Is Mankind Born Evil....or Good?

by Farkel 119 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Farkel

  Many ancients including Confucious and Lao Tzu took opposing views about this subject and their arguments are fascinating to read. Their arguments are nearly 2,500 years old. The Greeks also lively debated this question.

  Of course, as dubs (and in fact, in most Christian faiths) we were taught that man was born inherently evil, and the quest is to overcome that and work towards the good. In otherwords, we were born with Cancer and have to spend our lives finding the "cure." Or else.

  But does the evidence support that claim? I have my own arguments and will present them as the thread develops, if indeed it develops.

  I'm interested in at least fairly sound arguments, not just people pulling opinions out of where they defacate. If you know what I mean here.

  Remember, the discussion in this thread should hopefully be about whether ALL people are born with the tendency to be "not good" or whether ALL people are born with the tendency to be "good." It's the "tendency" to be either good or not good from birth that I'm interested in debating. As a child emerges from it's mother's body, what is it's "tendency", yet unnurtured as yet to be?

  I would hope this would elicit some lively disucssion, since the ancient Chinese Masters were debating this very issue four hundred years before Christ was born, and since today this issue defines most religions of this world and determines the philosophies they put forward on their members.

  Of course, this is an incomplete test. Besides genetic variables, there are also environmental variables that enter into the soup. That being so, I will further narrow down the sample. Suppose we have three groups that are large enough to be tested and statiscally evaluated: Group 1 consists of the (mainly Christian) variety that firmly believes that people are born inherently "bad" or even "wicked." They teach their children this and influence them from the earliest age. Group 2 consists of another variety that firmly believes that people are born inherently good and that there are other reasons not related to "original sin", genes or whatever that cause them to become bad. They, too teach their children this philosopy. Group 3 consists of, let's say atheists who are ambivalent about this issue and teach their children that they should do what they feel they have to do, without regards to consequences after this life.

  Now we have a good sampling, and now we can discuss this issue. I would enjoy hearing peoples responses in the narrow framework I've define.

  Hint: I assert people are born with more "good" tendencies than "bad" tendencies on the whole. I have some very good arguments for my position and will present them when necessary.

  What say ye? Are we born inclined more towards "bad" or inclined more towards "good?"

  Farkel
• 

  heathen

  Looks like I'm the first to deficate this fine thread of yours . I think that people are born with the potential for either or . I have heard religionists that claim people are inherantly evil but I just can't see the evil in an infant I mean jeeze what kind of evil could an infant perpetrate .
• 

  blackout

  Neither.

  I dont believe in good and evil. I do believe in mental illness.

  Is a lion evil because it kills?

  I think we begin at a base/earthly level. Each time we are reincarnated we learn that lifes lesson and we move on to a more enlightened state until we become wholely spiritual.
• 

  gumby

  Well I must say Fark........this was a deep one and a hard one to comment on.......so I'm gonna guess and I try not to guess out of where I defacate

  You mentioned enviroment might determine this. I believe this is the biggest factor personally.I think genetic disposition has it's effects upon the individual only after he has been affected first by the enviroment.

  When I watched the Truman Show with Jim Carrey......it taught me something. A person knows only what he sees and is taught by those he encounters. When a baby is born and sees it's smiling mother or others, showing it nothing but love.......it learns from actions showed toward it. If it saw only mean faces and bitter expressions and voices......and only saw that for the rest of it's life......it no doubt would act that way because it is all it knew or learned.

  Now, let say the latter baby was subjected to bad treatment for two years and the next two years he is treated with love. Would he be a good kid or a bad one? I think it is at that point it would be dependant on individual perception of which way is best for him and he can survive the best.

  I guess then my take on it is a person is a blank tape.......untill it recieves information through life. Whether it is a good kid or a bad one can differ between two individuals, based on recieved input, even if those inputs are the same.

  Now then ....I'm sure if I read what I just wrote, I will be confused as hell....and so I'm not going to read it.

  Gumby
• 

  Farkel

  Thank you for sharing, Gumby.

  The plain truth is there are children born and raised in the most abusive and even evil of familes who turn out not to be evil or abusive people. The reverse is also true: children born in the most loving and nurturing of families turn out to evil.

  This is a complex subject, and that is why I brought it up. I read a piece written by so-called "experts" on the subject that concluded that if Hitler had been born in this generation, with the medications and treatments we have today, he would have never been the "Hitler" that we all know and despise. Of course, this is conjecture, but these so-called "experts" assert that his particular form of mental illness is not difficult to treat.

  Of course, there are many (off topic) variants to this: if man is born with bad inclinations and God is theistic, then it must logically follow that God made it so. Thus, a theistic God is evil by making it nearly hopeless for man, or cynical because he made it harder than it should be to please such a "loving Creator(tm)." If man is born with bad inclinations and God is deistic, then one must wonder why this type of God (who doesn't give a rat) would make that way in the first place. This type of a good is even more cynical than a theistic God.

  God aside, though, what do the FACTS show about whether people are born good or evil.

  If people are born good and they have evil parents who turn them into evil people, and those evil parents were also of the set that was born good, then what happened to their parents? Or their grandparents? Ad infinitum. If all people were born good, then how could people have evil parents?

  If true, what caused their parents to become evil, if they lived among the rest of the people who were also born good.

  The reverse is true, too. What causes the majority of people to be good, if they (and their parents and everyone else) were born with an inclination to be bad?

  My head hurts.....

  Farkel
• 

  Farkel

  heathen,

  : but I just can't see the evil in an infant I mean jeeze what kind of evil could an infant perpetrate .

  You ever have an infant poop while you were trying to give it a bath? Now THAT is evil!

  Farkel
• 

  StinkyPantz

  This is a hard question to answer if you are not allowing genetics or environment into the equation. Even so, I would say that most, not all people are inherently good. I can not say all, because I believe that some people are, in essence, born evil. Why inherently good? Take two children and raise them in separate families. Place child one in a nurturing, supportive environment; child two in a hostile, neglectful one. I do not have the statistics to support this, but I believe due to the inherent good in all of us it is more likely for child two to be a positive influence on society than child one being a negative one.

  Also, because most people don't go out doing harmful things to each other regularly and deliberately, this also shows humanity's inherent good.

  Or I could be devil's advocate and give an equally weak argument for society's inherent evilness. . .
• 

  Euphemism

  Kind of depends on how you define good and evil, doesn't it? Ayn Rand and Augustine, for example, would probably both agree that people are born selfish; but Rand would call that a good thing, whereas Augustine would not.

  If we stick to the more conventional ethical philosophy that holds that unselfishness is good and harming others is bad, however, it's obvious that we're born with both good and bad impulses. But I think that our fundamental tendency has to be towards good, because otherwise, we would not consider it good.

  Also, there is the fact of emotional healing. Many people who were raised with a lack of love, and treat others badly, find emotional healing later in life, and change their ways. It's far less common for a loving person (and I don't mean a co-dependent person, who gives out of obligation, but a genuine loving person) to suddenly turn hateful later in life.

  For all that people complain about the warlike, selfish nature of the human race, things are a heck of a lot better than they were a few centuries or millenia ago. One of the main reasons is because most people--at least in the Western world--don't have to worry about having enough food to survive, or other basic necessities. What that says, to me, is that when there are adequate resources people tend towards being good.

  Evil fundamentally arises out of a sense of scarcity. At the simplest level, a lack of food might lead to wars for the sake of gain. At a more abstract level, a personal sense of scarcity due to a lack of love during childhood might lead to all sorts of pathological behaviors. In all cases, however, the cause of the evil is environmental, not an internal tendency.
• 

  Farkel

  stinky,

  : Also, because most people don't go out doing harmful things to each other regularly and deliberately, this also shows humanity's inherent good.

  You have just formed the foundation of my argument that people are inherently good. If true, such news is an anathema to religions who survive on the notion that we all tend towards evil naturally and we need their help (and also to give them lots of money) to get it right!

  Farkel
• 

  LittleToe

  Good and badLet's throw in a semi-biblical one:
  The tree of the knowledge of good and bad, and the detail that apparently it made man like God, in this respect.
  Even if you take this story as a myth, at the very least it indicates that one segment of mankind had drawn some conclusions by about 1500BC (and alledged to have been drawn by 4000BC).

  And I would present them this way:
  Man inherently has the knowledge to do good or bad, something that is observable in the natural creation, and may be an extension of "God" himself.

  ExampleI've seen my little nephews demonstrate beaming love, and even sharing. I've also seen them act selfishly AND poop in the bath (LOL).
  As we get older we tend to curb certain impulses, because of the community around us, but if we can get away with things, we sometimes will (depending on the strength of our personal ethics).

  Counters
  Scripture tells us that man is bad from his youth up, and certain sections of Christian belief indicate that man is "Totally Depraved", needing God to lift man out of the mire (not religion per se).

  On the physical plane, this is statistically unprovable. There ARE good things happening in the world that appear to have little or no connection to people's spirituality. An example being a reactive response to someone's need (albeit in cases of violence, sometimes self-preservation overrides this).

  I've seen "spiritual" people do detestable things, so spirituality isn't the cure to "badness". I sometimes wonder if it makes one less prone, or whether or not a strong community spirituality reduces "badness" to the degree in which it is observable. In other words, do overtly "spiritual" people try to act like they are expected to act? I believe this is reduced somewhat in "non-works religions", at least by the practitioners, if not the adherents.

  ConclusionMan has the propensity to both.
  I do think there's a clue in "spirituality", but since it's hovering in a mist, it's hard to quantify.

  An excellent thread, albeit a topic that is self-confessedly classic.