Human race: Naturally good or evil?

[Fozzie_DeBear]

I think that there are examples of primates (Chimps?) engaging in organized warfare and arguably even genocide...

There was a Chinese philosopher who said "People's tendency towards good is as water's tendency is to flow downhill." (Mencius, Chinese philosopher, c.300BC)

[Matata]

Again, good and evil are abstract concepts relative to society and culture.

We're built to survive in and dominate an unforgiving world, but our world (western at least) is no longer unforgiving and we are constantly re-classifying our survivalistic traits in various degrees of good or evil.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'd look at it from a different angle.
Don't try to decide what category our behavior fits into.
Meaning, don't get hung up on good or evil, as these are subjective.
I'd go at it by describing human nature, wich tends to be self serving, just as any other animal is, that is how evolution works.
Once you've defined the general nature of our actions, then choose whether this should be defined as good or evil.

I'm probaly being a little confusing here, but what I'm saying is that instead of trying to debat which side of the question the answer falls on, try to debate the meanings and applicability of the labels in the question.

I'd fall down on this side as well. However, we have to understand that in certain situations our self-interest comes into conflict with ethics.

I think we're a mixed bag, somehow. From a biological standpoint, I suppose we evolved on the basis of individual selection, hence the selfish-gene. On the other hand, we did evolve in social communes, so there is an element of reciprocal altruism which can be understood scientifically.

The unknown for me is the institutions and ethics which govern morality. Spirituality, justice, and honour. It's important to recognize those as being somehow real, even if we can only express them in crude linguistic terms.

What separates a society like Denmark from Germany. Once chose to save their Jewish population as a matter of ethical principle, while the other chose to ruthlessly destroy them.

[Russic]

I'll have to agree with most that good and evil are a just a touch subjective. "Self serving" seems to fit best in my eyes.

And just because I love throwing discussions completely off-topic:

Originally Posted by flip

One thing to compare this to is homosexuality. There is no definitive evidence to suggest that children are born gay or homosexuality if is learned.

There actually is sufficient evidence that homosexuality is predominantly determined via genetics. There are some people who have done an excellent job of convincing people otherwise.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by peter12

And they engaged in an attempt at global conquest which ended in absolute ruin for a country of 70 million. There is no interest in such absolute conquest. It's mass perversion.

No interest in global conquest?! Sure there is! Imagine they won, which was their ultimate goal when they started the war. Hitler, the Nazi's and Germany would rule the entire world.

If anything I think the whole Hitler, Nazi Germany example is like self-interest on crack. Hitler wanted a perfect society. He somehow managed to take Germany to war and exterminate millions of Jews in pursuit of this end goal.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Of course, they were run by a lunatic. It made sense initially, and got horribly out of hand.

I should add that some people are born evil. Most are just born self-interested.

I don't think you can call Hitler a lunatic. A man who shook the world's foundation the way he did is anything but a lunatic.

Was he a fool? Absolutely. What does that say about the German people?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by FlamesAllTheWay

No interest in global conquest?! Sure there is! Imagine they won, which was their ultimate goal when they started the war. Hitler, the Nazi's and Germany would rule the entire world.

If anything I think the whole Hitler, Nazi Germany example is like self-interest on crack. Hitler wanted a perfect society. He somehow managed to take Germany to war and exterminate millions of Jews in pursuit of this end goal.

What do you do when you the world? Move to the stars? There is no point, especially when you know that you can't win.

