Do you believe people are born 'good'

[eOs]

I just thought of this while playing Baldur's Gate...And I know the Catholic church believes that people are generally born good people.

I don't think it's true.

I think that people are born neutral for the most part. Genetics obviously play a role in a person's personality which has many implications to this question. I think that your environment plays a giant role; a lot more than genetics. Raising a child a certain way will no doubt determine the way he acts when he/she is older. ..

[DoctaD]

This depends 100% on what you personally consider good.

I believe people are born equal.

[blaksun]

People are born ignorant of the concept of evil, good, neutral, or whatever. Later in life they may be introduced to such things, but there is a period when people are unaware of "evil" and "good."
And, in that time, I think that people are more inclined to be GOOD than BAD, because good IS natural while bad ISN'T.

eOs, Baldur's Gate is a great fucking game.

v.v

[LT3]

Born good? How can you be born with any kind of morality alignment?

People don't even have a concept of right and wrong when they're vaginally ejected into this world, how could they commit any kind of "bad" act, or sin without intent?

The catholic church believes in original sin, which is remedied at baptismal to make someone pure and innocent.

[eOs]

Sigh.

[gbu-36]

I dont believe in the concepts of good or evil personally.
But I do believe that people are born geneticly programmed to change things, destroy things and to try and force their ways on others (something some people look at as Evil)

Without the built in urges to destroy, change, and bend other to our will the human race would have never evolved to the point we have.

Check out "The Lucifer Principle" by howard bloom for a pretty interesting view on this.

[LT3]

Argh, I don't want to buy a book in order to reply to this post.

But I don't think someone can be inherently bad/negative, because that would infer they were genetically made so (and you yourself said it was genetic)
And THIS would imply that evil people have evil children, which isn't the case.

Someone's nature or personality may be down to nature, that has been known. But someone's nature isn't entirely from genes, are you suggesting some form of divine intervention to give them such a nature?

[gbu-36]

Basicly We are all born with the urge to destroy/change things around us. Which mant times can be construed as evil. We still have a choice in how we channel this.

[kbk]

People are born with good and evil inside them, depending on how they are brought up and live, either will come out eventually.

[LT3]

Basicly We are all born with the urge to destroy/change things around us. Which mant times can be construed as evil. We still have a choice in how we channel this.

Ah, that I can deal with. But that can merely be shown as human nature, something innate within our minds as people.

It could be quashed or expanded upon based on upbringing.

kbk - Your view on good and evil seems to be based around the notion that good and evil are both actual and conceptual.

Good and evil are just ways of looking upon actions and people,
it's a simplification of the world around us.

[kbk]

Yes I agree that all putting things into groups does for us is simplify things so we can better understand them.

[OsirisGuy429]

Humans aren't born good or evil. Religion and Society have both ignored the fact that humans are just more evolved animals. The things humans need more than anything else is what every other organism needs: Water, food, sleep, and to procreate.

Humans have basic instincts the same as lions do and the same hunting instincts that wolves do and the same survival instincts as roaches.

Humans have evolved enough to overcome these instincts and deal with them in other ways. This is profession or careers; farming, hunting, etc.

Humans are born blinded by the light, wet with fetal fluids, cold and naked. It's how we are brought up that divides us into "Good" and "Bad" kinds of people. Everything from our parents teachings to the views and acceptences of society of their times is what decides whether we have been good or bad.

Whatever society says and accepts becomes the norm, and whatever they say and accept doesn't neccesarily mean that it's good or evil. I cannot really feel right saying what is good and bad except for myself alone 'cause it's all based on how you feel and your beliefs. The best thing to do is just stay true to yorself and follow your own beliefs.

[duiker]

Osiris, the same beliefs on what to believe that you have just written about were expressed to me today by two people. It's interesting what you say. I said to those two earlier that there has to be a purpose for what you do and what you believe, otherwise, what's the point? You live, you die, if you're lucky- you might be remembered for a century or while those that you knew live. I would be interested to hear what your reasons are.

Humans, I believe, are born innocent, but are inherently wicked, so the innocence factor is eventually eradicated.

Innocence seems to fade with age and maturity. As you become an adult, you become responsible and gain a totally different perspective on the world than what you did when you were younger. It's almost as if you're wrenched from one reality and slipped into the next.

Young people and children really do live in another world.

[OsirisGuy429]

Please read the whole thing, I know it's long but in order to get a full understanding and maybe some more interest it's worth it. Sorry for it being long as well, and this, of course is just what I have thought up of, and believe and disbelieve. Enjoy!

Maybe the reason children lose their innocence is because they don't know any better. How can they be guilty for something they can't and don't understand. It is true though that people lose innocence as they mature. A child understands what's brought in front of him and only the little knowledge he has. Very simple and basic understandings can be used by him. As we grow older we understand more and things become more complicated. We strive for survival, one of our instincts, and we use our understanding, and everyone else's understanding, to prosper and get ahead in life.

The whole idea of having a point in life is kinda double sided and expands out - at least I think anyway. Their is a purpose in life, in nature, or human nature to be more specific, it is to procreate, to see our DNA be passed on to the next generation. For our bloodline to strive and survive the elements, disaester and whatever else nature can bring at them. When we stop and cease to be and exist that is when we fail and that is when we fail at life. Of course we have evolved a little more and developed thinking patterns and common sense, or so this is what we have told oursleves, which is true for the most part. We want a purpose in life, we have strayed from nature and maybe even created a god (or God or gods or goddesses) to explain nature and then to explain us. As if we don't fit in the whole idea of nature, like we a re a foriegn object. We created our own God as an explantation of why we are here rather than accept the idea that we have evolved out of nature. Is that why we are so superior?

We create our own purpose in life so that we have an explanation for who and what we are. We plan careers and education as an important role and yet these things take up our whole life. Do we choose to live this way? Is there really a reason why we do this and complain we don't have enough free time, we are always tired and worn out, and have so many problems in each of our lives? So having a purpose in life gives us more problems and more things to do in life then we really need.

There is a strong theory and good coincidence maybe, certainly logicily that without a purpose in life we die. As soon as we hit retirement and can't find a way to keep oursleves busy and create a purpose to live we die. As long as you have a job and/or a purpose you will live.

Of course I also like to think that the shorter you live is sometimes a goodthing because in spirit you have lead such a good life that God accpets you and makes you one of his angels in Heaven. The longer you live the more time God gives you to repremand (sp?) for what you have done in life. It's an explanation of why the best people in our lives always seem to disappear.

Of course then you have carefree spirits, which I feel I belong more too, where they live a day at a time. They just want to be happy and they want others to be happy. However this could be their purpose in life. To make the rest of the world into something better socially, spiritually, emotionally, physically, financially, etc. With the idea of not having a purpose is actually their life, what they have become in life. What's the point for these layback-ers? To live each day like it was the first, and to live each day like it was the last... To live day by day, one day at a time... To take what they are given and give what they have... Their whole purpose of living is exactly that.. To live.

Depending on what stance you take defines your terms of being lucky. If you want to pass on your DNA and you get married (which is an invention of humans and not in nature or by God) and have kids then you are lucky as well as succedd at life and living. If you have purpose to become rich or well educated or to make others happy and you win the lotto or you become a doctor or become a clown that children love then you succeed at life and living once again.

Being in memoriam is what many people hope to become, unfourtanately this will go as far as in your family for a few generations until you then become ancestors. To change the world seems to be the only way to become an imprint in history and in effect into the memories of people and their minds. You live, you die... sometimes that is the point of life, I mean it's been the point of life since the beginning of time.

How about this...
What really sperates us from the animals? Is it the fact that we have grown fully functional thumbs? Or is it we are just more evolved and have become more sophisticated then our other species? Or does it only seem that way to us. After all they have overcomed everything we have and they too still recreate. Relating this back to God, if we can and makes some sense, why is it that we have evolved with souls and every other animal hasn't? What makes our evolution so much more better that we deserve souls? Or is it the fact that we have created the idea of having a soul that makes us the most evolved and far advanced species raoming the earth? Anyone want to comment on those?

And to conclude about humanity is that we have really advanced, and the thought of other life in space. I see this when I drive down the street and I think about the mechanics of my car and the precise planning of my town's streets, the planying of trees and raods and the whole idea of curbs... Every little detail... The discoveries and inventions and history.. all that added up shows such an improvement in society, humanity and humanity's society. All this baffles me for some reason, maybe its the drugs but still...If this is a good thing or a bad thing is something that I have not yet attempted to understand.

Also, somehting I like to point out, according to Christianity, a person who suffers from mental problems and/or commits suicide (since suicide is seen as depression relating back to mental problems) and they die they go to Heaven since they do not have the right mind to comprehend good and evil. So Christianity tells us that Hitler went to Heaven since he too had a mental handicap, commited suicide and was a chronic drug user, whether he intentially used drugs on his own or not (his doctor basically used him as a lab rat). So logically Hitler went to Heaven. But he wasn't Christian so does that still apply to him?

Again, sorry for the long response, would like to hear anyones thoughts and questions. This is the best way, especially for me to discover new theories through my thought and the thought of others.

[Serix]

Very well thought out little rant there, Osiris. I must say, some of it reflected it my own beliefs, with the exception of the Angels and God part. I'd ask what gave you the urge to write up such a long reply, but I have a feeling I already know what contributed to such a response. =P

Also, young people and children living in a different world? I'm sorry, but I have to say that's nonsense. When I was a 'young person,' such as a pre-teen around the age of 11, and even younger than that, I was perfectly aware of the difference between good and evil. I knew my actions would reflect one side or the other, I simply chose not to care. While my actions were very much on the evil side, I made no effort to change myself or even took a moment to consider that my behavior might one day come back to bite me in the ass.

However, as I grew older, I forced myself to undergo a metamorphisis or sorts, to change myself, to make myself new. Now I find myself hanging onto the opposite end of the spectrum.

Young people and children do not live in a different world as us, they simply lack the experiences to make themselves into the person they want to be. While not everyone can force themselves to change, everyone can, with the proper motivation, make small changes in themselves. Children can't do this, they base their entire way of life on two things. How their parents raised them, and their limited memories and experiences that help shape every individual. Because the child is still at the beginning stages of being raised into an adult, and because of the limited memories and experiences, it could be said that the child, while aware of good and evil, simply does not have the moral strength, coincience, and empathy of adults, and as thus, is just as inclined to commit acts of good and evil as we are but they keep them hidden beneath a veil of childish innocence.

[duiker]

Thanks, that response was involving. But please don't forget that evolution is only a theory, and it can be disproven as much as it can be proven.

As for the end-note on Hitler, I won't judge him as a person, I don't know the facts, and my God judges people according to their attitudes and mindsets, or their heart. I'll leave it to Him, I think.

[OsirisGuy429]

Serix - I just couldn't stop writing :D
And of course you don't belive in the whole God and Angel part but that's just my approach.

As for the children living in their own world, I agree that children do have a sense of morals that they can relate to anything, however the eyes of a child still see much different the world a 40 yar old man sees.

A proper way to say this is that children and adults live in the same reality but they live in seperate worlds. Adults cause bigger more complicated controversey, such as shooting a person on self defense, capital punishment, and stealing. Most kids have to worry about is fighting a bully, being punished as well as rewarded for their consequences, and taking the last cookie from the cookie jar. Of course children understand that killing and stealing are wrong but when you ask a child: "A poor man steals a loaf of bread in order to feed his family" kind of questions, you'll see almost different answers between the age differences.

Most children go through their childhood making bad decisions, it's unavoidable. This is what growing up is all about. Learning, and making mistakes and learning from that. The worries of age groups however do not reflect the problems,. As you realized that one day that you have morals and their are consequences, that may be the day you grew up. Politics made sense to you. Law was more understanding and you knew why mom and dad set all those rules.

It is hard for many to transform themselves for th better, or even for the worse. Although it is completely possible in my beliefs. I have done it many times and can see myself taking on different roles. If I don't like something about myself I strive to change that.

A simple example is smoking... If you really want to quit it's all about will power (for the most part) and the mind mentality. If you do it half-assed you'll get a half-assed result. If you put everything you got into it and resist those temptations then you will have a better chgance of quiting.

The children's lack of experience and knowledge is what puts them in a different world... This is kinf of a bad example: Think of it as a class course. You can't teach somebody something they can't understand yet, or have no interest in because of where they belong. Even in the same class level there are seperate levels to that course. You have an advanced class a regular class, and a class for students that need a little extra work.

Duiker - I use evolution because I take alot of my beliefs on it, it was how I made sense of my world.

We can even take history alone and see how far the human has came, from the first primitive caveman to todays top scientist, that's a far way that we have come. That is evolution. It may not be physical changing but it is certainly more than that.

If you disagree with cavemen being in the same species, you must suggest that God, and/or a god(s) put us on this earth. A quick note, by "god(s)" I do refer to the theory of us being placed here by aliens. Even if 5000 years ago (since the first record of history basically) we have had humans on this earth. That's the earliest we know. You can't say that humans have not evolved with the discoveries and inventions that have formed our current society.

Evolution doesn't have to mean from species to species.

I had a few other questions at the end there but I guess no one realized it. Anyways...

It's a good thing to not judge people, but it's hard to ignore some 8 million people. But I brought it up on the same fact... we are quick to judge make rules and guidelines and give out exceptions.

I'm glad you said your God judges accordingly because if what Hitler wanted in his heart, his mind and his soul was to "purify" the earth, then surely he was doing the right thing, especially in his own mind. Why would Hitler go to 'Hell' just for doing something he believed in and something he thought he wa doing right. Many religions offer the same concept to their followers... "As long as you try your best, than that's fine" kind of attitude. So again, according to this theory wouldn't Hitler go to Heaven?

They way I see it is that, and only that, if Jesus was our Messiah and everything he taught was the right thing, then what happened to "love thy neighbor" and "Do on to others, as you would want them done onto you?" The two rules that Jesus said was the most important rules to follow. The two that could lead you to eternal peace? Certainly Jesus was a real person, but was he the Son of God? is the problem. None-the-less, even of Jesus was a con artist, his methods for life weren't that bad. The man went around preaching for the good of society, and in all honesty I'd much rather have some guy preaching about being good to your own race then one profiting from it.

As for the last two words of you're post Duiker, "I think"; I don't think you have much faith?? Of course I won't hold that against you 'cause I too have problems with my own beliefs, certainly question them. And quite frequently change my idealogies. In honest truth, I did not mean to sound like I question you on that...

Rather I'm just curious about why you chose those words to end your post.

[duiker]

Osiris, that's spot-on what I'm talking about: regarding the children and their perception of the things around them. That was good.

I wasn't trying to give you a hard time about the evolution-thing. I can see what you're saying, but I just get really frustrated with it's huge grip on society and science, and it's not the truth that is publicized these days.
You might say the same for what others believe.
But then again, everyone has their beliefs, and I agree with people when they get annoyed by people forcing their religion on another, because of their methods.
It does say in the Bible that if people don't want to hear what you have to say, then shake the dust off your sandles and move on. Don't look back.

We have evolved in a sense that our knowledge is expanded, but I believe that the ancient civilizations that have come before us were suprerior in their knowledge. There's evidence of this. If you're interested, Dead Men's Secrets by Jonathan Gray is a good book to read.

