a nutshell, I disagree with your statement and think the opposite is true.
I beg to differ, hon'!
If that theory were true, then we would have little issues with junk foods, crimes, etc.
Evil usually Brings Pleasure and good is the harder to obtain. So, it's quite the opposite of your statement, unless you're trying to infer that evil is the right path that sustains man. I don't find that to be true, for only that which works contrary to the benefit of man or man's interest is usually tagged as evil. So, junk food wouldn't be tagged as bad if it turned out it worked best for people's health, for instance. The healthier foods are often the least appealing in taste. Yes, there are some foods that taste bad and are bad for the body; but more often than not, healthy foods don't taste good and even taste horrible. The only way your theory would work is if you put it to mean what ultimately gets into your body and the resulting effect. But if taht is so, then is it really pleasure when nature has it displeasurable in our taste buds?
In a nutshell, I disagree with your statement and think the opposite is true.
<< They are aware of only themselves, and care only for themselves.
Do babies have ego without language? Are they aware of duality? If not, we cannot make the claim that they are selfish, but they are selfish relative to our notions.
Cheers !
>>We can make the claim that they are selfish, since to do so, we have to first use our own definition of selfish. Else, we cant say anything about anything.
dfi
<< I think that man is born stupid and he dies stupid
EDIT: and in between he's stupid, too >>
That's stupid!
Oops, you just proved your point!
dfi
I don't think anyone is naturally good or evil. Besides which, there are a lot of things that can be swung either way. If you let a small underling who's personally killed a few people go free in order to catch a leader whose commands might bring death to hundreds or thousands, can that be totally evil or totally good? On the one hand, you let a person who you know for sure has killed walk free, but on the other you might prevent the deaths of so many more by doing so.
There might be an inclination to one or the other by nature, but I think it all boils down to a matter of all the experiences the person goes through, and the personality that forms because of those experiences. The human mind's way too complicated to ever know exactly how someone'll react to something, since it also depends on what experiences they had before. All those experiences/thoughts/encounters build up to make everyone who they are.
That why there are some people totally willing to give their own lives for a cause, and others think only of themselves. Some say this might also be why we're having so many problems with the Middle East and other areas. Apparently, the source might have been totally biased of course, the children there are raised to believe certain things, like the US is pure evil. Because they have no experiences to say otherwise, they grow up with it and eventually accept it as truth until it becomes such a part of themselves that they can't accept anything else. They're also raised to believe fully in the extreme forms of Islam, disregarding the peaceful nature of it entirely and using jihad (which apparently doesn't actually mean a holy war but really a struggle, and more of a struggle against one's own inner demons-correct me if my sources are again wrong) and the idea of heavenly salvation as a way of encouraging self-sacrifice. In other places, a person might find that his mindset allows him to truely enjoy helping others out, and becomes a truely generous giver. Others might find that doing good gets them respect, as others pointed out before, and do good just for that. Yet others might find that they really don't care about others, and try to serve or save themselves. Whatever the case, it's a case of what kind of experiences each person went through, and how they reacted to them and what they learned from them. These all determine how they'll react to things in the future. Well, that's my ideas on it.
There might be an inclination to one or the other by nature, but I think it all boils down to a matter of all the experiences the person goes through, and the personality that forms because of those experiences. The human mind's way too complicated to ever know exactly how someone'll react to something, since it also depends on what experiences they had before. All those experiences/thoughts/encounters build up to make everyone who they are.
That why there are some people totally willing to give their own lives for a cause, and others think only of themselves. Some say this might also be why we're having so many problems with the Middle East and other areas. Apparently, the source might have been totally biased of course, the children there are raised to believe certain things, like the US is pure evil. Because they have no experiences to say otherwise, they grow up with it and eventually accept it as truth until it becomes such a part of themselves that they can't accept anything else. They're also raised to believe fully in the extreme forms of Islam, disregarding the peaceful nature of it entirely and using jihad (which apparently doesn't actually mean a holy war but really a struggle, and more of a struggle against one's own inner demons-correct me if my sources are again wrong) and the idea of heavenly salvation as a way of encouraging self-sacrifice. In other places, a person might find that his mindset allows him to truely enjoy helping others out, and becomes a truely generous giver. Others might find that doing good gets them respect, as others pointed out before, and do good just for that. Yet others might find that they really don't care about others, and try to serve or save themselves. Whatever the case, it's a case of what kind of experiences each person went through, and how they reacted to them and what they learned from them. These all determine how they'll react to things in the future. Well, that's my ideas on it.
All people are bad, they can't help it, it is in their nature. There are some people that are good, but not very many unfortunately. I think that most people want to be good people, but most of them fail miserably.
<< Evil usually Brings Pleasure and good is the harder to obtain. So, it's quite the opposite of your statement, unless you're trying to infer that evil is the right path that sustains man. I don't find that to be true, for only that which works contrary to the benefit of man or man's interest is usually tagged as evil. So, junk food wouldn't be tagged as bad if it turned out it worked best for people's health, for instance. The healthier foods are often the least appealing in taste. Yes, there are some foods that taste bad and are bad for the body; but more often than not, healthy foods don't taste good and even taste horrible. The only way your theory would work is if you put it to mean what ultimately gets into your body and the resulting effect. But if taht is so, then is it really pleasure when nature has it displeasurable in our taste buds? >>
I don't think you read my post correctly. Contrasurvival behaviour=evil. Prosurvival=good. I have a buddy that shares your 'junk food' theory. But like I've read somewhere, "there's no such thing as junk food, only junk diets". You see, fat is prosurvival. Sugar is prosurvival. Everything that brings pleasure is prosurvival.
You should take a moment and think about it: What in your life has brought you pleasure (emotional or physical) and what has brought you pain (emotional or physical)? Have these activities not increased your (or someone's) survival potential?
Evil. You don't have to teach a 2-year old to disobey/misbehave.
Ignorance does not excuse immorality.
If I did whatever was "pleasurable" or "prosurvival," I would most definitely not be behaving morally. I recognize many of my desires as evil desires. Self-serving/self-seeking desires are not indications of any kind of true love, yet this seems to be the norm. In other works, I recognize that I am evil by the conflict between good and evil within me. I don't have to struggle to commit sin. That part comes naturally.
Ignorance does not excuse immorality.
If I did whatever was "pleasurable" or "prosurvival," I would most definitely not be behaving morally. I recognize many of my desires as evil desires. Self-serving/self-seeking desires are not indications of any kind of true love, yet this seems to be the norm. In other works, I recognize that I am evil by the conflict between good and evil within me. I don't have to struggle to commit sin. That part comes naturally.
eplebnista
Lifer
- Dec 3, 2001
- 24,123
- 36
- 91
Neither without any of the two. IMO, there is no such thing as good and evil. When something happens, it just is what it is -- it's neutral. It's like looking at an inkblot. We use these labels to fit how we want to see things.
I think Abraham Maslow said that man is inharently good.
I think that people are not born the same. Different people have different traits. Different societies have different moraes (sp). I think we spend most of our lives trying to figure out who we are and how we fit into the world. Is good and evil an act? Or is there something that determines an intrinsic value that is thought to be within one of us...... all of us..... us..... them.....? I don't really know what the next part of the equastion is. Some how I want to work equality into it, but can't seem to find the words.
Just a thought.
Will
I think that people are not born the same. Different people have different traits. Different societies have different moraes (sp). I think we spend most of our lives trying to figure out who we are and how we fit into the world. Is good and evil an act? Or is there something that determines an intrinsic value that is thought to be within one of us...... all of us..... us..... them.....? I don't really know what the next part of the equastion is. Some how I want to work equality into it, but can't seem to find the words.
Just a thought.
Will
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter