Is man inherently bad?
One common thing that people say is that you don’t have to teach kids to be bad; they just are.
My response is that if everyone was bad from birth then there would be no good today because they wouldn’t have been able to foster good in others.
Um…
Bad for who?
“Man” is “bad” for one class of species, but “Man” may be “good” for another class of species.
“Man” is a “domesticated” “parasite”, and even moreso “Woman” is a “domesticated” “parasite”… That may be harmful to other beings, but who says it’s “bad”?
A rigid definition of the word “bad” would be helpful.
Yah, bad is relative to a perspective. What is bad for one may be good for another. People say kids are bad because they themselves don’t like the way kids act, others may see it differently. They may see the same behavior and decide it’s good and encourage it.
Good and bad, I don’t think are universal. What’s universal is people saying kids are bad.
I think this just means kids haven’t learned to conform to the norms of good and bad, so they do “bad” because they haven’t learned what bad is.
One person may use words like defect, obscene, unattractive, displeasing, bad, ugly, not profitable, dejected, or blasphemous to describe one thing while another may use words like beneficial, great, exciting, blessed, fun, an improvement, or advantageous to describe that same thing.
Bad being in the dictionary doesn’t make it’s definition universal.
There is no bad, only perspectives on what we don’t like. We use words like bad, mean, evil, ugly, gross, or poor to describe the things we don’t like. Each person will use those words to describe different events because each person likes and dislikes different things. Sometimes there is convergence on what people think is bad and sometimes there isn’t. The only thing that is universal is that the word itself “bad” signifies something we don’t like.
-Though even that could change too. Think about the different languages there are in the world. They don’t use bad they use something else.
I think it all depends on the genetic codes, really.
Some people will be born into a kind and timid mannerism.
Some people will be born into an over-reactive, violent mannerism.
I think might makes right. If the nazis has won WWII we’d believe in the heroism of nazis and the evil of the jews.
I think whoever is in power gets to decide what is right and what is wrong.
Esse qua esse bonum est.
are wolves inherently bad? Are dogs? are cows or sheep? life generally acts in its own best intrest to protect itself and survive, essentually to continue living, I dont see how humans are any diffrent.
I mother wolf would doe to protect its cub, as would a Dog, as would cattle or sheep, As would a Human. as a general rule contexts of bad and good are relative to the circumstances and the people involved.
eg. a child is climbing on the cubbords and making a mess of things, to the mother this is bad because it leaves a mess for her to clean, to the child however this is good because it lets him explore his enviroment to better learn how to survive.
A more extreme example would be nazi Germany, to the allies ther were completly evil, as they were to the jews, but form their point of view they were doing good, the allies made them pay for the damages of WW1 running their cuntry into poverty.
As far as they could tell everyone was against them, they saw How the jewish still remained wealthy and of course became jelous you probably would too, I know I would. so when a young charismatic hitler comes and offers a solution to your problems as a race of course your going to take it, better than dying of starvation in some rotten hell hole.
toi us ther were very bad but they were doing what they thought was good it’s all relative, generally life will do its best to survive, and if it comes to choosing between them or us well usually choose us, seems kind of simple dosent it?
OnlyHuman’s post communicates my perspective better than my attempt, but I think in general it’s hard for those of us who do not have an absolute perspective on good and bad to comment.
“To be by which route to be good is?” Whosamuwhatchumahuh?
People are inherantly survivors. I think any human being will eventually push the limits between what is fundamentally good and bad to find out for himself if others did not shape his perception of “bad” for him.
Say you have two people that are born in compelte isolation. No input coming to them other than when they share and learn for themselves. They get in an argument and one gets so angry that he strikes and kills the other. He learns this is “bad” because he immediately reaps consequences (he misses his companion, feels like he robbed the other of life, etc.). Yet, in essence, the act of striking the other wasn’t necesarrily “bad”. He didnt mean to kill or know the consequences before hand. At the time, the thought of striking the other person wasn’t bad because he did not have ill intent…he just wanted the argument to stop. Now, however, he will learn that death is “bad” and striking another person is “bad” because he sees consequences that he can relate to the word or the feeling of “bad”.
In other words, I don’t think that humans are inherently good or bad. We are natural survivors and naturally do what is in our best interest to stay alive and improve our quality of life. Beyond that, the restrictions that we put on ourselves are learned because we are taught the consequences.
Good god people. The guy just asked a simple question. Am I the only one who can actually answer it without asking him to write a disertation on it?
No, man is not inherently bad. Badness is a construct. Man preceeded any notion of bad. For him to be inherently bad would make no sense at all.
I believe man is inherently good and that through society man becomes corrupt.
Before the concept of good or evil man was just as any other primitive creature so than we can call that being of simplicity naturally good since it was a existance of pre-morality.
lava and fire preceeded any notion of temperature. Can we look back now and say lava is hot?
water existed before any notion of…well…anything. Can we look back now and say that water is created to be wet?
Not to mention, I believe (and correct me if I’m wrong) man has undergone a variety of changes since he first existed or since the first notion of “bad” was recognized. Was man created to be inherently bad? I agree, the answer would have to be no. Even if they did things that we now consider bad, early man had no notion morals so they can’t be held morally accountable. Now, if people are inherently bad now is a different question. We have developed new traits, instincts, abilities, etc. A learned behavior practiced enough and passed through generations can become instinct…you can see it in nature. I honestly think that people are survivors engaged in natural competition from the time we are born. The means by which we are willing to compete determine our moral fiber. That is either taught or learned behavior before the individual even has to worry about competing on his own. Then, when a person feels it’s time for him to compete he makes choices based on the options available. Are people inherently bad? I’d say no. But, I would also say that some have a greater aptitude to choose their means poorly or at the expense of others. If that aptitude is exercised and passed through many generations I would definitely say that people have the potential to become inherently “bad” as we define it.
I’ll assume that by “bad” you mean immoral, or malevolent.
If this were true, you would have to be bad yourself. Nobody could train you to be good, because someone would have had to train him to be good, and someone would have had to train him to be good, and so on. Logically, one person would have to have been born good, which means that it is possible for anybody to be born good, as if the event had natural causes it can be repeated, reproduced. And so, not all men would be born bad, and thus, man as a whole would not be born bad.
But if man was born bad, then you yourself would have to be bad, so your intentions in stating that man was born bad could only be bad, so we shouldn’t believe you when you say that all men are born bad.
“all men are born bad” requires a miracle exception, much like “all things are caused by other things” does. And if we must grant one exception, the entire integrity of the system is destroyed. Statements such as “All men are born bad except for one” and “all things are caused by other things, except god” aren’t worth as much as their related universal versions.
I think that right makes might, and that the Nazis didn’t lose WWII by chance. What makes one country different from another? It’s the principles a country stands for and was founded on that sets it apart. And location. Location, location, location.
Looks like I am the only advocate of the original goodness of man.
Not surprising.