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

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.

"Man is somewhere in between the gods and the beasts" - Plotinus

Man is somewhere in between the gods and the beasts" - Plotinus — IvoryBlackBishop

That’s a tough performance.

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

I think we are morally ambiguous, and that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are relative. We are therefore responsible for both our good and bad deeds, but I don’t think they’re ever evenly balanced - depending on the personal value system you subscribe to.

I agree with @Tzeentch in that most of what we refer to as ‘evil’ comes down to ignorance: a stranger shooting you in a ‘random act of violence’ is expressing a generalised hate and is ignorant in their actions of your individual humanity. A parent slaying their child is often expressing self-hatred and is ignorant in their actions of the potential of that child as a uniquely developing human being.

I think for the most part we are ignorantly contributing to evil in pursuit of a limited perception of potential in the world - although we are comparatively more aware, connected and collaborative than most other animals. It is vastly more common in the universe to ignore, isolate and exclude what we don’t understand, but in our best interests long term and collectively speaking to instead increase awareness, connection and collaboration whenever those opportunities arise and despite the risks.

As long as we determine and initiate our actions according to what is most frequent, most popular, and most convenient, then we will continue to tend towards ‘evil’ - ignoring, isolating and excluding opportunities to relate to the universe, until there is nothing left for us but fear and non-existence. I think it’s our capacity to determine and initiate our own actions that is free insofar as we are aware of the choices available and our collaborative potential to make them.

Those who continue to do ‘evil’ despite their apparent awareness of alternative actions are arguably deliberate in their ignorance, isolation or exclusion. The most frequent, most popular and most convenient methods of preventing or stopping this ‘evil’ is by employing exclusion, isolation or ignorance ourselves. But despite the best efforts of law enforcement and war, evil cannot cancel itself out. The most effective solution IMHO, long term and collectively speaking, is to strive to increase awareness, connection and collaboration whenever the opportunity arises and despite the risk. Easier said than done, but still...

Does this then mean humans are naturally good? — Brett

That would be an interesting thought to explore, but for now I'll stick with neutral.

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

I consider good and evil to be closely related to rationality and reason; the higher faculties of mind that only humans are capable of. Humans are capable of understanding the consequences of and motivations behind their actions to a far greater degree than animals. Humans are also capable of self-reflection.

So yes, to me morality is something that only concerns humans.

morality is something that only concerns humans. — Tzeentch

That may be so. But there is evidence of primates murdering. I don’t imagine they think in terms of morality. But if the killing was unnecessary then it’s probably regarded as murder.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2119677-chimps-beat-up-murder-and-then-cannibalise-their-former-tyrant/

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

Hmm.. I think our definitions of ignorance may differ.

I'll give you a short version of what I discussed with others in this thread;

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.

In the case of a parent hurting their children, they obviously must be quite miserable to begin with. Their misery clouds their perception, to the point that they believe hurting their children will improve their situation. It's safe to say that it won't. It probably makes them even worse.

(My strong suspicions are that) Evil actions cannot contribute to a person's happiness. Thus evil is necessarily an act of ignorance.

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.

People desire to happy. They want to love and to be loved, prefer positive emotions over negative emotions, etc. However, due to all sorts of factors, like upbringing and societal norms, people often end up pursuing this goal in the wrong way (ignorance), and this may lead to them undermining their pursuit of happiness. These may be neutral actions (pointless actions, basically), or they may actively undermine other people's happiness too, which could be considered evil actions.

Whether a fundamental desire to be happy is enough to call people fundamentally good is an interesting question. I'd say it makes them neutral, at least.

I realize I'm making some big jumps. Just trying to give you a general outline of my thoughts, and we can go into more detail if you're interested.

Personally, I don't think an action is all that constitutes an evil deed.

Most importantly, there must also be an awareness of a moral dimension. I don't think animals are capable of that.

Similarly, can a child who is unaware of the consequences and moral implications of his actions be called evil?

Their misery clouds their perception, to the point that they believe hurting their children will improve their situation. — Tzeentch

Improve in what way?

If you accidentally press the Send All Nuclear Warheads button, you might not be punished for your evil deed.

However, the action is still evil.

I don't think all evil is punishable; if contained, evil can complement good.

Take teeth, they kill things to feed the user. They also are used to chew non-living food. However, I think, they show that some evil is okay.