A point I'd like to make is about the artefacts and monuments that are more common knowledge. You know the Minoans? The Egyptians, Chinese, etc. These and many other civilizations have built huge monuments, temples, and buildings that have lasted through thousands of earthquakes and are still standing. The Minoans had complicated plumbing systems that still work today..After thousands of years. What can we make, that will last even half of that time? We're still experimenting with science in that regard; trying to make structures that will last through these natural occurences.

This is just something to think about, not really to prove anything.. well, yes, in a way- just that we're incompetent :D .

Regarding Hitler, that's sort of what I mean but sort of not. I mean, nothing can excuse what he did as a crime against humanity, but was he sane enough to know what he was doing? Did he ever realize the severity of what he was doing and try to reverse it? Was he ever sorry? Just factors like these.
It's another one of those grey areas in our understanding, like when someone's brought up in a society where human sacrifice is a normal occurance, or rape, or murder, or something. Those that are raised in that environment are raised in that knowledge- they don't know any different. So how are they judged? We don't know.

When I added 'I think' to the end of my statement, it was for rhetorical emphasis. I don't doubt my faith or what I believe, but I am always learning. :wink:

[OsirisGuy429]

I never thought at all you were trying to give me a hard time. You just brought up another case. I thought though maybe you were not a big believer in evolution so I just tried giving another example, try and relate it back. I just find that society and science are a huge role in humanity, especially these days. I grew up with Religion and am pretty much tired of it. I've completely denounced all religions and decided that I'm human and thats good enough. I've listened to hardcore theologians talk about everything from existance to the Bible and I've then heard just about everyother persons stance on the same matters and have concluded my own belief.

I am sorry if it seems like I'm forcing my beliefs down your throat or what I am saying is the truth. I should put that in bold just incase... EVERYTHING I SAY IS MY OWN BELIEF AND I DO NOT CONSIDER MYSELF ALL KNOWING AND EVERYTHING I SAY IS CORRECT Againg that didn't mean to be rude or anything just so if people skim that'll catch their attention and understand as well.

I do however enjoy when people tell me about their beliefs, it gives a different understanding of everything I know.

I do agree for the most part that ancient civilizations had much, if not supeior knowledge than most of todays scientists. However many of them have died out and while their architecture still exist, they however do not. But then again, I am relating to science. As for what they have done I do have some theories about why it may be supeior, but there are many things i can't explain. And yes, we are incompetent.

I know I keep bringing Hitler up but it's kind of an example to use... but was he sane enough? It's debateable. The man was certainly handicapped in the head. After all if you ever read Mien Kampf he just kind of repeats himself and it bores you totally. I read the first chapter and it was horrible. I have also read the Unibomber's Manifesto and the Communist Manifesto just so you don't think I'm some crazy right wing white nazi. He knew the severity of what he was doing but he thought it was good. He didn't want to reverse it cause in his mind this was the Right and MORAL thing to do, and how could he be sorry for what he fought for his whole life. Oh and you think if he was really sorry before he died, and Christian God accepted it Hitler will go to Heaven? Again sorry for that, I just like pointing flaws in the Christian and other Religions beliefs.

And you are completely right, all those factors determine the kind of person and thier personality, so its hard and next to impossible really to judge morals, I believe anyway. And the "I think" makes sense now, and makes a good ending.

I'm not gonna dd any other to this cause I think I;'ve beaten this as much as i can, although I'll be glad to continue conversations. And in nay of my posts sorry if they seem aggressive or demeaning, none means to be. I just type and type, no smiles or anything, but they're there, i guess u just need to know me... But yeah well played.

[Jesus]

I, for one, do not believe that people are born "good". i believe this because i puked into my dad's mouth very shortly after i was born :twisted:

[OsirisGuy429]

Common baby reaction. If you've ever held a bay at a young age you'd noyice that most people will wear a towel or the likes cause the baby is likely to spit up, not puke.

[Jesus]

I'm telling you, i PUKED in his mouth. My mom just got done feeding me, and my dad picked me up and started spinning arond and BAM right into his mouth.

[DoctaD]

It was his fault then... doesn't make you an evil baby or anything.

[Stone]

I, for one, do not believe that people are born "good". i believe this because i puked into my dad's mouth very shortly after i was born :twisted:

My son done it to me... Big fucking deal. Babies puke...

[Jesus]

okay, fine then

[Eulux]

hmmm...this can be summed up in one short paragraph...from an objective standpoint, babies are not good, evil or neutral. they simply are. someone is judged by a societies mores, and then determined to be good or evil, but those terms are as meaningless as right and left. my right could be your left, or your down depending on your perspective. the same is applicable to this. one child can be evil from the get go in some cultures cause the cry too much, or the don't cry enough. each society will come up with ways of determing this, but predestination is an entirely different matter, which is what I suspect was the root of this topic...but I am often wrong and I also interpet things differently than most others.

[INCH06]

I believe you are born what you are & subsequently your upbringing and social experiences bring out the excellent, shocking or wicked behaviour in you.

However, these days there are too many mental health issues to be able to truly class someone as ?evil? or ?bad? for example, schizophrenia in slaughterers and attention deficit disorder in problem offspring.

Alcohol & drugs can also radically alter character and behaviour in users even after being dry/clean for a long period of time. I know this from self experience in dealing with alcoholism. Now, speaking of alcohol, it is believed to be a ?disease? which can be genetically passed down from say father to son (as in my case this was true) so in my eyes this means that personality can be passed down/over/through from a blood relative.

Another quarrel I have is that in my city we have the pathetic families, trendy families & the unbreakable, dangerous families.

From the base of my shoes,
Xzibit

hmmm...this can be summed up in one short paragraph...from an objective standpoint, babies are not good, evil or neutral. they simply are. someone is judged by a societies mores, and then determined to be good or evil, but those terms are as meaningless as right and left. my right could be your left, or your down depending on your perspective. the same is applicable to this. one child can be evil from the get go in some cultures cause the cry too much, or the don't cry enough. each society will come up with ways of determing this, but predestination is an entirely different matter, which is what I suspect was the root of this topic...but I am often wrong and I also interpet things differently than most others.

Agreed. :alcoholic

[Scamula]

I don't think that people are born basically good. infants and small children delight in being cruel to each other and in general are selfish and self absorbed. They haven't had time to be "raised" yet so it has to be inborn.

I believe that genetics plays a bigger role than raising when it determines who you become. I know people who haven't even met one of their parents and they turn out just like them. I also know of lots of twin studies where the twins are adopted by separate people and are raised separately yet turn out the same. The book "The Nurture Assumption" by Judith Rich Harris is excellent as it shows how we become who we are.

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

well, i don't believe in the whole morality thing. I believe there is only benefit/loss, action-consequence etc.. but basically at the time of birth we don't have any introduction whatsoever into such a thing, so they are neither good nor evil. Good and evil are just pretenses for what other people do/don't want you to do. Enter religion, family and society. They tell you what is right and wrong in order to destroy your moral freedom. Because the reality is that people don't want freedom, only security. As for the many religions that claim to know the "true light" (ALL OF THEM??? LOL!!), they are lame. One person's opinion becomes the majority's. Herd Mentality 101. All of us have our own different views, standpoints etc so why should we be conditioning others to behave according to our own standards? Its because when morally conditioned people grow up, their "consciences " stop/torment them. So people limit one another by the way culture integrates them into society. So now mainstream society is secure, up to a point. Majority have lost their moral freedom, only to become morally secure.

We bring up our children the way we do to try to protect ourselves from the possibility of them becoming murderers, rapists, and thieves.but then there's always a possibility.....:sgrin:

[Scamula]

We bring up our children the way we do to try to protect ourselves from the possibility of them becoming murderers, rapists, and thieves.but then there's always a possibility.....:sgrin:

Oh yes, the proverbial bad seed.

[DarkT]

Born babys? Pure evil :), And some grow to be foolish enought to have guilt about it! Ha! The silliness :).

