Philosophy: People born good or evil?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are proving my point. What is evil to you is good to other people. People go to war because of being locked into a view of what good and evil is to them.

If you simply meant that in society, good and evil are all relative...then yup, I agree.

Originally posted by Enyalus
Maybe I misunderstood you. I took your 'good and evil are not absolutes' to mean 'there's no such thing as good an evil, its a moral construct and subject to perspective/relativity.' If so, I disagree. Because I do there is clearly something that is unequivocally good, and something that is unequivocally evil.

If you simply meant that in society, good and evil are all relative...then yup, I agree.

I say both. If humans did not exist, then good and evil, from a humans point of view, would not exist. As far as I know, humans invented the concept, but if an alien race had such a concept, then that would support your claim. We will have to wait until first contact.

Originally posted by Enyalus
Maybe I misunderstood you. I took your 'good and evil are not absolutes' to mean 'there's no such thing as good an evil, its a moral construct and subject to perspective/relativity.' If so, I disagree. Because I do there is clearly something that is unequivocally good, and something that is unequivocally evil.

You only know certain things are wrong / evil because your parents / society taught you directly and indirectly (consciously and subconsciously) that they are.

there is clearly something that is unequivocally good, and something that is unequivocally evil.

Really? What is unequivocally good? What is good, for that matter? What is unequivocally evil (an example would suffice). What makes that action evil?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are proving my point. What is evil to you is good to other people. People go to war because of being locked into a view of what good and evil is to them.

Nah, it's typically because they want something.

Originally posted by Enyalus
there is clearly something that is unequivocally good, and something that is unequivocally evil.

Such as?

You can be born with mental defects that cause excess anger and short tempered behavior. You can overcome that with medicine and therapy. So you can be born "evil" or "good".

So people with 'mental defects' are evil? That doesn't seem fair- what about all the great people that just happen to be high functioning autistic? Or the bipolar teacher who touches a child's life and instills a lifelong love of learning? That statement is terribly offensive: Didn't you see the uproar when 'never go full retard' was put into Tropic Thunder?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
So people with 'mental defects' are evil? That doesn't seem fair- what about all the great people that just happen to be high functioning autistic? Or the bipolar teacher who touches a child's life and instills a lifelong love of learning? That statement is terribly offensive: Didn't you see the uproar when 'never go full retard' was put into Tropic Thunder?

I think he's refering to specific mental defects, albeit the ones he seems to be singling out would certainly don't provide the qualities I look for in someone who's "evil".

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
You can be born with mental defects that cause excess anger and short tempered behavior. You can overcome that with medicine and therapy. So you can be born "evil" or "good".

a "temper" nor "anger" are not "mental defects"

someone's temper would only become psychologically "abnormal" if it caused persistent problems in a person's life, as in they were not able to participate in society or take care of themselves independently because of their anger, which is silly.

temper is more of a personality characteristic. I can't think of any non-recreational drugs that I would say lower ones overall "anger" levels, and temperament has strong genetic associations. While you might be able to take "happy pills" or develop some sort of personal strategy for not being angry with people, I don't think one ever "overcomes" their temper.

Also, "overcomes" is not the proper term when dealing with mental health. A bulimic rarely "overcomes" their disorder. People with major depression don't ever "overcome" depression. Surviving major mental health issues is a day by day thing, with persistent problems for life. "Struggling with", "surviving", "enduring" are all better terms, as mental health problems, unlike pathogens like viruses or bacteria, cannot be beaten in that sense.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Such as?

Unequivocally good: helping an old lady cross the street.

You can't justify or apply relativity to either thing. Sure, you could say 'if you were born into a culture that thought having forced sex with a child was good thing, you'd think you were doing good.' True. But anyone who was detached from the situation and looking at it purely rationally would know that it certainly isn't. The same way that someone completely detached from a situation and sees you helping an elderly woman across a busy street is going to go, "Oh, well, that's nice."

You just know it is. Rationally. Assuming you're a neutral observer. And those are just two examples. There are more, of course.

Originally posted by Enyalus
Unequivocally evil: Raping a child.

Unequivocally good: helping an old lady cross the street.

You can't justify or apply relativity to either thing. Sure, you could say 'if you were born into a culture that thought having forced sex with a child was good thing, you'd think you were doing good.' True. But anyone who was detached from the situation and looking at it purely rationally would know that it certainly isn't. The same way that someone completely detached from a situation and sees you helping an elderly woman across a busy street is going to go, "Oh, well, that's nice."

You just know it is. Rationally. Assuming you're a neutral observer. And those are just two examples. There are more, of course.

If I were a truly neutral observer I wouldn't care about either action in the remotest sense. Neither the child nor the old lady has any intrinsic value.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If I were a truly neutral observer I wouldn't care about either action in the remotest sense. Neither the child nor the old lady has any intrinsic value.

There is no good or evil, it is all merely perspective.

Originally posted by inimalist
a "temper" nor "anger" are not "mental defects"

someone's temper would only become psychologically "abnormal" if it caused persistent problems in a person's life, as in they were not able to participate in society or take care of themselves independently because of their anger, which is silly.

temper is more of a personality characteristic. I can't think of any non-recreational drugs that I would say lower ones overall "anger" levels, and temperament has strong genetic associations. While you might be able to take "happy pills" or develop some sort of personal strategy for not being angry with people, I don't think one ever "overcomes" their temper.

