View Poll Results: Are humans inherintly good or bad?

Voters
159. You may not vote on this poll
  • Humans are inherintly good/moral/righteous.

    67 42.14%
  • Humans are inherintly bad/immoral/evil.

    92 57.86%
Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
9
... LastLast
  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronius View Post
    That is because you have already decided that your two extremes are the only options, and everything else is wrong. Why that is absurd is already apparent to everyone here.

    Whether you like it or not, this stance is extremely common in philosophy and is supported by people like Locke, Berkeley and Hume. If you are interested in this subject but unfamiliar with them, I advise you to look them up.
    I didn't just 'decide' it. I arrived at that conclusion logically. You can either believe that morality exists or it doesn't exist. If it does exist, then those are the only two options. If it doesn't exist, then the question is meaningless. Not being off is the same as being on. That is just how it works. There is no arbitrary third option to being either on or off, no matter how much you would like to 'believe' there is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torgent View Post
    History had Einstein and Aristotle, we have spinner981.
    It's just uncanny: http://i.imgur.com/hm7XMCo.png

  2. #122
    Neither and both.
    Good and evil really doesnt exist. We are what we, ourselves, and others judge us as. Without there being a definitive, right answer.
    Humans are predisposed to being both, but most of us suppress the most evil thoughts, and maybe some good at times.
    And who is the judge? Some might find an act evil, while other deem it necessary. Self defense for example.

    I think I might've gotten a little too philosophical. Maybe I should go to bed.

  3. #123
    I am Murloc! Garnier Fructis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Location:
    Posts
    5,306
    Quote Originally Posted by spinner981 View Post
    So, 'feelings'? Not logic?
    What's your motivation for only having two options? What's your motivation for even defining the concept in the first place?

    How or why an idea got there is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not it logically works. To imply otherwise is illogical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dejablue View Post
    Is physics forever relegated to reiterating integrals that can never approach the derivative limits of true reality?
    Quote Originally Posted by auBerg View Post
    You are a certified crackpot that is subservient to the manipulators of science who are dreaming to control knowledge.

  4. #124
    The basic idea of an absolute morality is absurd to begin with. In some fringe locations of the Middle East, beating your wife is a moral thing to do, while we westerners see it as an abhorrent act. We could question the validity of their moral values from our points of view, but for them, beating their wives may be a moral thing to do.

    I recently watched that Hate.com documentary and I wonder: Would Benjamin Nathaniel Smith have gone on a killing spree if he would have been adopted by a jewish or black couple when he was young? I doubt that. People aren't born with a certain view on morality and an attitude towards it. They're taught moral values in their very homes, and society as a whole judges them with some values of its own.

  5. #125
    I am Murloc! Garnier Fructis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Location:
    Posts
    5,306
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    The real question is: how ripe do you like your bananas?

    Personally, I like bananas with a little green on them. They lose their appeal for me once they start getting too mushy.
    I have to agree with this. Slightly green bananas are the best.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dejablue View Post
    Is physics forever relegated to reiterating integrals that can never approach the derivative limits of true reality?
    Quote Originally Posted by auBerg View Post
    You are a certified crackpot that is subservient to the manipulators of science who are dreaming to control knowledge.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronius View Post
    There is none, because the OP has decided by himself that such an opinion is wrong. There is nothing even remotely scientific or logical in his way of reasoning, but he has still come to this conclusion for some unknown reason.
    Not even remotely? All everyone else has been arguing with is "No, you're wrong because I said so." and "I am right because of my feelings."

    It is logical to believe that a lack of morality implies immorality, and nothing implies a third option besides biased wishful thinking.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torgent View Post
    History had Einstein and Aristotle, we have spinner981.
    It's just uncanny: http://i.imgur.com/hm7XMCo.png

  7. #127
    Inherently bad definitely

    Anyone who thinks otherwise ignores the real world for philosophical nonsense

    And those who say morals are subjective don't actually live their lives in line with that belief

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Garnier Fructis View Post
    What's your motivation for only having two options? What's your motivation for even defining the concept in the first place?

    How or why an idea got there is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not it logically works. To imply otherwise is illogical.
    If morality isn't a present option, then the question is meaningless. Having morality as an option is the bare minimum, and we therefore must have immorality as an option as well. Nothing implies or necessitates a third or fourth or fifth or hundredth option though. I am debating bare minimum logic from the stance that morality does exist. You are simply debating possibilities and enforcing appeals to ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torgent View Post
    History had Einstein and Aristotle, we have spinner981.
    It's just uncanny: http://i.imgur.com/hm7XMCo.png

  9. #129
    The Lightbringer TEHPALLYTANK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Texas(I wish it were CO)
    Posts
    3,604
    Quote Originally Posted by spinner981 View Post
    This sounds an awful lot like wishful thinking, feelings and personal opinions, not logic
    Look! You just described morality!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigbamboozal View Post
    Intelligence is like four wheel drive, it's not going to make you unstoppable, it just sort of tends to get you stuck in more remote places.
    Quote Originally Posted by MerinPally View Post
    If you want to be disgusted, next time you kiss someone remember you've got your mouth on the end of a tube which has shit at the other end, held back by a couple of valves.

  10. #130
    Spinner981 is truly one of the great minds of our time. History had Einstein and Aristotle, we have spinner981 to disprove all of them because he wants to ignore meanings of words and dismiss the opinions of those smarter than he.

    He logically decided that some of the most influential people in psychology and philosophy were just full of shit and didn't understand basic logic.

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by TEHPALLYTANK View Post
    Look! You just described morality!
    If that describes morality, then morality (at least in the sense this thread is proposing) doesn't exist and the question is meaningless.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torgent View Post
    History had Einstein and Aristotle, we have spinner981.
    It's just uncanny: http://i.imgur.com/hm7XMCo.png

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by spinner981 View Post
    I didn't just 'decide' it. I arrived at that conclusion logically. You can either believe that morality exists or it doesn't exist. If it does exist, then those are the only two options. If it doesn't exist, then the question is meaningless. Not being off is the same as being on. That is just how it works. There is no arbitrary third option to being either on or off, no matter how much you would like to 'believe' there is.
    Everything you just said contradicts pretty much everything that famous philosophers throughout history have concluded. Not only that, but you keep stating that your way of reasoning has led to "a logical conclusion" while pretty much everyone in this thread has deemed your logic as severely flawed (which it is, and despite people explaining what's so flawed, you keep denying it). And to top it all off, people have been coming up with intelligent arguments but despite that, they're all dismissed, by you, as outright wrong simply because you disagree.

    In a thread about philosophy.

    Let that sink in for a bit. Unlike you, I well-versed in this subject and actually know what I'm talking about. All you've done is formed an opinion and then out of sheer stubbornness dismissing everything else as wrong.

    "This sounds an awful lot like wishful thinking, feelings and personal opinions, not logic". Like honestly, how is this a valid argument in any semi-intelligent humans mind? This is signature material, for gods' sake.
    You cannot do that while stunned.
    You cannot do that while stunned.
    You cannot do that while stunned.
    You die.
    You are dead.

  13. #133
    Of course morality does exist. There's no discussion on that. You're implying that morality (or immorality) is an intrinsic trait of the human being, while others say it isn't, but instead it is learned, taught and/or enforced. They propose another poll option according to that.

  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by Torgent View Post
    Spinner981 is truly one of the great minds of our time. History had Einstein and Aristotle, we have spinner981 to disprove all of them because he wants to ignore meanings of words and dismiss the opinions of those smarter than he.

    He logically decided that some of the most influential people in psychology and philosophy were just full of shit and didn't understand basic logic.
    Sounds like an appeal to anonymous authority to me. Also, I believe that I am one of the only people not simply changing what words mean. Morality means a lack of immorality, and vice versa. That seems to be difficulty for some people to grasp though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torgent View Post
    History had Einstein and Aristotle, we have spinner981.
    It's just uncanny: http://i.imgur.com/hm7XMCo.png

  15. #135
    The Lightbringer Zoaric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The United States of America, Rapture, or Orgrimmar
    Posts
    3,254
    Quote Originally Posted by spinner981 View Post
    We have observed humans being moral and immoral. There are no such things as morality based decisions that end in neither a moral nor immoral choice. If you are confronted with a decision, your choice is either moral or immoral, it can't be both nor neither. It is safe to assume that morality functions the same way consistently, rather than to try and make up our own rules and definitions out of thin air.
    Let us assume that 'good' and 'evil' are one a scale, with 'good' being 1 and 'evil' being
    2.