[Th0r]

It depends on how you perceive good and bad
Its also about the enviroment that you grow up with. In my opinion if your parents treat you in a bad way when you are younger, than you will grow up with a bad view and be "bad". However if you grow up in a family, where your parents teach you to love and share etc, than you will probably grow up to be what society calls a "good person"...
So no you are not born good or bad in my opinion...

[REL0AD]

I was treated ok and I can tell you I am not a good person.

They divorced and shit when I was young but I wouldn't blame that for my 'inapropiate' behaviour or general badness.

[Th0r]

I failed to mention the teenage years...
Ive known many people with the best parents who have started abusing drugs and alcohol and other "bad stuff" that has made them a "bad person"...
Sometimes bad stuff happens...

[REL0AD]

I was a cunt before drink and drugs but yeah I know what you mean.

[Axxess of Evil]

Humans are nothing more then highly evolved animals who are (sometimes) evolved enough to (sometimes) ignore their basic instincts. Societies instill rules and "morals" into their citizens because all social animals have to rules in order for the "society" to function. So no humans are neither born good or evil because both are nothing more then labels.

[odin_dax]

Humans are nothing more then highly evolved animals who are (sometimes) evolved enough to (sometimes) ignore their basic instincts. Societies instill rules and "morals" into their citizens because all social animals have to rules in order for the "society" to function. So no humans are neither born good or evil because both are nothing more then labels.

So you adopt the John Locke doctrine?

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

Platonic Delusions

Being a nihilist, I try to view the world from a point of view unbiased from human values and self-delusions. The universe is an incomprehensibly massive construct, with the planet Earth and all its inhabitants occupying a relatively insignificant portion of it. I believe it does existence more justice by viewing things with a sense of detachment, looking at the larger picture.

Human beings, out of all creation, seem to be the only ones that view things from a perspective of "good" and "bad". What is "good" and "bad" tends to be vague and is often subjective.

What is good? What is bad? It can be quite hard to tell.

To me, there is no such thing as good or bad. There is only what is beneficial to the self and what is not. There is only what one chooses and chooses not to do. For instance, people killing each other may be considered "bad" but it is often justified with morals and false concepts such as "freedom" or "the will of god".

Not questioning god's existence, if a knight kills muslims because the pope told him it was "the will of god" to retake the holy land, is the said knight to be deemed good or bad? Is he "bad" for killing others? Or is he "good" for following "god's will"? There are ways to justify either side.

Abortion can be argued to be both good and bad. But what is it truly? Good? or bad?

To view things as plainly "good" or "bad" is a rather limited perspective, don't you think? Each person has his own sense of what is good and bad. It is like viewing things in black in white, when in fact, a whole spectrum of colors abound.

And if you think about it, does the universe, in all its infinity, even consider our notion of good and bad? If a meteor can destroy a whole race of dinosaurs in an instant, what does that spell for us? There can be no "universal good".

The human race has deluded itself with the oversimplification of good and bad.

People suffering, killing and cheating each other is not necessarily good or bad. It's just something we do. Much like the laws of space and time, it's something that cannot be denied...

It is in our nature.

[odin_dax]

Not commenting on the subject directly, I think the ideas of "good" and "bad" are the result humans can think and act outside our basic survival instincts. The consequences and philosophy of that there is no need to get into.

[headcase]

The universe, through it's elaborate and astonishing set of rules, has created organisms of unfathomable complexity. Whether the universe is inherently organised or chaotic is a moot point. Either way, it seems to be evolving towards complexity (whether it's directionally linear or random is, again, irrelevent). It's undeniable that human beings, as far was we know, are the most brilliant objects in the universe, and one of their most brilliant creations is civilisation. However, civilisation in impossible without artificially imposed order; rules, laws and social expectations, which themselves evolve with the times. In fact, rather than evloving in and of themselves, they are inherent in the evolution of mankind itself. "Good" and "bad" are Darwinian concepts. Why doesn't Satanic self-importance work? Because the caveman who hoards all his bananas at the expense of the tribe gets beaten to death and his bananas stolen. And any self-righteous nihilism you might feel is a bi-product of the welfare state in which you now live. Your not independant. You're just in denial about the extent of your social paracisitm. A slave of capitalism with delusions of grandeur.

[REL0AD]

My mam and and dad dont live together.

Tonight, I kicked fuck out of my mam because I could. My dad couldn't do shit because he wasn'nt there, he doesn't live with us and he's the reason I live and he's the reason I am the way I am.

I kick the fuck out of my sister too... because I can. My brother gets kicked the fuck around too, because I can, my Mam isn't around so I give my siblings shit because I CAN.

Anyways, the truth is, I don't have siblings... I don't have my dad around... my mother puts up with the drunken shite, her boyfriend takes my shite... BUT if I did have siblings, they would get fucked around too.

I AM GOD.

Fuck the rest,

[headcase]

I hope you get about ten years for that firearm thing. I hope you lose your kid (pft, I know you going to lose your kid. Like a judge would even give you a second look. Ha!). I hope you get beaten to death in the street. Either that or I hope your like stays as miserable as it is now for the rest of it's pathetic duration.

But back on to the topic of moral philosophy;

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

However, civilisation in impossible without artificially imposed order; rules, laws and social expectations, which themselves evolve with the times. In fact, rather than evloving in and of themselves, they are inherent in the evolution of mankind itself. "Good" and "bad" are Darwinian concepts.

I was not arguing against your point. In fact, I agree. But social expectations and the such are often just products of politics. The herd blindly follows the rules created by others.

Why doesn't Satanic self-importance work? Because the caveman who hoards all his bananas at the expense of the tribe gets beaten to death and his bananas stolen. And any self-righteous nihilism you might feel is a bi-product of the welfare state in which you now live. Your not independant. You're just in denial about the extent of your social paracisitm. A slave of capitalism with delusions of grandeur.

You assume something which I do not assert.

I do not mean greed and self-indulgement to the point of exclusion of society. It can be argued that since your caveman will get beaten to death, it is not to his benefit. Thus, the action will not be done because it is not in his self-interest. It is important to look at the bigger picture.

All I am saying is that the labeling acts of as "good" and "bad", when in fact they inevitably happen everyday, is a big farce. Especially when "bad" acts often promote the welfare of the people.

Like murder. How could an evil act such as murder ever benefit society and the person who commits it?

Have you never read The Prince, headcase? Or has your intelligence caused you to purposely forget it?

In any case, let me refresh your memory.
To make the long story short, Cesare Borgia, a Renaissance duke, had to impose order on the chaotic province of Romagna. To impose his own harshness on the people would cause the people to resent his rule, yet it needed a hard hand to bring order to it.

So Cesare decided to set over it a person by the name of De Orco and gave him much power to govern over it. De Orco was a very cruel man, and his harshness quickly brought order to the region. However, the people deeply resented De Orco for it.

De Orco was Cesare's pawn. De Orco has served his purpose by bringing order. He was then to serve another purpose by ingratiating the people with Cesare's rule.

De Orco was wearing the finest clothes. His decapitated body was displayed in a town market with a bloodied ax next to it. The people were immediately satisfied and loved Cesare for it.

His evil acts brought about order for the people, and a beneficial result for himself.

Clearly, all is not what it seems, especially when considering what is good and what is bad for people.

One must rise above the limited expectations of society and decide for himself what is good and bad. My philosophy is that nothing is good or bad, just be ready for the consequences of your actions.

The point is, know that the juice is worth the squeeze. Cavemen aside.

[Darkhunter]

I just thought of this while playing Baldur's Gate...And I know the Catholic church believes that people are generally born good people.

I don't think it's true.

I think that people are born neutral for the most part.


My theory is you are born neutral just like yours


Genetics obviously play a role in a person's personality which has many implications to this question.


