Human Nature: Good Or Evil

[R. S. Martin]

Jun said:

(Grandpa Harley @ May 8 2007, 02:06 AM)

(Jun @ May 7 2007, 10:55 AM)

(Skankboy @ May 8 2007, 01:16 AM)

I thought believing that humans were primarily good was hippy/bhuddist talk.

Nope. Buddhist believe "good" and "evil" are human creations. Humans are primarily... human. That's about it.

 

 

 

Buddhism is not dualistic and therefore does not divide phenomena into "good" and "evil." In fact, there is no term in Buddhist usage which exactly corresponds to the term "evil" in European/Abrahamic religious usage. In Buddhist thought, "evil" is most characteristically seen in its three root forms: greed, hatred, and delusion.

 

 

In the Abrahamic religions, the words for good and evil aren't like those in Classical philosophy... Evil is 'unfinished', 'unripe', 'incomplete'... Good is the converse 'finished', 'ripe', 'complete'... at least they were. Post AD 70 the death grip of Hellenist culture changed the way Jews viewed their own definition...

 

 

Ah, now that is fair dinkum interesting stuff. Thanks again Gramps.

[R. S. Martin]

Florida said:

(Grandpa Harley @ May 7 2007, 12:06 PM)

(Jun @ May 7 2007, 10:55 AM)

(Skankboy @ May 8 2007, 01:16 AM)

I thought believing that humans were primarily good was hippy/bhuddist talk.

Nope. Buddhist believe "good" and "evil" are human creations. Humans are primarily... human. That's about it.

 

 

 

Buddhism is not dualistic and therefore does not divide phenomena into "good" and "evil." In fact, there is no term in Buddhist usage which exactly corresponds to the term "evil" in European/Abrahamic religious usage. In Buddhist thought, "evil" is most characteristically seen in its three root forms: greed, hatred, and delusion.

 

 

In the Abrahamic religions, the words for good and evil aren't like those in Classical philosophy... Evil is 'unfinished', 'unripe', 'incomplete'... Good is the converse 'finished', 'ripe', 'complete'... at least they were. Post AD 70 the death grip of Hellenist culture changed the way Jews viewed their own definition...

 

 

Way back in AD 70 huh? Do you mean when evil was just "wrong" and good was "right"... before they became "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEvil!!!!" and "Holier than thou" through superstition and pride?

[R. S. Martin]

Grandpa Harley said:

 

(Florida @ May 7 2007, 11:22 AM)

(Grandpa Harley @ May 7 2007, 12:06 PM)

(Jun @ May 7 2007, 10:55 AM)

(Skankboy @ May 8 2007, 01:16 AM)

I thought believing that humans were primarily good was hippy/bhuddist talk.

Nope. Buddhist believe "good" and "evil" are human creations. Humans are primarily... human. That's about it.

 

 

 

Buddhism is not dualistic and therefore does not divide phenomena into "good" and "evil." In fact, there is no term in Buddhist usage which exactly corresponds to the term "evil" in European/Abrahamic religious usage. In Buddhist thought, "evil" is most characteristically seen in its three root forms: greed, hatred, and delusion.

 

 

In the Abrahamic religions, the words for good and evil aren't like those in Classical philosophy... Evil is 'unfinished', 'unripe', 'incomplete'... Good is the converse 'finished', 'ripe', 'complete'... at least they were. Post AD 70 the death grip of Hellenist culture changed the way Jews viewed their own definition...

 

Way back in AD 70 huh? Do you mean when evil was just "wrong" and good was "right"... before they became "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEvil!!!!" and "Holier than thou" through superstition and pride?

 

In one... the reall problem was when they managed to make the Orthodoxy not only embrace the basic tenets of both Gnostic thought and Tarsean (Three gods) thought while making both a heresey. One of the greatest cons ever pulled... to use the teaching of a Terrorist, supporting democratic ideals, into a religion to control an Empire... even down to today...

