Humans are not evil, but instead can perform evil (not good) actions; where evil actions are defined as anything that is contrary to the specific social norms (moral system) of a particular collection of individuals.
False!
FALSE !
NONSENSE !
You are speaking of adult humans. So this of your statements is FALSE too !
They were merely noting the natural propensity for intelligence to discern between what to love and what to hate. All surviving creatures have such instincts born within, else they could not survive as a species (even insects).
Psychologists (just barely on rare occasion fitting into the category of “scientists”) most certainly cannot be trusted to experiment and attempt to analyze complex systems or creatures more intelligent than their own cognitive comprehension skills. Infants fit into that category, as do almost all animals. The cognitive comprehension skills of the average psychologists are embarrassingly low. More to the exact point, none of those psychologists in that video actually understand what “morality” is. That is an issue for philosophers to decide. And no science can be conducted without proper definition. Ask any of them to exactly define “morality” in an unambiguous way. They would probably tell you that such isn’t necessary, which is largely why they are (still) not really qualified to be referred to as “scientists”.
Anyone can trump up what superficially appears to be a scientific experiment with all of the buzz words in place: “this was a double blind study”, “81% of the non-control group responded positively”,… The sad fact is that most people doing such things are very, very sloppy and often have ulterior motives.
Ask what the scientific definition of “morality” is. Without such a precise definition, no measure of it can be scientifically made.
And all of that is not to discount Arminius’ point that the very concept of morality, and thus good and evil, does not apply to animal behavior, and that includes human infants. Homosapians aren’t all that much different than other animals. What doesn’t apply to other animals only might barely apply to homosapians.
Your psychologist references are off mark for the same reason that you are - a complete lack of understanding of what morality and evil actually is and is actually all about.
Absolutely right.
The video is absolutely ridiculous, ragged, full of errors.
You missed my point in the OP.
I did not state “Human are Evil” period.
I stated
“DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil”
Note the word “POTENTIAL.”
This potential is the critical element.
The fact is this potential cannot be got rid of within the DNA and in the brain at least in the present and for a long time to come.
As humans evolved through 6 million years, this potential to commit ‘evil’ acts has been suppressed by inhibitors in the brain.
Unfortunately as a characteristic of Normal Distribution [Re Bell Curve] is in natural there are a percentile of human who has weak inhibitors that are unable to control their ‘evil’ impulses.
The above is the reason why there is so much evil [of a range of degrees] in the world at present and will be in the future.
Therefore the effective action for humanity to manage the levels of evil existing at present and in the future is to focus on the ultimate root cause [the potential and the inhibitors] instead of fire-fighting the non-critical causes.
Your views are very constipated and merely hand waving.
In contrast note James S Saint who at least gave some explanations to justify his views [which I do not agree and countered].
Note I mentioned;
Attacking this one example I gave is not effective.
I suggest you research on this topic and reflect on the conclusions instead of giving these very unhealthy “constipated” views.
The one example [amongst many researches done] was to counter Arminius’ point that ‘no one is born with moral competency, rather moral is learned’.
If you want to give a credible counter you will need to have some idea of the other research done [do a literature review] on this point.
Note most people can understand basic morality and those psychologists who has done research on it are surely capable of understanding what is morality at the basic level.
When I refer to those research I am backing it with my knowledge of the Philosophy of Morality.
One of my forte is on Philosophy of Moral & Ethics with emphasis of Kant and in general. Such research as the above will substantiate many of Kant’s fundamentals on his Philosophy of Morality, e.g. his Categorical Imperative and his full Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
I wonder what is your credibility and strength on this topic of morality and Ethics? Give me some references or anything to support your claim your have any reasonable knowledge on the Philosophy of Morality. I predict your idea of Morality may be grounded on a delusion??
It doesn’t matter how many. 1000 idiots still think like idiots.
If you want any “study” to gain actual scientific credibility, you must provide their exact, precise, scientific definition of the concepts they are trying to measure. Saying “well everyone knows what morality is”, is NOT scientific. And any study that claims to be scientific yet didn’t even know that one fact, isn’t worth anything at all, no matter how many such ignorant people attempt the same task.
I haven’t seen that you have any special knowledge of the “Philosophy of Morality”. The fact that you haven’t given a precise definition for “Moral Behavior” and for “Evil” (only a vague one), implies that your standard for “knowledge” is pretty low. As a philosopher wanting to deal with science, you should be far more pedantic. You cannot ask the scientists to do your job for you or even understand why you do it.