Also, "overcomes" is not the proper term when dealing with mental health. A bulimic rarely "overcomes" their disorder. People with major depression don't ever "overcome" depression. Surviving major mental health issues is a day by day thing, with persistent problems for life. "Struggling with", "surviving", "enduring" are all better terms, as mental health problems, unlike pathogens like viruses or bacteria, cannot be beaten in that sense.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
You can overcome mental problem caused by brain defects with medicine. I wasn't talking about just overcoming psychological things.

no you can't. mental (psychological, they mean the same thing) problems do not have similar pathologies to normal medical conditions. They are based on how the brain organizes itself and the response to stimuli, not on viruses or bacteria.

The only type of psychological problem you would be describing would be like a brain tumor, where the abnormal processing can return after the physical ailment is removed. Or, looking to the future, someone who can have a lesion in their brain repaired.

The use of medicine to treat a psychological problem is indicitive of their nature. Anti-depressents are not prescribed as if there will be a time they have "cured" depression. While each person is going to require a unique medication regiment, these regiments are not designed with an end point where the patient is said to be cured of their depression.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
Although you can overcome anorexia, OCD, and other similar mental problems.

Both anorexia and OCD patients, when speaking with long time sufferers and people who have been on any medication you can imagine, will tell you that there is no "cure" to their condition.

This is especially true of anorexia and other eating disorders. It really surprises me that you would use them as an example here, as it is pretty much consistently documented that people with these conditions have body and self worth issues underlying their approach to eating that, even when they feel better about themselves, is a constant struggle for their entire lives.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
And you can learn to overcome your anger.

you can learn ways of not behaving in socially unacceptable ways.

you cannot "overcome" anger. That statement makes little to no sense the more specifically it is applied to information processing in the brain.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
Unless you're suggesting that people can't change?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'd like you to prove that there are medical CURES to depression.

However, just as the caveat, something is not "cured" if you must take a regiment of medication for the rest of your life.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
John Locke said people were born good. Thomas Hobbes was against that idea and said that people were born evil. They were not always disagreeing. They both agree on the idea of a Social Contract. ill add more info later...maybe. 🙂

Goodness is in the eye of the beholder. It's a point of view. What's "good" in our eyes here in the U.S can be offensive or even evil in the mid-east and vise versa.

But to answer your threads' question, it's no. Humans are not born either way. They're born ignorant and then become either good or evil (or a little of both) afterwards (later in life, way after birth), at least I believe.

People are born simple.

We arent born evil or good. We become evil or good, based on what path we decide to take in life.

Or maybe I am full of shit.

Originally posted by inimalist
no you can't. mental (psychological, they mean the same thing) problems do not have similar pathologies to normal medical conditions. They are based on how the brain organizes itself and the response to stimuli, not on viruses or bacteria.

The only type of psychological problem you would be describing would be like a brain tumor, where the abnormal processing can return after the physical ailment is removed. Or, looking to the future, someone who can have a lesion in their brain repaired.

The use of medicine to treat a psychological problem is indicitive of their nature. Anti-depressents are not prescribed as if there will be a time they have "cured" depression. While each person is going to require a unique medication regiment, these regiments are not designed with an end point where the patient is said to be cured of their depression.

Both anorexia and OCD patients, when speaking with long time sufferers and people who have been on any medication you can imagine, will tell you that there is no "cure" to their condition.

This is especially true of anorexia and other eating disorders. It really surprises me that you would use them as an example here, as it is pretty much consistently documented that people with these conditions have body and self worth issues underlying their approach to eating that, even when they feel better about themselves, is a constant struggle for their entire lives.

you can learn ways of not behaving in socially unacceptable ways.

you cannot "overcome" anger. That statement makes little to no sense the more specifically it is applied to information processing in the brain.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'd like you to prove that there are medical [b]CURES to depression.

However, just as the caveat, something is not "cured" if you must take a regiment of medication for the rest of your life. [/B]

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
So you're saying there's no cure for depression? So if someone is depressed they will always be depressed? Even though theres people who have had bouts of depression, took medicine, went to therapy, and now live lives free of depression, you're saying that doesn't happen?

could you show me a case of what you are talking about so that I can explain it in a different way

clearly I'm failing to convey this to you

to quickly address what you are talking about above, there are differences between clinical depression and being depressed. On is a psychological condition, the other is a natural part of human life. If a person suffers "bouts" of depression and is able to use therapy and medicine (I'd almost have to assume behavioural modification as well) so that they no longer suffer, it is more likely the latter than the former. Especially if you are talking about a circumstance where the person no longer is on a medication regiment.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
If you honestly think that then there's no reasoning with you because you must live in your own imaginary world.

considering the terrible quality of your contributions to this site, I'd be very careful about who you accuse of living in an imaginary world or being unreasonable. Your above post is certainly not informed enough to give the impression you might know more than me about this, nor is your position very nuanced in its conception of mental disability.

Why not speak nicely? Acting like a condescending teenager does not make you look as smart as you think you are.