Both. As the image of God, human beings certainly are capable of goodness and, in fact have good in their nature, but being a sinful creation born into a sinful world, our nature has been corrupted with evil. It is by the grace of God that human beings have not lost the goodness in them and many, even of those who do not know God, are good-natured individuals, but it is also a testament to the corruption of sin that otherwise good people do horrible things to themselves or those that love them. Message me for better explanations or with questions you might have, as there is only so much I can write in this forum.
Are humans inherently good or inherently evil?
- Thread starter retyopy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think that we are born not necessarily evil, but selfish and with a self-focused mind set. We have to learn how to be considerate and how to put the needs of others before our own. I wouldn't call that evil, naive and ignorant maybe, but not evil.
I would have to disagree with you on that one. I think that humans are naturally born selfish [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene]. I've read the book The Selfish Gene previously and it's the best theory that I've come across. Although I don't pretend to be any sort of expert in the subject I would think that perhaps in the case of those babies that instinctively they know that they're helpless and would therefore show the pretence of altruism (as cynical as that sounds) to form a stronger bond with others to give itself a better chance of survival.OriginalLadders said:
And you'd be amazed how easy it is to hold this view and still be a nice guy.
*Edit
I disagree with what you say but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it.Schrodinger said:
neither we are inheritly selfish, we act only to benefit ourselves. Now our actions can help others but that wouldn't really classify us as primarily "good" would it.
I personally think it depends on a person's life and what shapes them into the person they are.
I have to agree with anyone who said a little of both.
Some people lean more towards one end or another, most people fall in the middle.
Some people lean more towards one end or another, most people fall in the middle.
In the book "Good Omens", there is a quote by an angel that I always liked. He basically said that humans were not inherently evil nor good, just distinctly human. They were capable of doing greater good than heaven and worse acts than hell (there are references that demons picked up some torture techniques from the Spanish Inquisition).
I don't know, I hold the door for people and flush my turds. So I'd say good for my own personal well being.
In general I've never believed anyone claiming to be a "good person" to be truly good. For me a person that's investing in being good doesn't strive for recognition nor sees it as good, rather as normal to the end of common sense.
I feel eEvil is too broad a term, it makes one think of those people committing murders ,kidnapping and what not. Instead let us focus on the lesser vices that make up the term. I think man is inherently greedy, lazy, and selfish. We're prone to think of ourselves first, if we can get by doing the bare minimum we will, and see no problem with taking more than a fair share (if we can get away with it). We lie and we cheat in anyway we can to get what we want or a favorable result. The good we see is an attempt to avoid punishment and more serious crimes.
I feel eEvil is too broad a term, it makes one think of those people committing murders ,kidnapping and what not. Instead let us focus on the lesser vices that make up the term. I think man is inherently greedy, lazy, and selfish. We're prone to think of ourselves first, if we can get by doing the bare minimum we will, and see no problem with taking more than a fair share (if we can get away with it). We lie and we cheat in anyway we can to get what we want or a favorable result. The good we see is an attempt to avoid punishment and more serious crimes.
But why should we care if you like socks? It merely delays the thread and the question you want to ask. No need to get rude. I could just as well tell you to keep your rudeness to yourself, but I don't expect manners from a person such as yourself after this reply, which would obviously be to expect you to be far more intelligent than you apparently are. Get yourself some manners, and then I can politely ask you to shut the fuck up.retyopy said:
In b4 "BUT U SAID NO ONE GIVES A FUCK HURR", because we don't. It's not a question of manners, just the fact that people don't care if you like socks or not. It's completely irrelevant for the thread.
Altruism and selfishness are not mutually exclusive. I believe human altruism stems from selfishness; anything that benefits the survival of the group benefits your own survival. The error is in equating all selfishness with "evil". But altruism stemming from selfishness is still altruism, it's not a pretense, there is no "true" altruism.Fingerprint said:
It should be quite obvious that it was not fun, hence a failed attempt at joking. Telling me to go fuck myself is not in any way a fun joke, if you think it is, then get your mental state checked up on. You aren't funny. On top of that, get your spelling right, please.retyopy said: