Do you believe humans are inherintly good or bad?

[Jtbrig7390]

Do you believe that humans are inherently good or bad? Moral or immoral? Righteous or evil?

Nether.

You are who you want to be nothing more or nothing less. Unless you have some mental illness you must accept the actions you take and can't blame anyone else for them.

[spinner981]

So you missed the entire point of my posts. Good job. Seriously, go look up Tabula Rasa. You will then instantly request this thread deleted. Or at least I hope you would.

Basically a blank slate? The open minded idea that somebody can be neither moral or immoral, good or bad, right or wrong? That doesn't work logically, it just doesn't. If we accept that a lack of morality translates to immorality, and vice versa, then that means that there is no point at which neither can exist in a person. Whether you want to think of being perfectly moral as being a pure blank slate or not. This is just how these two opposing things work. It's like light and darkness, where darkness is merely a lack of light. Immorality is simply a lack of morality. So if a person is moral, then they are moral. But if a person is not moral, then they are immoral. Those are the only two options, logically speaking of course. You can't be both true and false, and you can't be neither true nor false. That's just how the universe works.

- - - Updated - - -

Nether.

You are who you want to be nothing more or nothing less. Unless you have some mental illness you must accept the actions you take and can't blame anyone else for them.

So you wouldn't consider any human being that ever existed bad, and similarly you wouldn't consider any human being that ever existed good?

[Torgent]

Basically a blank slate? The open minded idea that somebody can be neither moral or immoral, good or bad, right or wrong? That doesn't work logically, it just doesn't. If we accept that a lack of morality translates to immorality, and vice versa, then that means that there is no point at which neither can exist in a person. Whether you want to think of being perfectly moral as being a pure blank slate or not. This is just how these two opposing things work. It's like light and darkness, where darkness is merely a lack of light. Immorality is simply a lack of morality. So if a person is moral, then they are moral. But if a person is not moral, then they are immoral. Those are the only two options, logically speaking of course. You can't be both true and false, and you can't be neither true nor false. That's just how the universe works.

- - - Updated - - -



So you wouldn't consider any human being that ever existed bad, and similarly you wouldn't consider any human being that ever existed good?

MMOC poster states that some of the greatest philosophical minds of history came to a conclusion that doesn't work in logic. This is ground breaking. Can I get your autograph? You have disproved Tabula Rasa in one post, that's amazing.

Also judging by your posts I don't think you know what inherently means.

[Garnier Fructis]

If we accept that a lack of morality translates to immorality, and vice versa, then that means that there is no point at which neither can exist in a person.

What part of blank slate requires us to accept this statement?

I'm having a hard time seeing how this argument doesn't boil down to "1+1 is not equal to 2, because if we accept that 0 = 1 then we see that..." You're assuming a contradiction and then showing a contradiction. That's as impressive as saying that oranges are apples because my donkey is a car.

To explain further, you're argument is based on the assumption that there are only two choices, morality and immorality. So when you assume a lack of both, you show that both must hold and that you get a contradiction. But the blank slate position is the position that there are 3 choices. You can't refute the blank slate by assuming its core principle to be false and then smuggling the contradiction in as a consequence.

[Jtbrig7390]

So you wouldn't consider any human being that ever existed bad, and similarly you wouldn't consider any human being that ever existed good?

That wasn't my point. There is good and bad humans but you chose to be one or the other was my point.

That choice is urs to make and no one else and you can't blame others for that choice. Unless there is some short of mental illness then you must accept all actions you take.

[spinner981]

It depends how you define good and evil but ultimately it is not black and white, is a spectrum; on which the human race would most likely fall either on neutral or towards to the good end because a social species that does not cooperate with each other destroys itself and goes extinct.

