Do You Believe People are Basically Evil?

[jwinslow]

at the end of the day every decision you will ever make will be selfish on some level. everything you do will be with the expectation of gain. sometimes monetary, sometimes emotional, sometimes to put you in a better situation. but at some level there will always be an upside for "you". doesn't make you evil.

I think you dodged one of my main points, however. Have you ever done something you know you shouldn't do because it benefited you? Does that benefit really make it okay?

To me, you might be able to make an excuse for wrongdoing (ill-adjusted, mental instability, twisted beliefs, etc), but that doesn't remove the consequences of those actions, nor how they are judged.

Perhaps humans are incapable of fairly judging from their limited & biased perspective. But I don't agree that determines it to no longer exist one way or the other.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

You're asking me to prove that evil objectively may exist. The proof of such a possibility is precisely in its possibility. Just because you can relativize the entire notion of evil as a word and metaphysical conceit does not prove its impossibility.

I was simply suggesting that I'm not the only one who's "Cobbled together" a world view/ belief system.

 

[BayBuck]

I was simply suggesting that I'm not the only one who's "Cobbled together" a world view/ belief system.

Oh, I know -- glad to hear that phrase really struck a chord, star-gazer.

You also asked me to "prove it", to which I responded that you were missing my point that our subjective concept of evil does not prove there is no objective evil.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Oh, I know -- glad to hear that phrase really struck a chord, star-gazer.

You also asked me to "prove it", to which I responded that you were missing my point that our subjective concept of evil does not prove there is no objective evil.

The phrase really struck me as more ironic than anything.

I don't think I've ever attempted to argue that our subjective concept of evil proves there is no objective evil. Indeed, I'm not sure I've tried to "prove" there's no such thing as evil, other than to simply say that's what I believe... (that is, I freely admit I don't believe it exists, and I argue from that position) and then when people made offers of proof of objective evil, showed them to be subjective.

In any event, what I asked you to prove was that there is objective evil, not explain to us why the existence of a subjective evil doesn't establish there is no objective evil. If you can't, I am left to wonder why one would choose to believe in a thing that there is not a hint of evidence for...

To be clear, establishing that some things appear evil (the rape of a child, for example) does not, in and of itself, offer a hint of evidence regarding objective evil. It may.. or it may not... I don't know. Proof, here, requires argument not a number of examples of really bad things tossed out.

 

[BayBuck]

I don't think I've ever attempted to argue that our subjective concept of evil proves there is no objective evil. Indeed, I'm not sure I've tried to "prove" there's no such thing as evil, other than to simply say that's what I believe... (that is, I freely admit I don't believe it exists, and I argue from that position) and then when people made offers of proof of objective evil, showed them to be subjective. .

I never said you did (though I may have been referring to relativists in general whose smugness seems to suggest they think they have proven such a thing) -- I made a general comment about my feelings on the nature of evil, and you asked me to prove it.

In any event, what I asked you to prove was that there is objective evil, not explain to us why the existence of a subjective evil doesn't establish there is no objective evil. If you can't, I am left to wonder why one would choose to believe in a thing that there is not a hint of evidence for...

To be clear, establishing that some things appear evil (the rape of a child, for example) does not, in and of itself, offer a hint of evidence regarding objective evil. It may.. or it may not... I don't know. Proof, here, requires argument not a number of examples of really bad things tossed out.

Again, I'm not trying to offer proof and think that such a thing is probably unproveable. That said, I do personally believe in objective evil, the "hints of evidence" in favor of my belief being those many terrible occurences which are so baldly and obviously evil and perverse and just plain bad, not to mention the temptation to evil which gnaws at me on a daily basis. Frankly, I'm sorry that your own capacity for any kind of faith is so disfigured, but I'm not playing the "convince BKB" game here (always bringing metaphysics into a court of law), just stating my own view on things.

 

[ScriptOhio]

Only female democrats that are running for president and are married to an ex-president.

 

[Gatorubet]

The phrase really struck me as more ironic than anything.

I don't think I've ever attempted to argue that our subjective concept of evil proves there is no objective evil. Indeed, I'm not sure I've tried to "prove" there's no such thing as evil, other than to simply say that's what I believe... (that is, I freely admit I don't believe it exists, and I argue from that position) and then when people made offers of proof of objective evil, showed them to be subjective.

