Human nature

I personally find it very pessimistic and cynical to think of "human nature" as violent, sadistic, self-loving animalistic tendencies, but even I have to admit that certain events, stories of torture and the like, make it seem so. Everyone is familiar with the supposed "duality" of man, the two conflicting sides to his nature, good and evil, compassion and hate. The idealist in me wants to believe that if it is so black-and-white, then the good compassionate side is the true nature, where the evil side is not our natural being, but merely a survival instinct, so to speak.

What I ask is not a two-sided poll on this, but some genuine deep discussion of the possible grey between the two sides, and just where you think human nature really falls.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

You can believe what you want, but certain tendencies point to human nature being inborn "evil", that is to say acting the way common people define as "bad", but such simple terms shouldn't be used to describe something as complex as human nature.

Just look at babies. They are all selfish beings who want nothing but their own well being, always screaming "me! me! me!!!" and cry when they don't get what they want. "Goodness" is taught and disciplined by our parents, role models(leaders, front figures etc.), authors and such by showing us what is right and what is wrong. In a sense, the law itself works as a teacher as well. We learn that we will get punished if we do something "wrong"("evil") and that we might get rewarded if we do something "right"("good").

Rather than defining the human nature as "good" or "evil", I'd say that most human beings are opportunists and exploiters. The only reason why we want to be "good" is that we can benefit from it, and the same goes for being "evil". Both acts can be rewarded if utilized properly, and our power of reasoning will at least consider doing an "evil" act if we can benefit from it knowing we'll get away with it. The Internet is a perfect example of this. There's all kinds of illegality going on here, but since we know we'll get away with it we'll keep doing it.

"Good" or "bad", it's all a matter of opportunity.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I agree with Sword Familiar.

I believe our human instinct is based on a sense of "evil" rather than purposeful evil. Even those that clap for the winner think they would have been a better winner, carried the ribbon better. The kids are cute at the pageant, but how many parents mentally disarm and disqualify the other children not their own?

I think once upon a time society used to care, but that, as Sword Familiar stated, came from good upbringing. Overall, we look out for our own, whether quietly mentally or verbally blatantly. Do we care? Sure when devastation happens but on an everyday basis? From what I've seen? No.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

There is no good or evil to human nature. There are merely different viewpoints. Being the most intelligent creatures on the planet simply means we think far too much about our actions. As Sword Familiar says, look at babies. They are selfish and they are sometimes a complete nusiance because otherwise they wouldn't survive. A baby can't grow and mature without adults to look after it, so its selfish nature helps it to survive. Because it is just a baby, its brain isn't fully formed and it doesn't have to worry about whether or not it's being selfish, it just does what it has to in order to live. As the child grows, it learns from others what is right and what is wrong, so the terms fall through by themselves; how can you define right and wrong or good and evil when it is different according to what you have been brought up knowing?

We're all wired differently and we have all been taught (not always intentionally) different ways of surviving. It just depends on how you live as to how you perceive this so-called good and evil terminology.

How ya doing, buddy?

I personally believe that human nature is innately evil, not necessarily extremely evil, but in a way we are a little selfish. There have been many philosophers who delved into the topic of human nature, some of whom I can recall from a Chinese class I audited.

Meng (Mencius) believed that we are born good and that society influences us to become evil - by not having a positive upbringing, immorality, etc. On the contrary, Xunzi believes that we are born evil and only through society can we learn good morals. Finally, Gaozi believes that human nature is neither good nor evil, as human nature is like nature itself (ex: whirling water that is neither inclined east nor west).

Similarly, you can look into Western philosphers such as Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Hobbes, Marx, etc. and see what their views on human nature are.

To me, there isn't a definite right or wrong; all of these philosophers and their theories are very well refuted in their thoughts.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Hmm... I had a thought similar to yours Ayos, same for the other posters. I was playing around the idea about whether if things are all that black and white. I realized... there isn't. I don't see the line anymore. I tend to focus on things too deep... but that's how I end up seeing the true gray area.

No one's innocent.

Like a killer at large and at the same time, a bottled water factory worker missed the bolt that fell into the cracks. Or perhaps a faulty nail... where it was reportedly the reason why houses fell apart during natural disasters. Only a genius could dare to test out a strength in the nail as much as putting so much faith in it. I think its the intent that just became so much of a gray area.

I think too much of this crap often of the late.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I think that Human nature is to act in one's best interests. Too many people take that to be "one's best interests even at the cost of other people's interests", leading to evil.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Arainach

I think that Human nature is to act in one's best interests. Too many people take that to be "one's best interests even at the cost of other people's interests", leading to evil.

But wait. Don't animals practice the same thing? There are pack animals who need social interaction to function properly and there are loner animals who do not require the interaction among it's own species, but the point remains the same: Do whatever you must to stay alive. Survival of the fittest, man.

I would hope that humans would figure out that in modern day, there isn't really any more "survival of the fittest," unless you consider war a situation wherein it is necessary.

