I believe that humans have neither a good or evil nature. That good and evil are a man made device and a product of our culture. They are subject to change and are not agreed upon by human’s as a whole species. Babies are born with a clean slate. Good and evil is imparted on them. That without this external involvement babies would not be able to know what actions are good or evil. The following arguments present the questions that I have, that lead to my conclusion.
Are there underlining principles that are good or found in every group of humans? (will this still be a NO for you with the new portion that debates this and gives more of a YES but only in basic ways like being punched in the face) No, for example you may think stealing from
…show more content…
We have the luxury of living in the safest period ever, here, in the western world, especially. We have an abundance of wealth, with charities and social programs that are designed to be good. But if it’s easy to be good is it really good nature? Would a serf from the thirteen hundred’s think human nature was evil? Would Christian overtones of sin make him believe he is evil? Would the endless raids, taxes and food-less days make him believe humans are evil? So, are we product of our times? For me, we neither have good nor evil natures, only our actions are governed by the accepted moral rules of our current society. (In this paragraph you did not expand on these points, did you change your mind???….. IE. Would a serf from the thirteen hundred’s think human nature was evil? Certainly his oppression and safety would have been in constant flux and his education would have most definitely been non existent. I also wanted to comment on your choice to reference Christianity but avoid discussing the current event of the threat of ISIS in our current society and the beliefs religiously that the extremist follow? Just a current event type this relating it to the here and …show more content…
Because of that divide how can we say humans as a whole have a good or bad nature? Lets throw rape into obviously evil and donating your heart to obviously good. Despite what these society 's believe, I think there is a point where we 'd all agree, individually; yeah that 's definitively wrong or thats a clear act of goodwill. And you can’t talk about adults when you 're talking about this, because you can be raised to believe one way or another. Like nazi indoctrination. You have to look at babies and the blank sheet they are. Are they good or are they evil? Sure as a society you may believe committing heinous acts of violence another member of your society is wrong. But do those same principles apply to a person of another society. Sure it’s wrong to rape a girl from my town but it 's ok for me to go raid another village and rape a girl there. Realistically, that will never happen. We can argue that a baby can never be a blank sheet because their environment will shape them immediately upon birth no matter what. Unless, say you put a baby in a sizeable liveable box with no human interaction. Much like the real life orphanages exposed in Romania in the 1990s. The Baby is fed and changed without interaction or nurturing. It’s forced to live and grow up inside this box. It would have to learn everything for itself. This extreme neglect would make it impossible for the baby or child
Are humans naturally good or evil? This age-old question dates back to as early as the Chinese Dynasty and is still being argued to this day. Thomas Hobbes believed that all humans were born cruel, that they began cheating others to benefit themselves. Whereas, John Locke believes that humans are born good and pure, but become evil based on experiences and obstacles in life. In my opinion, all humans are born good and become cruel based on their experiences. I feel this way because when you look at a new born baby, they are seeing the world for the first time, and although they are screaming and crying, they are pure. They do not want to do anyone any harm, and you do not wish to cause them any harm. The same goes for young, growing children
Throughout the past centuries, the concept of instinctive morality has been debated back and forth. One philosophy with a strong viewpoint on this subject is Puritanism, because they believe that since the beginning of the world, people have been born sinners. Puritans felt that Adam and Eve’s temptation by Satan had cursed all of humanity to be born evil. A few decades later, Deists shifted their ideas away from religion and believed that every person could choose whether they were good or bad. Then, Transcendental ideas began the thought that humans were born innately good, and that God and Satan had nothing to do with people’s morality. Throughout the major literary philosophies in the United States, one can see how the innate character of a human progresses from being evil to being innately good.
Karma comes in two ways, good karma or bad karma. However Miss Strangeworth got the worst kind ever, revenge karma. In the short story, The Possibility of Evil by Shirley Jackson, it is clear that judging others can result to bad karma, because she judges her town, and consequences return the favor. She is shallow and has too much power, however it starts with judgement. The Possibility of Evil takes us through a journey of a selfish woman and her consequences.
