A sectioned question.

[Doc. Q]

My question has two parts, one that i'd like to ask after the other because I have a theory that might make for interesting conversation, but can't really put it into words you would like.

Anyway, the first part of my question is this: Are humans naturally evil? Not whether or not Humans are lawful, Since there are many people who are restricted from doing what they want to do because the law stops them. Without a sense of law, or holy justice, are humans naturally inclined to do evil acts?

[Shaidar Haran]

Humans are naturally selfish, meaning that they will care for themselves before others and that they will defend their belongings from others.

Only with laws do good and evil appear, so if there are no laws, there is no good and evil. If there is no definition between the two, there can be no good or evil acts, only selfish and unselfish acts.

[Doc. Q]

Humans are naturally selfish, meaning that they will care for themselves before others and that they will defend their belongings from others.

Only with laws do good and evil appear, so if there are no laws, there is no good and evil. If there is no definition between the two, there can be no good or evil acts, only selfish and unselfish acts.

true enough, but for the purposes of this question one has to assume that their is some overarcing view of moral and immoral. Can we resolve this point by giving a definition of immoral as including selfish acts with the intent of harm or horror(to include thievery and rape) and unselfish acts with the intent of using them to further selfishness?

[Toby]

Question: How, without law, or holy justice, can there be good or evil?

I know, it is very lame of me to respond with such a question, but it is a paradox, albeit an interesting one for aspiring members of the Café department. :sag

I remember back in my first posts of the Café how things used to be... *sigh*

[mislead]

If by "naturally" you mean "without social influence", then this question is pretty much pointless. Such a creature would be no different from most sufficiently complicated animals, and thus completely amoral; neither good, nor evil.

Also, the behaviour of a human being heavily depens on the enviromental conditions they face. In some pretty optimal conditions (like the ones we have created for ourselves in most of the world's countries), I'd say most humans are actually naturally good. However, if you change the conditions to extremely unfavorable, they might resort to actions you'd classify as "evil"; this effect can most easily be observed in the way German extermination camps and Russian gulags functioned - there's quite a bit of literature concerning this, I believe.

[Hyouma]

At some point in history humans could have been called "evil" in the way you mean Doc Q, but humanity is only growing to be more and more peaceful (I mean on a small scale, don't start giving numbers about wars). MOST people are good nowadays. However, not enough to live in a lawless society. But we'll get there eventually.

[Karol!]

humans arent as much evil as we are animals. we keep trying to deny that fact, though...

[Paper Tiger]

Question: How, without law, or holy justice, can there be good or evil?

I know, it is very lame of me to respond with such a question, but it is a paradox, albeit an interesting one for aspiring members of the Café department. :sag

I remember back in my first posts of the Café how things used to be... *sigh*

Good and evil are terms that spring from holy justice, but you could consider that outside the context of a developed moral schema, there remains the notion of 'things that act to the benefit of the human species as a group' and 'things that act as a detriment to the human species as a group'. Neither holy law nor justice developed in vacuum; they are the by-products of humans' natural inclinations as a social species. And I don't think humans have an intrinsic predisposition towards harming others. While we may act to our own benefit and for our own survival, as social beings, we don't seek out to harm others (which I suppose would be the basis of evil).

[raisin-gun]

To see a human in it's natural state, you must examine human babies, and they are not evil. Babies don't want to kill people. They might be a bit demanding and fussy but that is because they are dependant. but babies don't wan any harm to any person so humans are born good.

[Xion]

Are we as humans naturally evil?

That is a bit tough based on how one defines "naturally."

But since I believe in past lives, I would have to say that what makes up a majority of one's dispositional attributes and "natural" tendencies are fixed by Karma and how we were previously. So, no, I do not think we are naturally evil as in an innate sense of evil, I think we have become corrupted since the first life or so and have lost sight of "God" or whatever you want to call it.

So...ignorance is the problem, not innate proclivities to evil. At least that is my humble opinion. :amuse

[Doc. Q]

All good explanations, my question needs rewording I think.

[AbnormallyNormal]

you need to define 'evil' before asking a question like this.

[Edo]

Good posts everyone...

I am one of those who believe in conscious . I believe that even without a set of morals and ethics human deep down inside now what is good and what is wrong, I know many of you will disagree, but then again this is just what I believe.

Humans, just like any other mammal or living being, have the instinct for survival. This means that a human will do whatever to stay alive, this simple concept takes a much more complex form in our current societies. You've got to survive in society, at work, in life.

So I'll have to agree with Voodoo Hidan's post. However, we have one problem. Why did we invent and put all these laws and ethics? Animals do not have them, why do we need them? Why do so many humans agree on so many common laws and ethics? what makes us believe in these common ethics, like for example, it is wrong to kill in cold blood?

[Hyouma]

To see a human in it's natural state, you must examine human babies, and they are not evil. Babies don't want to kill people. They might be a bit demanding and fussy but that is because they are dependant. but babies don't wan any harm to any person so humans are born good.

They're still "undevelopped", they haven't tapped into their brain yet. And using the brain is the essence of human nature imo.

But yeah this thread needs some fine tuning, "natural state" and "good and evil" need to be defined if we all want to discuss the same :)

[mislead]

So I'll have to agree with Voodoo Hidan's post. However, we have one problem. Why did we invent and put all these laws and ethics? Animals do not have them, why do we need them? Why do so many humans agree on so many common laws and ethics? what makes us believe in these common ethics, like for example, it is wrong to kill in cold blood?

We need them because our social structure is a lot more complicated than that of any other animal. This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint too, since the ability to form a structured society is what allows our species to be so successful.

And the particular, commonly accepted laws, are just derived from necessity and common sense. No society where humans are allowed to murder each other however they please can function properly.

[Black Wraith]

Evil is only what society has dictated to be, wether through religions, society or through law.

[Diamed]

people are naturally good. only a few psychos would hurt others, even if there were no consequences. They are very fragile though, and if brought up in the wrong way will become extremely evil. I think we're all weak, like twigs, and only become strong (and by strong I mean able to uphold our moral ideals) when we stick together.

I guess I could say loved people are naturally good, unloved people are naturally evil. . .