Viewed from afar a series of choices may seem gray, but each individual choice is either black or white, right or wrong. It can't be both right and wrong, and it can't be neither right nor wrong; that would be a paradox as someone who is wrong is therefore not right, and vice versa where someone who is right is therefore not wrong. You can make a statement that is part truth, part lie, but in reality that statement is just a truth and a lie in the same sentence. You might define the sentence as a gray area, but its really just two black and white areas sitting next to each other.

[lawow74]

I think we're inherently bad, i.e. selfish, greedy and xenophobic. We learn to overcome these traits through socialization and the creation of community and a rule of law. When those things break down, we revert to our true nature, given enough pressure and time.

[Jtbrig7390]

Viewed from afar a series of choices may seem gray, but each individual choice is either black or white, right or wrong. It can't be both right and wrong, and it can't be neither right nor wrong; that would be a paradox as someone who is wrong is therefore not right, and vice versa where someone who is right is therefore not wrong. You can make a statement that is part truth, part lie, but in reality that statement is just a truth and a lie in the same sentence. You might define the sentence as a gray area, but its really just two black and white areas sitting next to each other.

That is what is called a gray area and there is moments where there is a gray area that can't be defined as good or bad.

its a bit of both.

[Kraenen]

you're not just only good/bad. some actions are good and some actions are bad. thus, in the long run humans are both good and bad, but at different instants they are good or bad.

[spinner981]

That wasn't my point. There is good and bad humans but you chose to be one or the other was my point.

That choice is urs to make and no one else and you can't blame others for that choice. Unless there is some short of mental illness then you must accept all actions you take.

This could get into the debate of whether or not an evil person believes themself to be evil. Does a murderer know he is doing wrong, or does he simply know he is breaking the law?

[Coronius]

Neither. We are shaped and moulded by our environment. This poll is incomplete.

[Jtbrig7390]

This could get into the debate of whether or not an evil person believes themself to be evil. Does a murderer know he is doing wrong, or does he simply know he is breaking the law?

Like I said there is a lot of gray area's but most find that taking the life of another is wrong because you have no right to that life. Dose not matter if they are related to you or not there life is there own and you taking it makes you bad dispite what they may have done.

[spinner981]

MMOC poster states that some of the greatest philosophical minds of history came to a conclusion that doesn't work in logic. This is ground breaking. Can I get your autograph? You have disproved Tabula Rasa in one post, that's amazing.

Also judging by your posts I don't think you know what inherently means.

Why, because you define inherently differently?

What part of blank slate requires us to accept this statement?

I'm having a hard time seeing how this argument doesn't boil down to "1+1 is not equal to 2, because if we accept that 0 = 1 then we see that..." You're assuming a contradiction and then showing a contradiction. That's as impressive as saying that oranges are apples because my donkey is a car.

To explain further, you're argument is based on the assumption that there are only two choices, morality and immorality. So when you assume a lack of both, you show that both must hold and that you get a contradiction. But the blank slate position is the position that there are 3 choices. You can't refute the blank slate by assuming its core principle to be false and then smuggling the contradiction in as a consequence of the blank slate.

Because they are two mutually exclusive terms, where the lack of one translates to the presence of the other. That is just how it works. I am assuming that humans are either inherently good or inherently bad, which isn't a contradiction. What contradiction do you think I am claiming?

Do you know what opposites mean? Good and bad? They are sorta like off and on. Correct and incorrect. Something can not be both correct and incorrect, as they are opposites. Meanwhile, something can not be neither correct nor incorrect, as a lack of correctness translates to incorrectness. That is just how words and the universe works.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither. We are shaped and moulded by our environment. This poll is incomplete.

Like I already said. This question is not if humans are always either completely good or completely bad. The question is whether you personally believe humans are inherently good, or inherently bad. Since something can not be both nor neither, those are the only two options.

[Torgent]

Why, because you define inherently differently?



Because they are two mutually exclusive terms, where the lack of one translates to the presence of the other. That is just how it works. I am assuming that humans either either inherently good or inherently bad, which isn't a contradiction. What contradiction do you think I am claiming?

