It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can we say whether humans are fundamentally good or evil ?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
This is a sort of response to 2 recent threads, Humans are not pure evil!., and humans are PURE EVIL!!!. In this thread I argue that we cannot know. I have two simple arguments :

1) It is impossible to know every action that has ever been committed by every human being in the history of mankind. And if we take into account the intention behind the act, it becomes even more impossible (if that is possible). No one can be witness of all that.

2) But even if it was possible, it wouldn't tell us anything about future actions, about future humans. The future is by definition unknown, and potential is by nature a thing of the future. If it was possible to be witness of all the past as is explained in point 1), the resulting definition would become obsolete the same second it is formulated.




posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn

Fundamentally, nurture beats nature.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn

There is no such thing as good or evil.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

please apply benevolant nurture to a black mamba [ snake ] and tell me how it goes - PS i shall read you obituary with sadness - but cite it as evidence you were wrong



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn

Humans are neither fundamentally good nor fundamentally evil. So you are right, we cannot say humans are fundamentally one or the other.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: solve

no - " good " and " evil " are subjective values



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn

All Evil,

that's why i have been sent here to kill all puny humans, and use their shinny skulls on my mantelpiece

All joking aside, i always remember a saying from a film "I'm not scared of anyone, except the monster inside them"

i think every human has the opportunity to do both.

Peace!



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Define "good" & "evil". Isn't "evil" a religious connotation?

I'd say mammals are basically survivalists (I guess anything living is).

If there's plenty to go around, I'd expect mammals would be more at peace in their societies - - with some power challenges for leadership.

I do think we are "born who we are" - - so I do think there can be brain anomalies that affect our thinking and behavior.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn



1) It is impossible to know every action that has ever been committed by every human being in the history of mankind.


Indeed it is. However, that noted, we know what we are capable of today, as a species, and taking into account of how we should have evolved beyond ourselves, even guessing has to come close to knowing.

...



2) But even if it was possible, it wouldn't tell us anything about future actions, about future humans.


We have NOT evolved.

We may have more knowledge but it is more in the sphere of technology than humanity. Today, we can (and do) still kill, behead, burn, hang and treat our fellow human beings as though they were less than animals.

Understanding this, to even consider that we can survive ourselves in the coming age... is, all but impossible.

I've said this before but... gotta say it again:
We are a kindergarten species... and when the nursery door opens, we will be pooping our diapers.




posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn

Individual actions can be labeled good or evil based on their intent and consequences, but even here at the level of individual actions, things become murky. Someone might intend good but the consequence is bad or hurtful, is that action good or evil?

An individual human's actions must be measured individually, so sometimes an individual human's action might be evil while at other times they might be good.

Combining individual humans into the category of humanity makes a moral label beyond complex and impossible to determine. Humanity as a whole, much like you said, can not be labeled one or the other.

Thanks for the thoughtful OP and great reasoning!




posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: redoubt

I've said this before but... gotta say it again:
We are a kindergarten species... and when the nursery door opens, we will be pooping our diapers.



That I agree with.

We still have tribalism power struggles over petty, stupid, nonsense.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: redoubt
a reply to: gosseyn
We have NOT evolved.

We may have more knowledge but it is more in the sphere of technology than humanity. Today, we can (and do) still kill, behead, burn, hang and treat our fellow human beings as though they were less than animals.

Understanding this, to even consider that we can survive ourselves in the coming age... is, all but impossible.

I've said this before but... gotta say it again:
We are a kindergarten species... and when the nursery door opens, we will be pooping our diapers.



I have created this thread specifically to address this issue of technological progress versus social progress. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
good and evil are fundamentally human concepts. so i guess you could argue that we are the ONLY evil, being the only species able to perceive evil and thus able to attribute our failures and shortcomings to it. what is order to the spider is chaos to the fly.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
One persons "evil" may be another persons "good"

Each decides what is right and wrong for themselves



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Just animals that manipulate to further their DNA.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
What if Good and Evil don't exist and it's just free will?



