Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 24 minutes later[^][v]#593,907
Empathy is an innate trait, so I suppose you could argue that there's a sort of innate goodness in people in general.
There's also something to be said for evolved altruistic behaviour, but you can argue that such altruism is also to benefit the self as well as others.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 53 seconds later, 25 minutes after the original post[^][v]#593,908
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
True. But on the other hand, even babies and toddlers slap people and act selfish.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^][v]#593,911
@previous (A)
They do things that look immoral to us, but babies and toddlers wouldn't fully understand the effects their actions had on others. So you can't really count that as evil, more like "uninformed" or "naive". Something along those lines,
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^][v]#593,912
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
But even if naive or ignorant, they still break moral laws, which tends to argue for humans being born evil.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^][v]#593,914
@previous (A)
Can these young children be considered to be doing evil if they don't have an understanding of how their actions are hurting others? While the actions are "evil" from an outside perspective, you can't exactly say that the child is evil if they don't have an understanding of what their actions are doing.
And this removes my previous points of empathy and evolved altruistic behaviours, two established innate processes that encourage "moral behaviour", allowing one to argue that normal humans are born with an preference towards "good". Although, this is of course entirely removing environmental influences from the equation.
Also- I need full disclosure- are you Matt or Iceland guy?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^][v]#593,917
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
They can indeed. Evil is evil, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Also, I am Matt.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^][v]#593,918
there is no such thing as fundamentally good or evil
hater !JGlOo5d1iU joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 46 seconds later, 51 minutes after the original post[^][v]#593,919
Good and evil are human constructs. This question is ridiculous. We are. That is all.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^][v]#593,926
@593,917 (A)
Well... That's a shame. But I'm enjoying the conversation, so oh well.
I think it would be helpful if we each laid out our definitions of evil that we're using. For the purposes of this question, I'm broadly considering evil to be "knowingly harming another person in some way", since I think you can't cleanly apply moral judgements unless a person has a developed understanding of it themselves.
@593,918 (C) @previous (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
Of course not. Perhaps think of it more like this: are people naturally pricks or naturally nice?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#593,927
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I guess I define evil as "harming others," even if unknowingly. For example, if someone unknowingly killed your loved one, would you not consider it evil
hater !JGlOo5d1iU replied with this 11 years ago, 5 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#593,928
@593,926 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Humans are inherently selfish.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#593,931
@593,926 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
My definition of evil is simply malicious intent.
A mistake is not evil, nor an oversight, but following through in a sliding tackle is, and surely warrants a card.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#593,936
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#593,941
@593,928 (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
It could be argued, however, that altruism has evolved naturally alongside selfishness as an essential human attribute, since the two in tandem tend to lead to Nash equilibria when it comes to human affairs.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#593,942
@593,919 (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
Wow. This. Never thought I'd be seconding a hater post. Even the disagreement in the thread over what constitutes "evil" is evidence that good and evil are just constructs for a certain set of behaviors that a person is culturally conditioned to think of as "right", and, as KL pointed out, it's hard to show that altruism isn't really self interest.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#593,943
@previous (G)
There is no universal evil? So, murdering, raping, and cannibalizing a beloved baby in cold blood, is just a construct?
Anonymous G replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#593,944
@previous (A)
There might be some things we can all agree on as "wrong", but that hardly makes for solid boundaries about what constitutes evil. Even if we can agree that eating babies is a bad thing it doesn't guarantee that we agree about abortion or homosexuality or sex before marriage or practice of worship or any number of other things that might be called evil.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#593,947
@593,936 (A)
so if you enter someone's house and your fat ass accidentally knocks over a vase. are you now evil?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 37 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#593,954
hater !JGlOo5d1iU replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#593,984
@593,941 (F)
Generally speaking, people are only altruistic with their group. I think a lot of modern charitable actions aren't altruism, but pretentiousness disguised as altruism.
I think if we look at groups, "altruism" tends to be self serving.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,007
@593,942 (G)
Although it's hard to rule out any self-interest in pretty much any form of altruism, I'd like to clarify that I personally believe that genuine altruism still exists. Like, although a charity worker might enjoy the warm fuzzy feeling that they get from helping people, they might also genuinely feel that helping others is a good thing to do.
@593,927 (A) @593,943 (A)
In response to this thinking, I'd highlight destructive storms. Are they evil? They certainly cause bad things to happen to humans, but they don't have any conception of morality or even any sentience. So it would be wrong to describe the storm itself as "evil", yeah? Similar idea for a baby slapping somebody, or something like that. More an unthinking force of nature than a being behaving with evil intent.
@593,943 (A)
But, in regards to this, humans do have a built-in urge to look after and have affection towards human infants. So I suppose you could call the intentional destruction of a baby "bad" in the sense that it goes against part of our programming as humans.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,008
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Yes, storms are evil. In that case, I would have to say that it is God creating or allowing evil, but yes, they are still evil.
Anonymous G replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,020
@594,007 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Sorry, I wasn't trying to fit words into your mouth. We seem to be of similar beliefs here. I'd like to think altruism is a thing and that I am capable of it, but it's hard to rule out self-interest in any circumstance. I was just pointing to your statement that altruism is also to benefit the self as well as others.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,027
@previous (G)
I didn't mean to imply you were misrepresenting me, just wanted to clarify my statement. Yeah, I think we are more or less on the same page.
I am pretty sure we've had this discussion on here before, too.
@594,008 (A)
Then I'm not sure our definitions of evil are compatible. Yours are centred on effects, whilst mine are on intention.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,030
Empathy isn't good. Just good for you and me as human beings.
Edit what I mean is that I don't think you can label something as good or evil unless it can be good or evil in all circumstances, ie it doesn't depend on your being something in particular in order to be good.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 31 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,086
@previous (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
It's the basis of goodness. How could you develop "goodness" towards others if you couldn't understand and sympathise with them?
In contrast, a lack of empathy is something that's associated with psychopaths, have no qualms about manipulating others to their own ends.
brie !uXWPG0MygI replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,088
what is wrong with human constructs???
are they evil?
brie !uXWPG0MygI double-posted this 11 years ago, 55 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,090
@594,086 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Not just their own ends either a true psychopath would manipulate others to no ends
Anonymous E replied with this 11 years ago, 35 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,097
@593,936 (A)
With which of the four points do you disagree with and why?
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,125
Well, imagine you came across a really intelligent talking dog one day. And that dog asks you what is the ultimate marker of good in the Universe, against which all acts can be measured to determine their absolute level of good or evil. And you reply "Human beings experiencing empathy is that marker. Human empathy is inherently good.". That dog would reasonably think your thinking is quite anthropocentric and flawed.
So what the post you replied to is saying is that you can't label something as being inherently good unless it's good on an objective level, free of all caveats. Human Beings experiencing empathy for other humans (and things they humanise) doesn't pass that test, because it's only "good" from the reference point of a human being who holds that opinion.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 15 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,132
@previous (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
I am not sure what animals have to do with this. The topic was just about empathy in humans.
And I didn't claim that empathy was some universal, inherent marker of objective goodness. Just that it's an innate factor in the human psyche is the basis of behaviour that we can (broadly) consider to be "good". Research supports this, showing that higher levels of empathy are associated with higher levels of helping behaviour.
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,135
OP asked if humans are born fundamentally good or evil, and you replied that since empathy is innate, so is goodness. The argument as I then understood it was thus "Empathy is innate. Empathy is good. Therefore, goodness is innate. Innate things are fundamental. Goodness is innate. Therefore, humans are fundamentally good."
Is that not right?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,140
@previous (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
Sort of. My answer is that empathy is "sort of" an innate goodness, as it leads to "good" behaviour.
It's the closest thing to an inherent good I can think of, at any rate. Not an inherent good in itself, but close.
brie !uXWPG0MygI replied with this 11 years ago, 42 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,145
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
empathic reasoning can lead to disastrous results though can it not?
hater !JGlOo5d1iU replied with this 11 years ago, 7 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,252
@594,088 (brie !uXWPG0MygI)
They're not real. They're just poorly defined subjective concepts.
brie !uXWPG0MygI replied with this 11 years ago, 35 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,273
@previous (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
what are poorly defined subjective concepts?
hater !JGlOo5d1iU replied with this 11 years ago, 18 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,278
@previous (brie !uXWPG0MygI)
"Good" and "evil." For instance, one man's evil is another man's good.
Some people see ISIS as good.
brie !uXWPG0MygI replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,283
@previous (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
I once read something along the lines of it is not up to humans to decide what is good or evil
hater !JGlOo5d1iU replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,284
@previous (brie !uXWPG0MygI)
That sounds like a religious statement. Probably isn't a god, and certainly isn't a god that cares about humans so I don't see the value in it.
brie !uXWPG0MygI replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,285
@previous (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
I don't see why you should dismiss knowledge just because some people spout it religiously?
hater !JGlOo5d1iU replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,288
@previous (brie !uXWPG0MygI)
The implication is that god decides, is it not?
brie !uXWPG0MygI replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,290
@previous (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
I don't really decide anything?
hater !JGlOo5d1iU replied with this 11 years ago, 19 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,291
brie !uXWPG0MygI replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,318
@previous (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
Not in my plans, bud.
Wanna share more about your problems?
hater !JGlOo5d1iU replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,326
@previous (brie !uXWPG0MygI)
My only problem is you won't kill me.
brie !uXWPG0MygI replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,332
@previous (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
That doesn't seem like a problem?
take your meds?
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
hater !JGlOo5d1iU replied with this 11 years ago, 18 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#594,344
@previous (brie !uXWPG0MygI)
I have no meds anymore. They were not helpful. Doc woudlnt prescribe anything for anxiety, anyway, which is what makes living unbearable.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
brie !uXWPG0MygI replied with this 11 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#594,408
@previous (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
Find something productive and healthy to do?
Meds don't have to be a pill?
Get CBT?
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
hater !JGlOo5d1iU replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#594,424
@previous (brie !uXWPG0MygI)
Tried that. Ineffective. I've opted to wait to die. I don't have any desire to do anything. The only desires I have involve sex, which I assume is some biological thing. Really could do without that bit, even though I like it usually.
brie !uXWPG0MygI replied with this 11 years ago, 40 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#594,442
@previous (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
I understand your frustration.
(Edited 55 seconds later.)
brie !uXWPG0MygI double-posted this 11 years ago, 32 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#594,443
@594,424 (hater !JGlOo5d1iU)
I understand your frustration
teal joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#594,700
It's not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you, so the choices that you make determine if you are good are evil.
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 1 month later, 1 month after the original post[^][v]#609,348
@594,046 (brie !uXWPG0MygI)
Hey, eat me, you cocksucker.
Anonymous I replied with this 11 years ago, 6 days later, 1 month after the original post[^][v]#611,384