[Bobblehead]

I think people will act in their own self interest, and that self interest is often shaped by society. The result being that self interest is guided by the prevailing belief set of whichever society it is based in. Many things you don't do because you have been taught they are evil or wrong.
But there are many other things that we do that have no framework for making those judgments. Every minute of every day does not nave a rule involved. And in those cases we are ruled by how we interpret the situations and what we perceive is the better judgment; often a result of the biases we have developed.
Many times whether an act is Good or Evil depends upon the perspective of an outside party. In those cases, which I believe are the vast majority, there is no definitive answer to your question.
If you must come up with an answer, then I think you need to try and look for some of the beliefs that most consider absolutes - the prohibition against murder (but what about wars?), incest (but historically weren't many royal families very incestuous?) - and then look at how prevalent those things are. If they are the exceptions then I think you can argue "good". If they are growing and you don't believe they will stop, you say "evil". But in my mind I believe those groups where "evil" becomes predominate eventually destroy themselves, leading to an almost Darwinian result of "good" winning.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

Great debate guys, I'm using alot of what I've read in this thread for my paper. I was a little worried at first, as the whole first page everyone seemed to be expressing the same view. And even though we need to lean a certain way in the paper, we need to have justifiable arguments for the other side. But I see the "good" and "evil" people have chimed in on page two, which has given me examples and helps my paper become more well-rounded.

I hope you don't get suspended for having an internet study group.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

What separates a society like Denmark from Germany. Once chose to save their Jewish population as a matter of ethical principle, while the other chose to ruthlessly destroy them.

Nature v. Nurture.

One society was relatively unharmed by war... the other was reduced to disgustingly impoverished levels and the industrial heartland plagued by French raids. That society was promised solutions... and he delivered. Germany went from zero to hero in under 10 years. They followed the man, not his ideas. Most German people had no problems with the Jews before they were told by the man that "saved them" that it was their fault all along.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Nature v. Nurture.

One society was relatively unharmed by war... the other was reduced to disgustingly impoverished levels and the industrial heartland plagued by French raids. That society was promised solutions... and he delivered. Germany went from zero to hero in under 10 years. They followed the man, not his ideas. Most German people had no problems with the Jews before they were told by the man that "saved them" that it was their fault all along.

How does that follow to the Holocaust? Why didn't Britain, France, and Italy follow suit?

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by peter12

What do you do when you the world? Move to the stars? There is no point, especially when you know that you can't win.

I doubt they felt they could not win, at least initially.As I said, Hitler wanted a perfect society. I would imagine if he actually did win and control much of the world he'd be getting to work on that.

The way I see it, it all boils down to Hitler's own desire for a perfect world. The fact he managed to take a country to war and kill millions of people in pursuit of this is a huge byproduct of his selfish pursuit of this goal. One that is now judged by the vast majority of people to be evil.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by FlamesAllTheWay

I doubt they felt they could not win, at least initially.As I said, Hitler wanted a perfect society. I would imagine if he actually did win and control much of the world he'd be getting to work on that.

The way I see it, it all boils down to Hitler's own desire for a perfect world. The fact he managed to take a country to war and kill millions of people in pursuit of this is a huge byproduct of his selfish desire. One that is judged by the vast majority of people to be evil.

I absolutely get it, but you're missing the point. How is a perfect world rational and self-interested?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't think you can call Hitler a lunatic. A man who shook the world's foundation the way he did is anything but a lunatic.

Was he a fool? Absolutely. What does that say about the German people?

But only a lunatic could think they could do what he did. Only a lunatic could promise what he did for Germany and deliver.

I think the opposite. I think the man was brilliant. Diabolically brilliant... but he bit off more than he could chew and his plans went to ruin. He had Western Europe beat... he had the Allies screwed at Dunkirk... but he got greedy and grandiose as a symptom of his insanity... and the rest is history.

As for the German people. They were desperate... beaten beyond repair because of a stupid war fought for imperialist and foolish reasons. They were willing to accept anyone who could make things better. He promised, and he delivered. Germany in 1936 was probably the most powerful nation in the world with a well-fed and happy indigenous population.

[troutman]

Fascinating topic.

http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~strone01/altruism.html

Despite the overwhelming success Darwin’s theory has had in explaining a wide variety of natural phenomena, great debate continues over the theory’s application in explaining the evolution of an aspect of animal behavior known as altruism.

If, by definition, altruism reduces an individual’s fitness, we should expect Darwin’s natural selection to select against the altruistic trait and eventually reduce its representation within a population to zero. Even if a population existed that contained only altruists from the beginning, it would be vulnerable to subversion from within, whereby a single, mutant selfish individual could exploit the altruistic tendencies of his neighbors and eventually drive the altruistic trait to extinction.