I'm not sure that you can even say getting a job and paying the bills fall under "survival" when it's entirely possible for a person to still live in complete seclusion without these particular means to support themselves.

I also think your idea of "evil" is completely skewed. Animals are not evil, nor are they good. They are neutral, since you know, the idea of "good and bad" are completely fabricated by humans. Animals do what they must. When they kill, it is not necessarily an act of evil - it is the nature of the beast. When an animals feeds upon an innocent, lesser animal, is that also evil? Is it evil when a male lion kills his mate's young?

Are you saying that all living creatures are inherently evil?

Because evolution would disgaree with you~

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Are you saying that all living creatures are inherently evil?

Because evolution would disgaree with you~

I thought we were talking about HUMAN nature, but what the heck. :P

I'm sure evolution would disagree, but a human being might not.

Try to define "evil" and think of how animals act. They don't ALWAYS act to survive. The cat, for instance, usually plays with it's victims, be it birds or mice, by tossing it around, biting it and putting it's claws into it, before it eventually kills it. Now, if this was done by a human being it would probably be considered torture, and ultimately murder, two things generally defined as "evil". In this sense, even animals can be evil and it is, in fact, a trait they are born with. Rape is also common among animals. Gorilla alpha males even rape other males! Is that an act of survival? Well, I guess you could say it is since the alpha male only does it so that he can show the other males that their completely under his control. However, again, say that this was done by a human being, it doesn't necessarily have to be rape, just an act that shows the other threatening parties that you can control them and have your way without them being able to resist, it would probably be considered evil. Dictators do it all the time. Saddam Hussein was considered "evil" by the US and was therefore given the ultimate punishment, death (barbaric if you ask me, I don't believe in the "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth" kind of thinking, but that's another story).

However, I think that "evil" (again, defining evil is hard, but let's say it's an act that is considered wrong by the general public) is a conscious act, and therefore only beings with higher reason power are capable of truly being "evil".

But as I stated before, I don't think we can actually define human nature as "evil" or "good". I mean, we could, but it wouldn't be enough to describe the complexness that is a human.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Sword Familiar

I thought we were talking about HUMAN nature, but what the heck. :P

Yea, and I made it clear that the nature is not EXCLUSIVE to humans. That was kinda my point, see.

Quote:

I'm sure evolution would disagree, but a human being might not.

Try to define "evil" and think of how animals act. They don't ALWAYS act to survive. The cat, for instance, usually plays with it's victims, be it birds or mice, by tossing it around, biting it and putting it's claws into it, before it eventually kills it. Now, if this was done by a human being it would probably be considered torture, and ultimately murder, two things generally defined as "evil". In this sense, even animals can be evil and it is, in fact, a trait they are born with.

Okay, maybe you didn't read what I wrote?

"Good" and "evil" are purely human inventions - black and white lines to live by. Do you think animals are "good" and "evil?" Do you think they sit down and make rules for themselves that are distinct and arbitrary. "Thou shalt not kill thyne fellow tiger, for it is evil?" Fuck no. Those motherfuckers do what they need to, in order to live.

This is my point, buddy. Animals do what they are naturally supposed to do. A cat is a hunter - it should come as no surprise that the cat plays with it's prey. It's not evil for this - it's being a cat.

It's more important (and on topic) here to narrow in on what is the perceived nature of man. And thats easily summed up: He likes to fuck with shit.

Quote:

Rape is also common among animals. Gorilla alpha males even rape other males! Is that an act of survival? Well, I guess you could say it is since the alpha male only does it so that he can show the other males that their completely under his control. However, again, say that this was done by a human being, it doesn't necessarily have to be rape, just an act that shows the other threatening parties that you can control them and have your way without them being able to resist, it would probably be considered evil. Dictators do it all the time.

Why are you being dumb. Animals and humans are not the same. Arainach proposed a VERY vague statements which implied indirectly that they ARE, in fact, very similar.

Quote:

Saddam Hussein was considered "evil" by the US and was therefore given the ultimate punishment, death (barbaric if you ask me, I don't believe in the "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth" kind of thinking, but that's another story).

Blah blah blah more listening to oneself speak. Saddam thrown in for good measure to make a "hard-hitting" point (which it doesn't, but okay)

Quote:

However, I think that "evil" (again, defining evil is hard, but let's say it's an act that is considered wrong by the general public) is a conscious act, and therefore only beings with higher reason power are capable of truly being "evil".

There is no good and evil. It's all in your head. Thats what my point was. The only place good and evil can apply is to humanity. Because humanity made it up to suit it. Just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

People feel the need to satiate their emotional discourses. "I killed one of my own kind. How do I make myself feel better?" While it can be argued that animals have a lessened amount of emotion, it is distinctly not as emotional as human beings - nor are they cognisant of making a "right" or "wrong" decision. Much like a criminal or a child, they can only tell "right" and "wrong" by how their decision hinders or improves their lifestyle - not how it makes them FEEL.

Quote:

But as I stated before, I don't think we can actually define human nature as "evil" or "good". I mean, we could, but it wouldn't be enough to describe the complexness that is a human.

