This is a thought exercise. I don't think there's an actual quantification or qualification here, just how people feel about it. So don't jump people, refute their arguments if necessary, but at the end of the day people are entitled to choose their own beliefs. Even Christianity says so. I posit that mankind is thoroughly and generally irredeemably evil by nature. Even as children, they don't have to be taught to lie or steal-these things come naturally, as a consequence of "I want this." As we get older, we separate ourselves into groups, often by who looks most like us. The outgroup usually has the connotation that there is something inferior in their character or personage-they talk funny, they're the wrong color, they're smart. they're dumb-but it causes the groups to ostracize each other. We absolutely love to think we're better than people. That in turn makes us feel like we're more deserving, and so we claim more than our fair share, whether it be food, attention, dating partners, or any other commodity. We often have trouble looking past ourselves to others' problems. If we do see them we think, "Glad that's not me" and move on most of the time. That homeless man? Yeah, he's there cause he won't dry out. It's his fault, surely. That unwed mother? If she were better at her job she'd still have her man. Otherwise, she should have aborted that kid so she wouldn't have to suffer with them. Are you sick? You just need sunlight/vitamins/quack cures/to get over it. Are you handicapped? Must have done something stupid. Born that way? Wonder what your parents did for you to be so ****ed up. I hear these and worse statements every day, from the faithful to the religious to the atheist and agnostic. They can only be bothered to help themselves to as much as possible, and never mind the people next door that don't have enough. It's probably their fault anyway. There is the concept of active evil, where a person does something overt, like Hitler or Fred Phelps. They're easy to see. But I believe it's the people who are apathetic, who do nothing that are the worst evil. In lux absentia, tenebrae vincit. So what do you guys think?
If we accept the generally scientifically accepted premise of the Big Bang being the start of everything, then every single moment in time, every action, every consequence, every thought, is merely a result of what went before it. I see it all the time, people reminding others not to forget that 'we all have freedom of choice', we all determine our own actions etc., but I don't accept this. Everything we think about and the way we form our own conclusions is determined by the impulses we receive from the processes going on within our bodies and minds, and from the environment around us. Freedom of choice is an illusion and everything we do is an involuntary response to the almost infinitely complex web of connected events. And from that perspective, the idea of labelling anything inherently evil doesn't rub. From my perspective, nothing is good, nothing is evil. Things just are.
Determinism? Quantum physics would have something to say about that. People are primarily emotional beings, not rational ones, driven by the imperatives of survival. Avoid threat and discomfort, seek safety and comfort. These imperatives are amoral. We are also social animals, so we constantly have to balance our own survival needs with those of the tribe/group we are part of, since the tribe's wellbeing is inextricably linked to our own. Of course optimal chances of survival are ensured by gaming that social system --but not so much as to incur disapproval and rejection, as other members are wise to those games and indeed have some of their own. In the long term it is better to cooperate than to be selfish and cheat. Altruism is the result: the tribe approves of, and fosters such social behaviour and lo, it sees that it is Good. Too much self-interest on he other hand is seen as Bad. Why do people believe that you must be bad for bad things to have happened to you? Partly it's because of the tribal nursery stories that we have been told to encourage Good tribe-serving social behaviour, imbued with concepts such as fairness an justice. Partly it is also because we don't really like to think of the world as essentially random and beyond our control: that bad things can happen to any of us at any time (and sometimes indeed do) and there is nothing you can do about it: not even a prayer. We aren't evil; we are stupid. We are animals; cavemen with iPods. Only over the last million year have we started to develop glimmers of self-reflection. What we have achieved we have done as part of the tribe, for the tribe, and we all benefit. Occasionally we even transcend ourselves. The only thing worth investing in is the human species. What we do for ourselves, dies with us. But what we do for others remains, and becomes immortal. --Albert Pine
Well, if we're going to go down that route, then I suspect Superdeterminism might be a word closer to what I'm getting at. I see people argue that determinism can't be because they can't reproduce it in an experiment or use it to predict things, but to me that argument seems to show a lack of comprehension as to how deep determinism goes - you can't reproduce the universe, and you'll never predict the entire future of the universe, but it does explain the past.
Considering the vast gamut of human behavior, and the fact that multiple people have been in the news for screwing food items, I can't say I believe in determinism. Human behavior should have been more uniform. I should be fair, as well, in stating that I do believe in an objective good and evil, while recognizing the ability for subjective interpretations in certain circumstances. It's objectively bad to murder people. It's objectively bad to hoard until others have nothing, and then revel in it. On the other hand, if a person has no issue with an action that falls within the gray area that always exists, then that could be interpreted as subjectively good. I guess I kind of do believe in a form of determinism-I tend to believe given a selfless choice and a selfish, people most often perform the selfish. I understand a certain amount is necessary to sustain yourself, but very few people limit themselves to just sustaining themselves. It reminds me of one of my favorite bands in college-Me First and the Gimme Gimmes.
I think it's possible to demonstrate evil quite simply. The minister at my church (Dave Robertson) is, first and foremost, a historian, and he debates regularly. In a recent debate which at one point touched on the philosophy of morality, his opponent Matt Dillahunty assumed that Dave's position on the intrinsic evil of humanity was a religious one, but Dave quickly corrected him and said that he has held this position since long before he was a Christian. No matter where we look in our history, we see barbarism and destruction of one sort or another, and it's a hallmark of our humanity. That's not to say that there hasn't been harmony or unity along the line, but it does show that humans are intrinsically messed up and it's one thing that isn't going to change.
Exactly. This isn't about some divinely imputed book of laws-this is about the fact that this species at most points in its history has been collectively at each others' throats. We could ask the people of Carthage-oh, no, no we can't. Sparta? Nope, gone. The Holy Roman Empire? Nope again. I know, I'll ask my people-the First Nations. Sadly, they're almost completely gone, and will be altogether soon. In the name of imperialism, something akin to 195,000,000 people were wiped out because they were the wrong color. Hell, I'm still catching it now-we didn't learn at all-it's just the mistakes get bigger because there's more of us. How can a race of creatures that spend so much time and effort in eradicating their own kind be good?
I don't think humans are inherently evil. There is an evolutionary aspect to our behaviour though, which implies a sort of selfishness. Many people quickly realised the easiest way to look after oneself is by doing something that society deems "evil" (the definition of evil here is reasonably important). I do subscribe to the idea that there is no such thing as a selfless act, and no matter how much one is "good", there is always a personal benefit whether it is material or emotional. Only recently has mankind started to understand the personal benefit of emotional reward on a large scale - many people at the apogee of religion have known this for some time though (monks, etc). Concluding that man is inherently evil is hugely misanthropic though - whilst that can be a valid viewpoint for a certain state of mind, the fact is, most people don't have a conscious desire to do something that harms another. What's crucial about that remark is I say most people don't have a conscious desire to do harm; that's not to say that there are some, and these people are often emotionally tormented for one reason or another, meaning their actions are not inherent, their behaviour is carved just like a dog is. I must also point out that humanity tends to remember the most tragic things in our history with accuracy, rather than our greatest moments which are often swept under the rug, or at least modestly referred to.
I'll try to chime in from the perspective of a religious person who also considers himself to be a scientist. You can scoff, but I think my religion is one of the most friendly to science and a lot of really good scientists are also members of the same church. That said, as a philosophical question I've thought a lot about the atonement of Jesus Christ (stay with me it's related to the OP's question). I've often wondered about whether or not Jesus Christ had to carry out the atonement, that is, paying the price for everyone's sin's, physical pains, afflictions, etc. Other parts of the doctrine are less important for this discussion, but I think this is. According to Christian religion, He is the only one able to perform the atonement because He lived a perfect life. Having lived a perfect life, He could return to live with His (and our) Heavenly Father. We, having all sinned, cannot return to Him. This necessitates the atonement. So, the question is, would Jesus have still lived a perfect life and have been able to return to His father if he did not carry out the atonement? The answer is important because, like julianmartin said above, I don't believe that anyone has ever done a selfless act or has ever been truly altruistic except perhaps Jesus Christ, and whether or not His act was selfless depends on whether or not He could return to His father without first atoning for the sins of all mankind. Personally, I believe that Jesus Christ did have a choice in the matter and that he acted out the atonement of His free will and that it was a selfless act, the only truly altruistic act ever done. How does that question relate to the OP? Well, I believe that there's a question of whether or not we are obligated to help people when we can. Can I stay morally just when I don't help every single person in need? If I believe that people should have the freedom to do what they want as long as it doesn't affect others, does being obligated to help people limit that freedom? How far should basic rights extend, speech, belief/religion . . . housing, food? For the rest of us, I think we all get some sort of reward for what we do, whether immediate or we think it will come later I think we all do things for ourselves. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that we are inherently evil. I believe that everyone is born inherently good and wishes for the success of themselves and everyone else. There is a good Ted Talk (it's killing me that I can't find the link right now) where a woman talks about an Olympic athlete who stopped running to help her competitors on several occasions during a race, and then went on to win. The talk mentions that when we help one another that our bodies and minds respond by making us better. If someone can find the talk I would give some rep. I agree with others as well that we aren't inherently evil, but the way our brains evolved does not always make us the best at making large scale, long term decisions, or even short term decisions sometimes. What makes humans incredible is that we are a dream animal. We can imagine hundreds of possible outcomes for a multitude of decisions before acting on one. I believe that we are really good at choosing what is best for ourselves, but that often governments (unintentionally) reward stupid decisions and punish good ones, which leads to people still leading to the best decision for themselves, but a decision whose consequences are artificially influenced. Does it make us or government inherently evil? No. It's just the result of a lot of people with imperfect understandings trying to weigh in to try to make things better. Despite the fact that individuals and governments don't get it perfect, the result is that we are living in times that are better than ever, despite what the news would have you believe. Steven Pinker gives a compelling arguments for this in his Ted Talk, linked here: Steven Pinker - Ted Talk. This doesn't mean that there aren't evil individuals. In fact, I would argue that, based on Steven Pinker's findings, that if society becomes less violent as the population gets bigger and bigger, that it is because there are more and more good people who are able to outweigh evil individuals, at least in terms of influence. However, in history and today we see evil people who are able to influence others and cause a lot of damage. Before modern technology it was a lot easier to hide these things from the outside world as well. But today we try and balance respecting the sovereignty of a nation with the defense of innocent individuals living there. Again, I make no arguments to our success in that endeavor, just that we try. --- I'll respond to the "determinism" thing by saying that I think it's a load of bologna. If Steve Jobs hadn't made the iPod we would still have had the mp3 player revolution, but we may not have Apple as we know it, and we wouldn't have the iPhone, which jump-started the smartphone revolution, so we might be a few years behind in that category as well if there had never been the iPod. So, yes, there's a certain amount of social momentum that makes things like Moore's Law something that we can predict and be accurate about. But people still have the ability to choose. We aren't just cogs in a machine. We influence our future, all of us. Religious or not, it does matter what we do. How you choose to spend your time, live your life, expend your energy will affect the future for better or worse. It's also not going to make for a compelling argument when the mass rapist/murderer goes to court and displays a large chart from the big bang to today showing why they had no choice in whether or not they raped and murdered. People have a choice. --- I'll respond to Kayin's original post by saying that I personally think that there is a balance between saying, "that guy is homeless because he chooses to be" and "This person's homelessness is the result of external circumstances." In the U.S. (and a lot of places) there are enough government programs that I can't imagine many people go homeless or hungry without at least some effort on their part to stay that way. It doesn't mean that I don't feel compassion or the will to help them, but I pay a ton in taxes which go to my classmates who live in government subsidized housing and eat off of food stamps. And it's not that I don't think the government should help, but there's definitely a change in attitude about charity when the government takes it over. My wife works with children aged birth to three years who have developmental delays. She works in their homes. She knows families where both parents collect unemployment and do not work. These people also have iPhones. My wife just recently got an iPhone, after being out of school for five years, paying off her student loans and living in really modest conditions. We got the phone as a gift, and we pay month-to-month (because it's cheaper). So yeah, I feel a little contempt when I think that we're paying so much in taxes for people who contribute nothing to have a higher standard of life than us (at our expense). At the same time I think the government makes it really hard for people to get off these programs. Often times people will limit how much they work, or will deny getting a raise so that they won't go past an income ceiling where earning one more dollar will cost them thousands in government programs that they will be cut off from. However, I'll disagree and say that people who actively look to harm others are much worse than those who choose not to help when others have been harmed or choose to do things that harm themselves.
Personally, I don't think that humans are inherently good or evil. I think they're just humans. The problem is that, over the last few thousand years, we've developed complex rules for social interaction - so, from our own perspective, we have two basic categories of people: those who belong to the same tribe/religion/social group as us and those who don't. The in-groups and the out-groups. To stay part of the in-group, we have to be seen to excluding the out-group. I don't think that's evil, per se, it's the way we've evolved: we want to stay part of the of the in-group because that's where safety and survival lies. In the broader sense, out-group people are seen as strange, stupid, different etc. to highlight they're out-group status and to show to others that we're part of the in-group. Morals and a sense of right and wrong don't come from religion, they come from the in-group/out-group dynamic: "This is how we behave, therefore anyone who behaves differently must be wrong and evil"...apart from the fact every other religion thinks exactly the same kind of thing. Sadly, there isn't a cure for human stupidity. It seems ingrained in us
Your minister is making the mistake of circular reasoning. "I see people behave in a way that I label as evil, hence proof that they are inherently evil". People are behaving according to the imperatives of survival. All animals do. In nature that can (in the way that evolution does) result in some colourful behaviour patterns: Moreover humans evolved to live and function in small tribes that would occasionally meet and compete over local ecological resources, not to live in a complex pan-global network. We have brains that evolved to throw rocks and shout defiance at the apes in the neighbouring tree, not to establish diplomatic relationships across massive cultural gaps while juggling nukes. We are not messed up; we are animals. Occasionally we manage to transcend ourselves and behave like the humans we think we are, and the persons we aspire to be.
I say no. Good and evil are inherently human constructs and highly situational. The same act can make you a hero in one circumstance and a villain in another. To posit that man is inherently evil is to take a position of moral absolutism that I just can't abide by. And Nexxo's cat is more awesome than any of us.
Nexxo you're using exactly the same circular reasoning: "I see people behave in a way that I would not label as evil, hence proof that they are not inherently evil or "messed up" - they are just animals." To go back to what Dave said about history depicting a very clear picture of evil, it's not circular reasoning in the sense that it's not a reasoned stance in the strictest sense; it's a personal take on history, which many people would have no problem with... other than for argument's sake, as you do. Do you really, really think that there is no evil in our past and that we are just animals? I very much doubt it.
So sorry to pick holes, but (I'm going to pick holes)... First you state: Then you state: There's altruism, right there. Moreover I can think of plenty of examples where people have done the good thing, sometimes at great personal effort or sacrifice because they thought it was the good thing to do. And they had no guarantee of God's existence or an afterlife; to them the stakes were pretty high. I think that Jesus would have been the first to tell you not to eulogise his acts, nor to discount the acts of kindness by other people. We are good at choosing what is best for ourselves because that's how we evolved. People who are good at looking after themselves tend to do better at survival and procreation. They then pass these genes and memes on to the next generation. Rinse, repeat. Nope. A big, dense society can only survive by curbing its aggressive impulses. An violent and conflicted society tears itself apart. A less violent one survives. In a global society that has WMD it becomes ever more important to learn to play nice in order to survive. Doubleplus tribal dynamics. We also see this in animals groups, where they sometimes sublimate aggressive impulses with lots of grooming and sexual behaviour. Oh, wait... So you are saying that there are some deterministic patterns but you believe that people have the ability to choose. Not a compelling argument, I must say. For a given value of "choice". You are stating an opinion, but I don't see you underpinning it. You must have missed the memo that said that life was not fair. Again, people have choices for a given value of choice. The choices we perceive are based on our learning experience: the past effectiveness of our choices and actions, the experienced relevance of our thinking and feeling, delay of gratification, self-regulation, the societal values of the community we grow up in. Doing the good or wise thing is hard. It's why so few people do it. It's why we screw up so often. The homeless, the criminals, the people we look at and say: "I would never be like them", they just screwed up a bit worse than the rest of us. Because they had more opportunity to screw up, less opportunity to be good or wise and less learning on how to be. Dude on benefits got an iPhone? Not a choice I'd make in his circumstances, but that doesn't make me more virtuous, only smarter about how I spend my money. Because I've had the guidance and experience, while he, and his parents before him, probably never actually owned any money at all. I think that Jesus was so inclusive of sinners and social outcasts because he understood that. And I think that he would see his owning a second-hand Nokia dumbphone while that guy on benefits has an iPhone as his own personal choice as much as the other guy's. 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.' --Matthew 25:40
No, I see people behave according to the same survival imperatives as animals. I don't label it as "not evil" any more than I label it as "evil". I don't label it with moral values. Or if I do (when I say that it is 'stupid' or 'unwise'), I realise that they are not inherent characteristics but human labels and concepts that we impose on it. Now this is a debate (like indeed your minster engaged in). If you throw an opinion out there, people are going to challenge it with reasoned arguments. You can respond to that by saying that if is just a personal belief, but we can't respond to those in any other way than to say: 'sokay. Thanks for telling us (I disagree with it).
This just indicates that you don't understand the concept of determinism. Every choice you make is influenced. You give me one example of a choice you make that is totally independent of anything and I'll nominate you for a nobel prize. Regarding your rapist/murderer: If anyone was actually capable of mapping the entire history of events for the past 14 billion years then I reckon it would actually make a pretty compelling argument. Irrefutable, in fact. But the Criminal Justice System is not quite set up to incorporate the idea of determinism. The clue is in the title. I think it's fine to say murder is evil, as both 'murder' and 'evil' are social constructions, so we can say they are whatever we want, but that doesn't make someone who commits murder evil.