    Now, let us assume that there is a man named Jeff who is believed a 'good' person and
    shows it through his actions as well as general thoughts.. (Charity, considerate, voter,
    blood donor, etc.) He sits at the 1 side of the scale. One night he murders a family out
    of state. The next day he continues with his happy and 'good' life. Does that action make
    him slide to the 2 side of the chart?
    No, he can neither be 1 nor 2. He is somewhere in between, is he not?
    Quote Originally Posted by Yvaelle View Post
    You can't fight porn on the internet, you may as well declare war on something overwhelming like water on Earth's surface - or something ephemeral like "terror" (lol sorry, had to do it) - or something both overwhelming and ephemeral... like porn on the internet.
    #GamerGate

  16. #136
    The Lightbringer Speaknoevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Posts
    3,886
    I deny the format of your question, as it has nothing to so with my "belief" but rather evidence.

    Humans are neither good or evil.

  17. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoaric View Post
    Let us assume that 'good' and 'evil' are one a scale, with 'good' being 1 and 'evil' being
    2.

    Now, let us assume that there is a man named Jeff who is believed a 'good' person and
    shows it through his actions as well as general thoughts.. (Charity, considerate, voter,
    blood donor, etc.) He sits at the 1 side of the scale. One night he murders a family out
    of state. The next day he continues with his happy and 'good' life. Does that action make
    him slide to the 2 side of the chart?
    No, he can neither be 1 nor 2. He is somewhere in between, is he not?
    This is not a question of degree. This is not a question of "How many moral/immoral acts". This is a question of "Moral or immoral?"

    The question is true/false, as something capable of expressing morality can not be neither moral nor immoral. Not fill in the blank.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torgent View Post
    History had Einstein and Aristotle, we have spinner981.
    It's just uncanny: http://i.imgur.com/hm7XMCo.png

  18. #138
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    22,044
    Quote Originally Posted by spinner981 View Post
    I think you are making this about simple decision making and moving away from the actual topic: morality.
    There's no difference. Morality is decision making.

    Let's use another analogy, one that actually makes sense to the topic at hand. A light switch. Turn it on, turn it off. Can it be both on and off? No. If it is on, then it isn't off, but if it is off, then it isn't on. There is no possibility where it can be both on and off and there is no possibility where it can be neither on nor off.
    And it's a false analogy, since there are countless choices that are not binary.

    If you disagree, kindly list the only two choices there are when it comes to the lottery picks. Once you've done so, kindly explain which of the two choices is the moral option, and why. Since, by your argument, there must be only two, and one must be moral, and the other must be immoral.

    Alternatively; your entire argument is logically inconsistent and fatally flawed. Which is sort of the point I'm getting at.

  19. #139
    The Lightbringer TEHPALLYTANK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Texas(I wish it were CO)
    Posts
    3,604
    Quote Originally Posted by spinner981 View Post
    This is not a question of degree. This is not a question of "How many moral/immoral acts". This is a question of "Moral or immoral?"

    The question is true/false, as something capable of expressing morality can not be neither moral nor immoral. Not fill in the blank.
    You're completely disregarding amoral in your argument. Not to mention the fact that you're rejecting anything that disagrees with your argument rather than disproving anything that disagrees with your argument.
    Last edited by TEHPALLYTANK; 2014-04-07 at 04:11 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigbamboozal View Post
    Intelligence is like four wheel drive, it's not going to make you unstoppable, it just sort of tends to get you stuck in more remote places.
    Quote Originally Posted by MerinPally View Post
    If you want to be disgusted, next time you kiss someone remember you've got your mouth on the end of a tube which has shit at the other end, held back by a couple of valves.

  20. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by Speaknoevil View Post
    I deny the format of your question, as it has nothing to so with my "belief" but rather evidence.

    Humans are neither good or evil.
    And what is the evidence behind that?
    Quote Originally Posted by Torgent View Post
    History had Einstein and Aristotle, we have spinner981.
    It's just uncanny: http://i.imgur.com/hm7XMCo.png

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •