PeakOil is You
Are people inherently good or evil ?
Re: Are people inherently good or evil ?
by katkinkate » Mon 08 Dec 2008, 23:37:39
People are inherently people, with infinite variety of actions, beliefs and lifestyles represented. Whether or not a person is evil or good or their actions, beliefs and lifestyles are seen as good or evil depends on many factors, including: how the person was taught as a child, how that person choses to interpret what they were taught, how the person choses to react to other people and incidences through their life, sometimes how that person feels on any given day and how society interprets what's good or evil at that particular time in history. (For eg. homosexuality is seen by many fundy religious types as sinful and truly evil at this time in many communities worldwide today, however in Greece 2000 years ago it was expected and normal behaviour and those who restricted themselves to women (who were considered not much above animals) were considered barbaric and uncivilised and a threat to civilised society (ie. evil).)
Kind regards, Katkinkate
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops,
but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
Masanobu Fukuoka
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops,
but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
Masanobu Fukuoka
-
katkinkate - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1276
- Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
Re: Are people inherently good or evil ?
by Dreamtwister » Tue 09 Dec 2008, 00:13:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GoghGoner', 'W')e have evolved to be good (moral).
Have we? Evidence suggests otherwise.
The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Dreamtwister - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2529
- Joined: Mon 06 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Re: Are people inherently good or evil ?
by Ferretlover » Tue 09 Dec 2008, 00:49:46
People are inherently self-centered.
Edit: typo
Edit: typo
Last edited by Ferretlover on Tue 09 Dec 2008, 09:42:59, edited 1 time in total.
"Open the gates of hell!" ~Morgan Freeman's character in the movie, Olympus Has Fallen.
- Ferretlover
- Elite
- Posts: 5852
- Joined: Wed 13 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: Hundreds of miles further inland
Re: Are people inherently good or evil ?
by PenultimateManStanding » Tue 09 Dec 2008, 01:05:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('katkinkate', 'P')eople are inherently people, with infinite variety of actions, beliefs and lifestyles represented. Whether or not a person is evil or good or their actions, beliefs and lifestyles are seen as good or evil depends on many factors, including: how the person was taught as a child, how that person choses to interpret what they were taught, how the person choses to react to other people and incidences through their life, sometimes how that person feels on any given day and how society interprets what's good or evil at that particular time in history. (For eg. homosexuality is seen by many fundy religious types as sinful and truly evil at this time in many communities worldwide today, however in Greece 2000 years ago it was expected and normal behaviour and those who restricted themselves to women (who were considered not much above animals) were considered barbaric and uncivilised and a threat to civilised society (ie. evil).)
Hi Kate. Howze it down under? Regarding ancient Greeks, they had their codes and restrictions. Only youths could take it in the culo. It was unseemly for a mature man to do so. He was expected to do the deed, not to have it done to him.Turn those Machines back On! - Don Ameche in Trading Places
-
PenultimateManStanding - Expert
- Posts: 11363
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Neither Here Nor There
Re: Are people inherently good or evil ?
by katkinkate » Tue 09 Dec 2008, 02:13:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'H')i Kate. Howze it down under? Regarding ancient Greeks, they had their codes and restrictions. Only youths could take it in the culo. It was unseemly for a mature man to do so. He was expected to do the deed, not to have it done to him.
Is goin'. Course there's always rules ... just saying it was seen as different. And I mentioned it to highlight that people at different times/places see things differently. Everyone seems to think the way they think is the right way (the way everyone should think) and everything now is the way it's always been and history says otherwise.
Kind regards, Katkinkate
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops,
but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
Masanobu Fukuoka
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops,
but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
Masanobu Fukuoka
-
katkinkate - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1276
- Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
Re: Are people inherently good or evil ?
by threadbear » Tue 09 Dec 2008, 02:39:26
Gampy expressed a lot of my own feelings on the subject. I think that people, for the most part, are good, or there is enough good there, that they are redeemable.
-
threadbear - Expert
- Posts: 7577
- Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Re: Are people inherently good or evil ?
by niknak » Tue 09 Dec 2008, 02:52:56
What good is a poll?
In Germany the majority were for wiping out Jews.
Take a poll?
So what, when the majority is evil they will vote they are not.
But they still are.Peaople are inherently evil and will get away with whatever they can, that is why we have a society so they worst ones can be locked up instead of doing village raids each month.
Man is totally evil, look at any child at age 1,2,3,4,...99
Very selfish and they learn not to punch alligators and they learn they can get more flies with honey, but if they could they would take the money out of someone elses bank account if they could never get caught.
No love for fellow man at all any more.
In Germany the majority were for wiping out Jews.
Take a poll?
So what, when the majority is evil they will vote they are not.
But they still are.Peaople are inherently evil and will get away with whatever they can, that is why we have a society so they worst ones can be locked up instead of doing village raids each month.
Man is totally evil, look at any child at age 1,2,3,4,...99
Very selfish and they learn not to punch alligators and they learn they can get more flies with honey, but if they could they would take the money out of someone elses bank account if they could never get caught.
No love for fellow man at all any more.
-
niknak - Peat
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Fri 28 Nov 2008, 04:00:00
Re: Are people inherently good or evil ?
by ohanian » Tue 09 Dec 2008, 07:02:26
Disclaimer: This is not written by me. It's written by someone else.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ow I'm going to rant for a while about good and evil, so if you aren't into philosophy you might want to see what Kevin Drum or Josh Marshall are up to. But this is a rant I need to get out of my system.
I've looked at "evil" from many perspectives. In western culture, most people view evil as an intrinsic quality or attribute. All human beings are capable of being evil, but "good" people are those who have less of this quality, by grace or training or will power, and "bad" people are permeated by evil through and through. Rotten to the core, as they say.
Another way of looking at evil is to imagine it as something outside oneself with which one can become infected, like bacteria. A correlation is the belief that the Devil lurks about, tricking and seducing good people into becoming evil. I don't believe in a literal Devil, but in some ways I think this view is closer to the truth. Substitute "ego" for "Devil," and you'll be getting warm.
I was raised Christian in the Bible Belt (although an old-fashioned "sprinkled" sort of Christian, rather than a born-again "dunked" one) who also did time in a Zen Buddhist monastery a few years ago. This gives me the advantage of perspectives other than the western one.
The mental habit of dividing the world up into "good" and "evil" (and right/wrong, heaven/hell, etc.) began with Zoroastrianism and eventually permeated the monotheistic religions of the Middle East, especially Christianity and Islam, and then fanned out to Europe and the Americas, where it remains a cornerstone paradigm of western civilization.
But the religions of the far East were not influenced by Zoroastrianism; the oldest of the Asian religions, Hinduism, had planted itself in the Indus Valley long before Zarathustra thusly spake. One runs into the word evil in English translations of Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, and Confucian sacred texts, but in context evil is neither an intrinsic quality nor something lurking around the corner waiting to trip people. Very, very generally, evil in an eastern context might be defined as "the unfortunate consequences of a volitional act."
In other words, evil is as evil does. It's not who you are; it's what you do.
Fools (i.e., David Brooks) think of evil as an object that can be clearly deliniated, like a chair or a cheesecake. He speaks of it as graspable. But Zennies say that evil is no-thing, meaning it is not a thing you can put in a basket and show off to your friends. The action that is evil affects all beings. However -- especially in Buddhism -- no thing or being is evil.
This is an important distinction, because the history of evil reveals that people who create evil hardly ever see themselves or their intentions as evil. Osama bin Laden and his 9/11 flunkies believed their terrorist attack was righteous and justified, as did Tim McVeigh when he blew up the federal building. Even the all-time great evildoers like Hitler and Stalin and Mao no doubt rationalized their actions as serving a greater good.
This takes us back to the temptations of the Devil model. For many centuries saints and philosophers both East and West have noted how easily human pride (what today we call ego) leads us astray. We think, I am a good person. Therefore, my beliefs are good beliefs, and my intentions are good intentions, and actions I choose to take are justified and righteous. People who cause suffering to me are evil, but if I cause suffering to them they deserved it.
As Samuel Johnson may or may not have said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
However, if you accept the view that the beings "I" and "them" are neither good nor evil, and that the only evil is suffering resulting from volitional acts, then it throws a different light on who the "evildoers" are.
In Buddhism, all morality is based on metta, selfless compassion. (The "selfless" part is important; people who take pride in what compassionate persons they are -- aren't.) The Buddha taught that actions flowing from a mind purified of ego, hate, anger, and us-them judgments will be beneficial. However, actions flowing from a mind defiled with ego, hate, anger, and us-them judgments will cause suffering.
From this perspective, a person with a pure mind doesn't have to consult a rulebook; whatever he does will be "good." A person with a defiled mind can read the Bible eight hours a day and worship the Ten Commandments, yet his actions will still result in "evil."
This perspective drives conservative Christians nuts; they call it "situational ethics." Instead of responding to situations as-they-are, a "moral" person must live by a fixed code of conduct based on religious dogma and societal values. This, they say, makes sure that actions are correct. Not consulting the rules amounts to doing whatever you want. And that's bad.
But that misses the point; if a person is free of ego-attachment and personal desire, then there is no "you" and no "want."
Therefore the wise put themselves last,
but find themselves foremost.
They exclude themselves,
and yet they always remain.
Is it not because they do not live for themselves
that they find themselves fulfilled?-- Tao Teh Ching, verse 7
Without morals and commandments and "you" and "want," there is just action to allieviate suffering. Easier said than done, of course, which is why even Zennies have written Precepts. Until you reach the other shore, you will need a boat. But from this perspective, fixed codes of conduct are not an ideal, but a crutch.
Therefore when the Way is lost, virtue arises.
When virtue is lost, humanity/kindness arises.
When humanity/kindness is lost, morality arises.
When morality is lost, custom arises.
Now custom is a superficial expression
of loyalty and faithfulness, and the beginning of disorder.-- Tao Teh Ching, verse 38
After three years of watching the Bushies muck up the world I am more than ever convinced that the eastern Buddhist/Taoist perspective of evil is the true one, and Brooks's "evil is in the souls of my enemies" belief is superficial and ignorant and leads to more evil.
And Bush, who believes he is doing God's will, who cannot see his own flaws, who cannot apologize for mistakes because he doesn't think he makes any, is the very essence of a fool -- and an evildoer.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ow I'm going to rant for a while about good and evil, so if you aren't into philosophy you might want to see what Kevin Drum or Josh Marshall are up to. But this is a rant I need to get out of my system.
I've looked at "evil" from many perspectives. In western culture, most people view evil as an intrinsic quality or attribute. All human beings are capable of being evil, but "good" people are those who have less of this quality, by grace or training or will power, and "bad" people are permeated by evil through and through. Rotten to the core, as they say.
Another way of looking at evil is to imagine it as something outside oneself with which one can become infected, like bacteria. A correlation is the belief that the Devil lurks about, tricking and seducing good people into becoming evil. I don't believe in a literal Devil, but in some ways I think this view is closer to the truth. Substitute "ego" for "Devil," and you'll be getting warm.
I was raised Christian in the Bible Belt (although an old-fashioned "sprinkled" sort of Christian, rather than a born-again "dunked" one) who also did time in a Zen Buddhist monastery a few years ago. This gives me the advantage of perspectives other than the western one.
The mental habit of dividing the world up into "good" and "evil" (and right/wrong, heaven/hell, etc.) began with Zoroastrianism and eventually permeated the monotheistic religions of the Middle East, especially Christianity and Islam, and then fanned out to Europe and the Americas, where it remains a cornerstone paradigm of western civilization.