[R. S. Martin]

notblindedbythelight said:

(Grandpa Harley @ May 6 2007, 06:26 AM)

(Antlerman @ May 5 2007, 09:25 PM)

(Grandpa Harley @ May 5 2007, 08:36 PM) How is god 'infinite good'? I see nothing in the observable universe to back up the posited idea.

You're correct. However we're not talking the observable universe. We're talking about human emotional conceptions. God is a symbol of the ultimate of human desire. Poetry is not science. Poetry is irrationality, yet tastes good to the senses. It's about access to the "spirit", not linear thought.

 

As someone who understands mysticism better than literalism, I'd agree, however, the problem is that people take it literally. As my old mate Fr. Charlie points out 'Myth is not a lie, it's a metaphor. It only becomes a lie when one takes it literally.'

 

I don't think this place would exist if folk were taught that God is a metaphor not a literal stalker who'll kill you or torture you literally forever for breach of arbitrary rules....

 

Indeed. When the myth is accepted as literal truth, it is contradicts itself. When these contradictions are dismissed, the entire myth is usually dismissed as a lie. Both are missing what the myth is.

[R. S. Martin]

Mongo said:

 

Ruby,

 

My world view on human nature is that each of us constantly struggle between choosing what is good for each individual and what is good for everyone.

 

To be more accurate and less clear, I’d argue that our lives are a set of social circles, (picture a multi-dimensional venn diagram) each with different interests that overlap each other with us in all of the circles and one circle that has only us in it.

 

When it is in our interests to contribute to a social circle, we offer support. Each persons ability to perceive a foreign social circle as being within a larger one that contains us is different for everyone.

 

For example, as someone who is not a victim of social prejudice, I still see those who are encircled by prejudice as being together with me in a much larger circle as myself. I try to speak up against prejudice.

 

I believe people are inherently self-interested. Well Duh! I don’t however see selfishness as inherently evil or depraved.

 

Xtian doctrine, religion in general, takes natural self-interest and turns it into something ugly. Sex becomes bad, saving your ass is ignoble and failure to share your abundance is evil.

 

I also believe that people benefit from social circles and working together. Xtian doctrine, religion in general encourage individuals to contribute to the welfare of others. However, how this happens is where religion goes wacky. Fundies transpose this into service to god for which you will be rewarded in eternity. It is such a perversion of reality.

 

Xtianity of all flavours believes in original sin. For some denominations original sin is merely an indication that we are not perfect, not that this is a revelation to the average person. For other denominations, it means that people are completely unable to do any good and unselfish deed. This is essentially “utter depravity”.

 

Some liberal churches ‘bury’ this kind of doctrine in their web pages and do not emphasize these concepts so they can emphasize god’s goodness. I think this is a difficult situation and it seems to me that this is where ‘cherry picking’ is crucial and difficult.

 

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada website does not emphasize a doctrine of faith or statement of belief but rather an ‘Evangelical Declaration’. This statement says nothing about ‘original sin’. I presume the depravity report them using is something they reserve for college studies.

 

The Mennonite Church Canada website lists 24 articles in their Confession of Faith of which ‘sin’ is one. Total depravity is not mentioned but it is said that sin affect all aspects of the human. The organization in general practice does not emphasize the depravity of man and prefers to focus on Jesus as our ‘friend’.

 

You ask whether xtianity rests on or requires human nature to be evil…

 

In answer I don’t know how one can be a xtian and not use that construct in some facet. How does one explain away:

Hebrews 11:6 “But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” or

Isaiah 64:6 “But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.”

 

There is a lot of ‘all or nothing’ language in the bible. I think a more liberal xtianity would require that some of these doctrinal ideas are considered “less important” than others but it seems to be to be very very difficult to eliminate this concept and not corrupt the doctrinal foundations of any xtian church.

 

Without delving back into the Cherry Picking thread, I can see just how difficult it is for non-literal xtians to grapple with such topics and not get sucked into literal interpretation. Perhaps I still don’t get it.

 

Of all posts, I find Antlerman brings me closer to understanding the variations in these views. The variations of ‘bad’ human theology, is a mental construct built around flawed words intended to emphasize gods goodness rather than our depravity.

