Do you believe humans are inherintly good or bad?

[Coronius]

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.

[Dsonsion]

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.

[spinner981]

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.

[Zoaric]

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?

[Speaknoevil]

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.

[spinner981]

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.

[Endus]

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.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

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.

[spinner981]

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?

[Mormolyce]

Humans are inherently obedient. For the most part they do their best to behave according to the norms that their parents and society pass on to them. If those norms are good then they are good, and if they're bad then they are bad.

Most behaviour that deviates from societal/parental norms occurs when those norms are unrealistically restrictive and go against basic human instinct and impulses.

Basic animal impulses are neither good nor bad.

[spinner981]

You're completely disregarding amoral in your argument.

Because it's not an option. If I asked "Is this light on or off?" you wouldn't expect a 'neither' option, would you?

And it's a false analogy, since there are countless choices that are not binary.

That's opinion based, not logically based.

[Shinagami091]

I'm going to say neither.

Take out ethics, morals, religion, social acceptance ect. and all you have left is survival. Survival of the fittest. The way we get "fit" in today's world is by gaining money. Money is power. Power means influence. Influence means you're in control. These big corporations, they can't get enough of it, and you know that these moguls shit on people to get where they are. I don't see this as a good or a bad trait of humans. It's natural. The same can be said for other things too.

Guy stole your girlfriend? He was more appealing to her than you were. We all have primal urges. That's why the world revolves around procreation or casual sex. It is our most fundamental purpose on this earth. To create more of yourself so that your genealogy will be preserved in your offspring. Yet we are also one of the few species that have sex for pleasure rather than for necessity.

The pressures of society, to get to the point where you can find a mate who will accept you, are what the problem is. The bar is always raising on the standards of what we look for in a mate and it has everything to do with commercialism. That is the true evil in the world. We are brain washed, girls more so, into making ourselves more appealing. And rightfully so, because sex is no longer a necessity to produce offspring, but for pleasure. Somewhere along the line our brains got rewired to put pleasure over procreation.

Anyway, Im rambling on, I hope I get my point across though.

[Crissi]

Because it's not an option. If I asked "Is this light on or off?" you wouldn't expect a 'neither' option, would you?



That's opinion based, not logically based.

Humans aren't as binary as a lightswitch however.

[Speaknoevil]

And what is the evidence behind that?

Inherent proclivities for certain behavioral patterns vary by the individual, coupled with the sum of their experiences.

You will have a very hard time quantifying right or wrong objectively because of a multitude of unknowable variables involved in every instance where "choice" is involved.

[darkwarrior42]

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.

And what you continually fail to grasp is that morality and immorality are different points on the same scale; you have assumed, by fiat and without evidence or argument, that this scale must exist and that all of humanity must fall somewhere on that scale, and then you have systematically cut out every single part of the scale except for the two extremes. In doing so, you have applied neither logic nor rationality.

So let's back up and try this again. You have clearly assumed that morality exists. Do you believe that it is an inherent feature of the universe, that would be present regardless of whether humanity existed? Or is it a construct of humanity, something that could not exist without us?

[spinner981]

Humans are inherently obedient. For the most part they do their best to behave according to the norms that their parents and society pass on to them. If those norms are good then they are good, and if they're bad then they are bad.

Most behaviour that deviates from societal/parental norms occurs when those norms are unrealistically restrictive and go against basic human instinct and impulses.

Basic animal impulses are neither good nor bad.

If humans are inherently obedient then more often than not, you should be able to simply tell a child to "stop misbehaving" and leave it at that, without any convincing or coercion.

- - - Updated - - -

Inherent proclivities for certain behavioral patterns vary by the individual, coupled with the sum of their experiences.

You will have a very hard time quantifying right or wrong objectively because of a multitude of unknowable variables involved in every instance where "choice" is involved.

The question is not asking a person's opinion on what is right or wrong. It is asking whether the voter in specific thinks people are inherently good or bad.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

Because it's not an option. If I asked "Is this light on or off?" you wouldn't expect a 'neither' option, would you?

Good thing we're not talking about light switches then.

[Zoaric]

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.

Have you not said that we can tell someone/thing's morality by their actions though?

[Garnier Fructis]

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.

How about the empirical observation of a human stage of life where the subject exhibits absolutely no sign of being moral or immoral?

[Dsonsion]

And what is the evidence behind that?

This is a philosophical internet discussion. I think demanding for evidence isn't the way to go. The use of logical arguments to prove points is, as you recurrently say. Well, there's been plenty of those trying to support the inherent "amorality" of man, every single one of them being handwaved, dismissed or ignored by you. But I don't think I'll convince you with this post either.