Exactly: "I see people behave according to the same survival imperatives as animals, hence proof that they are just animals, neither good nor evil." It's still circular. And thanks for telling me. My point earlier was that pretty much all people see "bad" when they look at our history (and, indeed, our present); it's the careful ones who have to reduce these perceived acts of badness to mere acts of animalism because they know, as you do, that "bad" is necessarily just a label, a concept that we impose on normal human behaviour. I see people disagreeing with the philosophy of good and evil, but I must admit I've never seen somebody look upon barbarism and say, as Porkins' Wingman says, "That's just how it is." If we really follow through with that line of thinking, we must then abandon the concepts and practices of accountability, justice, etc. because they are incongruous to the paradigm of normality. Anybody want to try to define "evil" without looking it up in the dictionary?
No, "I observe people behave according to the same survival imperatives as animals, hence their behaviours can be explained and understood in that framework" and: "'Good' and 'bad' are human concepts and labels attached to certain behaviours that foster or threaten tribal functioning". Observation --> inference. No circular reasoning here. You've never spoken to traumatised war veterans? Refugees from war or disaster zones? Abused children? I don't see how that follows. Please explain. You and I have been there already. We couldn't agree, suggesting that it is a human construct, not an objective characteristic. “Stood in firelight, sweltering. Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night. Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves, go into oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. Was Rorschach.". --Alan Moore, Watchmen
Exactly the same could be said of good and evil. "I observe people behave in ways that I label "good and evil," hence their behaviours can be explained and understood in that framework." Animal sociology is the scientific approach, and the moral view is the philosophical approach. They complement each other. As we have already ascertained many times over, the scientific approach is not the only one, however you seem to be arguing that here. Of course I have - one of my best friends at uni was a convicted murderer who attended lectures on day release. I see philanderers, abusers, paedophiles, rapists, adulterers come to church every Sunday... of all the people I have interacted with, not a single one would say of the things that they had seen and experienced that they weren't evil, and these aren't "religious" people who necessarily believe in good and evil. They are just normal, everyday people who tell it as it is, no agenda, no point to argue. Regarding accountability and justice, these are equally human constructs if we go down the road of moral relativism. If good and evil don't actually exist, then neither do any concepts protracted from them.
The scientific framework is about observable facts. Animal behaviour is what it is. The philosophical framework is about what meaning we impose on it. We label it good or bad. We do not do so arbitrarily; there is a rationale underpinning it. Yours is religious, mine is functional. There is a significant overlap because religion/philosophy is a functional human construct. I'm not arguing that the scientific framework is the only valid one. But you are saying: "(Some) people are evil". And I'm saying: whether they are and what that means all depends on how you look at it. I wonder how they would judge the things that they did. Remember: it is not torture when we do it. Anyway, your colourful collection of criminals (and it's nice that you recognise them as potential victims of trauma and abuse) may have learned to judge their behaviour from a religious and/or moral framework, but that does not mean that they always did, or that it is internally consistent. Many abused children don't think that their abuse was 'evil'; it just was what it was. It's what they knew (this is why some victims of abuse find it difficult to disengage from the abusive relationship, and why some other victims of abuse become abusers in turn. Beatings? Never did me any harm...). People who have survived disaster or war where all law, order, justice and morality have broken down, may experience a existential crisis in which life does not seem to make sense any more. Anything can happen to you, there is no rhyme or reason to it, no justice, no mercy. You just do what you must to survive. Other people hold to their moral beliefs even more because they recognise that that's all there is that keeps you human. They may perform remarkable acts of altruism in the face of crisis. In the absence of society, people can lose their moral framework. Soldiers can totally lose it when they are far way from home, in a brutal battlefield. Or societies may go off a moral cliff as a whole. At that point they do not judge their actions as 'evil'; they may even think they are 'good'. What it takes for us to cross that line individually or as a society is always an interesting debate, but it points to how morality is a human construct, not a universal law. It may seem that way because the definition of 'evil' includes a notion of harm, and we are physical beings and thus what is harmful to us is in the end dictated by the laws of physics, which are universal. They are human constructs, and, like 'good' and 'evil' they are functional ones: they allow communities to function better and its members to thrive. That is enough reason to apply them. This is where we differ: you say something is evil when it violates the will of God. I say something is evil when it is meaningful for human functioning to think of it in those terms. In judging the value and meaning of a behaviour, a philosophical framework is rather useful. In terms of understanding its function and promoting or changing it, a scientific one is helpful.