...but when it comes to genetics I differ. You could be in a bad situation and grow up one way or another it all depends on factors in your life.


I think that your environment plays a giant role; a lot more than genetics. Raising a child a certain way will no doubt determine the way he acts when he/she is older. ..


Like you I do beleive in the environment but unlike you I don't think genetics play part in anything. Yes if you raise a child as a racist he will think its ok to be a racist.

[headcase]

From a genetics point of view, it's easier to argue for racism than against it.

[odin_dax]

From a genetics point of view, it's easier to argue for racism than against it.

Racism or discrimination? There's a big difference.

[headcase]

Not in this context.

[Darkhunter]

Not in this context.

Ah I see what you mean. I personally don't think that is true but yes the studies are pretty spot on.

[odin_dax]

Not in this context.

You'll have to enlighten me.

[REL0AD]

My mam and and dad dont live together.

Tonight, I kicked fuck out of my mam because I could. My dad couldn't do shit because he wasn'nt there, he doesn't live with us and he's the reason I live and he's the reason I am the way I am.

I kick the fuck out of my sister too... because I can. My brother gets kicked the fuck around too, because I can, my Mam isn't around so I give my siblings shit because I CAN.

Anyways, the truth is, I don't have siblings... I don't have my dad around... my mother puts up with the drunken shite, her boyfriend takes my shite... BUT if I did have siblings, they would get fucked around too.

I AM GOD.

Fuck the rest,


I hope you get about ten years for that firearm thing. I hope you lose your kid (pft, I know you going to lose your kid. Like a judge would even give you a second look. Ha!). I hope you get beaten to death in the street. Either that or I hope your like stays as miserable as it is now for the rest of it's pathetic duration.

Those were examples!!! Jeeeze.

[eOs]

Wow I posted this in May of 2005..and it's still going. I enjoy reading all of your replies.

[headcase]

You'll have to enlighten me.

Competition is central to evolution, and I believe the gene is the unit of evolution. And there is no passivity in evolution. Therefore discrimination is synonimous with racism; whichever is more selectively beneficial at any given time will come to the fore.

[Stone]

I'm jumping in late, so excuse me if I'm repeating something already said.

@ the OP. The Catholic Church does not believe that people are born good. Original Sin means that every person is born a sinner, a consequence or Eve eating the apple. All her children and grandchildren, and so on, bear her sin when born. Original Sin is a fundamental belief of the Catholic Church. That is the reason why the CC believes that if a newborn baby dies it goes to purgatory, and not heaven. You are only cleared of Original Sin when you are baptised. Even then, women can never be equal to men according to the church, for it was a woman that convinced Adam to eat the apple. But do you see where the whole in the story is?

Jesus' mother was a woman (obviously) who was not baptised before he was born. Therefore, Jesus' mother was a sinner, passing her Original Sin onto her son, Jesus. If Jesus wasn't baptised roughly 30 years later he would have been crucified a sinner, and therefore not have died for our sins. But the fact remained, he was a sinner for the first 30 or so years of his life. So if Jesus and God are the same being (which is the case according to the CC), then God spent 30 or so years as a sinner, which with him telling people not to sin would mean that he is a hypocrite. Well, I suppose there are plenty of other times he's been exposed as a hypocrite, but we'll leave that for another time.

Of course we all know that Adam and Eve is a BS story and this whole Original Sin is just a small cog in the machine of the Fundamentalist Dictatorship that is the Catholic Church.

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

Of course we all know that Adam and Eve is a BS story and this whole Original Sin is just a small cog in the machine of the Fundamentalist Dictatorship that is the Catholic Church.


I feel you bro. I have to put up with Catholic Hypocrisy everyday of my life. I am made to listen and memorize dogmatic bullshit regarding Catholic doctrine in order to pass a college course which has absolutely nothing to do with the pseudologic that is theology. Having a grade to maintain, I am forced to attend masses because they are actually part of my grade! MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!

WHY CAN'T YOU RESPECT MY OWN BELIEFS!!! STOP FORCING THIS BULLSHIT ON ME!!

All schools are pretty much the same here. There's no escaping it. I feel like the only sane person left.

Of course, I run circles around the teachers, employing subtle sarcasm and irony. But no one here is evidently intelligent enough to understand that too. Because if people were actually intelligent they'd be just as angry as me.

I bide my time. I will graduate. And then I will take my revenge.


...

The ebony smoke of burning churches will fill the sky... And the corpses of priests and nuns will litter the blood-soaked ground.. In my dark wake nothing remotely catholic will remain for a hundred years to come... And then they will know my hatred...

You shall taste my blade you despotic, vile, cross hugging jesus freaks!!


MUSIKAL KVLT REIGNS SUPREME!!!!

[odin_dax]

Adam and Eve are mistranslations, since adam means "man" in the original language. I'm certainly not Catholic, and I certainly don't like the church or its history, but the Adam and Eve story is to teach us that we are not perfect, and that even when things are ideal, we are still tempted by that we see ourselves not having, even if having it means nothing. There have been many religious philosophers since the Reformation that have argued the Original Sin doctrine the Catholic Church has been spewing for centuries. I think you'd enjoy reading John Locke.

[headcase]

Adam and Eve are mistranslations, since adam means "man" in the original language. I'm certainly not Catholic, and I certainly don't like the church or its history, but the Adam and Eve story is to teach us that we are not perfect, and that even when things are ideal, we are still tempted by that we see ourselves not having, even if having it means nothing. There have been many religious philosophers since the Reformation that have argued the Original Sin doctrine the Catholic Church has been spewing for centuries. I think you'd enjoy reading John Locke.

The Bible can't claim ultimate truth while it's followers pick and choose what they take as literal and what the take as metaphor. Ans there are parts of the Bible much more appaling, and inarguably literal, than the story of Adam and Eve. I fail to see how the translation of Adam makes a difference


I feel you bro. I have to put up with Catholic Hypocrisy everyday of my life. I am made to listen and memorize dogmatic bullshit regarding Catholic doctrine in order to pass a college course which has absolutely nothing to do with the pseudologic that is theology. Having a grade to maintain, I am forced to attend masses because they are actually part of my grade! MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!

WHY CAN'T YOU RESPECT MY OWN BELIEFS!!! STOP FORCING THIS BULLSHIT ON ME!!

All schools are pretty much the same here. There's no escaping it. I feel like the only sane person left.

Of course, I run circles around the teachers, employing subtle sarcasm and irony. But no one here is evidently intelligent enough to understand that too. Because if people were actually intelligent they'd be just as angry as me.

I bide my time. I will graduate. And then I will take my revenge.


...

The ebony smoke of burning churches will fill the sky... And the corpses of priests and nuns will litter the blood-soaked ground.. In my dark wake nothing remotely catholic will remain for a hundred years to come... And then they will know my hatred...

You shall taste my blade you despotic, vile, cross hugging jesus freaks!!


MUSIKAL KVLT REIGNS SUPREME!!!!



You're just as bad as them.

[odin_dax]

The Bible can't claim ultimate truth while it's followers pick and choose what they take as literal and what the take as metaphor. Ans there are parts of the Bible much more appaling, and inarguably literal, than the story of Adam and Eve. I fail to see how the translation of Adam makes a difference
.


It's quite obvious after little research and careful reading which stories are literal and which are metaphor. No one is picking and choosing.

The translation of "adam" makes a difference, and it's relevant to point out in this thread.

[headcase]

It's quite obvious after little research and careful reading which stories are literal and which are metaphor. No one is picking and choosing.

That's dodging the issue. The truth is that it isn't "easy". Given that... what? 60% of Americans take the Bible literally? Not to mention the disgraceful "morals" it promotes and it's contradctions (PaladinPress on Bombshock once had a topic "1001 Contradictions in the Bible".)

translation of "adam" makes a difference, and it's relevant to point out in this thread.

