Is Mankind Born Evil....or Good? (page 5)

Farkel

Yeru,

: Moral relativism is scary.

Amen, brother. There are certain ethical boundaries that all sane people would say are sacrosanct.

I've heard a bunch of opinions, folks, but very little arguments. Arguments CAN be presented on this topic, even if some of them cannot be absolutely proven.

Opinions are fine, but arguments help us focus (read: THINK!) and get very clear when we express ourselves.

Most of you can do better.....

I'm not looking for a resolution to this challenge, because this type of debate is an ongoing thing. I'm looking for arguments (on either side) that are reasoned and logical. I really don't care what position one takes: I'm looking for evidence to support that position.

Farkel

minimus

Why, Farkel?

StinkyPantz

Fark-

Opinions are fine, but arguments help us focus (read: THINK!) and get very clear when we express ourselves.
Most of you can do better.....

I think it's hard to argue for either side without having done much research in sociology, psychology, philosophy and/or anthropology. Opinions are pretty much all most of us have.

Farkel

minimus,

: Why, Farkel?

Curious minds need to know what others think about such things. This is a nearly cosmic human debate and as I said, defines the difference with regards to how people view others and how they conduct their lives.

If it could be demonstrated that people are inherently born to be good, then the entire JW belief system and indeed, that of almost all Christianity would collapse to the garbage heap where it belonged in the first place.

The massive control that religion exercises over people is based upon the notion that we are born fatally flawed in the human ethics arena, and that ONLY religion can prevent us from harming each other.

So, what's your favorite salad dressing? Do you think Kingdumb Hall carpeting should be short, plush or shag?

Farkel

minimus

Farkel, we all know that there's no real answer to your question. You're just looking to get a debate going to wake up the group....Cool. Your last 2 questions are better.

gumby

think it's hard to argue for either side without having done much research in sociology, psychology, philosophy and/or anthropology. Opinions are pretty much all most of us have.

Well said SmellyShorts!

Untill more evidence is found in many areas we now question.........it's all just opinions. The sad thing is.....even when it comes down to PROOFS in some of these areas as to the FACT of a matter........people will still believe whatever makes them feel the best.

Gumby

Satanus

Ok, here's an arguement. The bible and it's god are left out because the bible is hopelessy flawed and it's god, if it exists, is mute and inactive.

The universe appears to be evolving, and to have evolved from a lower level of simplicity to higher levels of complexity. Evolution on the earth, likewise. The human brain, w the nervous system, is the most complex object in the known universe, or at least in the solar system. The harmonious thing, the 'right' thing to do seems to help it along in it's growth, increasing it's complexity, to help it's upward evolution. In doing so, however, it seems like the right thing to do is to respect the relative values of other living and inanimate things in their own evolutionary paths.

Helping the brain/mind evolve would entail many, many types of processes; emotional, knowledge, freedom to explore, freedom to think any thought possible without hindrance, pruning of false data, ...

There are some glitches to this paradigm, though. For instance, why the massive extinction (70%) just before the age of the dinosaurs. Then of course, the extinction of the dinosaurs themselves. However, it could be that they were mistakes that heeded to be displaced. Then again, nothing lasts forever, not even humans. Flukes seem to happen.

See? Good and evil don't exist. We are just a link in a chain of development from the past into the future. Wrong/negative turns/decisions are just paths that are explored and discarded, generally, although sometimes it takes a long time. But they do increase the knowledge base.

SS

Deputy Dog

Farkel The fact that you can make this statement,

"There are certain ethical boundaries that all sane people would say are sacrosanct."

and ask the question you have asked, is strong evidence to support my position. I have settled this in my own mind and I'd like to take a shot at this, but I need more information. What or who's standard of good and evil do we use to judge this hypothetical baby? Yours? Mine? The baby's? God's? Who's? I think we should have a trial, I think I know this baby. I want to be the prosecutor! D Dog

Phantom Stranger

Sounds like you guys haven't defined your terms :)

BTW, moral absolutism is scary too. I'm not clear that moral relativism leads to Holocaust justifications... and I'm not clear that those who are Holocaust apologists don't see themselves as moreal absolutists...in fact, I think they do. If one beleives that "man is the measure of all things", then that's a responsiblity, not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

If you decide that ethics are absolute, then you need them handed to you by some other, infallible, source.

If you decide that they are human-derived, then you actually have to come up with some sort of justification for your value structure.

The common moral attitudes cited by others here can easily be ascribed to showing compassion to self and others as a common element in humanity. This can be explained spiritually or by evolution, but compassion seems to be a value that contributes to health and well-being of the entire community. Lack of compassion (usually caused by fear) is the opposite.

My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness. The Dalai Lama.

proplog2

I haven't read this thread completely but here are my views.

I believe in "intrinsic" sin. Another word for it is "selfishness".

I believe in evolution. The first stage of life involves some kind of circular process that keeps "SELF" going by cycling materials in and out. "Inside" and "outside" is considered a boundary (self). Eventually this boundary evolves to a membrane that divides Inside and Outside.

In the development of a fetus the brain and nervous system emerge from the ectoderm - the same tissue that forms skin. The brain and nervous system are primarily an emergency system for protection of the organism. At the level where conciousness appears you have the boudary expressed as "ego" the great "I" or self. Eventually this over IDENTIFICATION finds expression in our social structures - family, tribes, nations.

The problem is that we never could have evolved to where we are if it weren't for "SELFishness. However man has reached a point where this strategy can destroy millions of years of evolution. At the nation level - it is no longer advantageous to defend boundaries because it can result in mutual anihilation. Humans have to change to a love/cooperation strategy or they will perish.

The only way we will "mutually" arrive at that point is when we come face to face with Armageddon or whatever you want to call it.

No matter what you want to say about the six million JW's. They are the only group on earth of any significance that have totally abandoned "nationality" and have pursued a strategy of neutrality. They need some serious adjustments but they have come further than anyone else.

Is Mankind Born Evil....or Good?

Share this