On The Genealogy of Morals, Essay I refers to the second stage of human morality—the emergence of the concepts of "Good" and "Evil" as categories o...
A timeless question that continues to stump psychologists. Are humans born good? Do we learn evil traits or are they imprinted into mind as we come into the world. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, written in the early 1800’s, this same question comes into play. Shelley presents two completely different beings, one brought up with a family in a happy setting, the other in solitude hated by everyone. Both human in nature brought up completely different. Frankenstein and the Monster show traits of both good and evil, however, they are both born good.
It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This is where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be.
Shirley Jackson’s short story “ The Possibility of Evil” is about a little old lady named Miss Strangeworth. She thinks she’s in charge of the town and to make sure it’s free from all evil because her grandfather built the first house on Pleasant Street. At first Miss Strangeworth is a nice little old lady, worrying about people and wondering what others are up to. Then in the middle of the story she becomes a little rude to a few of the townspeople. In the end Miss Strangeworth thought she was getting rid of the evil in the town, but in reality she was causing evil in the town by showing her true colors and being extremely mean and cruel to others. Don’t judge a book by it’s cover because people aren’t always what they seem to be.
Whether or not humans are instinctively good or evil has been a much talked about debate for many years and is known as an unanswerable question. Determinists, such as Thomas Hobbs, have come to the conclusion that humans are naturally evil and it is within our basic instincts to be greedy, selfish and otherwise drawn to chaos. Hobbs states that “our true nature arises in times of strife and it is within us, when threatened, to self preserve.” I on the other hand disagree with this famous philosophers take on human nature. In this short essay, I will argue that human beings are born with the instinct to be good and to love one another, as well as to be loved.
Phillip Pullman, a British author, once wrote, “I stopped believing there was a power of good and a power of evil that were outside us. And I came to believe that good and evil are names for what people do, not for what they are”(goodreads.com). Pullman’s quotation on the actions of man being the source of good and evil closely relate to morality, principles regarding the distinction of right and wrong or a person’s values. The question of what human morality truly is has been pondered by philosophers, common folk, and writers for thousands of years. However, sometimes a person’s ethics are unclear; he or she are not wholly good or bad but, rather, morally ambiguous.
Consequently, the actions of Adam and Eve have opened the doors for the two types of evil we see today, moral and natural. “Natural evil is the consequence of moral evil” (Elwell,...
The lines that define good and evil are not written in black and white; these lines tend to blur into many shades of grey allowing good and evil to intermingle with each another in a single human being. Man is not inherently good or evil but they are born innocent without any values or sense of morality until people impart their philosophies of life to them. In the words of John Locke:
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is a novel about a man named Henry Jekyll who
“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.” (Eleanor Roosevelt). This is just one of the infinite examples of how human nature has been explored by so many different people. Each and every human is born with the capability of making their own choices. The decisions that they will make in the future will determine how evil they are viewed by others. Although one’s nature and nurture do affect their life, it is their own free will that determines whether or not they are evil.
Topic: 1, Does the Problem of Evil show that God does not exist? Justify your answer and respond to possible objections.
Are human beings born to be good? Or are we naturally born to be evil? A person’s nature or essence is a trait that is inherent and lasting in an individual. To be a good person is someone who thinks of others before themselves, shows kindness to one another, and makes good choices in life that can lead to a path of becoming a good moral person. To be a bad person rebels against something or someone thinking only of them and not caring about the consequences of their actions. Rousseau assumed, “that man is good by nature (as it is bequeathed to him), but good in a negative way: that is, he is not evil of his own accord and on purpose, but only in danger of being contaminated and corrupted by evil or inept guides and examples (Immanuel Kant 123).” In other words, the human is exposed to the depraved society by incompetent guardians or influences that is not of one’s free will in the view of the fact that it is passed on. My position is humans are not by nature evil. Instead, they are good but influenced by the environment and societies to act in evil ways to either harm others or themself.