The Aché (allegedly commit infanticide & senicide) are neither angels nor fiends. They're human — Yuval Noah Harari

Selfish, ignorant, violent... — Cidat

These sorts of traits are not sufficiently bad to merit the "evil" label.

How about... pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth?

If humans were inherently evil, then living under optimal conditions wouldn't help. We might have perfect parents, a perfect community, and still end up in prison doing life without possibility of parole.

If humans are not inherently evil, then living under optimal conditions would yield excellent results all or most of the time.

What humans seem to be (more than inherently evil or inherently good) is "prone to error" -- that is, occasionally engaged in bad behavior (lust, gluttony, sloth, etc). Not invariably, but often enough. Does occasional bad behavior make us evil?

Are humans evil by nature? Selfish, ignorant, violent... — Cidat

Humans are neither good nor bad, but they can often be relied upon to do the wrong thing.

Humans are evil! But know better, so it ain't all bad.

Are humans evil by nature? Selfish, ignorant, violent... — Cidat

Both...and neither. Since people on here are probably getting tired of reading my posts involving the battling Superego and Id, I'll not go into it again, and direct you to read the entirety of the Freudian and Jungian corpora, as well as "Man's Search for Meaning" by V. Frankl, for a detailed answer to your question.

Not (involuntarily) "evil".

Instead, "by nature", we akratic apes are (all-too-often) foolish / stupid.

Humans are neither good nor bad, but they can often be relied upon to do the wrong thing. — Tom Storm

:lol:

Sort of what Churchill said about us Americans ...

Not (involuntarily) "evil".

"By nature", we akratic apes are (all-too-often) foolish / stupid. — 180 Proof

No one knowingly does evil. — Socratea

Do not attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity — Robert J. Hanlon (Hanlon's razor)

The Three Poisons (Buddhism)

1. Ignorance
2. Vanity
3. Hatred

:chin:

Expand and elaborate please.

Surely you can come up with something better than that?

Humans are both good and evil. How would we know either if we weren't both?

SO superficially ... YES. But that isn't all humans are anymore than a human amount to just being a creature with four limbs.

Reminds me of 'Behold a human!' Nah, plucking a chicken doesn't make it human and defining a human as either evil or not is just as silly.

Expand on and elaborate what?

Expand on and elaborate what? — 180 Proof

Instead, "by nature", we akratic apes are (all-too-often) foolish / stupid. — 180 Proof

I'd like you to expand and elaborate $\uparrow$

:eyes:

Instead, "by nature", we akratic apes are (all-too-often) foolish / stupid. — 180 Proof

Translation (almost word for word) :roll: –

As a species, one of h. sapiens' basic cognitive defects is that our 'volition is weak enough for us to recognize the better course of action and yet to take the worse' (usually because it requires less / least effort) and as a consequence this entails 'failing to learn from failures not to repeat our failures', by which we also often inadvertantly (blindly) harm ourselves or others (or both).

Instead, "by nature", we akratic apes are (all-too-often) foolish / stupid.
— 180 Proof
Trsnslation (almost word for word) :roll: –

As a species, one of h. sapiens' basic cognitive defects is that our 'volition is weak enough for us to recognize the better course of action and yet to take the worse' (usually because it requires less / least effort) and as a consequence this entails 'failing to learn from failures not to repeat our failures', by which we also often inadvertantly (blindly) harm ourselves or others (or both). — 180 Proof

By the way, I want to pick your brain on something that I just realized which is that being immoral, even in the worst possible sense, even though it breaks moral laws does not violate a law of nature. What's up with that? 180 Proof, care to take a stab?

I mean, I could torture someone in an unimaginably horrific way but at no point in the process will I actually violate the so-called laws of nature. Nature, it seems, permits, if not that at least doesn't prohibit, evil.

On the other hand, being good is in almost all cases an uphill task, almost as if a good guy/gal/child is on the verge of transgressing a law of nature. — TheMadFool

To continue, miracles (violations of the laws of nature) are, on the whole, performed/experienced by the...er...GOOD guys!

:chin:

Well, a good Catholic would say that humans, if not evil by nature, are at least sinful by nature by virtue of the disobedience of the first humans. Sinful, however, by propagation rather then imitation, i.e. tainted with sin because human; initially, at least, with no intent to be sinful. Our inherent sinfulness causes us to be inclined towards evil by our nature, but not evil by nature--all the works of God being good.

I don't know if I was ever a good Catholic, but know I'm not one now. Still, I'm inclined to say we're not evil by nature as evil relates to acts or omissions, not existence.

Why would a "good god" create a "best of all possible worlds" where disobedience and doing bad/evil are easier (i.e. path of lesser (or least) effort / resistance) than obedience and doing good? Why would "he" create us "in his image" too weak for voluntarily always overcoming the easier path of "sin"? Why make us so much more apes than like angels "knowing all" that "he" knows? Seems ultimately sadistic to me – making us sick and commanding us to be well (Hitchslap) in a world wherein getting / remaining sick is so much easier than being well. Yeah, I'm not sure I was ever a "good Catholic" either, but I am damn sure not a "Catholic" of any kind now. :smirk:

You know the response of the Church, I think. Everything God created was good, but some of what he created became bad. God couldn't make Lucifer and the bad angels, or humans, be good. Love must be freely given. In order to love God free will is required. Unfortunately, Lucifer, his angels and Adam and Eve (with some persuasion from Lucifer, n/k/a Satan) decided not to freely love God because they disobeyed him and even wanted to be like him (love, apparently, requires obedience where God is concerned, and doesn't include trying to be God). And from that sin all bad things began--death, taxes, you name it. It's all our fault, not God's.

Now it could be said that God shouldn't have given us free will, but in that case how would we love God? And why must we love God in order for there to be good, not evil? A good question.

Due to nature itself and an advanced organism's ability to adapt, we'll never know it would seem. Probably. Though I wouldn't call 'ignorance' a defining feature of 'evil' as it is commonly understood.

A "free choice" assumes at least 2 viable options, right? Only 1 viable option among other nonviable options is a trap it seems to me and not a "free choice". The Pope et al can stuff that theidiocy where the Sun don't shine.

A "free choice" assumes at least 2 viable options, right? Only 1 viable option among other nonviable options is a trap it seems to me and not a "free choice". The Pope et al can stuff that theidiocy where the Sun don't shine. — 180 Proof

Perhaps another way of looking at is they way a lawyer may do so. A person must make an informed choice in order to waive or release any claims. Were Adam and Eve informed of the consequences of the choice they made? I'd say no, they weren't, but could have been, by God. So, God is arguably responsible for the harm which resulted.

:up: Maybe I missed my calling after all. More or less, this was one of my apostatic "arguments" when I was sixteen: Adam & Eve were set-up for "The Fall".

Were Adam and Eve informed of the consequences of the choice they made? I'd say no, they weren't, but could have been, by God. So, God is arguably responsible for the harm which resulted. — Ciceronianus

Sure he did. Genesis 2:15 to 2:17.

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Note the wording of 2:17 where it says "when," not "if." Much has been said of this wording, indicating it was going to happen, not that it was something that might not. Had it not, would there have been no Jesus, considering his necessity arose from this original sin and he became necessary to save the souls of all future humans?

God is arguably responsible for everything, so when your tire blows out, you should properly thank God for that. Also, God does answers all prayers. Just a lot of times he says no.

Maybe I missed my calling after all. More or less, this was one of my apostatic "arguments" when I was sixteen: Adam & Even were set-up for "The Fall". — 180 Proof

I think this is a profound reading. And in a similar vein please explain Jesus - is it not the case that God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself for rules he made himself? What magical recalibration took place on Calvary? It seems like a pointless ritual to justify some megalomaniacal decision making process.

Jesus - is it not the case that God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself for rules he made himself? — Tom Storm

That's the sort of imbecilic nonsense one must believe in order to be a (thoughtful) "Christian". :shade:

The very word 'Christianity' is a misunderstanding – at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. — The Antichrist, aphorism 39

(Emphasis is mine.)

"Suppose, however, that God did give this law to the Jews, and did tell them that whenever a man preached a heresy, or proposed to worship any other God that they should kill him; and suppose that afterward this same God took upon himself flesh, and came to this very chosen people and taught a different religion, and that thereupon the Jews crucified him; I ask you, did he not reap exactly what he had sown? What right would this god have to complain of a crucifixion suffered in accordance with his own command?"
Robert Ingersoll

:up:

Sure he did. Genesis 2:15 to 2:17.

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” — Hanover

You're right. But "the man" was only warned of death, not everything else--working, sweating, experiencing pain, sickness, inclination towards evil, etc., for himself and all his descendants. So, "the man" wasn't fully informed.

You're right. But "the man" was only warned of death, not everything else--working, sweating, experiencing pain, sickness, inclination towards evil, etc., for himself and all his descendants. So, "the man" wasn't fully informed. — Ciceronianus

But see, Genesis 3:17, "To Adam he said, 'Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' 'Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life."

I take this to mean that Adam was punished not just for what he did but "because [he] listened to [his] wife." It's one thing I guess to defy God on your own, but to do it because your wife tells you to seems just a bit too much for even the good Lord to tolerate.

But see, Genesis 3:17, "To Adam he said, 'Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' 'Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life."

I take this to mean that Adam was punished not just for what he did but "because [he] listened to [his] wife." It's one thing I guess to defy God on your own, but to do it because your wife tells you to seems just a bit too much for even the good Lord to tolerate. — Hanover

From the use of the conjunctive "and" I would think you're right. The curse is caused because Adam did both things.

A. "Eve" was told by "the Serpent" that eating the "forbidden fruit" would make them "like G"; after "G" found out that they'd disobeyed, "G" admits, in effect, they ("Adam & Eve") have become like us (me) ...

B. Scripture recounts that "G" tells them "you shall die" for disobeying but doesn't tell "Adam & Eve", who've only ever eaten from the "Tree of Life" up to that point and know nothing of death (let alone birth), that they will die because "G" will be the direct cause of their deaths - in effect, be their torturer & executioner - by forever blocking access to the immortality-granting/sustaining "Tree of Life" - i.e. forced 'starvation'.

In sum: "G" made "Adam & Eve" sick - too weak to freely choose to obey even under the most favorable circumstances (i.e. "paradise") - and yet commands them (& us!) to be well - perfectly obedient and repentent; "the Serpent" tells the truth about the "fruit of the Tree" whereas "G" dishonestly, manipulatively - like a sociopathic soccer mom tells the children not to go into the refrigerator or else something bad will happen to them, then burns the little ones with cigarettes and feeds them only dog food for naively disobeying - sets up "Adam & Eve" just to  (given enough time, inevitably) "fall". Deus vult, right? — 180 Proof