 

It would seem that the degree that one believes in depravity of humanity is closely related to denomination. However the level of discussion is important too - be that in the congregation, from the pulpit, establishment of church doctrine and/or mission statement or whether at seminary - venue changes everything in the non-literal church world. Isn’t that a point you wanted more of us at Ex-C to embrace?

 

I think your comment that “I'm saying christianity got it all backward because humans are inherently good” got me all balled up. I don’t see people as being inherently good. My kids convinced me that they are not inherently good but rather share the same instinctive first concern for self that I see in all of humanity. I see my job as a parent to teach them about the various social circles to which they belong including the one that encircles the entire planet. By including them in my circles and being part of theirs, I teach them the benifits of being good to others, sharing and forgiveness.

 

I find myself abandoning the good/evil construct in favour of the view outlined at the beginning of this post. I guess I’m a little more Buddhist these days but I wasn’t aware of that until Jun et al, pointed it out.

 

Mongo

[R. S. Martin]

robbie said:

 

As I understand it, Christians use 'depravity'--and Calvinists in particular 'total depravity'--in a soteriological sense only. I'm not sure if the distinction exists in non-Catholic theology, but as I recall Catholic theology distinguishes between 'natural good' and 'supernatural good'. The former does not benefit the individual's salvation, and is inspired by her will alone. The latter, however, is inspired by Grace and not the will and does benefit salvation.

 

So, to me, Christianity's attitude towards humanity's good/evil does not fall because it considers us unable to do anything good as we are totally evil, but because it has an absurd idea of what the important good is. It emphasises good that is inspired by God's grace and is pleasing to Him to the detriment of everyday good actions by humanity.

 

And, strictly speaking, I would suggest that any Christian who thinks human beings are inherently evil either has an extremely poor understanding of his own theology or is using terminology much too loosely. Human beings are, according the Christian theology, extrinsically evil. The Fall and the subsequent effects of original sin are what make human beings evil.

 

Think about it...for human beings to be inherently evil, we cannot be seperated from evil. It is consequently essential to our very beings. The whole message of Christianity is that we can be seperated from our guilt, sin and evil by salvation through Jesus. This would not be possible unless evil were something extrinsic to ourselves.*

 

Moreover, the Creation account states several times that creation was 'good'. It is only the Fall that made it evil. Thus something non-essential made us depraved (i.e. unable to please God of our own volition). We are, according to Christianity, inherently good.

 

*I have read that Luther and subsequent Protestant theologians believed in atonement through the concealment of sins, whereby Christ's death covers our sins, yet we still remain evil at the core. However, this was from Catholic sources so it is quite possibly a misrepresentation, and the point about humanity before the Fall still stands.

[R. S. Martin]

RubySera said:

 

I guess maybe I should have given this thread a different title. I was feeling disgusted that christianity depends on an inherently evil human nature for its very existence. Perhaps a better title would have been: Humans Are Inherently Good. What is your opinion and why?

 

Mongo said:

 

 

I believe people are inherently self-interested. Well Duh! I don't however see selfishness as inherently evil or depraved....

 

**********snip**************

 

My kids convinced me that they are not inherently good but rather share the same instinctive first concern for self that I see in all of humanity.

 

I think you are saying two different things here. In the first statement you say you don't see selfishness as necessarily evil or depraved. In the other statement you "prove" that humans are not inherently good (I guess this means they are inherently depraved/evil/bad) because all your kids showed self-interest. So which is it? Self-interest is bad or self-interest is good? Or self-interest is neutral? Or none of the above?

 

About the social circles. That is an accurate and commonly used depiction of human relationships but it does not get at the essence of the human's nature itself. The way humans behave toward each other is NOT demonstrative of human nature itself. There is so much literature out there on how to get humans to feel motivated to treat each other well. Christianity (and countless other belief systems) depend on fear of retribution to do this. There is a better way.

 

What I am trying to say is that humans, when they are loved and supported from infancy, turn out well. As I said above:

 

If we want bad humans we have to make them; if we want a good human, all we have to do is nurture and guide the infant human to maturity and provide love and support throughout life.

 

You say you are not a victim of social prejudice. Perhaps you have never seen up close what it's like living as the brunt of prejudice. That is evil incarnate. But the person who is doing the prejudicing is not evil incarnate. That person is that way for a very real reason. Have you ever heard the term "insecurities" of "low self-esteem"? A person who demonstrates enough insecurities or such low self-esteem that he/she practices prejudice, that person demonstrates lack of love for him or herself, and very likely has never experienced true love. Here is where I want to bring in your verse from Hebrews:

 

Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him"

 

I'm going to use my own understanding which may or may not coincide with anything you have heard before. I think it coincides with Norman Vincent Peale's view of positive thinking. Here goes:

 

faith=confidence, trust, belief

 

NOTE: I did not say in whom or WHOM this faith must be placed.

 

Faith MUST be placed in oneself. Yes you heard right. The Self must be loved, nurtured, supported, and at times disciplined. But there is no way that one can do this so long as one does not believe it is appropriate to love oneself--or even worse, if one does not believe the self exists. Okay, christianity believes the self exists alright but xianity harps on denying the self of any human pleasure. That is not what Jesus meant! Read on.

 

I think Jesus preached this love of self. It is so obvious in the Beatitudes if only we dare look at them that way.

 

truth=self, genuinely being oneself, being true to oneself

 

Jesus was true to his innermost, most genuine, self. I'll skip the evidence for now and look at his teaching. He said, "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy-laden and I will give you rest. Learn of me for I am meek and lowly of heart...."

 

A meek and lowly person does not exactly take things lying down. That is a martyr complex and has nothing in common with what Jesus preached and practiced. A martyr complex hopes to attract attention to his own rigtheousness. Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a sword. He also said he brings peace. These two things make sense inside the context of Self=Truth.

 

The minute we try being true to ourselves, we are going to acquire a peace before unknown. We are also going to be persecuted by anyone who does not have this deep inner peace. They can't stand us. We show up their dark sides without meaning to and that gets them raving mad at us; it gets them to hate our very guts. And religion may or may not bring inner peace. Jesus said "To hell with religion! Just focus on what really matters!" I don't believe that any martyr complex person has inner peace, no matter what he/she claims. They most certainly don't demonstrate it.

 

Like the man who found that field with the great pearl, the person who has found inner peace will forego everything, i.e. sell everything, for the sake of that peace. Just like the man who found that pearl. Unless and untill we are prepared to "sell everything"--to the point of forgoing family comforts and loyalty, we will not find that peace.

 

It may be that we can keep family comforts if we happen to have a good family. But if family comforts and loyalty are more important to us than the "pearl of great price"--or this pure and undefiled inner peace, we will not find it. HOWEVER, a good (read loyal) family is going to allow one to to be true to one's deep inner self. And when an entire family lives that way, well, wouldn't that be heaven? I think so.

 

This does not rule out bad moods, illness, and other misfortunes. It does generally rule out the denegration of others. Well, given that most humans do not have that true inner peace, or they have it to varying and imperfect degrees, there is going to be injustice, hurt, and violation. Thus we are going to need righteous indignation once in a while. And I take it that is what this forum is for. That is how I can say wiht perfect integrity that RELIGION IS EVIL!

 

I believe your verse from Isaiah can also be explained to correspond with this message but it would require major amounts of discussion about the cultural and religious context in which it was spoken/written. I am not learned enough to lead that discussion.

[R. S. Martin]

(Mongo @ May 7 2007, 02:32 PM) The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada website does not emphasize a doctrine of faith or statement of belief but rather an 'Evangelical Declaration'. This statement says nothing about 'original sin'. I presume the depravity report them using is something they reserve for college studies.