Although the problem of altruism was largely ignored by early evolutionary theory, over the past several decades it has risen to become a central issue in the debate over the level at which natural selection operates - whether that be the level of the gene, individual, kin group, or even an entire population. Numerous theories have been proposed to explain this phenomenon, several of which are discussed below.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4766490.stm

Infants as young as 18 months show altruistic behaviour, suggesting humans have a natural tendency to be helpful, German researchers have discovered.

In experiments reported in the journal Science, toddlers helped strangers complete tasks such as stacking books.

Young chimps did the same, providing the first direct evidence of altruism in non-human primates. Altruism may have evolved six million years ago in the common ancestor of chimps and humans, the study suggests.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

How does that follow to the Holocaust? Why didn't Britain, France, and Italy follow suit?

Britain wasn't ravaged like Germany. Versailles ruined them.

France was the major benefactor of Versailles... why would they be desperate. Germany was going to pay them massive reparations from 1919 to ~1965. Whatever they didn't get, they raided and stole from the Ruhr.

Italy sort of did. Their desperation was less pronounced and led to Mussolini. He fashioned himself a modern Roman Emperor and sought to rebuild the Roman Empire with help from Hitler. Problem for Il Duce was the Italians weren't as desperate and willing to blindly follow, and when things got rough for them... he was brutally executed and they joined the Allies.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by troutman

I hope you don't get suspended for having an internet study group.

haha oh no worries there. I basically knew which side I was leaning anyways and what I wanted to say, I was just struggling coming up with the right examples, which is why I reached out to the good people on here. Calgarypuck, you've gone and done it again!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

But only a lunatic could think they could do what he did. Only a lunatic could promise what he did for Germany and deliver.

I think the opposite. I think the man was brilliant. Diabolically brilliant... but he bit off more than he could chew and his plans went to ruin. He had Western Europe beat... he had the Allies screwed at Dunkirk... but he got greedy and grandiose as a symptom of his insanity... and the rest is history.

As for the German people. They were desperate... beaten beyond repair because of a stupid war fought for imperialist and foolish reasons. They were willing to accept anyone who could make things better. He promised, and he delivered. Germany in 1936 was probably the most powerful nation in the world with a well-fed and happy indigenous population.

That in a way is my point. He helped usher in a society that lacked interest of any kind. If Hitler was spiritually impoverished or an idiot, what does that say about the people that elected him?

Poverty had something to do with it, but not entirely. We have to talk about a distinction between fascism and totalitarianism. There is a tendency among weakened polities to elect a dictator and give him the strength and authority to right the ship. That's what Italy did, and it's what Britan and France came dangerously close to doing (don't believe me? Chamberlain talked about suspending Parliament in the mid-1930s). There was no similar totalitarian movements across Europe, except the Soviet Union.

Societies have a moral choice to make. Some societies chose to save their Jewish neighbours, others chose to throw them on the fire.

There has to be a reason beyond regular human self-interest. I point to an absolute standard of morality that is nurtured by community, but somehow rooted in biology, that is so complex that it can only be called transcendence.

[Dan02]

evil. duh.

next question.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Britain wasn't ravaged like Germany. Versailles ruined them.

France was the major benefactor of Versailles... why would they be desperate. Germany was going to pay them massive reparations from 1919 to ~1965. Whatever they didn't get, they raided and stole from the Ruhr.

Italy sort of did. Their desperation was less pronounced and led to Mussolini. He fashioned himself a modern Roman Emperor and sought to rebuild the Roman Empire with help from Hitler. Problem for Il Duce was the Italians weren't as desperate and willing to blindly follow, and when things got rough for them... he was brutally executed and they joined the Allies.

Societies are ravaged by more than just financial woes. France and Britain had just lost an entire generation of young men, like Germany. Their social woes were very much the same.

How does one society produce a Churchill and the other a Hitler?