Which is?

[odin_dax]

That's dodging the issue. The truth is that it isn't "easy". Given that... what? 60% of Americans take the Bible literally? Not to mention the disgraceful "morals" it promotes and it's contradctions (PaladinPress on Bombshock once had a topic "1001 Contradictions in the Bible".)



Which is?

That's because 95% of "Christians" don't study or even read the Bible! Before you get into that, I'll agree that Christians should at least read it. And, yes, it is "easy" to study the Bible.

I'm not a Biblical scholar by any means, and I'm not going to try to justify anything in the Bible. There are a lot of supposed "contradictions" that are based on many different factors -- mainly interpretation of translation. There may be some "genuine" contradictions, but I only say that out of Biblical ignorance.

I don't know which disgraceful morals you refer to, but a lot were done away with when Jesus began his teachings. Maybe you should read the Bible before you take the words of others, from both pro-Bibilical and con.

[Stone]

The problems with the bible arise because it was written by men, and as we all know, man is often wrong and man often lies. Also, it wasn't all written by just one man, it was written by many. Then the Catholic church spliced the pieces that suited them from each book into a new book and that is the Christian Bible.

[odin_dax]

The problems with the bible arise because it was written by men, and as we all know, man is often wrong and man often lies. Also, it wasn't all written by just one man, it was written by many. Then the Catholic church spliced the pieces that suited them from each book into a new book and that is the Christian Bible.

The question of whether or not the Bible was written by man falls two ways. One, if you believe in God, then man was inspired and guided by God. If you don't believe in god, then one only need to look at the Dead Sea Scrolls and how they compare to the Bible we have today.

[headcase]

Quick clarification before we go on; are we going the Bible route on the topic of good and evil? Why? This is just to give the arguement some direction.

That aside, I believe the Bible would be a horrible source of morals. There are plenty of sources of this. This (http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible7.htm#burn-the-daughter) was the first one a google search dragged up.

The question of whether or not the Bible was written by man falls two ways. One, if you believe in God, then man was inspired and guided by God. If you don't believe in god, then one only need to look at the Dead Sea Scrolls and how they compare to the Bible we have today.

Well, if the Bible was inspired by God then it should never contradict itself. Surely God is a fairly reliable source of information? Evidently not (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#michal) (again, one link of many).

Again, I don't understand the reference to the dead sea scrolls. You reference a lot of things with no expansion that seem to have little or nothing to do with the discussion.

[odin_dax]

Quick clarification before we go on; are we going the Bible route on the topic of good and evil? Why? This is just to give the arguement some direction.

That aside, I believe the Bible would be a horrible source of morals. There are plenty of sources of this. This (http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible7.htm#burn-the-daughter) was the first one a google search dragged up.



Well, if the Bible was inspired by God then it should never contradict itself. Surely God is a fairly reliable source of information? Evidently not (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#michal) (again, one link of many).

Again, I don't understand the reference to the dead sea scrolls. You reference a lot of things with no expansion that seem to have little or nothing to do with the discussion.

But again, you easily ignore statements that don't fit your counterargument. Firstly, the Dead Sea Scrolls reference was clearly relevant with the substance of that paragraph. To be clear, if the Dead Sea Scrolls translate to be similar to the Bible of today, that would prove the Catholic Bible (at least the published parts) would be accurate, and not cut out and edited. In fact, early studies have done just that, proven the accuracy of the Bible over the centuries. Sure, there are missing parts, from the Scrolls or the Bible -- new texts, etc. You continually accuse me of not being relevant, but that's only because you don't take the time to actually read anything I write.

Again, and I said this just in the last post, the Biblical laws changed when Jesus taught. So, a lot of the "morals" you claim are horrible aren't even valid! I don't even need to get into a translation discussion.

Part of the problem is that the Bible is taken out of context so often. People like to pick and choose verses, but you simply can't do that with the Bible. For example, one link you provided said Jesus will kill all the children. That verse comes from Revelation, and it's not saying Jesus will physically kill all children, or literally children. Did you even read the site or Revelation? Revelation is hugely metaphoric, if not entirely! Whose children is Jesus going to kill? Well, the site doesn't say that, why? Clearly, children means anyone who follows a certain way. Children of God, children of sin, children of the corn, etc....

Now, the contradictions site. When it opened, the first contradiction I saw was about Jehoiachin. One verse says he was 8, another says he was 18 when he began his reign. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Wow, such a stretch EIGHT and EIGHTeen. Give it up to the editors of that one. It would be logical to assume that even the Bible had multiple translators, and one is right and one is wrong, but it's not that far off. Again, EIGHT and EIGHTeen. Let's blame the editors, but I think further logic would dictate that if the Bible were faked, it would be less full of holes or "contradictions."

Now, again, I'm not a Biblical scholar, and I'm not here to convince anyone that the Bible is 100% and that everybody should be Christian, etc. I respect everyone's beliefs, but I don't appreciate people spreading lies, especially with little or no research. Yeah, you can have your own opinion, but base it on something. Just don't get mad when you find your base built on sand.

[Stone]

I respect everyone's beliefs, but I don't appreciate people spreading lies

The Catholic Church has been spreading lies for over a thousand years...

And, when you say the Biblical laws changed when Jesus taught

Does that mean God just happened to change his mind about his laws roughly 2,000 years ago?

[headcase]

But again, you easily ignore statements that don't fit your counterargument. Firstly, the Dead Sea Scrolls reference was clearly relevant with the substance of that paragraph. To be clear, if the Dead Sea Scrolls translate to be similar to the Bible of today, that would prove the Catholic Bible (at least the published parts) would be accurate, and not cut out and edited.

How would it prove it was accurate? They both date from the same time and concern the same subject. Similarities will prove nothing. It's only diversions between the two will prove anything.

In fact, early studies have done just that, proven the accuracy of the Bible over the centuries. Sure, there are missing parts, from the Scrolls or the Bible -- new texts, etc. You continually accuse me of not being relevant, but that's only because you don't take the time to actually read anything I write.

The accuracy of the Bible has been proven, with no sources cited. Um, no.

Again, and I said this just in the last post, the Biblical laws changed when Jesus taught. So, a lot of the "morals" you claim are horrible aren't even valid! I don't even need to get into a translation discussion.

Matthew 10:34-36 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.”

Not that blowing off the old testament is a valid arguement, as Stone pointed out.

For example, one link you provided said Jesus will kill all the children. That verse comes from Revelation, and it's not saying Jesus will physically kill all children, or literally children. Did you even read the site or Revelation? Revelation is hugely metaphoric, if not entirely! Whose children is Jesus going to kill? Well, the site doesn't say that, why? Clearly, children means anyone who follows a certain way. Children of God, children of sin, children of the corn, etc....

Now, the contradictions site. When it opened, the first contradiction I saw was about Jehoiachin. One verse says he was 8, another says he was 18 when he began his reign. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Wow, such a stretch EIGHT and EIGHTeen. Give it up to the editors of that one. It would be logical to assume that even the Bible had multiple translators, and one is right and one is wrong, but it's not that far off. Again, EIGHT and EIGHTeen. Let's blame the editors, but I think further logic would dictate that if the Bible were faked, it would be less full of holes or "contradictions."

Pft. And you accusxe me of picking and choosing. Here's a fairly central one;

Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secert. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

It seems even the one author can't get his facts straight.

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.


I like that one too. Moving on;

Just don't get mad when you find your base built on sand.

Ironically spoken in favour of the Bible.

[odin_dax]

The Catholic Church has been spreading lies for over a thousand years...

And, when you say

Does that mean God just happened to change his mind about his laws roughly 2,000 years ago?

Yes, and that is why I don't like the Catholic Church. Most of the lies the Church spreads isn't Biblical, though.

