Evil: Choice or Instinct

[darkmage099]

Question: Are humans inherently evil or is it a choice (by free will)?

 

 

 

Religion has nothing to do with this so dont throw any "The Bible said..." crap.

 

 

 

To be honest mate, with a subject as contentious as this, someone's religion might have everything to do with it.

 

 

 

It's certainly neither mine nor your place to decide that.

 

 

 

Hm exactly..I can't really post anything on it. Because I believe in "The Bible Said.." crap.

 

 

 

Well, you umm just posted...So dont post...

[Barihawk]

While the Bible may say that all humans are inheritantly evil...I have to agree.

 

 

 

Take two children in an average middle class family. Teach one right from wrong, discipline him, etc. Let the other roam free like a wild animal, no teaching of manners or discipline.

 

 

 

Who's going to turn out to be the better kid?

 

 

 

The first one, of course. The point is, we have to be taught the difference from right and wrong. It's not instinct to know the difference. I have a few psychological and sociological details, but I won't bore you guys, since most seem to agree with me.

[assassin_696]

Evil, in the conventional use of the term, is a very strong trait to say that we have built into us. In fact, it stinks of an absolute, which I don't believe in.

 

 

 

I don't think anybody is inherently evil, I think people have certain genetic instincts and traits, which they might or might not act on, which might lead them to do things that we might consider evil, but generally if they're genetic they'll only encourage us to do things which will propogate our genes.

 

 

 

I think a lot of it, as Bari said, has to do with nurture, how the child is brought up in the world, how it's taught right from wrong. Whether or not nurture could completely override instinct i'm not sure about.

[Barihawk]

You are right, evil is a strong word.

 

 

 

A better way to phrase it is that we would only make decisions based on what is beneficial to us, with no thought going to the experiences of others, if we were not taught right from wrong.

 

 

 

We are a very self-indulgent species, even after we have been taught such principles regardless.

 

 

 

Whether or not nurture could completely override instinct i'm not sure about.

 

 

 

It helps a lot, but even after people know the difference between right and wrong, some will still choose wrong because it benefits them. Otherwise we wouldn't have so much crime (by crime, I mean the full gamut from petty theft to tax evasion).

[assassin_696]

You are right, evil is a strong word.

 

 

 

A better way to phrase it is that we would only make decisions based on what is beneficial to us, with no thought going to the experiences of others, if we were not taught right from wrong.

 

 

 

We are a very self-indulgent species, even after we have been taught such principles regardless.

 

 

 

In which case I'd probably say yeah, we're a pretty selfish species for who acting altruistically is very rare. In fact, you could even get into a debate over whether many common "altruistic" actions are actually done purely because of the sense of self worth they give us. That said, we're probably the only species who seems to have gained an ability to be able to regularly override genetic instinct.

 

 

 

Whether or not nurture could completely override instinct i'm not sure about.

 

 

 

It helps a lot, but even after people know the difference between right and wrong, some will still choose wrong because it benefits them. Otherwise we wouldn't have so much crime (by crime, I mean the full gamut from petty theft to tax evasion).

 

 

 

Again, true, although the coin flips both ways, some people who are brought up in appalling circumstances (perhaps ethically as well as materialistically) are still capable of incredible acts of kindness. But still, I think if we know we can get away with something which might be conventionally considered wrong, we'll probably do it if it has benefit to us.

[Sartre]

You are right, evil is a strong word.

 

 

 

A better way to phrase it is that we would only make decisions based on what is beneficial to us, with no thought going to the experiences of others, if we were not taught right from wrong.

 

 

 

We are a very self-indulgent species, even after we have been taught such principles regardless.

 

 

 

If you say that if a person, left to raise themself will ultimately turn out selfish in their actions because of this inbuilt selfishness you must agree that this selfishness is ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åhuman natureÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Ginger_Warrior]

IMHO, the definition of 'evil' doesn't lie in the actions we do, but in the psychology and mentality behind those actions. Evil is an adjective, not a verb after all.

 

 

 

On the whole issue of inheritance, I half see where that would be true. There is no way genetically you can be inherently evil, considering DNA actually only codes proteins in the body, not our personalities or fixations. I think that's an example of people assuming 'inheritance' = 'DNA', which is complete rubbish. Psychological inheritance though? Yes, I can see where that can fit in.

