DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

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.

You are always blabbering your condemnations of my views without any proper arguments nor justifications. That is not the way for any credible intellectual and philosophical discussions.

Btw, I have spent always 3 years full time basis studying Kant and his philosophy so your views i.e.
“Arminius:
you know almost nothing about moral and ethics, not much about Kant’s philosophy, and, moreover, nothing at all about genetics, learning, children, education

appear to be silly and stupid from my perspective.

Btw have you read extensively or not.
If you have read widely you will note most of the good texts has a large section Bibliography.

Have you read this thread?
Note I have built up my hypothesis with my own views and at the same time supported with justified views from other sources.

Obviously! if you are representing Christians’ views I definitely would expect you to quote from what Jesus said. I will note your personal views [as far as I am aware is not credible at all] on this but that would be secondary.

As mentioned above, I suggest you start a petition to condemn all those authors who had a Bibliography section in their books.
I presume when you discuss Physics, you will ignore the theories of Newton’s, Einstein’s, Bohrs’ and other reputable Physicists and will only argue your own knowledge and views.

From above;
I presume when you discuss Physics, you will ignore the theories of Newton’s, Einstein’s, Bohrs’ and other reputable Physicists and will only argue your own knowledge and views.
No sane intellectual person will trust your gnat view on Physics and Psychology if you do not refer to accepted theories of the past.

It is not ‘promote’ but ‘support’ my hypothesis. Have you ever presented an academic thesis? If yes, do you mean it does not have a Bibliography at all. If that is the case, it should go into a dustbin.
Show me one credible thesis [Masters or PhD] of the modern era where there is no reference to the theories or ideas of others.

So what? Such discussion are open to any one who is interested. If no one is interested then let it be so. No worries.

How would you know? And think about what precedence actually causes in society. But more than that, consider that THIS is NOT society at large. THIS is a Philosophy site wherein you seriously need to think more than worship what others have said.

You appear to misunderstand what a bibliography is for. It merely serves to show that you were not lying when you quoted someone. It, in no way, supports the truth of your own assertions. And it certainly doesn’t provide forgiveness of the requirement to define your terms when referring to scientific evidence.

A bibliography in no way represents rationalization for assertions being made in the thesis.

You seem to be caught up in the whole “name dropping” thing used to impress and influence the apes. You really should hold that off, and especially the “patting yourself on the back” bit, until you have provided a solid foundation for your claim. You could have 18 PhDs, 4 Nobel Prizes, and certified letters from Mother Teressa and the Pope, yet none of that would mean anything at all to me or the thinking people on any Philosophy site. You are playing the Fascist.

DNA wise All humans are almost GAURANTEED to be evil.

But how evil? This particular planet, world, and daily life circumstances make them very evil.
At this point, the only way out of this hell is the DnA machine.

Evil is only a social construct.

No. If there was a button that said lighting your foot on fire for a very long time, or getting heavenly spas, it would be evil to push the foot on fire button.

No, it would not be evil, it would be stupid or ignorant or it could save your life or another. We name actions as evil because they endanger , harm or kill family, another individual or society. It is a label for a degree of antisocial behavior. It is a socially constructed label for undesirable action. It is based on herd/pack reactions to a member being highly dangerous to the whole. All social creatures have this. It is not a huma thing and it is just part of life. Life cannot ever be perfect.

Noone enjoys their foot on fire, and Nihilism doesn’t exist.

You can say that not enjoying your foot on fire is a social construct, and good and bad doesn’t exist, but it doesn’t make it so.

You are the one who is „always blabbering“ his „condemnations“ of other „views without any proper arguments nor justifications“. So you are also the one who is not capable of prticipating in „credible intellectual and philosophical discussions“.

Note: I have quoted your problematic statements which can be found in all your threads.

So it seems that you will have to spent probably more than 30 years from now on in order to undertand what Kant was talking about. Your errors are not a ressult of Kant’’s philosophy but of your false interpretation and consequently of your false derivations from it.

If Kant lived today, he would be the first one who agreed with me and said to you: "Du bist nicht vernünftig, sondern doof oder zynisch“.

"Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten Unmündigkeit. Unmündigkeit ist das Unvermögen, sich seines Verstandes ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen. Selbstverschuldet ist diese Unmündigkeit, wenn die Ursache derselben nicht am Mangel des Verstandes, sondern der Entschließung und des Mutes liegt, sich seiner ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen. Sapere aude! Habe Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen! ist also der Wahlspruch der Aufklärung.“ - Immanuel Kant, Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?, 1784.

"Der Mohammedianism unterscheidet sich durch Stolz, weil er, statt der Wunder, an den Siegen und der Unterjochung vieler Völker die Bestätigung seines Glaubens findet, und seine Andachtsgebräuche alle von der mutigen Art sind.“ - Immanuel Kant, Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft, 1793, 4. Stück, 2. Teil, § 2, A 269, B 285.

"Der Mensch ist ein Tier, was eine Erziehung nötig hat.“ - Immanuel Kant, Reflexionen über die Anthropolgie, 1798.

What you are doing here in this webforum is just the oppositie of what Kant wanted his readers to do.

And what you are saying about "silly and stupid“ is nothing else than your self-description. You have given no single argument for your silly and stupid „statements“. Note: You are the one who has opened this thread. So you have to give coherent arguments for your subject. But you have given no single one. That is in fact silly and stupid.

Yes. And the worst thing is that he - by doing that - is almost always misusing a dead phiosopher. :wink:

Where did I say enjoy???

If you don’t enjoy it, it’s evil. Nihilism doesn’t exist.

The discrepancy is when it comes to killing. Can we say for sure if the victim enjoy’s it or doesn’t enjoy it, he could rebirth into heaven or hell 50/50, and some say, forcing that chance is Evil.

But I say, the entire world is evil, because they are forcing that chance by not devoting all energies to studying the afterlife, in order to determine and possibly that outcome. And I say society, is guilty of putting us in a living hell.