It's natural for evil to occur in universe conditions.

The good phenomenon are super-massive and the chances of evil being too great are small.

So animals have an element of moral freedom.

I lean towards people being either naturally neutral or good. — Tzeentch

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?

Improve in what way? — Brett

We're getting into psychology here, and this question would be answered differently depending on what person we're talking about.

A possible motive would be that a parent is projecting their failures onto the child, and punishing the child instead of themselves. The "benefit" would lie in the fact that the parent does not have to acknowledge their own failures.

Another could be that the parent blames the child for their lot in life, and they use the child to vent their frustration.

These hypothetical situations are of limited value, though. Every person is different and other things will explain their behavior. It's important to note that some of these processes may happen subconsciously.

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

Ignorance. That's basically the point I've been trying to make the whole time.
They desire happiness (or 'the Good'), but simply haven't the slightest clue of how to get there.

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

Ok. 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? If we don't have free will and can't make choices against our "tendencies" which you say can be both good and bad, then how does that weigh in on the free will defense argument for the problem of evil? We're simply being led by the nose by our "tendencies".

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, I'm knowledgeable (not ignorant) when I know how to and act in ways that make myself happy? Evil is an act of ignorance. 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?

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 don’t think it means that. We have the tendency to be angry but we can chose to override it.

We have the tendency to be angry but we can chose to override it. — Brett

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.

So, I'm knowledgeable (not ignorant) when I know how to and act in ways that make myself happy? — TheMadFool

Personally I prefer the term wisdom as the opposite of ignorance, and knowing how to make oneself happy, and acting accordingly, is one aspect of wisdom.

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

I don't really believe in evil people, but ignorance may or may not lead one to commit evil actions. It may also lead to actions which are simply neutral.

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.

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

I’m usually only angry when I’m watching cable news or when people shit on me (figuratively, of course).

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

Sure, but that is too simple. A perceived bad act by one may not be perceived as bad by another. A perceived bad act can cause a perceived bad act by another, which to yet another might be perceived as justice.

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

Why would you think that? I’m talking about a tendency and obviously of varying degrees.

And it was in relation to free will.

Evil is exploiting others, through dishonesty, to feel okay. Like the person who gets pleasure from the fears of others. Getting revenge, in its many forms, is a good example.

Free-will, points to having a choice to be either honest or dishonest.

Why would you think that? I’m talking about a tendency — Brett

Well, if we have a tendency to anger then we'd be angry most of the time. That's what tendency means. Otherwise we'd have a tendency to non-anger wouldn't we?

No. We get angry at particular things. It’s a response.

No. We get angry at particular things. It’s a response. — Brett

Sure. I was trying to clarify your use of 'tendency'. I've always used it to mean 'a typical or repeated habit, action or belief' so to have it associated with 'us' and 'anger' seemed excessive, a anger is hardly typical. If you just mean "sometimes we get angry, but we act civilly nonetheless" then it makes more sense. I'm not sure I understand the point you're making there though.

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.

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

I see. Wouldn't you say that seeing as acting civilly despite our emotional state is the thing which we do most often, that has most prima facae justification to be called our natural 'tendency'? Why would we call something which we exhibit least often a natural tendency?

Why would we call something which we exhibit least often a natural tendency? — Isaac

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.

You can’t just cherry pick human tendencies.

You can’t just cherry pick human tendencies. — Brett

He’s saying it’s not a tendency. Behaviors and feelings are different things. You’re both arguing past each other.

Straighten us out then.

Isaac is talking about what behaviors are most frequent (that we don’t usually act angry). You are saying that people feel angry at times but usually don’t act on it. He is finding fault with your use of the term “tendency” as he uses it differently than you. He is using it as a psychologist would.

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

But primates spend the vast majority of their time not-angry too, so why make anything other than the presumption that they too suppress one potential emotional response to favour another?

We have several incentives and potential emotional states on the go at once and we select the behaviour we think is most conducive to the circumstances. As do primates. I'm not seeing the difference between anger something which both we and chimps exhibit from time to time (you're calling a natural tendency) and social civility something which both we and chimps exhibit far more often (but which you're not calling a natural tendency).

We've got two modes of behaviour, both are exhibited by us and other animals, both serve a purpose, both are mediated by brain activities,, yet one is natural tendency, the other is and wilful act of suppression. I'm just trying to get at how you've reached that distinction.