To answer your question, I pose another... God can't change His mind? If we are to believe we are made in His image, then doesn't that also imply that since we can change our minds, He can change His?

I only capitalize on my beliefs, not that I believe it's an absolute.

[odin_dax]

How would it prove it was accurate? They both date from the same time and concern the same subject. Similarities will prove nothing. It's only diversions between the two will prove anything.

You clearly missed the boat. Try reading my posts again.



The accuracy of the Bible has been proven, with no sources cited. Um, no.

I only cited the Dead Sea Scrolls. I did not say anything was proven, only inferred supported. Don't put words in my mouth.





Not that blowing off the old testament is a valid arguement, as Stone pointed out.

No one is blowing off the Old Testament. Instead of hammering everything twice, just read it for yourself.



Pft. And you accusxe me of picking and choosing. Here's a fairly central one;


I do believe I said the first one I opened up to...


It seems even the one author can't get his facts straight.

So now you claim the Bible is only written by one man?

And did you even read those two verses from Mathew? Just how do they contradict? Do you even know the context? "Let your light shine" and "Give to the needy" are different, don't you see?

Wow, you're really grasping at straws.



I like that one too. Moving on;

Me too. Deuteronomy is a book of law. Isiah is a book of prophecy. And, yet, again, I say context.

Do I really need to remind you that you can't pick and pull single verses? What did I say in the last post? Come on, headcase, why must you ignore almost everything of substance that I say in such debates we get into?



Ironically spoken in favour of the Bible.

If that's what you want to believe... Just don't steal my lines.

[headcase]

Once again, you're arguing with vague references that only you seem to grasp. Maybe you're operating an a level above the rest of us, but I'm still seeing a naked emperor.

[odin_dax]

Once again, you're arguing with vague references that only you seem to grasp. Maybe you're operating an a level above the rest of us, but I'm still seeing a naked emperor.

What is vague to you? I'll try to clear it up.

[REL0AD]

Do you believe people are born 'good'

God does not decide this. GENETICS do.

[odin_dax]

Do you believe people are born 'good'

God does not decide this. GENETICS do.

I think it's pretty hard to argue genetics determine morals. Genetics may predispose you to certain habits, with out without exposure, but all that means is people use thought to justify those actions, good or bad.

From what I've studied in biology and psychology, I'd have to disagree, but I can't say you're wrong with any absolute certainty. You may be right, you may not.

[headcase]

I'm a massive proponent of the shaping of behaviour by evolutionary psychology. "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkinds being a great reference for it. "Alas, Poor Darwin" argues against it, but does it so badly, it just reinforced my beliefs.

[.VX]

Good wouldn't be good without Evil and Evil wouldn't be good without Good.

[headcase]

In the sense of human morality, or a more universal definition? If they former, what defines good and evil? If the latter, what makes morality at all?

[DominoKett]

sorry to dig up an old thread but if i were to write a essay to convince on the topic that humans are born obliviouse to good/evil, and have 3 body paragraphs, what would you recomend the subjects for each be. it seems like theres a lot of good information here but its just hard to organize cause its a forum, thus opinions are coming from all over the place and the shitty arguments are mixed in with the good ones

and i may also pull information from the "humans are greedy thread" and the "humans are animals" threads if they apply enought to the points i choose to focus on

[headcase]

I tend not to plan essays very much, but I suppose I'd try to "focus" more with each paragraph. Start with a discussion of morality as a whole. Or, moreso than that, the fact that it's unquantifiable and indefinite. Discuss philosophical problems. Secondly, look at human morality through the ages. How it changed and evolved (there's a paragraph on it in "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins). Thirdly, I'd use that frame to look at modern problems like.... um, I suppose homosexuality and racism would be safe bets, if a little outdated. If you wanted to push the limits you could broach more sensitive and modern topics but you'd be risking offending whoever is correcting it and that's a big no-no in written exams, so I wouldn't bother unless I was very, very good (which I am, but that's not important).

On review, I'm not sure how much I could right on the first topic without borrowing heavily from the second. Then again, maybe I could right a lot. I'd have to sit down and start writing before I knew, and I'm not writing your essay for you.

[DominoKett]

what do you think would be a good thesis if i not only wanted to talk about if humans are born good/bad but also what good and bad are. cause i literally just got done reading every word in this thread and its about 1/4th are humans good or bad, 1/4th what defines good/bad, and then the last half is just an argument between a couple people about the bible which is basically irrelevant considering none of the arguers believe in the bible.

basically the main points i want to draw from this thread would be about influence of good/evil from genetics (im going to be disagreeing with this), influence from environment (agreeing with this), i want to try and have one of my 3 body topics be about interpretation of good/evil.

also headcase i like your idea for the 3 body paragraphs and do you think it would work to have the first one be about morality/ what is good and evil and that way body paragraph one and body paragraph 2 dont overlap as much

[odin_dax]

what do you think would be a good thesis if i not only wanted to talk about if humans are born good/bad but also what good and bad are. cause i literally just got done reading every word in this thread and its about 1/4th are humans good or bad, 1/4th what defines good/bad, and then the last half is just an argument between a couple people about the bible which is basically irrelevant considering none of the arguers believe in the bible.

basically the main points i want to draw from this thread would be about influence of good/evil from genetics (im going to be disagreeing with this), influence from environment (agreeing with this), i want to try and have one of my 3 body topics be about interpretation of good/evil.

also headcase i like your idea for the 3 body paragraphs and do you think it would work to have the first one be about morality/ what is good and evil and that way body paragraph one and body paragraph 2 dont overlap as much

It sounds like an interesting paper, but you're organization needs a little work. From an academic standpoint, you want a thesis to encompass your entire paper, you want to make it a statement. I'm sure you can think of this, but if you don't know what to write, keep working on an outline.
Secondly, papers that agree with one part and then disagree with another can be confusing to a reader. You want to support your thesis! If you don't have one, then it's hard to plan paragraphs correctly.
Thirdly, if you're going to write a comparison essay, it'll be very long, and you'd have to write several points for both sides and quoting sources/interviews.
Fourthly, keep opinion to the conclusion. If you want to define good and evil, do so in the introduction, concisely, and DON'T write opinion.

Unfortunately, the best site on writing I found halfway through the last English class I've ever taken. In can be found here: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/ And this one here is relevant: http://www.rscc.cc.tn.us/owl&writingcenter/OWL/Types.html

[headcase]

(I say move this to the Flame Lounge. It's not really contributing anything unless someone's writing an English essay, in which case they'll never look for advice here.)

How long is the essay going to be? I suppose on the genetics/environment front you could mention evolutionary psychology but I imagine that would be a significant detour, especially giving that you're disagreeing with it anyway (I think it's correct). The "environment" arguement should be easier, but what's one without the other?

do you think it would work to have the first one be about morality/ what is good and evil and that way body paragraph one and body paragraph 2 dont overlap as much.

Yeah that's what I was suggesting. Although on consideration, there's no real answer to that question. That would be a very weak and unconvincing end to your introduction, which should be your best paragraph. Maybe you could go in the other direction; start by giving examples of difficult moral questions arising today and the dilemmas facing the decision-makers. Suggest a solution may be to look at the past, and conclude that morality is itself vague and shifting. That's leaves many options open from your introduction and brings some closure in the end.

[odin_dax]

(I say move this to the Flame Lounge. It's not really contributing anything unless someone's writing an English essay, in which case they'll never look for advice here.)

How long is the essay going to be? I suppose on the genetics/environment front you could mention evolutionary psychology but I imagine that would be a significant detour, especially giving that you're disagreeing with it anyway (I think it's correct). The "environment" arguement should be easier, but what's one without the other?



Yeah that's what I was suggesting. Although on consideration, there's no real answer to that question. That would be a very weak and unconvincing end to your introduction, which should be your best paragraph. Maybe you could go in the other direction; start by giving examples of difficult moral questions arising today and the dilemmas facing the decision-makers. Suggest a solution may be to look at the past, and conclude that morality is itself vague and shifting. That's leaves many options open from your introduction and brings some closure in the end.

