I don't think that humanity could have survived if people were mostly inherently evil, but I also think that humans usually try to get along for selfish reasons (survival, procreation, etc'...) so I voted for neutral/other.
[QUOTE="MrPraline"]Eh? No, it wouldn't be OK. To me at least. Crushmaster
But it's OK to me. And that's what matters. (I'm not being serious, of course)
Actually, what matters is if it's okay with your neighbours/fellow city-folk/fellow country-men, or else they'll deal with you harshly so that you won't steal their money as well.
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. Teenaged
I see.
Do you think everyone lies, steals, etc., and commits many wrong deeds in their lifetime?
I don't think that humanity could have survived if people were mostly inherently evil, but I also think that humans usually try to get along for selfish reasons (survival, procreation, etc'...) so I voted for neutral/other.Zagrius
[QUOTE="Teenaged"] 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. Crushmaster
I see.
Do you think everyone lies, steals, etc., and commits many wrong deeds in their lifetime?Not everyone.
But I would say that everyone has done one of those things once at least even at a small degree or severity (sp?).
And I know where this is going but you should think why this happens not just speculate that it happens and thats it. ;)
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. D_Battery
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.
D_Battery
This is a pretty good way of describing what I'm getting at. Depending on the point of view involved, something could theoretically be described as "right" or "wrong" and the person making the argument could have a decent case. Using our supermarket mom thief as a continued example: Moral absolutists (the category I generally consider the CWU to fall into) believe that something is either always right or always wrong PERIOD. There is no sliding gray scale. Either stealing is wrong 100% of the time or it is right 100% of the time. Either something is 100% true or it is 100% false. I'm not a big fan of this category of this type of thinking. The mother is wrong to steal, since stealing is immoral, and that's the end of it. Utilitarians believe, in general terms, that the action that causes the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people should be considered the morally correct one. A Utilitarian might argue that killing a baby version of Adolf Hitler in order to prevent the Holocause and WWII (thus potentially saving many millions of lives at the expense of one utter innocent baby) could be morally justified. Spock from the Star Trek shows/movies fits this mold. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." This way of thinking has some pretty obvious downsides. I could go on. There are plenty of other theories on the subject of morality. I dislike moral absolutism not because I am immoral, but rather because I think it is too simple an answer. There are too many cases where I find moral absolutism useless as a guide for determining what is right and wrong.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I could go on. There are plenty of other theories on the subject of morality. I dislike moral absolutism not because I am immoral, but rather because I think it is too simple an answer. There are too many cases where I find moral absolutism useless as a guide for determining what is right and wrong. You can't let intuition guide your moral philosophies. You're either going to completely subscribe to their criteria or you may as well just be an intuitionist.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I could go on. There are plenty of other theories on the subject of morality. I dislike moral absolutism not because I am immoral, but rather because I think it is too simple an answer. There are too many cases where I find moral absolutism useless as a guide for determining what is right and wrong. You can't let intuition guide your moral philosophies. You're either going to completely subscribe to their criteria or you may as well just be an intuitionist. I never said I let intuition guide me completely. Nobody does really. But it does factor into my ultimate decision on things. To say that "gut feel" never plays into a decision is to self-deceive. I try and make intuition one facet, along with things like the law, logic, etc. when deciding what I think about something. Edit: Need to head out for a short bit. Will reply further when I get back.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I never said I let intuition guide me completely. Nobody does really. But it does factor into my ultimate decision on things. To say that "gut feel" never plays into a decision is to self-deceive. I try and make intuition one facet, along with things like the law, logic, etc. when deciding what I think about something. What I'm getting at is intuition ought not play any role in moral philosophies. If you're going to subscribe to utilitarianism or absolutism, you have to flout your intuitions. Otherwise you're not really a utilitarian. You're just a dirty intuitionist.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I never said I let intuition guide me completely. Nobody does really. But it does factor into my ultimate decision on things. To say that "gut feel" never plays into a decision is to self-deceive. I try and make intuition one facet, along with things like the law, logic, etc. when deciding what I think about something. What I'm getting at is intuition ought not play any role in moral philosophies. If you're going to subscribe to utilitarianism or absolutism, you have to flout your intuitions. Otherwise you're not really a utilitarian. You're just a dirty intuitionist. Ah. I got confused about the use of the word "you". I thought you were talking about me specifically not in general terms. Yes, I agree with you in principle. To be a true follower of these philosophies, intuition can play no part. You have to ask what the moral guideline of the philosophy would say about it, and then go with that answer regardless of your "feelings" in the matter. Not many people really follow these 100%. I sure don't. (Need to run out for a bit now.)
I choose neutral because good and evil are just too subjective and mainly based on the child primary /secondary socialisationthrough parents etc. I mean where do you draw the line in the sand about what is good or evil.
[QUOTE="Zagrius"]I don't think that humanity could have survived if people were mostly inherently evil, but I also think that humans usually try to get along for selfish reasons (survival, procreation, etc'...) so I voted for neutral/other.Crushmaster
I never found selfishness good. So we agree. That's why I voted for the neutral/other option, as I pointed out.
Well according to the Bible (roughly, Ive never actually read it), is that God created Man in His image, whichis not limited to physical attributes alone, but also to the nature of Man as well, in my opinion. To say that most, if not all people are evil or bad, is saying that God is an evil creature Himself, such as the God in the Old Testament.
Well according to the Bible (roughly, Ive never actually read it), is that God created Man in His image, whichis not limited to physical attributes alone, but also to the nature of Man as well, in my opinion. To say that most, if not all people are evil or bad, is saying that God is an evil creature Himself, such as the God in the Old Testament.
Well according to the Bible (roughly, Ive never actually read it), is that God created Man in His image, whichis not limited to physical attributes alone, but also to the nature of Man as well, in my opinion. To say that most, if not all people are evil or bad, is saying that God is an evil creature Himself, such as the God in the Old Testament. KcurtorMas
[QUOTE="KcurtorMas"] Well according to the Bible (roughly, Ive never actually read it), is that God created Man in His image, whichis not limited to physical attributes alone, but also to the nature of Man as well, in my opinion. To say that most, if not all people are evil or bad, is saying that God is an evil creature Himself, such as the God in the Old Testament. Crushmaster
Man now is not just as God created him.
Ahh...I see your point. I suppose Adam and Eve were inherently good up until original sin came into play.
Morality is subjective. What I consider good, some may not and vice-verse. That being said, looking at my baby brother, I can't see how we're inherently bad.
[QUOTE="KcurtorMas"] Well according to the Bible (roughly, Ive never actually read it), is that God created Man in His image, whichis not limited to physical attributes alone, but also to the nature of Man as well, in my opinion. To say that most, if not all people are evil or bad, is saying that God is an evil creature Himself, such as the God in the Old Testament. KcurtorMas
Man now is not just as God created him.
Ahh...I see your point. I suppose Adam and Eve were inherently good up until original sin came into play.
[QUOTE="Teenaged"] Enough to think that if I was in interaction with that person I wouldnt want her/him to be my friend.
And also enough so that this person's behavior hurts emotionally or physically the people around her/him.
But my most gut-feeling answer, is a person who does not correspond to my ideals of how a person should behave, but that it subjective so...Crushmaster
Thank you for your response.
If someone broke the law, let's say, a hundred times, would you consider that a lot?Depends on the law, and the circumstances.
[QUOTE="Teenaged"] Depends on the law, and the circumstances. Crushmaster
So you think breaking the law is only sometimes wrong?The opposite wording is a bit more accurate.
I think that breaking the law is only sometimes "right". (right as in "unavoidable")
For example if I knew of a mother who had no money to support her children and stole food from a super market a hundred times I wouldnt think she is evil. Of course I wouldnt tell her "good, go steal some more", but I would deffinetely not think she is evil.
Morally speaking people are like cookies. Some are Chips Ahoy and some are Keebler. No one likes the Keebler people because they get on everything and give others brain cancer.
I think that breaking the law is ony sometimes "right".
For example if I knew of a mother who had no money to support her children and stole food from a super market a hundred times I wouldnt think she is evil. Of course I wouldnt tell her "good, go steal some more", but I would deffinetely not think she is evil. Teenaged
But how can circumstances change morality?
Do you think everyone has at least committed one hundred evil deeds?
[QUOTE="Teenaged"] Depends on the law, and the circumstances. Crushmaster
So you think breaking the law is only sometimes wrong?
Yes, only sometimes. Do you think that the methods of Civil Disobedience that were used in the Black Rights Movement were evil acts? They were breaking the law, but for their freedom and rights as a human being. The law is not the deciding factor on morality, because the law is man-made.
Well according to the Bible (roughly, Ive never actually read it), is that God created Man in His image, whichis not limited to physical attributes alone, but also to the nature of Man as well, in my opinion. To say that most, if not all people are evil or bad, is saying that God is an evil creature Himself, such as the God in the Old Testament.
J-man45
God is not evil. Evil is the absence of God.
I've often questioned why people say this. If evil is the absence of God then why do theists do evil things and why do atheists do good things?
Well according to the Bible (roughly, Ive never actually read it), is that God created Man in His image, whichis not limited to physical attributes alone, but also to the nature of Man as well, in my opinion. To say that most, if not all people are evil or bad, is saying that God is an evil creature Himself, such as the God in the Old Testament.
BumFluff122
God is not evil. Evil is the absence of God.
I've often questioned why people say this. If evil is the absence of God then why do theists do evil things and why do atheists do good things?
All humans are capable because in a sense God is always there, but if you choose to block him out then he is not.
Yes, only sometimes. Do you think that the methods of Civil Disobedience that were used in the Black Rights Movement were evil acts? They were breaking the law, but for their freedom and rights as a human being. The law is not the deciding factor on morality, because the law is man-made. KcurtorMas
[QUOTE="Teenaged"] The opposite wording is a bit more accurate.
I think that breaking the law is ony sometimes "right".
For example if I knew of a mother who had no money to support her children and stole food from a super market a hundred times I wouldnt think she is evil. Of course I wouldnt tell her "good, go steal some more", but I would deffinetely not think she is evil. Crushmaster
But how can circumstances change morality?
Do you think everyone has at least committed one hundred evil deeds?Intentions though matter in morality imo. I am not all for rigid definitions of morality when if one thing is labeled wrong then we dont think further of this definitions. Like the example I gave you. Do you think that woman was evil?
All humans are capable because in a sense God is always there, but if you choose to block him out then he is not.
J-man45
The idea that God is the absence of evil is one of the most nonsensical arguments I've ever heard. There is absolutely no way to even begin to prove such an thing.
[QUOTE="Crushmaster"] But how can circumstances change morality?
Do you think everyone has at least committed one hundred evil deeds?
Teenaged
Intentions though matter in morality imo. I am not all for rigid definitions of morality when if one thing is labeled wrong then we dont think further of this definitions. Like the example I gave you. Do you think that woman was evil? I will answer your question when you answer mine.
[QUOTE="KcurtorMas"] Yes, only sometimes. Do you think that the methods of Civil Disobedience that were used in the Black Rights Movement were evil acts? They were breaking the law, but for their freedom and rights as a human being. The law is not the deciding factor on morality, because the law is man-made. Crushmaster
So then how do we know what they did was right?
It was the right thing to do, because laws emplaced at the time wereused specifically for the oppression and segregation of the Black people. Laws that are immoral in the first place cant hold people accountable for breaking them.
[QUOTE="Crushmaster"] But how can circumstances change morality?
Do you think everyone has at least committed one hundred evil deeds?
Crushmaster
Intentions though matter in morality imo. I am not all for rigid definitions of morality when if one thing is labeled wrong then we dont think further of this definitions. Like the example I gave you. Do you think that woman was evil? I will answer your question when you answer mine.I think I answered the first. They dont change morality but they insert new factors to consider. Morality is not the only one.
No I dont think everyone has at least commited one hundred evil deeds. Maybe many have, but not everyone. That would be a statement of omniscience based on nothing more than the impression you have of the world.
It was the right thing to do, because laws emplaced at the time wereused specifically for the oppression and segregation of the Black people. Laws that are immoral in the first place cant hold people accountable for breaking them. KcurtorMas
I think I answered the first. They dont change morality but they insert new factors to consider. Morality is not the only one.
No I dont think everyone has at least commited one hundred evil deeds. Maybe many have, but not everyone. That would be a statement of omniscience based on nothing more than the impression you have of the world. Teenaged
Thank you. Now I will answer your question.
Yes, she was evil in committing that; stealing is stealing, and stealing is wrong.
I don't see how can you believe that everyone has not committed at least a hundred evil deeds. Let me ask you this: How many do you think you've committed? Just guessing?
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] 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. Crushmaster
Thank you for your time. Have a good bike ride.
If anyone else has any thoughts on this, I would appreciate it.
No problem, I hope that helps answer your question. As always, I'll be happy to discuss anything with you that you want, just PM me and I will try to give a prompt reply :).
Log in to comment