I'm of the opinion that humans tend to be neutral, but we perform "Good" or "Evil" acts because of our surroundings.
Thanks!Marv21 said:Yes I love the ideas of Hoobes, and Locke, we need laws because men are not angels.Undead Dragon King said:I personally follow a hybrid Hobbesian-Lockian philosophy about man and the "state of nature". If you place man on a basic level with no laws or moral teachings whatsoever, he will be self-serving only. That is why we have laws: so that the innate self-centeredness of man can be held in check.
Call me a nihilist, that's just my opinion.
But humans vary differently some genetics make others agressive, and other nice. I perfer to blame evil people on the work of the parents, hope they rot in hell, which ends up the evil people themselves become parents. Its a vicous circle, I don't think we should blame the children, but in the end we kind have to.
Ms. Havisham effect.
Estella wasn't a bad person, she became one, and she got the shit beat out of her by her husband. Not her fault in the end.
Also I love your avatar.
Mai boi! I wonder whats for dinner!
Agreed.videonerd250 said:I say both yes and no. People can be born either good or bad, and then that personality either reinforced or diminished, depending on their upbringing.
Pretty much that. If anything I think people are inherently bad and we only become good and gain a sense of moral conscience from conditioning of societies "norms and values". Plus any species that is as efficient at killing as the human race can not claim to be good in my opinion.meatloaf231 said:No, I don't think so. Look at children: they have a long, proud history of being completely horrible to one another and small animals.
So what you're saying is that if a person were to walk up to a TV store that was on fire, and the elderly clerk was trapped, they would always run in to steal a TV than help the person?aussiesniper said:I'm of the opinion that humans tend to be neutral, but we perform "Good" or "Evil" acts because of our surroundings.
Because humans are social beings, a neutral person would rescue the clerk. Also, why would anyone want a burning TV?Chips the Magic Dragon said:So what you're saying is that if a person were to walk up to a TV store that was on fire, and the elderly clerk was trapped, they would always run in to steal a TV than help the person?aussiesniper said:I'm of the opinion that humans tend to be neutral, but we perform "Good" or "Evil" acts because of our surroundings.
Actually that's pretty dead on if I remember correctly. I agree with this, leave 5 children in a room with a bunch of food and water without teaching them anything (though I've no idea how they would survive on it's own or how a caretaker wouldn't instill their values in them) and they'll just serve themselves and probably fight each other.black lincon said:I hate to roughly quote Dr. Cox but, "people are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling."(yes very rough) If you took away rules people would regress to animal instincts, humans are, at heart, self serving bastards.
General morals would be, I guess, "Killing is wrong" and "don't steal". But even those morals have "But what if..." situations to them.Gormourn said:I don't even understand what "general morals" mean. What are they? Should general morals be morals dictated by one of the major religions? Or should it be just sensible stuff worked out of life experiences? Or should it be a cold, scientific approach? Either way, there would be a huge amounts of people taking some side, especially when we're talking about more then one country.