2009-09-26, 00:56 | Link #2041 |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 34
|
Well, humans do possess some instinctual altruism. It is an evolved trait that linked together hunter-gatherer tribes and today applies to society and extended groups of contacts (to varying degrees, depending on the individual). You can even see altruism in chimps. So, there are some natural tendencies towards what you call 'good.' This doesn't discount other, more selfish tendencies that humans possess, though, so it is more of a gray area than something with a definite answer.
Last edited by ChainLegacy; 2009-09-26 at 01:10. |
2009-09-26, 01:29 | Link #2042 | |
.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
The only way we can find the more *reasonable* answer is by creating a ratio between its negatives and positives. Thus, my last "draw". We have society, order and peace now because of that *natural* "goodness" of man. Yes, It is definitely true that some are "evil", but that does not remove the fact that *most* people are "good".(the fact that we're still retaining society and order, and not the other way, is clear evidence of this). My only explanation to as to how humans become evil is either through *some* "bad" *nurture* or a mental illness.(I'm not so sure about this, I'm hoping someone else could share their ideas, thank you.) |
|
2009-09-26, 02:44 | Link #2043 | ||
I don't give a damn, dude
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 37
|
Quote:
Let's start with an established philosophical take on the nature of human beings, and the origins of the human society as we know it today: Quote:
From this reasoning, it is not impossible to imagine that the reason we have society and civilization today is the result of a "social contract" that our forefathers made in the early days of humanity: namely, to give up the natural rights that each individual have in their state of nature, in order to gain the civil freedoms that we enjoy today; the right to life and individual liberty, amongst others. In that sense, the innate nature for humanity is not really "good" or "evil", but merely pragmatic. Of course, I do not put forth the Social Contract Theory as the inalienable truth; I merely present it as the most academic embodiment of the viewpoints we have presented in opposition to yours. So, let me hear your thoughts on this; I wish to see what level of understanding of the human society you have beyond your religious paradigm, so that I may better understand on what level of intellectual maturity to debate this issue with you. |
||
2009-09-26, 03:02 | Link #2044 | ||
.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Pardon me if my explanations and informational relations to your opinions seem lacking, honestly, I only read the bold parts of Rousseau. I'm pretty much getting exhausted of all these arguments so I'm close to resigning. Last edited by Cipher; 2009-09-26 at 03:37. |
||
2009-09-26, 03:14 | Link #2045 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
I don't tend to think of it as "good" vs "evil" so much as "short-term selfishness" vs "altruism". There are other labels that could be applied as well but someone who looks out for the "group" and treats others well is generally labeled as more "good" than someone who looks out only for their self.
__________________
|
2009-09-26, 03:22 | Link #2046 | |
.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
Last edited by Cipher; 2009-09-26 at 05:53. |
|
2009-09-26, 04:18 | Link #2047 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2006
|
Quote:
I'd say some degree of "goodness" is required to form a stable society. A Hobbesian society would still collapse, probably, because while society can be formed by reason, it needs something more to remain in place. That's why Locke and Rousseau really improved the theory by adding an account of human goodness. |
|
2009-09-26, 04:20 | Link #2048 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
That brings me to the other statement I bolded. As one who believes in the Bible, it states that God's plan is to save those who believe in him. Now while that does bring up faith (which is another reason why I think faith is important in God's plan), it doesn't mean he needs for anyone in particular to believe in order for his plan to work. Any need is on the human's part to decide in this life whether to believe. So faith is important, but either way a person decides, the plan continues on until it's done. |
||
2009-09-26, 04:43 | Link #2049 |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2006
|
I hope we can agree that the purpose of religion is not to give an account of reality.
Either we're going to discuss the universe, or we're going to discuss a social construct known as religion. Make up your mind. Omnipotence, omniscience, and the fall of man are an inconsistent set. The moment we start debating these things, it'll be a tapdance match, where people use their lamest sophist tricks to talk their way around logical fallacies. Religion serves it's purpose in the context that kierkengaard provides, I'll respect that. But it's been about 350 years since religion's purpose was to explain the universe. |
2009-09-26, 05:47 | Link #2050 | |
.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
The issue I was trying defend was my religion's supposed "inconsistencies". As far as I'm concerned, I believe there are none. For if there are, I wouldn't be in this religion. And to argue that, we had to go alll the way to this here... |
|
2009-09-26, 05:52 | Link #2051 | ||
I don't give a damn, dude
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 37
|
Quote:
The way I see it, "goodness" is simply a social construct, something which has meaning because it is people and society who ascribe the meaning to it, not because it is something "innate" in itself. In other words, from what you've said, does that mean you agree with my viewpoint? Quote:
|
||
2009-09-26, 06:02 | Link #2052 | ||
.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
(you sound like a lawyer btw.) |
||
2009-09-26, 06:11 | Link #2053 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Sorry about this second post, I was focused on your reply to me first.
