Its actually the classic position of Aristotle, or as he put it...
People like Batman ascribe to this philosophy.
Is humanity inherently good, evil or neutral?
- Thread starter infinix
- Start date
I think infinix is asking whether situation-producing good and evil choices are independent of each other, making it impossible to say with any consistency whether people are good or evil.
It's a good question and I don't have a good answer. People differ in their sensitivity to situations. People low in sensitivity may make consistently good, or consistently evil, decisions across different situations. We would them label them dispositionally good or evil people.
But I'd argue that most people are fairly sensitive to situationally induced good or evil. So yes, the same person could be good in a situation that calls for goodness, and then later be bad in a situation that propels him or her to badness.
How can something that is real be 'defined' by something that is not real?
edit- *if* I am reading that answer correctly. I might not be.
edit- *if* I am reading that answer correctly. I might not be.
Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean, and I apologize for not explaining myself better. It's late at night and my brain is only working at 60% capacity at best!
Being selfless is a survival advantage to groups. People are not purely selfish. If I had to choose between letting several other people die or sacrificing myself, I would choose the latter. What would be selfish about that?
Selfishness itself is neutral. How it affects people defines whether it's good, neutral or evil. If I'm feeling hungry and I eat something, I'm being selfish, because I'm doing it for my own good. However, this particular example of selfishness is not evil. When people talk about selfishness, they usually mean specifically the kind of selfishness that hurts others and benefits oneself, not the kind of selfishness that doesn't affect others and benefits oneself, nor the kind of selfishness that benefits both oneself and others.
There is no such a thing as a selfless act. Everything you do is selfish. If you kill yourself to save others, you will have a good feeling about that before you die, for example. Everything you do is for "your own good" - and however perverted it may sound, dying can also be part of that.
In your opinion perhaps, but that still doesn't negate the premise there will be a 'feeling good' aspect of it on your part which will still be selfish.
Besides, who gets to say what is a 'far greater sacrifice'?
It's entirely subjective, as is everything else for that matter.
Regarding the original question...
If we are strictly defining 'good', 'evil' and 'neutral' in human terms, then I would have to say it can go either way really, with the neutral ones being highly influenced through society and their upbringing (indoctrination) which will probably affect their personality (same thing will happen with the 'good' and 'evil' ones actually, I'm just saying the neutral ones won't have a strong inclination towards one or the other - talking about predispositions of course from birth).
We can also extend the domain of the question and contemplate whether the group we are being selfless with is good/evil/neutral. And does that affect our own status?
By that argument, "Do you love me?" should be rephrased to "Do you love yourself enough to make me think you love me?"
So the world revolves around you and every decision must begin with "how does this benefit me."
I understand that, but that's an attitude that I will never proscribe to.
^Oh, but you do prescribe to it. It is hard wired into you by nature. People's awareness of their own selfishness varies but it is always there. Your mind is always doing risk/reward assesments and asking "How can I benefit from this?" at a subconscious level.
But to claim that altruism is motivated by selfishness because it makes a person feels good is not a functional argument. You are simply changing definitions of the word (selfless) and misunderstanding the definition of another (selfish).
Just because an action makes a person feel good about themselves doesn't automatically make the action selfish. An action is selfish when ONLY the person performing the action feels good or benefits as a result while nobody else does.
There's difference between how it works "behind the scenes" and how you live. Love is a good example. It's just a tool to achieve reproduction, the grand goal. The brain registers another human being that's a potential partner and starts the full program, basically drowns you in Serotonine, the "happy hormone", etc... that's simply how it works.
I think it'd be in most peoples opinions. Death is rarely attractive. Even if the person is suicidal, they'll think twice.
It's just like that friends episode where Phoebe says no action is selfless. It's not quite like that, since when the action is greater, it becomes selfless in balance. Besides, what does feeling good really do for you?
So every human interaction is boiled down to chemistry and eventually we will come up with means to produce and introduce those hormones artificially into ourselves?
I guess you subscribe to utilitarianism?
There is another way to look at it.
Our self-interest and our interest in others are tied. To my view, since certain things are inherently right, the fact that we are designed to feel "rewarded" by right actions is no surprise to one who has heard the commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Where we have to take care is in allowing ourselves to be misled simply by feeling. There are other acts that can activate our feelings of pleasure than caring and good ones, so we have to learn how to distinguish which is which. To my own view the two forms of love must always be tied to each other. An act for self that does not consider others becomes evil. An act for oneself that does consider others first can be a very good act. The fact that we benefit from it too does not invalidate that goodness.
The trick is acting for others where we don't experience that reward and that pleasure, or may not in this world. Learning to do that takes a lot of work, and whether or not we can do it determines how we are doing in trying to become more like Christ. That is my belief.
Aaaaand becoming more like Christ is your reward...
Salvation, the ultimate gift, is given to you free of charge. Becoming more like Christ is not a reward. Depending on who you talk to, becoming more like Christ is either a mandate or something you naturally seek.
"Some day, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, consider this justice a gift on my daughter's wedding day. "