Why must all threads end up in the flame lounge if the topic goes somewhere else? We're still talking about the subject, and since the threads been dead for a bit before this revival, no big deal.

[DominoKett]

@Odin: the first essay i wrote was an essay of inquiry so i had to show both sides of the argument. this is an essay to convince so i cant really keep my opinion till the conclusion. and thanks for the links

@Headcase: its a 3-5 page essay. im shooting for roughly 3.5 pages though cause im kinda stressed for time. i plan on asking some questions in the intro about modern society but not going into really any detail cause i dont want to take away from the 3rd body paragraph which is specifically about morals in modern time. my thesis was going to originally be "humans are born not good nor bad but neutral" (in better wording of course) but im going to be basically using the 3 body paragraphs you listed and the essay is kinda becoming more about good/evil and how we show our morals as we live our lives so my essay is going to be more along the lines of (people are born ignorant of good/evil and make decisions based on what is introduced to them in their lives" but im just concerned thats not really and argumentive statement.

[headcase]

If that's what you think. It does seem a little scattered though. What topic are you using for each section? And are you typing it or writing it? Post it when you're done if it's the former.

I think these last few posts should be moved to the FL because I hate having to shift through irrelevant tangents when reading a thread. It may be dead, but that doesn't mean someone won't come back to read it later, like DominoKett did. Also, why not start another thread? What are we gaining by keeping it here? Nothing.

[odin_dax]

@Odin: the first essay i wrote was an essay of inquiry so i had to show both sides of the argument. this is an essay to convince so i cant really keep my opinion till the conclusion. and thanks for the links



A convincing argument doesn't have to include opinion, as headcase will back me up on I'm sure.

You make a statement (thesis) and support it. At the end, you can give your opinion as to whether or not you agree with the points you've made IN ONLY ONE SHORT SENTENCE.

I can argue abortion is good even though I don't agree with the practice. Hell, I can argue that abortion is great for population control. To convince someone of something isn't a question of whether or not you agree with it.

[headcase]

To be honest I wouldn't include an opinion at all. If you disagree with the arguement you just spent 3 pages making then it looks retarded, and if you agree with it... well they assumed that so it's really just a wasted sentence. And I can't think of a good way to word it. You don't want to put "I agree with this thesis very much" at the end of an otherwise professional-sounding essay (I hope).

Edit; I see the other thread now. I'll continue there.

[odin_dax]

To be honest I wouldn't include an opinion at all. If you disagree with the arguement you just spent 3 pages making then it looks retarded, and if you agree with it... well they assumed that so it's really just a wasted sentence. And I can't think of a good way to word it. You don't want to put "I agree with this thesis very much" at the end of an otherwise professional-sounding essay (I hope).

Edit; I see the other thread now. I'll continue there.

Depends how you write it. If you know the writer was forced or chose to take a position other than his own, then an opinion would definitely be fitting.

[DominoKett]

headcase and odin, i made a new thread so this thread wouldnt become completely off topic, and you guys both have posted on it so why are you still posting here?

p.s. answere that question in the writing essays thread

[ZionBlack]

First off, on order to be intrinsiclly good, one must have a knowledge of both good and evil. people are born ignorant to theese incredibly complex concepts. Most people, myself included, are unsure of what is good and what is evil through out thier entire lives. In conclusion my answer is no.

[Nemesix]

Day after day, i see more and more evidence of how people are inherently greedy, and selfish. Money does make the world go round, and can anyone honestly say that they are content with what they have? Is it ironic that i see that a lot of people who smoke seem more content with life then people who life life "honestly" without breaking any laws? These law abiding citizens are more greedy then the "druggies" that they look down and frown upon because the "druggies" can just smoke and be content with how life is going.

[Nox (ADVANCED)]

I know what you mean but from a similar but different view.

[DJ Poppinfresh]

Maybe people are NOT born "good" or "evil", but the surroundings they are braught up in either give the one a respect for society and morality in general, or they lack disciplin and thus become "Evil".

Maybe there is a factor apon birth determining how you will take morals, but that would relatively be nothing stood next to enviromental factors.

But is evil a) To DO bad things, or b) To WANT to do bad things?

Because, if it is the latter, we are all born evil.

Cheating on a girlfriend is considered bad, but we have all fantisised once or twice...

[.VX]

You all seem to be using 'Good' and 'Bad' as absolute terms. They're relative, so by that logic, we're all born Neutral.

Why do say that being greedy is a bad thing, if we all are?

[catnips]

People are born innocent - and innocence is neither good nor bad

[Micro]

^^^___ I agree

[Antagonist]

Good question.

I'd agree with the neutral theory, but I think there are certain dispositions we are also born with which 'encourage' us to become certain types of people, and our environment either encourages it more and it becomes a reality, or it discourages it enough.

We are all products of our environment though, there is no doubt about that. It is how we react to our environment that makes us differ.

I was doin' a lil research before about pedophiles via interest in pedo-baiting and one funny pattern is that pedos are usually dumber, lower-IQ. Obviously not everyone with a low-IQ is just going to be a pedophile, but what encourages it more? I forgot...

But because of these little differences we are encouraged to become certain types of people, and it can go either way.

Someone highly intelligent may become a successful, and well-respected person in the community because as a child they were always given opportunities and encouraged in positive ways.

While other highly intelligent people might have been abused as a child and viewed the world from a different point of view and become a murderer.

That's not to say every smart person who is abused will become a murder though, once again its those small dispositions which make us differ. They may simply become a cliche drug addict instead, or maybe commit suicide, or perhaps just grow up to be "normal" whatever the hell that means.

I think it's the pysche we are born with which truly determines our "good" or "bad" -ness. Environment is just the oven in which it is cooked and it either stays raw and never gets warm enough to eat, is cooked slow, or is cooked fast...maybe too fast in some situations.

[odin_dax]

Day after day, i see more and more evidence of how people are inherently greedy, and selfish. Money does make the world go round, and can anyone honestly say that they are content with what they have? Is it ironic that i see that a lot of people who smoke seem more content with life then people who life life "honestly" without breaking any laws? These law abiding citizens are more greedy then the "druggies" that they look down and frown upon because the "druggies" can just smoke and be content with how life is going.

I think the "greed" you refer to is society's fault. We're raised and marketed to want brands and the best things, to excel at being the best, being told we're special when we're not, etc. From our toddler years, we're taught about the tooth fairy and saving money to birthday and Christmas gifts. "What do you want for your birthday?" Ah, consumerism...

When did Christmas turn into the crap holiday it is now from what it really meant/means? Sigh...

[.VX]

Since we're all raised in a capitalist society, we are all forced to be greedy in order to survive.

[Antagonist]

I think greed goes further than just economic gain and living in a capitalistic society.

We all want to live forever, hence why most people want to leave behind something that will live on as their legend once they begin to realize we all die.

We want more than just money and products, we want power. We want to be the best.

It comes from jelousy, when you are a kid and the neighbor's son has some new toy, you want that toy. When you see someone who has talent, you want that talent...only you want a BETTER toy, you want to be BETTER at that skill.

The stakes are also constantly raised, over time, humanity has improved. Technology has improved, standards raised, records broken.

This gives us a new starting point, in a way. People are so selfish and greedy to think they can't live without their cell phones and iPods, and don't realize people years back didn't have those things because they didn't exist...and still managed to survive.

this would stem into "quality of life" and how everyone just wants to live the best life they can before they die, if someone seems to be living better...well, I'm done with this post, you see where I'm going.

[Vein]

who cares, we are what we are.

[Antagonist]

who cares, we are what we are.

Right on brother, lets go killin!