Quote:
So that is one reason why anyone who believes should praise God. John 3:16 is a verse from the Bible you might know about. As for temptation, the Bible states that it tests your faith to develop perseverance. But it is not God who tempts you, rather your own desire who entices you. - James 1:3 and 1:13-14 Now why God would allow you to give in to temptation? Well, he lets you follow your desire, that's why it's called free will. So I think that falls under proper use. I can't say much about punishment, although Romans 3:23 mentioned earlier has to do with it. But even believers are not free from discipline and punishment by God in this life. God disciplines those he loves and punishes those he accepts as his children. - Hebrews 12:6 |
|
2009-09-26, 06:12 | Link #2054 | ||
I don't give a damn, dude
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 37
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2009-09-26, 06:32 | Link #2055 | ||
.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
I do believe that God has a *grand* plan for the entire humanity, but I don't believe in him using too much "micromanagement". That would contradict too much with why he created "heaven and hell" and why he created our ability to choose. Quote:
Last edited by Cipher; 2009-09-26 at 06:42. |
||
2009-09-26, 06:50 | Link #2056 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
I don't know about the contradiction or level of micromanagement you're thinking of, but as one who believes in the Bible, I do believe God continues to work with his creation. That is why Genesis said God rested on the seventh day, not that he retired.
|
2009-09-26, 06:54 | Link #2057 | |
.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
Last edited by Cipher; 2009-09-26 at 07:11. |
|
2009-09-26, 06:55 | Link #2058 | |
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
Join Date: Jul 2004
Age: 39
|
As an aside to all this discussion on the notion of the Social Contract which I find quite fascinating, I find it strangely ironic that it is this very same notion of the ideal Social Contract espoused by both Hobbes and Rosseau where they both seem to be in agreement (to a certain extent at least) that the ideal comes in the form of a strong central government chosen by the people that is for all intents and purposes cannot be challenged when set in place. Hobbes suggested that for anarchy to be avoided, this central government had to be close to being supreme and thus, rights to rebellion and similar rights had to be disallowed, an idea revived and put into popularity by Rosseau.
The irony? It's based on this same notion that certain actions now deemed evil could be perpetrated by the state under the justification that it is the will of the government duly elected by the people. Rosseau even mentions (can't remember where in the Social Contract it is, but he mentions it fairly early) that once the strong government is in place, people can pretty much surrender their rights to the exercise of political will. This is of course, all under the assumption that the general population knew what it was doing in the first place. In that sense maybe Shaw was right, people deserve the government they elect. The main problem with trying to figure out the origins of good and evil, or morality a more proper term, is that no one can really agree if if there's a single, universal truth to the boundaries and classifications of morality. "Man in the state of nature" is at best a hypothetical existence in man's early days formulated by Hobbes and Rosseau, and Nietzsche tried to make sense of it all in his A Genealogy of Morals. Even though he doesn't exactly take definite sides in his work, it is fairly evident in the writings (which is itself based a lot off of conjectures and deductions, not a lot of it is even based on evidence) that the notion of morality changes. Morality itself is affected and shaped by those in "power" at the time, and can likewise shift again when the position of power changes. Quote:
The only way to have a definite end to the argument is to have said Creator come down from the heavens, tell everyone what's cool and what isn't, and smite with bolts of high-level chain lightning the foolish unbelievers. Oh wait... sounds very much like Moses and the ten commandments... Religion, at least I know those of the Abrahamic line, have their own versions on the origin of morality most of which of course are scientifically unverifiable obviously. This in turn is where faith again comes in, which returns itself to the original problem: how can you verify truth without evidence? (For the record of this thread, I'm a devout Roman Catholic.)
__________________
|
|
2009-09-26, 08:11 | Link #2060 | |
.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
Definiteness is a useless argument that lacks practicality. Please don't present that as direct information, describe it, state your opinions, and we'll state ours----that way, it'll make it more meaningful(that's only my opinion however). |
|
Tags |
not a debate, philosophy, religion |
|
|