Human nature

You can believe what you want, but certain tendencies point to human nature being inborn "evil", that is to say acting the way common people define as "bad", but such simple terms shouldn't be used to describe something as complex as human nature.

Just look at babies. They are all selfish beings who want nothing but their own well being, always screaming "me! me! me!!!" and cry when they don't get what they want. "Goodness" is taught and disciplined by our parents, role models(leaders, front figures etc.), authors and such by showing us what is right and what is wrong. In a sense, the law itself works as a teacher as well. We learn that we will get punished if we do something "wrong"("evil") and that we might get rewarded if we do something "right"("good").

Rather than defining the human nature as "good" or "evil", I'd say that most human beings are opportunists and exploiters. The only reason why we want to be "good" is that we can benefit from it, and the same goes for being "evil". Both acts can be rewarded if utilized properly, and our power of reasoning will at least consider doing an "evil" act if we can benefit from it knowing we'll get away with it. The Internet is a perfect example of this. There's all kinds of illegality going on here, but since we know we'll get away with it we'll keep doing it.

"Good" or "bad", it's all a matter of opportunity.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Are you saying that all living creatures are inherently evil?

Because evolution would disgaree with you~

I thought we were talking about HUMAN nature, but what the heck. :P

I'm sure evolution would disagree, but a human being might not.

Try to define "evil" and think of how animals act. They don't ALWAYS act to survive. The cat, for instance, usually plays with it's victims, be it birds or mice, by tossing it around, biting it and putting it's claws into it, before it eventually kills it. Now, if this was done by a human being it would probably be considered torture, and ultimately murder, two things generally defined as "evil". In this sense, even animals can be evil and it is, in fact, a trait they are born with. Rape is also common among animals. Gorilla alpha males even rape other males! Is that an act of survival? Well, I guess you could say it is since the alpha male only does it so that he can show the other males that their completely under his control. However, again, say that this was done by a human being, it doesn't necessarily have to be rape, just an act that shows the other threatening parties that you can control them and have your way without them being able to resist, it would probably be considered evil. Dictators do it all the time. Saddam Hussein was considered "evil" by the US and was therefore given the ultimate punishment, death (barbaric if you ask me, I don't believe in the "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth" kind of thinking, but that's another story).

However, I think that "evil" (again, defining evil is hard, but let's say it's an act that is considered wrong by the general public) is a conscious act, and therefore only beings with higher reason power are capable of truly being "evil".

But as I stated before, I don't think we can actually define human nature as "evil" or "good". I mean, we could, but it wouldn't be enough to describe the complexness that is a human.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

Okay, maybe you didn't read what I wrote?

"Good" and "evil" are purely human inventions - black and white lines to live by. Do you think animals are "good" and "evil?" Do you think they sit down and make rules for themselves that are distinct and arbitrary. "Thou shalt not kill thyne fellow tiger, for it is evil?" Fuck no. Those motherfuckers do what they need to, in order to live.

Ok, maybe you didn't get my point?

Why do you think I use quotation marks whenever I use the words "good" or "evil"(with reservation for the parts where I was lazy)? Because I was trying to say that these two terms are a matter of popular opinion, more exactly, fabrications of society in order to preserve things we think highly of, "moral", "law" and the such. I thought I made that pretty clear, I guess I was wrong.

Quote:

This is my point, buddy. Animals do what they are naturally supposed to do. A cat is a hunter - it should come as no surprise that the cat plays with it's prey. It's not evil for this - it's being a cat.

And my point being that it's all a matter of how you define "evil". If it's about acting a certain way then all creatures are guilty. Then again, I also stated that I think that committing acts of "evil"(by the definition of popular opinion) is reserved to beings with higher reasoning power (although it did say "reason" power, which I must apologize).

Quote:

There is no good and evil. It's all in your head. Thats what my point was. The only place good and evil can apply is to humanity. Because humanity made it up to suit it. Just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Which was my point, or rather, that only beings with higher reasoning power (humans) are capable of "evil" because we are the only ones able to create the very definition of the word.