 

 

 

At the moment at college, I'm going over something called the Enneagram of Personality. It basically states that our personalities can explain the thoughts and the mentality behind our actions, and that these personalities are based on our childhood experiences. So considering the vast part of our childhood is spent with our family, and our experiences shared with our parents, it's easy to see that if you had a parent who acted in this hypothetical 'evil' way, then you may also grow up to show some 'evil' traits.

 

 

 

In regards to what evil actually is, I regard an evil action as an action taken by a person, not to make themselves or the person they are taking action against (be it inadvertently or not) feel better, but purely to afflict the other person. It's a kind of balance. If I took action against someone (i.e., afflicted them) in the belief what I was doing was actually making their life, or the relationship between the two of us, better in the long-term, then I wouldn't regard that as evil. I'm a consequentialist, so it only seems logical I take that viewpoint on what I define evil as.

[Olbritishchap]

honestly answer this: are the people who do the whole suicide bomb thing really evil? i mean they've been twisted and told lies that they will be doing good by killing themselves and other people. they believe they will be rewarded for doing it. i feel kind of sorry for them. :(

[Denismage]

It depends on how you have been raised and treated.

[Barihawk]

You are right, evil is a strong word.

 

 

 

A better way to phrase it is that we would only make decisions based on what is beneficial to us, with no thought going to the experiences of others, if we were not taught right from wrong.

 

 

 

We are a very self-indulgent species, even after we have been taught such principles regardless.

 

 

 

If you say that if a person, left to raise themself will ultimately turn out selfish in their actions because of this inbuilt selfishness you must agree that this selfishness is ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åhuman natureÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Ginger_Warrior]

Oh hey, another TIFer who thinks it's more cool to post under an account named after a philosopher because it makes their opinions more valid. I wonder who this one could be.

 

 

 

I am making this off-topic statement because this generally bothers me. If you posted that same statement under your own username, I would appreciate it more than this self-serving (and ironic!) display.

 

Can I ask what the necessity behind that was? If (s)he wants to call him/herself that, fine. Surely, anyone that should be respected in a debate should see through any mask being put up by the user, and focus on their actual argument anyway. :?

 

 

 

Inheritance should be in quotation marks

 

Well, that whole quote of mine in your post should have been in quote tags, not img tags. We can carry on with this pedanticalness if you want, or one of the two of us could desist. I personally would rather take the latter.

 

 

 

Humans are born with the instinct to survive. With our technology allowing us to be on top of the food chain, as it were, however those instincts translate into selfish desire at the cost of others.

 

Stop trying to link a biological need for survival to an ethical discussion. Even as a person who studies biology, I'd be pretty farfetched to say that a need for survival has anything to do with being evil or not. Would you regard an action a lion, for example, takes to be evil or not, merely because of its need for survival? You know full humans can think beyond a simple thought pattern of survival or not. The two are completely unrelated.

 

 

 

Which brings me to your next flaw. If you don't believe me, think about euthanasia or suicide. Surely, a human even considering either of those two actions would be against this "need for survival". Therefore, you're actually wrong in saying the bolded part. Humans have a unique ability to think beyond the need for survival, hence we have subjects such ethics and philosophy, and debates like this over whether something is deemed as evil or not.

 

 

 

Aside from all this, you're wrong anyway. Animals are born with an instinct to maintain their species, not merely their own life. In the case of a spider, for example, the male is eaten by the female after mating to provide proteins and other nutrients for the female to produce and develop her eggs. This runs counter to your statement.

 

 

 

Personality is thinking too deep.

 

How so? Our personalities define who we are and what we perceive as 'right' in this world. Therefore, I'd have thought it would make sense to look at the way someone acts and behaves, and the way they think, to understand if their actions are out of spite (i.e., evil), or not.

[Barihawk]

User masks: See my PM

 

 

Well, that whole quote of mine in your post should have been in quote tags, not img tags. We can carry on with this pedanticalness if you want, or one of the two of us could desist. I personally would rather take the latter.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I misclicked. Anyways, my quote had a point. I never meant that you could be genetically evil. However, all creatures on Earth have instincts to survive. Humans have learned to use technology and sociologically are separate from animals. However, we still have that instinct to "look out for number one."

 

 

 

Stop trying to link a biological need for survival to an ethical discussion. Even as a person who studies biology, I'd be pretty farfetched to say that a need for survival has anything to do with being evil or not. Would you regard an action a lion, for example, takes to be evil or not, merely because of its need for survival? You know full humans can think beyond a simple thought pattern of survival or not. The two are completely unrelated.

