Human race: Naturally good or evil?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

I didn't really think we were arguing, so much as engaging in a constructive dialogue. I think what we differ on is the responsibility of the average German citizen, who I feel shares some culpability in the Third Reich.

I didn't mean arguing in an aggressive way... I'm rather enjoying the dialogue.

I think it all boils down to who one thinks is more responsible... the monster, or its enablers.

I contend that its enablers were not only the German people, but the Weimar Republic and the signatories of the Treaty of Versailles. Essentially, those that created the environment for a monster to grow. Woodrow Wilson knew it was a mistake then.

[peter12]

How does this spiritual situation provide guidance in moral situatuions?

Here's the example, I use. My grandfather was a bricklayer in Denmark when the Nazis invaded in 1940. He was a simple, hardworking guy who had 10 years of regular education and his trade certificate. He was raised in a traditional Danish Lutheran home.

One night, he was working late on at a job site just outside of Copenhagen when a young boy ran into the house and hid in a closet. In the next few minutes, two SS came into the house, slammed my grand-dad against the wall, shoved a gun in his face, and asked if he had seen any Jews. If he didn't tell them the truth, they said they would shoot him. My grand-father immediately knew that the young boy hiding in the closet was Jewish and was probably on his way to a Resistance collection point to be evacuated to Sweden. My grandfather had a choice, he had two psychopaths threatening him with a gun and a young Jewish kid, he had never met, hiding in a closet. It was in his immediate self-interest to tell the Nazis about the Jewish boy and avoid the risk of being shot. That's the rational choice.

He told the Germans he hadn't seen a thing, waited until they left, and then walked the boy to the place where Resistance fighters could pick him up.

I'm not really sure why he did it when so many Europeans were making the opposite choice. Shoot the Jew instead of saving a human life. Thankfully, a lot of his countrymen followed his example.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I didn't mean arguing in an aggressive way... I'm rather enjoying the dialogue.

I think it all boils down to who one thinks is more responsible... the monster, or its enablers.

I contend that its enablers were not only the German people, but the Weimar Republic and the signatories of the Treaty of Versailles. Essentially, those that created the environment for a monster to grow. Woodrow Wilson knew it was a mistake then.

Both are equally responsible. If Hitler was stupid and contemptible, it follows that the Germans who allowed him to exist were also stupid and contemptible.

Hitler probably came about in part because of Versailles, but once again, I don't see the link between that element of the past and the actions perpetrated in the Holocaust.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

Both are equally responsible. If Hitler was stupid and contemptible, it follows that the Germans who allowed him to exist were also stupid and contemptible.

Hitler probably came about in part because of Versailles, but once again, I don't see the link between that element of the past and the actions perpetrated in the Holocaust.

I don't think Hitler was stupid. Contempible for sure. The man was a master manipulator... absolutely the best at that. Anyone who can do what he did and convince world leaders can not be stupid.

His greatest successes came when he listened to his leaders. His greatest failures and atrocities came when he became drunk with power and assumed greater control.

The link is simple. Germany was wounded and insulted by Versailles. Desperation lead to the election of essentially a fringe party that would normally not been pissed on the best part of but promised to do the most for them and delivered. The leader of the fringe party happened to be brilliant, but not book smart. He also happened to be nursing lunacy. Lunacy that manifested in the holocaust.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Desperation lead to the election of essentially a fringe party

That 'fringe party' took a fair number of liberties to bully its way into power...

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

That 'fringe party' took a fair number of liberties to bully its way into power...

No denying that... and in less perilous times, they would have been snuffed out at that point.

[jammies]

The prof might as well ask if people are naturally men or women; you can't assign a value like "good" or "evil" to a collective entity, as the variance within such a large group precludes a meaningful answer even if you could define "good" or "evil".

I would take one of two tacks in such an essay - either pick one individual who is commonly considered "evil", and try to determine if he/she was born or made that way, while explicitly dismissing the idea that this can be extrapolated to a general rule; or else argue for both sides and take examples that prove some people have been born "good" and others born "evil", thereby showing how the question doesn't have a "correct" answer.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Nine out of ten Hutterite colonies support incest,

I wonder where you got that figure from....

[Flash Walken]

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.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying Danes are inherently more 'Good' than Germans?

Not trying to pick a fight, just looking for some clarification.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Azure

I wonder where you got that figure from....

I made it up of course. Didn't ya know that 64 per cent of all statistics are made up on the spot, and 82.4 per cent of the people believe them whether they're true or not?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I made it up of course. Didn't ya know that 64 per cent of all statistics are made up on the spot, and 82.4 per cent of the people believe them whether they're true or not?

Hey, I was just wondering.

You are partly right....intermarriage is a pretty big problem within the Hutterite culture....but some colonies have taken a pretty strict stance on it.

