posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:28 AM
reply to post by SyntheticPerception
Good and Evil are relative based on perspective. I guess figuring which side of the fence you inherently chose to be on would be interesting but
people seem to fail to understand the nature of "good" and "evil" within our own minds and how it differs from others.
Hitler genuinely thought his goals and aspirations were of good intention...he didn't view his goals as necessarily evil. Obviously...he had enough
people who agreed with him on that perspective to get the worlds attention. NOW...from the outside perspective we could argue all the live long day
that his intentions were "evil" and he was a horrible person and etc...
Real evil does exist but the catch is, it sees itself as good...the interesting part about this is that it also perceives its counterpart as evil...so
I'm sure Hitler saw the allied forces as evil in their intent and objectives...
its ALL perspective/context...one mans trash is another mans treasure.
To say that children are inherently one or the other is odd to me as you cannot decide...what the universal good or evil IS without the social
definition of such...there is absolutely no objective indifferent definition of good and evil...so there is no control in this study and is subject to
social bias...since society is what determines what is considered a "good" act and what is a "bad act"....the experiment or study has societal goggles
They may be able to objectively say x% of infants inherently have personality A) or personality B) depending on the traits of A) and B) but to say one
is good and one is evil and imply that the infant knows that and knows the difference is....a reach imho.
What we know of good and evil is what society has taught us...and not all societies are the same...and not all people acknowledge the influence of
society. Society has usually been the most influenced and controlled by those with prestige given an iconic idolization status amongst peers...so
societies values aren't necessarily a representative of what everyone values...
Anyway I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to come to any conclusion on this study of infants. Any conclusion would be
biased based upon the interpretation...If they concluded that infants are inherently "good" how many different versions of "good" do you think that
baby is to the world?
I don't necessarily like social-psych studies because they make conclusions that can't possibly be made and people misinterpret those false
conclusions in their own way under their own influence wearing their own goggles...at the end of the day you can't really honestly say what is going
on is unbiased science...its more like using science to manipulate perspective and world view.
edit on 19-11-2012 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)