But the religions of the far East were not influenced by Zoroastrianism; the oldest of the Asian religions, Hinduism, had planted itself in the Indus Valley long before Zarathustra thusly spake. One runs into the word evil in English translations of Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, and Confucian sacred texts, but in context evil is neither an intrinsic quality nor something lurking around the corner waiting to trip people. Very, very generally, evil in an eastern context might be defined as "the unfortunate consequences of a volitional act."
In other words, evil is as evil does. It's not who you are; it's what you do.
Fools (i.e., David Brooks) think of evil as an object that can be clearly deliniated, like a chair or a cheesecake. He speaks of it as graspable. But Zennies say that evil is no-thing, meaning it is not a thing you can put in a basket and show off to your friends. The action that is evil affects all beings. However -- especially in Buddhism -- no thing or being is evil.
This is an important distinction, because the history of evil reveals that people who create evil hardly ever see themselves or their intentions as evil. Osama bin Laden and his 9/11 flunkies believed their terrorist attack was righteous and justified, as did Tim McVeigh when he blew up the federal building. Even the all-time great evildoers like Hitler and Stalin and Mao no doubt rationalized their actions as serving a greater good.
This takes us back to the temptations of the Devil model. For many centuries saints and philosophers both East and West have noted how easily human pride (what today we call ego) leads us astray. We think, I am a good person. Therefore, my beliefs are good beliefs, and my intentions are good intentions, and actions I choose to take are justified and righteous. People who cause suffering to me are evil, but if I cause suffering to them they deserved it.
As Samuel Johnson may or may not have said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
However, if you accept the view that the beings "I" and "them" are neither good nor evil, and that the only evil is suffering resulting from volitional acts, then it throws a different light on who the "evildoers" are.
In Buddhism, all morality is based on metta, selfless compassion. (The "selfless" part is important; people who take pride in what compassionate persons they are -- aren't.) The Buddha taught that actions flowing from a mind purified of ego, hate, anger, and us-them judgments will be beneficial. However, actions flowing from a mind defiled with ego, hate, anger, and us-them judgments will cause suffering.
From this perspective, a person with a pure mind doesn't have to consult a rulebook; whatever he does will be "good." A person with a defiled mind can read the Bible eight hours a day and worship the Ten Commandments, yet his actions will still result in "evil."
This perspective drives conservative Christians nuts; they call it "situational ethics." Instead of responding to situations as-they-are, a "moral" person must live by a fixed code of conduct based on religious dogma and societal values. This, they say, makes sure that actions are correct. Not consulting the rules amounts to doing whatever you want. And that's bad.
But that misses the point; if a person is free of ego-attachment and personal desire, then there is no "you" and no "want."
Therefore the wise put themselves last,
but find themselves foremost.
They exclude themselves,
and yet they always remain.
Is it not because they do not live for themselves
that they find themselves fulfilled?-- Tao Teh Ching, verse 7
Without morals and commandments and "you" and "want," there is just action to allieviate suffering. Easier said than done, of course, which is why even Zennies have written Precepts. Until you reach the other shore, you will need a boat. But from this perspective, fixed codes of conduct are not an ideal, but a crutch.
Therefore when the Way is lost, virtue arises.
When virtue is lost, humanity/kindness arises.
When humanity/kindness is lost, morality arises.
When morality is lost, custom arises.
Now custom is a superficial expression
of loyalty and faithfulness, and the beginning of disorder.-- Tao Teh Ching, verse 38
After three years of watching the Bushies muck up the world I am more than ever convinced that the eastern Buddhist/Taoist perspective of evil is the true one, and Brooks's "evil is in the souls of my enemies" belief is superficial and ignorant and leads to more evil.
And Bush, who believes he is doing God's will, who cannot see his own flaws, who cannot apologize for mistakes because he doesn't think he makes any, is the very essence of a fool -- and an evildoer.
-
ohanian - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1553
- Joined: Sun 17 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