 

Mongo, I dug around a bit. I found one of the things you are looking for and copied the paragraph relevant to this discussion (emphasis added):

 

 

There is a problem in trying to explain God who really cannot be explained with human terms. To help us, we affirm the collective wisdom of the churches throughout the ages as expressed in the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed.

 

That is taken from What We Believe.

 

Here you can find links to all of the creeds. And MUCH more.

 

More on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada

 

I think I found what you are talking about re "Evangelical Declaration." I found it here. On the same page, in the top section "Introduction," there is a link for "creeds." Unfortunately, the link doesn't work. But there's another link on the same page A Guide to the ELCIC. That brings up a table of contents for that book. Fourth item from the top is a link: What We Believe.

 

That is the standard website link churches use on their websites. I've seen many of them on fundy church websites in the US. I didn't know if Canadian and/or liberal churches use the same term but this one does.

 

Mennonite Church Canada

 

 

The Mennonite Church Canada website lists 24 articles in their Confession of Faith of which 'sin' is one. Total depravity is not mentioned but it is said that sin affect all aspects of the human. The organization in general practice does not emphasize the depravity of man and prefers to focus on Jesus as our 'friend'.

 

The Mennonite Church would definitely want to distinguish itself from the Lutheran Church. The Mennonite church is an Anabaptist church. The Anabaptists and Lutherans were mortal enemies back when it all started about 1525. That was bedlam back then. Cathlics killing Lutherans. Lutherans killing Anabaptists. Anabaptists living in hiding but defying the law to baptize infants, which effectively evaded the registration of citizens. This last point was raised by a Mennonite historian of today and adds much weight to the persecution of the Anabaptists. Apparently it was not all about religion as Mennonites like to think. It was civil disobedience.

[R. S. Martin]

Grandpa Harley said:

 

"I think you are saying two different things here. In the first statement you say you don't see selfishness as necessarily evil or depraved. In the other statement you "prove" that humans are not inherently good (I guess this means they are inherently depraved/evil/bad) because all your kids showed self-interest. So which is it? Self-interest is bad or self-interest is good? Or self-interest is neutral? Or none of the above?"

 

I think he's saying 'none of the above' since self interest just is... it 'benefits' others (or at least doesn't harm them) as often it 'harms' others... In the end co-operation in community is enlightened self interest... if you watch the back of your neighbour, and they watch yours, you live in stable society in which you're safe. It's just a matter of learning the level of abstraction.

[R. S. Martin]

Thanks for giving me the space to copy them over. I think that's it.

[Legion]

I think that to ask the question, “Is human nature inherently good or is it evil?” is, in some sense, to ask an ill phrased question. I suppose the answer then would be... mu. That is, re-ask the question, or un-ask the question.

 

How would answering “they are good” or “they are evil” contribute to someone’s understanding? In other words, if we were instead to ask, “what is the nature of humans?”, then we might be surprised to hear someone answer “good” or “evil.” I think it’s far more complex than that.

 

I hope to start a thread one of these days that first asks, “what is understanding?” What does it mean to have understanding? Why do we attribute understanding to someone or to ourselves? Perhaps some feel this is over-thinking things, however I think that this must precede any conversation concerning the “nature” of something.

[R. S. Martin]

I think that to ask the question, "Is human nature inherently good or is it evil?" is, in some sense, to ask an ill phrased question. I suppose the answer then would be... mu. That is, re-ask the question, or un-ask the question.

 

How would answering "they are good" or "they are evil" contribute to someone's understanding? In other words, if we were instead to ask, "what is the nature of humans?", then we might be surprised to hear someone answer "good" or "evil." I think it's far more complex than that.

 

I hope to start a thread one of these days that first asks, "what is understanding?" What does it mean to have understanding? Why do we attribute understanding to someone or to ourselves? Perhaps some feel this is over-thinking things, however I think that this must precede any conversation concerning the "nature" of something.

 

It looks to me like you're off into the realms of abstract philosophy--maybe philosophy of the mind or philosophy knowledge. I'm not sure which one. What I do know is that I can't engage in a discussion on that level but I think there might be others on here who can.