 

 

 

EDIT: I never said it was biological. It's a psychological trait burned into just about all conscious creatures on Earth.

 

 

 

Ok, let's make it ethical. A woman is being raped by a man with a gun in a very isolated area. You have no cell phone, no weapon. Your choice is to try and stop the man, which means certain death to you, or to walk away and let someone else deal with the problem.

 

 

 

Now, I am sure someone who gets as worked up as you would eagerly claim that you would help the woman regardless of being killed yourself. However, a recent AP poll states that the vast majority of people would walk away and not attempt to help the woman. Many respondents even stated that they would not go out of their way to inform authorities because it would be inconvenient to them.[/b] To be honest, I'd probably be one of them. So would you.

 

 

 

Why do humans spend billions of dollars each year on medicines to keep them alive longer?

 

 

 

If you saw a man drop a dollar bill on the street, would you return it? Only a dollar?

 

 

 

As "advanced" as we are, our instinct to survive can overcome our sense of morality.

 

 

How so? Our personalities define who we are and what we perceive as 'right' in this world. Therefore, I'd have thought it would make sense to look at the way someone acts and behaves, and the way they think, to understand if their actions are out of spite (i.e., evil), or not.

 

 

 

However, we are taught what is right in this world. I didn't say that personality is the equation, but if we are going to talk sociology here it's more appropriate to look at moral development, not the personality that is defined much later in life.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

Oh hey, another TIFer who thinks it's more cool to post under an account named after a philosopher because it makes their opinions more valid. I wonder who this one could be.

 

 

 

I am making this off-topic statement because this generally bothers me. If you posted that same statement under your own username, I would appreciate it more than this self-serving (and ironic!) display.

 

Can I ask what the necessity behind that was? If (s)he wants to call him/herself that, fine. Surely, anyone that should be respected in a debate should see through any mask being put up by the user, and focus on their actual argument anyway. :?

 

Because fake accounts are annoying, you dumb[cabbage].

[Ginger_Warrior]

Oh hey, another TIFer who thinks it's more cool to post under an account named after a philosopher because it makes their opinions more valid. I wonder who this one could be.

 

 

 

I am making this off-topic statement because this generally bothers me. If you posted that same statement under your own username, I would appreciate it more than this self-serving (and ironic!) display.

 

Can I ask what the necessity behind that was? If (s)he wants to call him/herself that, fine. Surely, anyone that should be respected in a debate should see through any mask being put up by the user, and focus on their actual argument anyway. :?

 

Because fake accounts are annoying, you [cabbage].

 

To you maybe. I personally couldn't care less what people on these forums call themselves. I'll judge people for what they post here. There's just no need for this flaming, even if what they're doing is against forum rules.

 

 

 

However, all creatures on Earth have instincts to survive. Humans have learned to use technology and sociologically are separate from animals. However, we still have that instinct to "look out for number one."

 

This is where you are wrong though. Creatures aren't born with a natural instinct to look out for number one. A worker bee, for example, would more willingly starve itself to death if it meant that its Queen didn't, and it was for the greater good of its colony. In fact, the Native Americans living in the Great Plains are proof against your statement. If a member of the tribe became too old or frail to keep up with the rest of the tribe, then that person would volunteer themselves to be left behind so thet rest of the tribe wouldn't be hindered. Both of these examples show how creatures are born with a natural instinct to maintain the wellbeing of their species, not merely themselves. It just so happens what would be beneficial for the former is also usually beneficial for the latter.

 

 

 

Now, I am sure someone who gets as worked up as you would eagerly claim that you would help the woman regardless of being killed yourself. However, a recent AP poll states that the vast majority of people would walk away and not attempt to help the woman. Many respondents even stated that they would not go out of their way to inform authorities because it would be inconvenient to them. To be honest, I'd probably be one of them. So would you.

 

And you'd know that how? Are you seriously telling me you know my exact thoughts based on what you've read by me on here? Just because the majority see one viewpoint doesn't mean every person is more likely to follow that viewpoint.

 

 

 

TBH, I really don't know what I'd do. It's an extreme circumstance I can honestly say I've never really thought about. I know for certain I wouldn't be completely apathetic though. While I wouldn't challenge the man, I'd probably make sure I got a good image of him so I could report him later on and give a good profile. I'm slightly distrustful of that poll if those were the only two choices presented to the respondants, since there's plenty more choices out there.

