Do you believe humans are inherintly good or bad?

[Endus]

How am I assuming that your claim is both true and false? How? Isn't the very idea of something be able to be neither moral nor immoral a contradiction?

No, it isn't a contradiction. Not even a little.

Is something moral? No? Then it is immoral.
Is something immoral? No? Then it is moral.

These are false dilemmas. You have done nothing to try and establish any truth to them. And you've created a baseless assumption.

Is something an apple? No? Then it is an orange.
Is something an orange? No? Then it is an apple.

I have just used your same "logic" to "prove" that all things must be either apples or oranges.

It's just as logical as what you've done. Either you're an apple, an orange, or wrong. Those are your three options.

And before you say "but there are other options other than apples and oranges", then you've successfully identified the baseless assumption. It's the same kind of baseless assumption you've made, in arguing that something must be either moral or immoral. That's just as ridiculous as claiming that something must be either apple or orange.

The two terms are opposites. If its not one, its the other. That is the point of the idea of morality. Something that is not moral is immoral. A lack of morality is immorality, and a lack of immorality is morality.

Doesn't matter if they're opposites.

Consider black and white. They are opposites.

Is something white? No? Then it is black.
Is something black? No? Then it is white.

Thus, color vision is a lie, everything is black and white, and "grey" and the entire visible spectrum don't exist. Or you're wrong. Again. Because your "logic" isn't logic. It's baseless assumptions piled on false dilemmas.

[badzerath]

No, it isn't a contradiction. Not even a little.



These are false dilemmas. You have done nothing to try and establish any truth to them. And you've created a baseless assumption.

Is something an apple? No? Then it is an orange.
Is something an orange? No? Then it is an apple.

I have just used your same "logic" to "prove" that all things must be either apples or oranges.

It's just as logical as what you've done. Either you're an apple, an orange, or wrong. Those are your three options.

And before you say "but there are other options other than apples and oranges", then you've successfully identified the baseless assumption. It's the same kind of baseless assumption you've made, in arguing that something must be either moral or immoral. That's just as ridiculous as claiming that something must be either apple or orange.



Doesn't matter if they're opposites.

Consider black and white. They are opposites.

Is something white? No? Then it is black.
Is something black? No? Then it is white.

Thus, color vision is a lie, everything is black and white, and "grey" and the entire visible spectrum don't exist. Or you're wrong. Again. Because your "logic" isn't logic. It's baseless assumptions piled on false dilemmas.

OR you are just someone who thinks they are smarter than they really are and can't fathom the difference between a spectrum of colors, tons of different types of fruit, and what they are talking about.

When faced with a choice (especially when it relates to someones else) if you do the right thing - that is the moral thing to do. If you do the wrong thing that is the immoral thing to do.

There are very few things that fit this, but one of them is moral and immoral.

Right and wrong
True and false


And what you just posted is flat out ridiculous.

[Kalyyn]

Humans tend to not think about the consequences of their actions. However, if you force a person to see the effect of what they do, they usually choose to do the right thing. Therefore, humans are inherently good, even if a bit careless.

[napalm007]

Is something moral? No? Then it is immoral.
Is something immoral? No? Then it is moral.

The two terms are opposites. If its not one, its the other. That is the point of the idea of morality. Something that is not moral is immoral. A lack of morality is immorality, and a lack of immorality is morality.

Is tying your shoes moral? No? Then it is immoral.
Is tying your shoes immoral? No? Then it is moral.

vs.

Is tying your shoes moral? No? Then it must be either immoral or amoral
Is tying your shoes immoral? No? Then it must be amoral.

See how one works in all cases while the other only works for some?

[darkwarrior42]

When faced with a choice (especially when it relates to someones else) if you do the right thing - that is the moral thing to do. If you do the wrong thing that is the immoral thing to do.

This assumes that there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong; that for any given choice, there is an objective right and and objective wrong that can be quantified and judged absent emotion or context... which is something I do not believe to be the case.