 

I, too, have been asking myself whether the real question is about good or evil. Yet it's the way Christians tend to put it. And my exposure to nonChristian thinking is very seriously limited. I did take some philosophy courses but like I said, I don't understand it.

 

On a personal level, I do see various aspects of life as being either positive or negative. Does it make me feel good or does it make me feel bad?

 

Oh now I see. I am asking if human nature is good or evil. Evil is way too strong a word. It is, however, a traditional way of putting it. Maybe that's why I used it. In my mind, there is not all that much of a difference if you use the term evil or utterly depraved. Both mean negative. Not good. And so far as I am concerned, people who say human nature is utterly depraved, or just depraved...it all means the opposite of what I observe in life.

 

What I see in life is human beings doing the best they can with what they've got at any specific point in history. That, to me, is good. Humans are not angels because, well, they're human. And to be human means to fall short of goals once in a while. Perhaps that is because of preconceived ideas of what realistic goals should look like. That, too, is part of being human. We're not gods. We don't know what sits around the corner, how we will be affected by a totally new experience, etc.

 

I don't think either good or evil exist in the abstract, such as being personified by God or the devil or angels, etc. However, certain things in certain contexts are repulsive or abhorant to the nature of humans. Other things are overwhelmingly pleasant. Context, however, is probably at least as important and possibly more important than the thing in itself.

 

For example--and I don't want to hear from the animal rights people right now because this is just an analogy from my earlier life that all of us can perhaps relate to. For example, if you are on a riverbank and have your fishing gear lying on the bank next to you, opening a can of worms is a very different matter from doing so at the dinner table in the presence of guests. But it's not because of the guests.

 

If those same people were with you on the riverbank on a pleasant spring day with the intention to go fishing, it would be quite in line to open that can of worms in their presence. So it's not the people you're with, it's the context or the situation. When we sit at a dinnertable we prepared ourselves to enjoy the pleasures of eating. When we go fishing we prepare ourselves for a very different type of activity.

 

I think someone else also mentioned the importance of context. Something might be morally and ethically right in one situation but not in another. For example, I have a problem knowing folks are brainwashing their kids and forcing them into religion like I was. Yet I don't feel it would be right to disturb a Sunday morning worship service. I am aware that some Christians might feel obligated to disturb an atheist meeting but I know it's just the more extreme folks who would do that.

 

To answer your next question: How would answering "they are good" or "they are evil" contribute to someone's understanding?

 

It contributes a lot to our understanding. As we enter a new culture, or as we enter our native culture as little children, knowing what people consider good and what they consider evil or bad is part of developing a value system. Without a value system we have no morals, no sense of right and wrong.

 

While I was still a Christian I was exposed to values very different from Chrisian values. Some people might consider these things witchcraft. And those people consider witchcraft to be evil. That is an arbitrary decision. I chose to observe how these people practiced their values. It was a sacred time. I did not feel that it would be right for me to do anything to disturb or distract from it. Just as I would not feel right today to disturb a church service.

 

And when I was driven to the extreme--out of anything I had ever known, I still had a deep abiding sense that being respectful was more important than forcing my will on others. That is when I knew beyond a doubt that values and morals do not come from God or religion. They are an inherent part of our nature as humans.

[Legion]

It looks to me like you're off into the realms of abstract philosophy--maybe philosophy of the mind or philosophy knowledge. I'm not sure which one.

I think you have good instincts Ruby. The "philosophy of knowledge" is often called "epistemology". And yes, I am driving at an epistemology first. Maybe I am over-thinking the thing, but I do think it is necessary. Maybe some here will take me up on the challenge, as you have suggested.

 

And when I was driven to the extreme--out of anything I had ever known, I still had a deep abiding sense that being respectful was more important than forcing my will on others. That is when I knew beyond a doubt that values and morals do not come from God or religion. They are an inherent part of our nature as humans.

Bravo Ruby! I have an immense respect for most people also. We are after all the products of 3.5 billion years of evolution, as are all contemporary organisms. That commands a certain amount of respect in my opinion.

