Do you believe humans are inherintly good or bad?

[Zoaric]

This thread is turning out like that Vegan Video one. Pretty much everyone just ended
up arguing with the OP. But that was entertaining... =/


Anywho, OP, you're saying that we can't prove that there are more than just the two
extremes, can you prove that their are?

[spinner981]

A light bulb being on or off can not logically represent "good vs. bad". A more appropriate comparison would be "morality vs. amorality", and a lot of us see humans as amoral (not immoral) at birth. When you're born, you know nothing about the world and has nothing to base your morality on. As you grow up, you go through various experiences in life and gain a certain perspective.

This sounds an awful lot like wishful thinking, feelings and personal opinions, not logic

[Hooked]

It depends on what tribe they are from. My tribe is good.

[Underverse]

Inherently good by definition. Bad things happen with scarcity

[Coronius]

This sounds an awful lot like wishful thinking, feelings and personal opinions, not logic

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.

[Amnaught]

All animals, humans included, are naturally neutral. There's no magical scoreboard in the sky saying murder is bad; it's an animal instict on overdrive saying "Wait, but if it's okay for me to kill him, then it must be okay for him to kill me, and that's not okay, fuck". Nature knows no good or evil.

Because think about it; Hitler thought he was doing something incredibly righteous. As did Christian crusaders who slaughtered "heretics". So.

Yeahhhh I have a blog on this stuff xD

[Korgoth]

Where is the option for: morals are learned, not inherited.

[spinner981]

This thread is turning out like that Vegan Video one. Pretty much everyone just ended
up arguing with the OP. But that was entertaining... =/


Anywho, OP, you're saying that we can't prove that there are more than just the two
extremes, can you prove that their are?

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.

[Coronius]

Where is the option for: morals are learned, not inherited.

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.

[spinner981]

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.

[Bakepulver]

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.

[Garnier Fructis]

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.

[Dsonsion]

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.

[Garnier Fructis]

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.

[spinner981]

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.

[Banders]

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

[spinner981]

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.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

This sounds an awful lot like wishful thinking, feelings and personal opinions, not logic

Look! You just described morality!

[Torgent]

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.

[spinner981]

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.