Morally Speaking, What Are Humans?

I believe we, basically said, "simply evil". Romans 3:10 says, "There is none righteous; no, not one"; Jesus said, "There is one good; that is, God"; etc. The Bible speaks a good deal on this subject.

What are your views on this? And your reasons for those views?
EDIT: The fourth option should have ly on the end of 'most'; sorry about that. I would edit it, but it would delete all of the votes.
Please Note: This topic's purpose is evangelism. Please keep the discussion on the poll question, and other religious/Christian-based subjects. Thank you.
In Christ,
Crushmaster.

I don't see how any species can be seen as being inherently good or evil. There's always a shade of grey.

Where all completely evil.....

I don't think there is an objective or absolute moral standard, and that it all depends on the views of individuals right on up to society as a whole.

Tabula Rasa.

no one is born evil or good... just like we are not born with original sin

I believe we, basically said, "simply evil". Romans 3:10 says, "There is none righteous; no, not one"; Jesus said, "There is one good; that is, God"; etc. The Bible speaks a good deal on this subject.

What are your views on this? And your reasons for those views?
In Christ,
Crushmaster.

Crushmaster

I'm gonna have to read up on my Romans because that sounds flaggrantly out of context.

We are the most advanced species on the planet and we have a few problems, but I would rather bet on the human race than be a pathetic defeatist that believes we are hopeless and doomed to extinction.

there is no evil nor good, just right and wrong for the individual, and right and wrong in other frames of existence, constantly bumping heads with eachotherBiancaDK

I'm gonna have to read up on my Romans because that sounds flaggrantly out of context.

We are the most advanced species on the planet and we have a few problems, but I would rather bet on the human race than be a pathetic defeatist that believes we are hopeless and doomed to extinction.

Second_Rook

Impossible to generalise.Funky_Llama

there is no evil nor good, just right and wrong for the individual, and right and wrong in other frames of existence, constantly bumping heads with eachotherBiancaDK

So you think morality is relative?Crushmaster

Relative. People are whatever they wish to be, and in the eyes of someone else that may be "good" and it may be "evil."

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"]there is no evil nor good, just right and wrong for the individual, and right and wrong in other frames of existence, constantly bumping heads with eachotherCrushmaster

I think how we perceive acts based on morals is as relative as humans are varying in values, but i also subscribe to the idea of there being a somewhat (emphasis on somewhat) fixed parameter to morality. How you would measure it, and what factors you would have to include, i unfortunately cant tell you, since i just dont know.

There's no such thing as good or evil; so we're neither. MrPraline

I think how we perceive acts based on morals is as relative as humans are varying in values, but i also subscribe to the idea of there being a somewhat (emphasis on somewhat) fixed parameter to morality. How you would measure it, and what factors you would have to include, i unfortunately cant tell you, since i just dont know. BiancaDK

]
I see. So I stole money from you, that would not be wrong? It would be "OK"?

Crushmaster

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"] I think how we perceive acts based on morals is as relative as humans are varying in values, but i also subscribe to the idea of there being a somewhat (emphasis on somewhat) fixed parameter to morality. How you would measure it, and what factors you would have to include, i unfortunately cant tell you, since i just dont know. Crushmaster

You're being far too black and white. Silent-Hal

That isn't quite what she said. She said that mankind, based on the multitude of cultures, belief systems, etc. has not yet figured out one, homogenized view of morality and right vs. wrong. What is heinous in one culture might be utterly normal in another. She explicitly stated that there are fixed parameter's to morality. What she is saying is that we don't universally agree on all of them quite yet.nocoolnamejim

Okay I just read the preceding chapters and verses and that statement is decrying the sanctimonious attitude that had become commonplace in the Jewish faith at the time it was written. Pointing out that knowledge of the law did not put people in a position to look down upon those around them. Knowing the law did not make you righteous, it made you aware of your own flaws and moving from that direction it could make you a betterperson.

But great spin you put on it just the same.

Edited for grammatical error

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"] I think how we perceive acts based on morals is as relative as humans are varying in values, but i also subscribe to the idea of there being a somewhat (emphasis on somewhat) fixed parameter to morality. How you would measure it, and what factors you would have to include, i unfortunately cant tell you, since i just dont know. Crushmaster

... Are you being serious, now?

I suggest you go read up on the terminology, before throwing it around left and right in a public thread.

You're being far too black and white.

Silent-Hal

morality is relative. It is learned from society.

Okay I just read the preceding chapters and verses and that statement is decrying the sanctimonious attitude that had become commonplace in the Jewish faith at the time it was written. Pointing out that knowledge of the law did not put people in a position to look down upon those around them. Knowing the law did not make you righteous, it made you aware of your own flaws and moving from that direction it could make you another person.

But great spin you put on it just the same. Second_Rook

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"] I think how we perceive acts based on morals is as relative as humans are varying in values, but i also subscribe to the idea of there being a somewhat (emphasis on somewhat) fixed parameter to morality. How you would measure it, and what factors you would have to include, i unfortunately cant tell you, since i just dont know. Crushmaster

You're misrepresenting the idea of relative morality. Nice try, though ;).

I hate these overly dualistic, black and white interpretations of morality. There are shades of gray to everything; though if I had to generalise, I would say humans are primarily self-centred. The problem with terms like "good" and "evil" is that they are so subjective that they have lost much of their semantic weight; they can mean wildly different things depending on the context and the individual. The Zoroastrian and Manichean (and apparently also Christian) notion of a strict good and evil understanding of morality is just too simple to be appropriate in every situation.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] That isn't quite what she said. She said that mankind, based on the multitude of cultures, belief systems, etc. has not yet figured out one, homogenized view of morality and right vs. wrong. What is heinous in one culture might be utterly normal in another. She explicitly stated that there are fixed parameter's to morality. What she is saying is that we don't universally agree on all of them quite yet.Crushmaster

Although I voted neutral because atm I was thinking of other arguments then I remembered about babies.