In any event, what I asked you to prove was that there is objective evil, not explain to us why the existence of a subjective evil doesn't establish there is no objective evil. If you can't, I am left to wonder why one would choose to believe in a thing that there is not a hint of evidence for...

To be clear, establishing that some things appear evil (the rape of a child, for example) does not, in and of itself, offer a hint of evidence regarding objective evil. It may.. or it may not... I don't know. Proof, here, requires argument not a number of examples of really bad things tossed out.

Well, saying something is subjective because someone derives some benefit from it is equally lacking in proof. The torture rape of a child is a good example, for there is no seeming societal gain from it under any microscope. You responded to a prior example of mine by pointing out that the person who tortured derived some pleasure from it. While I acknowledge that, the fact that the deviant may enjoy seeing his victims in pain in no way detracts from the nature of the act itself. That is, to me, just you substituting your worldview that those acts are subjective because you believe that if someone - somewhere - does not think it evil or wrong, or derives a benefit, it is changed from objective evil to a subjective one.

Enter any village anywhere in the world and rape and torture a child there. When you find the village where the inhabitants say "That's cool...you seemed to enjoy it", let me know. I submit that the universality of revulsion for the act emanates from some core knowledge of what is right and wrong. And, while our moral compass can easily become broken, as demonstrated by mankind's sordid history, there are some things that seem to me to be so basic that even our own biases and prejudices are unable to warp our understanding of what is good or evil.

 

[shetuck]

Well, saying something is subjective because someone derives some benefit from it is equally lacking in proof. The torture rape of a child is a good example, for there is no seeming societal gain from it under any microscope. You responded to a prior example of mine by pointing out that the person who tortured derived some pleasure from it. While I acknowledge that, the fact that the deviant may enjoy seeing his victims in pain in no way detracts from the nature of the act itself. That is, to me, just you substituting your worldview that those acts are subjective because you believe that if someone - somewhere - does not think it evil or wrong, or derives a benefit, it is changed from objective evil to a subjective one.

Enter any village anywhere in the world and rape and torture a child there. When you find the village where the inhabitants say "That's cool...you seemed to enjoy it", let me know. I submit that the universality of revulsion for the act emanates from some core knowledge of what is right and wrong. And, while our moral compass can easily become broken, as demonstrated by mankind's sordid history, there are some things that seem to me to be so basic that even our own biases and prejudices are unable to warp our understanding of what is good or evil.

I would go along with your argument up until the point that someone from some other culture or some other basis for measuring and understanding what acts lead to a "societal gain" steps up and rolls their eyes at your patronizingly WASP-ish notions. I've had this happen to me (though I'm by no measure a WASP), and it's quite a humiliating and rude awakening.

Not all societies/cultures define or characterize "torture", "rape", and "child" the same way as we do - in fact, truth be told, we Americans are probably in the minority when it comes to the way we define those terms. Though, to be sure, we continue to struggle with agreeing to at least some legal definition to some of those things to this day.

I'm NOT saying that these things (torture and raping of children) only happen outside the hallowed borders of the US of A. What I'm trying to suggest is that IF, WHEN, and WHERE these things are socially accepted, the victims aren't seen as "children", nor are the acts that are inflicted upon them labeled "torture" or "rape".

Case in point... do you think the practice of female and/or male circumcision can be considered torture? Do you believe that those who engage in that right-of-passage consider it as torture? How welcome would be your mission to change that practice? Do you think that merely affixing the label of "torture" on those acts would instantly make the light of enlightenment go on in the heads of those who have committed these atrocities of ignorance?

Or, maybe we can use the example of pre-pubescent girls who are married (or "sold") off to old, but wealthy men, and have no choice but to consummate the marriage in order to seal the deal. Do you think that there is enough of a basis there, even in a few cases, to constitute a charge of rape? And would you consider some of those girls as children? If you went to some of the places where these practices are cultural norms, and stepped in to abolish them, do you think your actions would be welcomed or spurned?

My point here is that there are few things, if any, that we can cast in absolute terms. Even religious laws and teachings appear to be relative in the context of the time in which they were dispensed, the condition and capacity of people to which they were proclaimed, and the locally prevailing social customs and norms.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I never said you did (though I may have been referring to relativists in general whose smugness seems to suggest they think they have proven such a thing) -- I made a general comment about my feelings on the nature of evil, and you asked me to prove it.