 

 

 

Why do humans spend billions of dollars each year on medicines to keep them alive longer?

 

A completely unrelated question, but I'd have thought the answer would be quite obvious. Nor does it disprove my viewpoint. Of course the counter would be, "Why doesn't the dispenser steal those medicines in case he ever gets the same illness so he can live longer?". Surely if we're all born with this instinct to survive, the dispenser would have serious questions about giving him those resources in the first place, if it meant he might not be able to use them later.

 

 

 

If you saw a man drop a dollar bill on the street, would you return it? Only a dollar?

 

Well, I suppose 50p would be its equivalent here, but yes I would. As I've actually done many a time. Otherwise, it's called stealing, since the man hasn't actually given that money away. The law actually agrees with me, certainly in the U.K. and I would suspect the U.S. too.

[darkforaster]

I would say humans are evil by instinct. But some choose to be good.

 

 

 

We, as a race, are spoilt rotten. Although i'd say that we are one of the most intelligent creatures on this planet, we have no other real attributes which makes us superier to other races.

 

 

 

However, this small advantage makes us feel WAY too superier, sure we are the dominant race but that doesn't mean we should treat this planet like we doo today. Because of this sense of power we have, we kill animals, destroy thier homes and pollute the planet all for our luxury. Not for neccessarities, but for extras.

 

 

 

And, despite how hypocritical this is for me to say this, a very small population of the planet does anything about it. we just stand by and let this injustice occur.

 

 

 

This is why I believe we are evil.

[warri0r45]

However, we still have that instinct to "look out for number one."

 

 

 

I think Ginger_Warrior's point of us having instinct for doing what's best for the species is generally a stronger idea than this on a base level. If our primary instinct was to look out for number one, then why are we still here? Why did we not, in our more primitive state when we were no where near as 'enlightened' as we are now, all fight each other out of existance? Why did we have families and communities? Why do we still have these things? Surely the fact that we've come through this primitive stage would tell you that we have an inherent basic nature of cooperation over a simple selfish 'look out for number one' mentality.

[Barihawk]

However, we still have that instinct to "look out for number one."

 

 

 

I think Ginger_Warrior's point of us having instinct for doing what's best for the species is generally a stronger idea than this on a base level. If our primary instinct was to look out for number one, then why are we still here? Why did we not, in our more primitive state when we were no where near as 'enlightened' as we are now, all fight each other out of existance? Why did we have families and communities? Why do we still have these things? Surely the fact that we've come through this primitive stage would tell you that we have an inherent basic nature of cooperation over a simple selfish 'look out for number one' mentality.

 

 

 

We were taught morals, and those morals eventually overcame the need for self-centered behavior.

 

 

 

I could tell you how I believe we got those morals, but you wouldn't like it.

 

 

 

And Ginger, contest all you want. I am sure the thousands of respondents who said "I would ignore it" on the nice anonymous poll would loudly and proudly degree viewpoints like yours when the spotlight is on them. It doesn't change the fact that the MAJORITY of the population would ignore the situation.

 

 

 

But of course, you somehow assume I am attacking you because of a two sentence line that you nitpick my post into oblivion. Are Piaget's and Kholor's theories applied to every member of the population? No. From your heated defense, you appear to be at Kholor's sixth and final stage of moral reasoning. Congrats, very few people make it that far. I hope you have ESP or something so you can indeed tell the future and make good on your claim.

[assassin_696]

However, we still have that instinct to "look out for number one."

 

 

 

I think Ginger_Warrior's point of us having instinct for doing what's best for the species is generally a stronger idea than this on a base level. If our primary instinct was to look out for number one, then why are we still here? Why did we not, in our more primitive state when we were no where near as 'enlightened' as we are now, all fight each other out of existance? Why did we have families and communities? Why do we still have these things? Surely the fact that we've come through this primitive stage would tell you that we have an inherent basic nature of cooperation over a simple selfish 'look out for number one' mentality.

 

 

 

We were taught morals, and those morals eventually overcame the need for self-centered behavior.

 

 

 

And were animals taught morals as well? Since they display communal and cooperative behaviour, even across species.

 

 

 

Not to mention that the more advanced species even display behaviour dangerously close to being "human". Elephants mourn their dead, dolphins and monkeys play. In fact, there's a direct correlation between the intelligence and self-awareness of a species and their ability to display behaviour which you might call moral.

[Barihawk]

Ok, I will concede that point. I will need a little bit to regroup, I never really came into this thread expecting an argument.

[warri0r45]

However, we still have that instinct to "look out for number one."

 

 

 

I think Ginger_Warrior's point of us having instinct for doing what's best for the species is generally a stronger idea than this on a base level. If our primary instinct was to look out for number one, then why are we still here? Why did we not, in our more primitive state when we were no where near as 'enlightened' as we are now, all fight each other out of existance? Why did we have families and communities? Why do we still have these things? Surely the fact that we've come through this primitive stage would tell you that we have an inherent basic nature of cooperation over a simple selfish 'look out for number one' mentality.

 

 

 

We were taught morals, and those morals eventually overcame the need for self-centered behavior.

 

 

 

I could tell you how I believe we got those morals, but you wouldn't like it.

 

 

 

 

I don't mind what you believe about where we got our morals. Do you think it's possible that there was a point in our history when we were ignorant enough not to know any better and just act on a rough moral system because it's part of our nature, much like how some animals do?

 

 

 

By the way, Im curious how you know we all displayed self-centered behaviour previous to having morals. This would require a point in history where there was no such thing as family or community, even in a crude sense. Do you believe such a time existed?

[ktmcf121]

to me, this argument has a clearly defined answer, unlike most other discussions.

 

 

 

humans are born with instinct, to inherently place thier own well-being ahead of other's. this is the nature of living things, or "survival of the fittest." however, some acts of instinct are "evil" even if they are intentional, or planned. examples could be stealing someone's wallet(you wanted/needed more money to increase your quality of life), or more disturbing crimes that could be how certain people get pleasure out of life. if you look at the "why" in nearly any crime, it's almost always to help the person who committed the crime.

 

 

 

BUT, humans also were given freewill, by whatever GOD/EVOLUTION you may believe in. so we have the choice to decide whether to steal that ham from the supermarket to feed our family, or to sacrifice and get a job so you can pay for it legitimately. this is why we need laws. everyone can agree that when everyone sacrifices a little bit, the quality of life for EVERYONE goes up by a huge amount, but when a few people are selfish, everyone else suffers.

 

 

 

 

 

i have a lot more to say on the subject, and i use my views on this to determine my views on most political subjects, most notably abortion and capital punishment, but i won't say any more now because i'm hungry and i'm going to eat lunch.

[Ginger_Warrior]

humans are born with instinct, to inherently place thier own well-being ahead of other's. this is the nature of living things, or "survival of the fittest."

 

"Survival of the fittest" is actually a reference to evolution. In other words, the species most responsive and adaptable to changes in their environment will survive; those who are not responsive will perish. It doesn't merely mean humans are born with an instinct to survive.

[ktmcf121]

humans are born with instinct, to inherently place thier own well-being ahead of other's. this is the nature of living things, or "survival of the fittest."

 

"Survival of the fittest" is actually a reference to evolution. In other words, the species most responsive and adaptable to changes in their environment will survive; those who are not responsive will perish. It doesn't merely mean humans are born with an instinct to survive.

 

 

 

ok maybe that was worded badly, but what do you think makes them responsive and adaptable to changes? it's the strongest/most instinctive ones that will survive the longest.

[warri0r45]

humans are born with instinct, to inherently place thier own well-being ahead of other's. this is the nature of living things, or "survival of the fittest."

 

"Survival of the fittest" is actually a reference to evolution. In other words, the species most responsive and adaptable to changes in their environment will survive; those who are not responsive will perish. It doesn't merely mean humans are born with an instinct to survive.

 

 

 

ok maybe that was worded badly, but what do you think makes them responsive and adaptable to changes? it's the strongest/most instinctive ones that will survive the longest.

 

 

 

Perhaps it's the most cooperative who survive the longest. If everyone is selfish, there's a lose-lose situation across the board (I steal from you, you steal from me, I kill you, you kill me, etc). If everyone is at least cooperative, win-win situations all round (we all work together to ensure the group benefits).

[Hydraides]

Evil is Simple just a contrast/Opposite of the word Good

 

 

 

If there was nothing to compare what "Good" was how would we know that what were were doing was "Good"