I don't think that makes them evil though.....when there's only 40,000 of you scattered across 3 states and 3 provinces....it becomes a problem.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Azure

Hey, I was just wondering.

You are partly right....intermarriage is a pretty big problem within the Hutterite culture....but some colonies have taken a pretty strict stance on it.

I don't think that makes them evil though.....when there's only 40,000 of you scattered across 3 states and 3 provinces....it becomes a problem.

I was just being sarcastic because some of them do have a bit of a reputation. I certainly didn't mean to imply they're evil ... they're generally very good community-minded citizens. I was just being a Smart Axx ... my wife tells me it's better to be a Smart Axx than a Dumb Axx, and I believe everything she tells me. (more sarcasm)

[HelloHockeyFans]

Interesting topic for sure,

Reminds me of such experiments as the Milgram experiment and the Stanford Prison experiment.

Both were cases where seemingly normal, "good" people did horrible -- some say "evil" -- things (especially in the Prison experiment) when given the opportunity to.

Many cases throughout history and through experiments where we see when given a sense of immunity to punishment, human beings will on their own, venture across the "line" and commit acts he/she normally wouldn't.

Don't worry, just keep shocking him, I'm a doctor remember?

You run the prison. They are the prisoners. Do whatever you want to maintain control.

[ResAlien]

"good" and "evil" dont really exist, in my opinion. To have those, you must have morality. Luckily, morality is subjective. There are no absolutes. the human minds ability to rationalize and intallectualize (sp?) creates morality. The base of all life is to consume and reproduce, anything else we add to that is simply frosting on the cake. Morality is just society's way of saying "dont't rock the boat", which is the basis of all major religions.

To bring my random idiotic drunken post to a close, People are not inherently evil or good, they simply look out for thier own survival. Everything else is our social construct that keeps us all in line so things move forward pleasantly.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by HelloHockeyFans

Interesting topic for sure,

Reminds me of such experiments as the Milgram experiment and the Stanford Prison experiment.

Both were cases where seemingly normal, "good" people did horrible -- some say "evil" -- things (especially in the Prison experiment) when given the opportunity to.

Many cases throughout history and through experiments where we see when given a sense of immunity to punishment, human beings will on their own, venture across the "line" and commit acts he/she normally wouldn't.

Don't worry, just keep shocking him, I'm a doctor remember?

You run the prison. They are the prisoners. Do whatever you want to maintain control.

http://www.lucifereffect.com/

Welcome to LuciferEffect.org, official web site of The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil (Random House, 2007). In this book, I summarize more than 30 years of research on factors that can create a "perfect storm" which leads good people to engage in evil actions. This transformation of human character is what I call the "Lucifer Effect," named after God's favorite angel, Lucifer, who fell from grace and ultimately became Satan.

Rather than providing a religious analysis, however, I offer a psychological account of how ordinary people sometimes turn evil and commit unspeakable acts. As part of this account, The Lucifer Effect tells, for the first time, the full story behind the Stanford Prison Experiment, a now-classic study I conducted in 1971.

[mykalberta]

Evil.

Basic animal instinct is for suvival, so at the very core humans will do whatever it takes to survive.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Evil.

Basic animal instinct is for suvival, so at the very core humans will do whatever it takes to survive.

And that's evil? Anything acting on instinct is not making a decision that can be judged by our moral or ethical standards. Animals, who act predominantly on instinct, are not evil in any shape of form. That is neutrality at its finest.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying Danes are inherently more 'Good' than Germans?

Not trying to pick a fight, just looking for some clarification.

No, that'd be ridiculous. I am saying that for whatever reason, culture or spirituality differed enough between the two countries that one was able to make a choice to save their Jewish population and the other one didn't.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

And that's evil? Anything acting on instinct is not making a decision that can be judged by our moral or ethical standards. Animals, who act predominantly on instinct, are not evil in any shape of form. That is neutrality at its finest.

Well, much of human behavior is based on instinct, self-interest, competition for the purpose of survival. It doesn't mean we are incapable of making moral decisions.

Infanticide is a pretty decent evolutionary stable strategy for ridding a gene pool of your rivals children and implanting your own. Doesn't mean we should do it.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, much of human behavior is based on instinct, self-interest, competition for the purpose of survival. It doesn't mean we are incapable of making moral decisions.

Infanticide is a pretty decent evolutionary stable strategy for ridding a gene pool of your rivals children and implanting your own. Doesn't mean we should do it.

Again, morality is a cognitive function and a societal construct. What is moral to one society may not be moral to another. Morality is not an instinctive behavior, it is a learned behavior, one adopted only through socialization. Hence, when you remove the social aspect of the human condition and view us as a naked ape, we are not good or evil, we just are.

Now please tell me how I have an entirely poor and ill-informed view of the nature of man and how I don't understand both the ethical and biological aspects of the question. I've been dying to hear your explanation and waiting patiently.