Do you know what opposites mean? Good and bad? They are sorta like off and on. Correct and incorrect. Something can not be both correct and incorrect, as they are opposites. Meanwhile, something can not be neither correct and incorrect, as a lack of correctness translates to incorrectness. That is just how words and the universe works.

- - - Updated - - -



Like I already said. This question is not if humans are always either completely good or completely bad. The question is whether you personally believe humans are inherently good, or inherently bad. Since something can not be both nor neither, those are the only two options.

You can say that all you want, that doesn't make it so. You're just proving more and more that you have no real knowledge on this topic. We are inherently nothing. We are shaped by our surroundings and experiences.

[jordonus]

Viewed from afar a series of choices may seem gray, but each individual choice is either black or white, right or wrong. It can't be both right and wrong, and it can't be neither right nor wrong; that would be a paradox as someone who is wrong is therefore not right, and vice versa where someone who is right is therefore not wrong. You can make a statement that is part truth, part lie, but in reality that statement is just a truth and a lie in the same sentence. You might define the sentence as a gray area, but its really just two black and white areas sitting next to each other.

Of course it's viewed overall. That was the question, are humans inherently good or bad? The point is that they are somewhere in between and most likely slightly towards the "good" end of the spectrum because we are, after all, a social species and have not gone extinct (quite the opposite actually).

[Marfrilau]

Basically a blank slate? The open minded idea that somebody can be neither moral or immoral, good or bad, right or wrong? That doesn't work logically, it just doesn't. If we accept that a lack of morality translates to immorality, and vice versa, then that means that there is no point at which neither can exist in a person. Whether you want to think of being perfectly moral as being a pure blank slate or not. This is just how these two opposing things work. It's like light and darkness, where darkness is merely a lack of light. Immorality is simply a lack of morality. So if a person is moral, then they are moral. But if a person is not moral, then they are immoral. Those are the only two options, logically speaking of course. You can't be both true and false, and you can't be neither true nor false. That's just how the universe works.

So either a human is moral or immoral when they are born because it can't be both and it can't be neither? Do I understand what you are trying to say correctly?

If I do then answer this. Is a rock moral or immoral? How about a plant?

Without actions with intent morality makes no sense.

[spinner981]

You can say that all you want, that doesn't make it so. You're just proving more and more that you have no real knowledge on this topic. We are inherently nothing. We are shaped by our surroundings and experiences.

Just because we are shaped by our surroundings and experiences doesn't mean we don't start out leaning one way or the other. They are two separate ideas that are not mutually exclusive.

[Zoaric]

Like I already said. This question is not if humans are always either completely good or completely bad. The question is whether you personally believe humans are inherently good, or inherently bad. Since something can not be both nor neither, those are the only two options.

My head hurts from the incorrectness of this statement... I need an Advil...

[spinner981]

If you have three innate tendencies towards good behavior and three innate tendencies towards bad behavior, with a net moral value of 0, are you innately good or evil?

That isn't the question. The question is a philosophical one. Not a mathematical one.

[Garnier Fructis]

Because they are two mutually exclusive terms, where the lack of one translates to the presence of the other. That is just how it works. I am assuming that humans either either inherently good or inherently bad, which isn't a contradiction. What contradiction do you think I am claiming?

Do you know what opposites mean? Good and bad? They are sorta like off and on. Correct and incorrect. Something can not be both correct and incorrect, as they are opposites. Meanwhile, something can not be neither correct and incorrect, as a lack of correctness translates to incorrectness. That is just how words and the universe works.

Why is this difficult. Consider currents. You have a positive current and a negative current, and they are opposites. But there's also no current. Two opposites and a neutral choice. Not a positive current could mean either a negative current or else no current.

Morality. Immorality. Neither. Three choices. Negating one implies either of the other two. No contradiction in this stance. You keep trying to show that this stance is contradictory and you do so by assuming it is false at the outset, and then claiming that it can't be both true and false.