Perhaps it is just me but I tend to go with the motto of Science, “Nullius in Verbe” (take no one’s word). I don’t really care what Kant might have said or anyone else from 100s of years ago. The question is whether you can present the case yourself.
First, what my credentials might be is completely irrelevant because I am not the one making the claim, but rather merely checking your logic. Secondly, as I stated, “Nullius in Verbe”, so who cares what my credentials or anyone else’s might be? I don’t care what your “credentials” might be. Philosophy is NOT about worshiping idols and props.
If you want to convince me personally, you absolutely must provide an unambiguous, precise definition of the critical words and concepts you are using. After that, it is usually merely an issue of coherently maintaining your language (aka “Logic”) . It doesn’t matter what the subject is.
In case you are wondering, morality is a code of ethics established as a base standard of behavior to be expected from all members of a selected group. “Universal morality” doesn’t make a whole lot of sense because the grouping implies that all living creaturs are to be expected to obey a code of ethics.
Infants, as Arminius has pointed out, are not part of the specified group for which morals and evilness would apply.
I understand for you to explain your understanding of Morality and Ethic [“Nullius in Verbe”] would be tedious within a forum like this. That is why I asked you to quote some references on your coverage of the subject.
Since this is a philosophy forum, a study of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics is necessary. To discount Kant [one of the greatest philosopher ever] on ethics exposed your ignorance in the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
One may not agree with every philosopher on Morality and Ethics but one should at least understand [not necessary agree] the theories and principles propounded by the various reputable philosophers on the subject of Morality and Ethics. Something like a Literature Review.
If you cannot quote or mention any of the reputable philosophers you are ignorant of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
The above are childish views.
On a more refined basis there is a difference between Morality and Ethics.
Morality deals with the theory and principles whereas Ethics is applied Morality, like Pure and Applied Mathematics, Physics, etc.
As with Kant I agree with “Universal morality” which should be unconditional absolute moral principles [as the Categorical Imperatives] but not a set from a personal God which is delusional.
Perhaps so, but you haven’t provided anything better, hardly anything at all.
And my apologies … I mistakenly typed “does make sense…” when I meant “doesn’t make sense…”.
I didn’t miss your point of the OP but instead am pointing out that no humans are evil or can become (to be) evil but their actions can (depending on definition).
Since this is a philosophy forum, a study of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics is necessary. To discount Kant [one of the greatest philosopher ever] on ethics exposed your ignorance in the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
One may not agree with every philosopher on Morality and Ethics but one should at least understand [not necessary agree] the theories and principles propounded by the various reputable philosophers on the subject of Morality and Ethics. Something like a Literature Review.
If you cannot quote or mention any of the reputable philosophers you are ignorant of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
I have not started with anything serious yet, but from the above proposals I am opening a big door and inviting you into a whole vista of philosophical knowledge.
Instead of inventing the wheels, if you point to any of these
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
1 Defining ethics
2 Meta-ethics
3 Normative ethics
3.1 Virtue ethics
3.1.1 Stoicism
3.1.2 Contemporary virtue ethics
3.2 Hedonism
3.2.1 Cyrenaic hedonism
3.2.2 Epicureanism
3.3 State consequentialism
3.4 Consequentialism/Teleology
3.4.1 Utilitarianism
3.5 Deontology
3.6 Pragmatic ethics
3.7 Role ethics
3.8 Anarchist ethics
3.9 Postmodern ethics
It would definitely save a lot of hassles and enable us to zoom into the specific differences rather than trying to establish our basic positions.
If your morality and ethics principles do not fit into any of the above, then yours are likely to be ineffective unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
Generally we cannot simply accused someone as evil without justifications of the evil acts they have committed.
However if a person consistently and persistently commit acts of evil [as defined] then we can state the person is evil as qualified to the evidence of the acts of evil s/he has committed.
Therefore there is no issue and most people will agree Hitler was an evil person as qualified to the evil [as defined] acts he had committed.
So it is because of their evil [as defined] acts that we can state a person is evil.
As for the individual who has not committed any acts of evil [as defined], we cannot state such an individual will become evil based on speculations.
However we can not deny the fact that a percentile of all humans are born with an active tendency to commit evil acts and violence because it is a fact based on evidence that SOME human did commit evil acts and violence.
The question is were these actual acts of evil and violence based on Nature factors or Nurture factors.
I have demonstrated they are influenced by both ‘Nature’ and ‘Nurture’ factors.
Arminius and James S Saint insist evil acts are only caused by ‘Nuture’ factors. Such views are based on ignorance of human nature.
If they insist on the cause of evil as only due to ‘Nurture’ factors and ignore the ‘Nature’ factors they will never be able to resolve the evil acts of human in the future.
How many evil acts, or what severity of evil act, does a person have to commit to be classified as evil and is this classification-limit based on nurture or nature.
Nature of an animal to be evil would mean nature needs evil if nature needs evil then nature has intentions and thoughts. That would mean that a physical body has sentience seperate from the mental thoughts of the animal. This means the brain has no control of the body. But, this cannot be. Evil is only nurture. Nature has no ethics or morality, it is not one thinking entity.
No. Because this is a philosophy forum, an understanding of the concepts of ethics and morals is necessary. Whatever anyone thought or said in ancient history is irrelevant (and really belongs in the Philosophy form, not the religion forum).
This is not a site wherein a man can stand upon the shoulders of giants and speak without serious interruption. You can study the giants of the past and try to learn what you can (most probably not what they really intended) and then perhaps add to what you believe that you know. But when it comes to professing it here, you must be able to build your thesis from the ground up all on your own merit.
Imagine if I was to say, “Jesus said …X…”. Would you give “X” any greater credit? Perhaps Buddha, Moses, Heidegger, Einstein, whoever? Who you choose to worship is your own business. But to presume that your audience worships the same people is presumptuous (the very seed of all sin).
To rely on his name exposes your ignorance (for the reasons stated above).
Not really. I can explain physics and psychology without mentioning anyone’s name. What makes you think that I have to know someone else’s thesis in order to explain my own?
Why do you have to use someone else’s name in order to promote your own thesis? Is it yours? Or is it his? If it is his, I will wait to discuss it with him.
Well, that is good to know, because you really aren’t getting off on the right foot.
Yeah well … don’t count your chickens.
We are not “inventing”. We are trying to get YOU to fully explain YOUR thesis (not that of Kant). And to do that, you must fully define the critical terms involved (quite possibly different than those of Kant without you realizing it). You may quote Kant for your definitions if you like, but if you cannot define your concepts, you most certainly cannot use science as a source.
If you cannot even define your own, this whole thread is going to be “ineffective”.
You are the one who has constipated and merely hand waving views. You have absolutely no idea. You can and you will never give any proof or eviddence for you stupid “statements”, because they are completely false. There is no gene for morality, for ethics, for philosophy. All what humans can do when it comes to good or evil is to learn what it means, and that is also the reason why it is absolutely useless to educate little children before they have reached the age of the acquisition of the adult langiuage. Language (I mean the adult language - not the “baby talk”) is required for e.g. the learning what good or evil means.
Your alledged “tendency” does not exist. It seems that you have never learned what morality means - as if you have never been young. If a human who has reached the child/adult border, thus an adolescent age of about 14 yearsr or some years more (it depends on each case), and does not knwo what morality in the sense of a good-and-evil-system means, then this human will probably never leran what it means. That is the point.
You are trying to drive a wedge between me and him. I gave given explanations too. It seems that you do even not know what explanations are.
Again: You are the one who has not given any explanation. All what you are telling here about this subject is mere nonsense. What you are telling here is similar to the nonsensical statement that “babies” would be “atheists”. That is false. There is no gene for religion, for theology, for ethics, for philosophy. Your “statements” are completely false.
That are no studies but mere nonsense !
Is it possible that your developmental age is less than one year? You just do not know what “good” and “evil” mean.
I suggest you start learning your first language again before you judge about things you have absoluetly no idea of.
It is most effective.
Again and again: You are the one who has unhealthy constipated views. You have absolutely no idea of morality, ehtics, logic, definitions, … and so on and so forth.
You have no arguments, and so (of course) you start insulting all those who counter your false “statements”. That is typical for you, the “progressed human” (so your self-evaluation is false too).
You are merely misusing Kant’s philosophy.
You “statements” in this and another thread referring to the same subject indicate that you know almost nothing about moral and ethics, not much about Kant’s philosophy, and, moreover, nothing at all about genetics, learning, children, education.
I have helped, thus supported you in some other threads where you said some true words about Kant. But in this and another thread referring to the same subject you are really talking illogical, incoherent nonsense about things you know almost nothing about, in some cases even nothing at all.