[Grandpa Harley]

What is 'good'? What is 'evil'?

 

Are we talking about 1st Century 'Good' where pederasty was a common occurence (we'd call it sexual abuse of a minor now) or contemporary 'good', or something between.

 

Then we have cultural 'good'... we regard female 'circumcision' as 'evil'... some cultures regard it as not only good but necessary...

 

The problem with 'good' and 'evil' is that, apart from the universal stuff (don't kill, don't steal) they are nearly wholly contextural to a time and place. Little more than a fashion, rather than an extrinsic state of being...

[mwc]

Good and evil are just words. I've said this in other threads. You must compare something to something else in order for it to have any meaning. So when you compare humans (in general) to "good" what is your baseline "good" object and likewise for "evil?" If you don't have an absolute then the comparison must be relative to the rest of the group. Someone that does more "good" than the group is "good" and someone that does less "good" is "evil." If the group "shifts" then so does these relative terms. The group could technically be 100% depraved and yet have people within it that are "good" and "evil" relative to that group. The same is true for a benevolent group.

 

Look at it this way. Take a child in one school. They perform well. They get good grades. They are liked by their peers and teachers. They are a "good" child. But their parents get a transfer and they are moved to a location that is different so that they are a fish out of water. Now they don't perform well. Their grades suffer. They have no friends. Their teachers are indifferent. This causes the child distress and they "act out." They are an "evil" child. This is simply because of the group dynamic in this case but it was the easiest way to show that the child is good or evil relative to a similar group and yet the child is the same. Any number of situations could have caused a change one direction or the other (good->evil or evil->good). This one was convenient. People have changed because of drugs. Because of physical or mental trauma. Or reasons I'm probably not even thinking of here.

 

Evil can also be a point of view issue. Someone who is a "freedom fighter" (commonly a terrorist now) for one group is "good" to the group he is fighting for but "evil" to the group he is fighting against. If he loses he maybe denounced as evil by all since the repercussions of his actions may be widespread but if he wins he might be declared "good" even by those who opposed him.

 

So to say that we have a nature of good or evil is really not a very easy thing to do. It might be better to say that most of us are born with a selfish nature in that we tend to look out for our own self interests first and foremost. This could then be manifest in "good" or "evil" behavior relative to the group. But a selfish nature, making sure that our own needs are met, only makes sense. It's when this impulse grows out of control that it can become a problem otherwise it's a valuable motivator.

 

mwc

[R. S. Martin]

Good

What is 'good'?

From my post above:

• What I see in life is human beings doing the best they can with what they've got at any specific point in history. That, to me, is good.
  

• [some] things are overwhelmingly pleasant.
  

Evil

What is 'evil'?

 

From my post above:

• Evil is way too strong a word. It is, however, a traditional way of putting it. Maybe that's why I used it. In my mind, there is not all that much of a difference if you use the term evil or utterly depraved. Both mean negative. Not good.
  

• certain things in certain contexts are repulsive or abhorant to the nature of humans.
  

Context

 

Are we talking about 1st Century 'Good' where pederasty was a common occurence (we'd call it sexual abuse of a minor now) or contemporary 'good', or something between.

 

Then we have cultural 'good'... we regard female 'circumcision' as 'evil'... some cultures regard it as not only good but necessary...

 

The problem with 'good' and 'evil' is that, apart from the universal stuff (don't kill, don't steal) they are nearly wholly contextural to a time and place. Little more than a fashion, rather than an extrinsic state of being...

 

From my post above:

• Context, however, is probably at least as important and possibly more important than the thing in itself.
  

• if you are on a riverbank and have your fishing gear lying on the bank next to you, opening a can of worms is a very different matter from doing so at the dinner table in the presence of guests.
  

• If those same people were with you on the riverbank on a pleasant spring day with the intention to go fishing, it would be quite in line to open that can of worms in their presence.
  

• So it's not the people you're with, it's the context or the situation.
  

• Something might be morally and ethically right in one situation but not in another.