Sorry. I mistook your participation as an interest in arguing. Won't happen again.

Again, I'm not trying to offer proof and think that such a thing is probably unproveable. That said, I do personally believe in objective evil, the "hints of evidence" in favor of my belief being those many terrible occurences which are so baldly and obviously evil and perverse and just plain bad, not to mention the temptation to evil which gnaws at me on a daily basis. Frankly, I'm sorry that your own capacity for any kind of faith is so disfigured, but I'm not playing the "convince BKB" game here (always bringing metaphysics into a court of law), just stating my own view on things.

Not sure why you feel it necessary to suggest I have a "disfigured" capacity for faith, or that this is the "covince BKB" game, or that I bring metaphysics in to the court of law (especially upon the realization that this is a message board and not a court of law), but I'll spare the rest of the people on this thread what could develop in to a pretty interesting pissing match between you and I.

Well, saying something is subjective because someone derives some benefit from it is equally lacking in proof. The torture rape of a child is a good example, for there is no seeming societal gain from it under any microscope. You responded to a prior example of mine by pointing out that the person who tortured derived some pleasure from it. While I acknowledge that, the fact that the deviant may enjoy seeing his victims in pain in no way detracts from the nature of the act itself. That is, to me, just you substituting your worldview that those acts are subjective because you believe that if someone - somewhere - does not think it evil or wrong, or derives a benefit, it is changed from objective evil to a subjective one.

I disagree. On the one hand, I think showing that even one person derives pleasure from acts the rest of us consider perverse does establish the subjective nature of that act's goodness or badness. And on the other, even if it doesn't, would you agree that even if man universally agrees an act is "evil" it doesn't establish objective evil? (In the same way that universally thinking the world is square doesn't mean the earth is actually square) I suppose, in short, we can only ever know what we think we know...

Enter any village anywhere in the world and rape and torture a child there. When you find the village where the inhabitants say "That's cool...you seemed to enjoy it", let me know. I submit that the universality of revulsion for the act emanates from some core knowledge of what is right and wrong. And, while our moral compass can easily become broken, as demonstrated by mankind's sordid history, there are some things that seem to me to be so basic that even our own biases and prejudices are unable to warp our understanding of what is good or evil.

I don't disagree that there are acts, child rape among them, that are so vile we can functionally call it evil. But, the operative word(s) there is/are "call it evil." For me, it's just the nature of the beast of being creatures who are confined to our own subjective view of the world. We can't really ever know anything.. we just think we know things. Admittedly, I think actual truth is out there. There is a way things are, and we even probably do know some real truths. But... I think good and evil are and always have been human categorizations of acts. We've always determined what is good or evil. While such a world would be completely bizarre to us, I can see a world where a person was expected to do acts we consider evil and call them "good." My ability to imagine something isn't "proof" of course, but its ... akin to circumstantial evidence, I guess (since apparently this is now a court of law ).

 

[martinss01]

I think you dodged one of my main points, however. Have you ever done something you know you shouldn't do because it benefited you? Does that benefit really make it okay?

im sorry, i didn't intend to dodge any of your points and am more than happy to go back over it.

as far as whether or not ive done something i shouldn't because it benefited me... of course! i doubt there are many above the age of 4 who haven't. one of the more simple examples is realistically, i shouldn't have slept with the majority of the women i have. i wasn't in love with any of them and there is always the risk of disease/ prego no matter who she is or how safe you are. while they certainly got a little something out of it lets face it, the only arguements that entered my mind at the time were 1. im horney 2. she's fucking hot! typically in that order.

does the benefit to me, and even her, make it ok? nope. a piece of ass isn't worth having a kid with someone you've known for 20 min. it certainly isn't worth putting a child through a horrible home life because i wanted to get laid. my dick rotting off from some disease certainly isn't worth a roll in the hay. and yet, i doubt there are many that aren't just as guilty as i am.

i would be willing to entertain the arguement that im a bad person. but i don't believe i'm evil. have you ever done something believing you were right at the time but turned out to be completely wrong?

To me, you might be able to make an excuse for wrongdoing (ill-adjusted, mental instability, twisted beliefs, etc), but that doesn't remove the consequences of those actions, nor how they are judged.

this keeps coming up for some odd reason. im not excusing ANY wrongdoing. look, even if you beleive you are 100% in the right when you do something, that doesn't remove ANY blame or responsibility should it turn out that you were completely wrong. but believing your in the right when you really aren't doesn't make you evil.

 

[martinss01]

Enter any village anywhere in the world and rape and torture a child there. When you find the village where the inhabitants say "That's cool...you seemed to enjoy it", let me know. I submit that the universality of revulsion for the act emanates from some core knowledge of what is right and wrong. And, while our moral compass can easily become broken, as demonstrated by mankind's sordid history, there are some things that seem to me to be so basic that even our own biases and prejudices are unable to warp our understanding of what is good or evil.

instead of going to some far flung villiage, i thought it might be easier to just open a history book and do some reading on slavery.

if you could go back in time and ask any slave owner if they believed themselves to be evil, what do you think their answer would be? if you could ask them if what they were doing was wrong, what do you think they would say?

 

[jwinslow]

have you ever done something believing you were right at the time but turned out to be completely wrong?

I owned a ND jacket when I was a little kid. I grew out of that coat, and my folly. But I agree with the general point you're making here :p

i would be willing to entertain the arguement that im a bad person. but i don't believe i'm evil.

I might be able to get on board with this... I do not believe people are 'good', but evil may be a bit strong of a term. I think people are sinful, flawed, prone to evil deeds.... they may not be wholly evil, but are too far from good, and thus get dropped at the other end of the spectrum by me.

this keeps coming up for some odd reason.

I think I may be responding to multiple members but directing it your way, thus the misunderstanding. If so, I apologize for that.

 

[BB73]

I basically agree with martinss01 in his apparent belief about people acting on their own behalf, which I'll re-state in my own terms:

"Each human over the age of reason, absent of a physical or mental impairment that affects brain fuctioning, acts in what that person believes (at the time) to be in his/her self-interest."

Sometimes difficult-to-understand decisions are made because of various circumstances, such as:

- Too much value was placed on short-term needs versus long-term (e.g., his example of horniness)

- Too much emphasis was placed on the needs/desires of the person, and not enough consideration was given to the situation of other people (e.g., some corporate slime-ball let some folks get injured in order to increase the profit margin)

- The person values the opinions of others, and his own concept of self-worth, or his own religious salvation, that he sublimates his own existence for the betterment of others (e.g., Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa)

- The decision-making process was impaired by alcohol or some other drug (numerous examples)

Other examples can be made, but the point is my belief that each person behaves for their own reasons; and while others may think the behavior is bad or cruel or evil, there is a reason that's self-justifiable at the time for each person's behavior (with the health exceptions noted above).

I think that everybody has their own concept of good and evil, and that these concepts vary from culture to culture.

The difference in the type and amount of gain a person gets personally when doing something that harms others makes it more difficult to understand or justify some behavior. But does the lack of concern for the welfare of others make an act "evil"? To me, that's a subjective concept, but I have no problem believing that evil things are done by many people.

But to answer the thread's original question, I don't believe that people are "basically evil".

 

[FKAGobucks877]

My arguments have been made from a practical standpoint as opposed to a philosophical standpoint...I understand BkB's arguments, and even agree with them, but only from a philosophical standpoint. From a practical standpoint, I still say that objective evil exists. Can anyone honestly (and from a realistic, practical standpoint) put a spin on how killing 6,000,000 people in an effort to exterminate a race is not evil?

 

[martinss01]

I owned a ND jacket when I was a little kid. I grew out of that coat, and my folly. But I agree with the general point you're making here :pI might be able to get on board with this... I do not believe people are 'good', but evil may be a bit strong of a term. I think people are sinful, flawed, prone to evil deeds.... they may not be wholly evil, but are too far from good, and thus get dropped at the other end of the spectrum by me.I think I may be responding to multiple members but directing it your way, thus the misunderstanding. If so, I apologize for that.

nothing to apologize for. i really enjoyed the conversation. :)

- Too much value was placed on short-term needs versus long-term (e.g., his example of horniness)

.... but.. some of them were REALLY hot...