Perhaps our natural tendencies are balanced between good and evil and we're morally ambiguous creatures. In such a world free will would certainly assure responsibility for both our good deeds and bad deeds. Such a world would have good and evil. — TheMadFool
Man is somewhere in between the gods and the beasts" - Plotinus — IvoryBlackBishop
Evil recognizes no boundaries in my humble opinion: parents have slain children so we can forget about strangers shooting you in a random act of violence. Evil is not restricted to only the ignorant.
If you don't mind me asking, what do you think comes naturally to us, good or evil or both, and why?
Thinking a bit more on the issue, I feel we need free will in order to own up to our actions whatever they may be.
If we're good by nature - programmed to be so - then the notion of a good person is at stake: we can't be good if we didn't choose to be good. Free will would be necessary in such cases but then we'd have to deal with problematic people who choose evil. Such a world would have good and evil
On the other hand if we're programmed to be evil then giving us free will makes sense only as a means to allow us some goodness i.e. the choice then is not to do evil and do good. Such a world would have good and evil.
The difference between the two worlds is that in one free will enables goodness and in the other it enables evil.
Perhaps our natural tendencies are balanced between good and evil and we're morally ambiguous creatures. In such a world free will would certainly assure responsibility for both our good deeds and bad deeds. Such a world would have good and evil.
Which of the three possible moral worlds do we live in? — TheMadFool
Does this then mean humans are naturally good? — Brett
I didn’t say animals, I said primates. If you don’t think they’re capable of evil or good then how would you define good, is it something only humans are capable of? — Brett
morality is something that only concerns humans. — Tzeentch
Evil recognizes no boundaries in my humble opinion: parents have slain children so we can forget about strangers shooting you in a random act of violence. Evil is not restricted to only the ignorant. — TheMadFool
If you don't mind me asking, what do you think comes naturally to us, good or evil or both, and why?
Thinking a bit more on the issue, I feel we need free will in order to own up to our actions whatever they may be.
If we're good by nature - programmed to be so - then the notion of a good person is at stake: we can't be good if we didn't choose to be good. Free will would be necessary in such cases but then we'd have to deal with problematic people who choose evil. Such a world would have good and evil
On the other hand if we're programmed to be evil then giving us free will makes sense only as a means to allow us some goodness i.e. the choice then is not to do evil and do good. Such a world would have good and evil.
The difference between the two worlds is that in one free will enables goodness and in the other it enables evil.
Perhaps our natural tendencies are balanced between good and evil and we're morally ambiguous creatures. In such a world free will would certainly assure responsibility for both our good deeds and bad deeds. Such a world would have good and evil.
Which of the three possible moral worlds do we live in? — TheMadFool
I lean towards people being either naturally neutral or good. — Tzeentch
Improve in what way? — Brett
Then why would they act badly? A good person will only act in a good way, so it’s only the neutral people doing all the damage? If they have no side of them that is no good then where does this bad behaviour spring from? — Brett
I should clarify what meant earlier by natural in reference to evil. It sounds like I meant evil exists in nature. What I meant was that evil is one of our tendencies, that it is not introduced to us through ignorance. The issue of serial killers has been raised and how their childhood condition contributed towards evil acts. But not all children mistreated go on to become serial killers.
We have both evil and good tendencies, we can act on either of them. We are not faultless angels programmed for only good. But our good tendencies create more benefits for us than our evil tendencies. It’s in our interests to chose good over evil. But that doesn’t mean everyone will act that way, and nor does it mean we ourselves don’t sometimes behave badly.
Our culture, built on our moral principles, constrains and conditions us in terms of behaviour. Our parents introduce us to ways of behaving. Part of that is making choices, living with consequences. The overriding factor in this melange of good and bad tendencies is free will. Free will is proof of us having these tendencies. If evil was introduced to us from outside, ignorance or abuse, then it means we are empty vessels, without good or bad tendencies. We would never have to chose, never think freely. And where would the idea of evil come from, even if it did come from outside? Culture might manage our tendencies but it didn’t create them.
My problem is trying to establish how and when, in evolution, we developed free will. Or was just it just simple choices that became more sophisticated as we evolved, the development of consciousness. — Brett
I believe humans are motivated primarily by a desire to be happy. When a person's actions do not contribute to or even undermine their happiness, I consider those actions ignorant. — Tzeentch
(My strong suspicions are that) Evil actions cannot contribute to a person's happiness. Thus evil is necessarily an act of ignorance. — Tzeentch
So if evil is in our nature and we have "tendencies" then doesn't that mean, since "tendencies" sounds like we have no or little control in the matter, we lack free will? — TheMadFool
So, I'm knowledgeable (not ignorant) when I know how to and act in ways that make myself happy? — TheMadFool
Does that mean that if I don't know how to make myself happy, which makes me ignorant, then I'm necessarily evil? All unhappy people, because they're ignorant, are necessarily evil then? — TheMadFool
Are you saying most people are angry most of the time? That seems a stretch. Most people I meet aren't angry most of the time. — Isaac
For simplicity's sake, lets call good actions those which bring happiness, evil actions which take it away, and neutral actions those that do not affect our happiness. — Tzeentch
No. We get angry at particular things. It’s a response. — Brett
I'm not sure I understand the point you're making there though. — Isaac
So if evil is in our nature and we have "tendencies" then doesn't that mean, since "tendencies" sounds like we have no or little control in the matter, we lack free will? — TheMadFool
I was making the point that just because we have “tendencies” doesn’t mean we are owned by them or that we lack free will. — Brett
Why would we call something which we exhibit least often a natural tendency? — Isaac
You can’t just cherry pick human tendencies. — Brett
What else could it be? Unless you want to say it’s cultural. Hence my reference to primates that also behave this way. It wasn’t our culture that influenced their actions of aggression. — Brett
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.