When they are born its like inherently they rejoice in goodness and cry when in evil treatment. Their default emotion is happiness (and sometimes sadness which is not an evil emotion).

Therefore I think that we are mostly inherently good.

You're misrepresenting the idea of relative morality. Nice try, though ;). chessmaster1989

Heaven - and what it is (and is not) - is one rather LARGE area of disagreement among mankind. It's a large area of disagreement among CHRISTIAN kind. But what you said really didn't disprove the earlier point. Trotting out an absurd example on whether or not it is okay to steal $50,000 from somebody to go buy a car isn't helpful because it is something that IS pretty much universally agreed to as being wrong.

A better example would be, "Is it okay for a mom who has no money and can't work, and has been refused help from everyone, to rob a supermarket for food to feed her children?" This is a better example because, while it is widely accepted that stealing is wrong, you'd get a variety of answers on whether THIS PARTICULAR theft is morally wrong. Is stealing ALWAYS wrong or are there some circumstances where it could be morally right? Isn't it a greater crime to starve a family than for a family to steal in order to eat?nocoolnamejim

Hmm, looks like another thread of Crush preaching on Gamespot. Well, guys, have fun not convincing anyone of anything. As for me, I'm off for a bike ride.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Hmm, looks like another thread of Crush preaching on Gamespot. Well, guys, have fun not convincing anyone of anything. As for me, I'm off for a bike ride.BiancaDK

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] You're misrepresenting the idea of relative morality. Nice try, though ;). Crushmaster

Sure, I'll take a minute to explain before I go off biking.

The idea of relative morality is that there is no absolute standard of morality, just individual standards of morals. Thus, perhaps the one being robbed may think theft immoral, and be angry that he was robbed. The thief, however, may not consider theft immoral, and thus see nothing wrong with theft.

What you were talking about when you asked whether I/nocool/whoever would be okay with someone stealing 50k from me/nocool/whoever is the idea that morality is nonexistant entirely, whether relative or objective, or that the person's personal morality dictated that stealing was okay. It has nothing to do with the overarching idea of relative morality. A person's personal set of moral codes could still dictate that stealing was wrong, or it could not.

If that doesn't explain it well, get GabuEx, nocoolnamejim, BumFluff, or -Sun_Tzu- to explain it for you. They're pretty good at this stuff. And, with that, I'm off.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Heaven - and what it is (and is not) - is one rather LARGE area of disagreement among mankind. It's a large area of disagreement among CHRISTIAN kind. But what you said really didn't disprove the earlier point. Trotting out an absurd example on whether or not it is okay to steal $50,000 from somebody to go buy a car isn't helpful because it is something that IS pretty much universally agreed to as being wrong.

A better example would be, "Is it okay for a mom who has no money and can't work, and has been refused help from everyone, to rob a supermarket for food to feed her children?" This is a better example because, while it is widely accepted that stealing is wrong, you'd get a variety of answers on whether THIS PARTICULAR theft is morally wrong. Is stealing ALWAYS wrong or are there some circumstances where it could be morally right? Isn't it a greater crime to starve a family than for a family to steal in order to eat?Crushmaster

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]There's no such thing as good or evil; so we're neither. Crushmaster

I dont follow any religion, therefore I don't subscribe to the self-loathing that Christianity/Judaism/Mormonism demand. From the bible and/or book of mormon's perspective, I'd look like I'm full of pride, but I'm just human. The guilt trip doesn't work on me, and all too often, that's the tactic that preachers use when they try to convert people

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Heaven - and what it is (and is not) - is one rather LARGE area of disagreement among mankind. It's a large area of disagreement among CHRISTIAN kind. But what you said really didn't disprove the earlier point. Trotting out an absurd example on whether or not it is okay to steal $50,000 from somebody to go buy a car isn't helpful because it is something that IS pretty much universally agreed to as being wrong.

A better example would be, "Is it okay for a mom who has no money and can't work, and has been refused help from everyone, to rob a supermarket for food to feed her children?" This is a better example because, while it is widely accepted that stealing is wrong, you'd get a variety of answers on whether THIS PARTICULAR theft is morally wrong. Is stealing ALWAYS wrong or are there some circumstances where it could be morally right? Isn't it a greater crime to starve a family than for a family to steal in order to eat?Crushmaster

It depends on what sort of moral system you use. If you're a moral absolutist, then no, it is still wrong and always will be regardless of the circumstances. If you're a utilitarian, then it seems that the crime was more beneficial to the woman and her family than it was harmful to the supermarket, and therefore perfectly moral. Then again, if you're a randroid, it was her own fault for not taking the initiative and succeeding on her own.

Sure, I'll take a minute to explain before I go off biking.

The idea of relative morality is that there is no absolute standard of morality, just individual standards of morals. Thus, perhaps the one being robbed may think theft immoral, and be angry that he was robbed. The thief, however, may not consider theft immoral, and thus see nothing wrong with theft.

What you were talking about when you asked whether I/nocool/whoever would be okay with someone stealing 50k from me/nocool/whoever is the idea that morality is nonexistant entirely, whether relative or objective, or that the person's personal morality dictated that stealing was okay. It has nothing to do with the overarching idea of relative morality. A person's personal set of moral codes could still dictate that stealing was wrong, or it could not.

If that doesn't explain it well, get GabuEx, nocoolnamejim, BumFluff, or -Sun_Tzu- to explain it for you. They're pretty good at this stuff. And, with that, I'm off. chessmaster1989