If I'm walking down the road and see someone drop a bag on the ground, causing the contents to spill out, is it better to stop and help or to walk on? Does that change based on the person would react to you? Does that change if you're running late? Does it change if you're late to an optional fun activity compared to being late to a mandatory activity that will have negative consequences if you don't get there on time?

I don't actually want answers to these questions... my point is that you're making the exact same assumption that the OP is, that there is an absolute objective morality that exists in literally every decision, and that there is nothing subjective in any of this. It is possible that this is the case, but neither you nor the OP has actually proven this, nor given any evidence in support of this position. You simply assume that you're right, and argue based on your assumptions.

[Sunseeker]

The opposite of love is fear my friend, not hate

Exactly. Hasn't everyone read Green Lantern?

[darkwarrior42]

Exactly. Hasn't everyone read Green Lantern?

I was wondering where that was from.... Green Lantern is not my strong suit, so thanks

[Sunseeker]

I was wondering where that was from.... Green Lantern is not my strong suit, so thanks

The Lanters use the RGB color wheel.

Red(Anger/Hate) to Green(Will)
Yellow(Fear) to Purple(Love)
Blue(Hope) to Orange(Greed)

I just read through like, every Lantern comic since the launch of the DCNu last weekend.

[crzyman007]

We are a product of our environment and upbringings!

[Ragedaug]

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.

Tabula Rasa isn't gospel, it's belief.

Also, I think what the OP is getting at is what are the opinions of the masses with the given that there aren't hard and fast rules on the definitions of the terms proposed.

In other words, based on your personal definition of the words, would you choose good/moral/righteous or bad/immoral/evil. Though to be honest, a couple more options are missing, ie. neither and both.

[Shaani]

Lots of people are taking this option, but nobody (NOBODY) has explained how it is possible. So far it seems to just be wishful thinking and many, many repeated "Obviously!" statement.

Take Robin Hood. He stole from the rich (stealing is bad) and gave it to the needy (helping people in need is good). Was his plan, his intention, his morale behind it good or bad? It was both at the same time: it does include a moral action (helping people in need) as well as an immoral action (stealing).
So Robin Hood did something good and bad within the same plan. His he good because of that, or bad? Since he stole (bad) he can't be entirely good, right?
He was both.
Sure, that's just a tale, but things like this happen every day, to many people, all around the world. There are many actions that are good and bad at the same time, depending on the view.

Things aren't just black and white. Also good and evil are just views, and as Siddhartha used to say:
"No view is the right view, but the right view is no view."

Or to give you a Koan, often given to Zen students to help them overcome the error of believing in black / white.
"The Elder asked the Youth to bring him his walking-stick. The Youth obeyed. 'Here, you have your staff.'
The Elder said 'It is not a staff, it is a walking-stick'."

So who was now right? It is a walking-stick or a staff? It's both. Something can be both at the same time without contradicting itself (and that's what a paradox is: something that, seemingly, contradict itself, but in reality it works out just fine, despite the contradiction).

Humans aren't good nor bad when they are born. "Good and evil" is taught.

[mvaliz]

I believe humans are inherently good... the problem is people tend to redifine what "Good" is in their minds.

For example: The CEO of Nike corp, when asked if he feels bad that he's having workshop slaves overseas cobble his shoes together by the hands of children in sweatshop/poverty conditions, he simply replied "That's what you see. What I see is that I'm providing money into a country for them to have a possible chance of getting better."

Honestly I believe he's convinced himself that this is true JUST to keep his mind in the belief that he is a good person, not just for the money (though that's a big reason too)

[Ragedaug]

I picked "bad/immoral/evil" based on the behavior of many toddlers I have had the opportunity to watch over the years. I think we are born with instinct for self preservation, which would equate to selfishness, in my opinion. I think we are taught to be "good" or "moral". Given a lack of society and instruction, I think man would kill, steal, and rape as he saw fit and as served his needs - basically like animals do. While I believe it is amoral for animals, I believe our conscience gives us more responsibility.

- - - Updated - - -

Take Robin Hood. He stole from the rich (stealing is bad) and gave it to the needy (helping people in need is good). Was his plan, his intention, his morale behind it good or bad? It was both at the same time: it does include a moral action (helping people in need) as well as an immoral action (stealing).
So Robin Hood did something good and bad within the same plan. His he good because of that, or bad? Since he stole (bad) he can't be entirely good, right?
He was both.

Is it stealing to take back what was stolen from you?

- - - Updated - - -

I believe humans are inherently good... the problem is people tend to redifine what "Good" is in their minds.

For example: The CEO of Nike corp, when asked if he feels bad that he's having workshop slaves overseas cobble his shoes together by the hands of children in sweatshop/poverty conditions, he simply replied "That's what you see. What I see is that I'm providing money into a country for them to have a possible chance of getting better."

Honestly I believe he's convinced himself that this is true JUST to keep his mind in the belief that he is a good person, not just for the money (though that's a big reason too)

I think your story proves the opposite. Just because he's convinced himself he's doing good, doesn't mean he is good.

Helping people = good
Exploiting people (and still getting a good nights sleep at the end of the day) = bad

[mvaliz]

OR you are just someone who thinks they are smarter than they really are and can't fathom the difference between a spectrum of colors, tons of different types of fruit, and what they are talking about.

When faced with a choice (especially when it relates to someones else) if you do the right thing - that is the moral thing to do. If you do the wrong thing that is the immoral thing to do.

There are very few things that fit this, but one of them is moral and immoral.

Right and wrong
True and false


And what you just posted is flat out ridiculous.

...have you never told a "white" lie in your life? I think that constitutes a grey area...

[Speaknoevil]

Forgive the quality, it's all I could find for just this scene.

[Underverse]

...have you never told a "white" lie in your life? I think that constitutes a grey area...

I disagree. There's nothing about lying that's innately immoral. It becomes immoral under certain circumstances - example, if by telling a lie you've swindled money from them.

[Prokne]

I believe humans are inherently selfish. Whether or not someone is good or bad depends on what they do to their own benefit. Some people like to help others because it makes them feel good. Other people want things and dont care if someone else is hurt in the process and others like hurting other people because they enjoy it. Good and bad are subjective anyway while selfishness is a well defined term.

[Coraulten]

TIL about morality thanks MMO-champion

Not sarcastic.

[mvaliz]

I think your story proves the opposite. Just because he's convinced himself he's doing good, doesn't mean he is good.

Helping people = good
Exploiting people (and still getting a good nights sleep at the end of the day) = bad

No no - he's not RELISHING or enjoying that idea is my point. He's ignoring it and looking at how it makes him believe he is doing GOOD.

Yes, both you and I can see he's doing evil actions that are deplorable - but the point is he believes he's doing good because of the way he words it and uses his own "special" logic. He's not doing this deliberately to "mask" it. He sees genuinely sees himself "looking on the bright side" and that he's good work and helping people.

I hate to Godwin this, but even Hitler believed he was doing good works and was morally righteous in his actions. His twisted logic told him there was a cancer in society and to remove the "impurities". If you're talking about giving a machine a tune up in that regard, that's perfectly good and understandable. Unfortunately his information was really REALLY stupid that fueled his belief and logic... He didn't see it as "evil" - he saw it as the same way you and I would try to cure a cancerous tumor.

I guess a better question I'd ask is the tough one: "What is evil?" Is it purely in the action? or is it in the INTENTION and, more importantly, the personal gratification/enjoyment of said sin?

[Shaani]

Is it stealing to take back what was stolen from you?

Good question.
It might depend on the case (since not every rich person got their monetary wealth via stealing).

It's actually nice how you point this out. It's another wonderful paradox. Stealing as such is considered bad, and yet it can be considered "good" in other cases. Superficially it contradicts itself, and yet it can work out just fine with being both (just as humans can be both, good and evil).