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: solve

no - " good " and " evil " are subjective values


Not really. The subjective is that makes behaviors relative so that people can do insane things and still call themselves good even when they are pure evil shown by their behavior.

Moral relativism is just a feel good story for those who do not choose to measure up. It is very easy to measure if a action is symbiotic or parasitic. Many things that humanity accept in their daily life is insane and show how little humanity have evolved socially.

From my point of view and a simplification: 10% are very good and will do very little evil, 10% are evil by their actions and will do very little good. 80% are in between doing both.

Just because many soul do not know the difference between impartial/objective good and evil do not mean it does not exists.
edit on 12-1-2016 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Perspectives it seems. This is why the has explained malevolent based energy activities and what they attract and benevolence activities to assist ASCENSION from whats attracted to others...

Sort of like what do livestock view human consumers of livestock as?
And what would humans view beings who acted like the human in previous post?



Dualism (from the Latin word duo meaning "two")[1] denotes the state of two parts. The term 'dualism' was originally coined to denote co-eternal binary opposition, a meaning that is preserved in metaphysical and philosophical duality discourse but has been more generalized in other usages to indicate a system which contains two essential parts.

Moral dualism is the belief of the great complement or conflict between the benevolent and the malevolent. It simply implies that there are two moral opposites at work, independent of any interpretation of what might be "moral" and independent of how these may be represented. The moral opposites might, for example, exist in a world view which has one god, more than one god, or none. By contrast, ditheism or bitheism implies (at least) two gods. While bitheism implies harmony, ditheism implies rivalry and opposition, such as between good and evil, or bright and dark, or summer and winter. For example, a ditheistic system would be one in which one god is creative, the other is destructive.




Nondualism, also called non-duality, "points to the idea that the universe and all its multiplicity are ultimately expressions or appearances of one essential reality."[1] It is a term and concept used to define various strands of religious and spiritual thought.[2] It is found in a variety of Asian religious traditions[3] and modern western spirituality, but with a variety of meanings and uses.[3][2] The term may refer to:

advaya, the nonduality of conventional and ultimate truth, or relative and Absolute reality:
Buddhist Madhyamaka, which says there is no absolute, transcendent reality beyond our everyday reality;
Chinese Mahayana, but also neo-Vedanta, which says that there is no absolute difference between the relative world and "absolute" reality;
advaita, the non-difference of Ātman and Brahman or the Absolute; it is best known from Advaita Vedanta, but can also be found in Kashmir Shaivism, popular teachers like Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj, and in the Buddha-nature of the Buddhist tradition;
"nondual consciousness", the non-duality of subject and object; this can be found in modern spirituality.



You CAN say that there are some very benevolent humans who care about other life they share the planet and universe with and who also care about the planet and universe. But there are also some malevolent humans who care only about selfish wants and outcomes and who dont care about others except themselves...

Just as you CAN say that there are possibly some very benevolent E.T. who care about other life they share planets and the universe with and who also care about and for planets within universe. But there may also be some malevolent E.T. who care only about selfish wants and outcomes and who dont care about others except for themselves.

Considering Laws of attract these beings or energies human and other could/would attract to the same regions of existence or ASCEND depending on their energy outputs upon others...
Regions of benevolence or regions of malevolence.

NAMASTE*******

edit on 1/12/16 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

It can be hard to be very benevolent when you are not 100% disconnected from the souls who behave malevolent. But that is the struggle here is it not? To be the best you can be under insane circumstances.





posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Whether someone turns out to be good or evil depends on the environment they were raised in. We all have the propensity to be either good or evil, our upbringing is where we go either one way or the other.

Both are inherent to our nature in my opinion and that is the result of our cognitive abilities. Though good and evil are totally subjective to the observer, what one finds to be good, another may find to be evil.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join