Quote:

People feel the need to satiate their emotional discourses. "I killed one of my own kind. How do I make myself feel better?" While it can be argued that animals have a lessened amount of emotion, it is distinctly not as emotional as human beings - nor are they cognisant of making a "right" or "wrong" decision. Much like a criminal or a child, they can only tell "right" and "wrong" by how their decision hinders or improves their lifestyle - not how it makes them FEEL.

I can't argue with that.

Quote:

It's more important (and on topic) here to narrow in on what is the perceived nature of man. And thats easily summed up: He likes to fuck with shit.

Well aren't we the modernist? Defining human nature as "a being who likes to fuck with shit". I both agree and do not agree on this. I DO think that what you said is true, but I also think that it isn't always that simple since we can reflect on what we have done, will do or won't do. Therefore, humans are complex beings. We are a silly, small, existence if compared to the universe in whole, but since we are also a lot more intelligent than most other living beings on this planet we are in fact quite complex. It's all relative. "A creature with enough reasoning power to know that it likes to fuck with shit" would, in my opinion, be a closer definition of a human being, but it still wouldn't be enough.

Quote:

Rape is also common among animals. Gorilla alpha males even rape other males! Is that an act of survival? Well, I guess you could say it is since the alpha male only does it so that he can show the other males that their completely under his control. However, again, say that this was done by a human being, it doesn't necessarily have to be rape, just an act that shows the other threatening parties that you can control them and have your way without them being able to resist, it would probably be considered evil. Dictators do it all the time.

Quote:

Why are you being dumb. Animals and humans are not the same. Arainach proposed a VERY vague statements which implied indirectly that they ARE, in fact, very similar.

I was trying to make analogies to prove my point, that "evil" is a matter of definition and that if you CAN define a human as "evil", then you can ALSO define an animal as the same, not saying that animals can define themselves as "evil". I'm just saying that we act very similarly, without actually acting in the same way and with the same intentions. To be able to act "evil"(based on poplar opinion) you have to know that you are doing. I am very well aware that animals can't do this.

Quote:

Saddam Hussein was considered "evil" by the US and was therefore given the ultimate punishment, death (barbaric if you ask me, I don't believe in the "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth" kind of thinking, but that's another story).

Quote:

Blah blah blah more listening to oneself speak. Saddam thrown in for good measure to make a "hard-hitting" point (which it doesn't, but okay)

I really didn't use Saddam as a means for "good measure to make a "hard-hitting" point". I used him because he was closest at hand. I could have used any old "bad"(based on popular opinion) dictator, like Kim Jong Il.

Quote:

But as I stated before, I don't think we can actually define human nature as "evil" or "good". I mean, we could, but it wouldn't be enough to describe the complexness that is a human.

Quote:

O god, give it a rest. This is another problem with human beings. They think they're so complicated and so diverse.

We're not. Deal with it. It's attitudes like this that will divide us over petty bullshit. The sooner everyone figures out that we're just another boring species with a quirky survival technique, the better.

Again, I beg to differ. I would say that we are far more complex than to only be defined as something black or white, like "good" and "evil". Because that WAS what you where trying to dispute, wasn't it? If not, then your answer isn't relevant.



Now for all modernist type of minds in here (not saying I'm not mostly modernist, I just don't think it's appropriate to define something as something and then settle with that. Especially if it potentially has more layers than that) I have devised a definition, combined with the the two statements Sassiefrassie made, and the one I made:

"The human being is just another boring creature, with a quirky survival technique, that has a higher form of reasoning power(relative)"

Defined, yet not enough to describe the human being, in my opinion. See my point?

EDIT: I just realized I contradicted my own reasoning by defining Sas as a "modernist"(and then defining a human being with one word, which I said you can't, and shouldn't), I'm sure she's more complex than that.

How ya doing, buddy?