O god, give it a rest. This is another problem with human beings. They think they're so complicated and so diverse.

We're not. Deal with it. It's attitudes like this that will divide us over petty bullshit. The sooner everyone figures out that we're just another boring species with a quirky survival technique, the better.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

I would hope that humans would figure out that in modern day, there isn't really any more "survival of the fittest," unless you consider war a situation wherein it is necessary.

The key words there are "modern day." Look at the exponential increase of technological advancements within the last 2,000, hell even 100 years! These advancements have made survival a much easier task than during the stone age. It took many years of evolution to become such great survivors. Those survivial skills like looking out for one's own best interest or seizing and exercising power may take a bit longer to disappear from human nature. They may begin to disappear as survival isn't quite as difficult given modern technology. In the mean time, our innate will to survive on a primal scale may still influence our actions and emotions and might be considered "evil" depending on your cultural frame of reference.

Originally Posted by Sass

Are you saying that all living creatures are inherently evil?

Would it be more fair to say that most living creatures are impartial survivors?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by MetheGelfling

The key words there are "modern day." Look at the exponential increase of technological advancements within the last 2,000, hell even 100 years! These advancements have made survival a much easier task than during the stone age. It took many years of evolution to become such great survivors. Those survivial skills like looking out for one's own best interest or seizing and exercising power may take a bit longer to disappear from human nature. They may begin to disappear as survival isn't quite as difficult given modern technology. In the mean time, our innate will to survive on a primal scale may still influence our actions and emotions and might be considered "evil" depending on your cultural frame of reference.

This will be the death of humanity. I hope you realize that. Our sloth and our undying need to manipulate the world around us to suit our needs will backfire on all of us.

Quote:

Would it be more fair to say that most living creatures are impartial survivors?

They're not IMPARTIAL, thats for certain. Animals will fight tooth and nail to survive. Animals will throw caution to the wind when trying to survive - something that we humans will resort to in our last dying moments.

Most amazing jew boots

I dunno, I'd like to hope that when our "evil" will to survive diminishes, we would step forward to embrace a new evolutionary need... like getting along with everybody. But maybe that's just me being an optimist. S'matter, you aren't a fan of technological advancements?

Wait a sec, how are animals not impartial? Maybe you misunderstood what I was getting at. I only meant what you just stated; animals are indifferent when in a kill or be killed situation. They'll do anything to survive.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

Okay, maybe you didn't read what I wrote?

"Good" and "evil" are purely human inventions - black and white lines to live by. Do you think animals are "good" and "evil?" Do you think they sit down and make rules for themselves that are distinct and arbitrary. "Thou shalt not kill thyne fellow tiger, for it is evil?" Fuck no. Those motherfuckers do what they need to, in order to live.

Ok, maybe you didn't get my point?

Why do you think I use quotation marks whenever I use the words "good" or "evil"(with reservation for the parts where I was lazy)? Because I was trying to say that these two terms are a matter of popular opinion, more exactly, fabrications of society in order to preserve things we think highly of, "moral", "law" and the such. I thought I made that pretty clear, I guess I was wrong.

Quote:

This is my point, buddy. Animals do what they are naturally supposed to do. A cat is a hunter - it should come as no surprise that the cat plays with it's prey. It's not evil for this - it's being a cat.

And my point being that it's all a matter of how you define "evil". If it's about acting a certain way then all creatures are guilty. Then again, I also stated that I think that committing acts of "evil"(by the definition of popular opinion) is reserved to beings with higher reasoning power (although it did say "reason" power, which I must apologize).

Quote:

There is no good and evil. It's all in your head. Thats what my point was. The only place good and evil can apply is to humanity. Because humanity made it up to suit it. Just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Which was my point, or rather, that only beings with higher reasoning power (humans) are capable of "evil" because we are the only ones able to create the very definition of the word.

Quote:

People feel the need to satiate their emotional discourses. "I killed one of my own kind. How do I make myself feel better?" While it can be argued that animals have a lessened amount of emotion, it is distinctly not as emotional as human beings - nor are they cognisant of making a "right" or "wrong" decision. Much like a criminal or a child, they can only tell "right" and "wrong" by how their decision hinders or improves their lifestyle - not how it makes them FEEL.

I can't argue with that.

Quote:

It's more important (and on topic) here to narrow in on what is the perceived nature of man. And thats easily summed up: He likes to fuck with shit.

Well aren't we the modernist? Defining human nature as "a being who likes to fuck with shit". I both agree and do not agree on this. I DO think that what you said is true, but I also think that it isn't always that simple since we can reflect on what we have done, will do or won't do. Therefore, humans are complex beings. We are a silly, small, existence if compared to the universe in whole, but since we are also a lot more intelligent than most other living beings on this planet we are in fact quite complex. It's all relative. "A creature with enough reasoning power to know that it likes to fuck with shit" would, in my opinion, be a closer definition of a human being, but it still wouldn't be enough.

Quote:

Rape is also common among animals. Gorilla alpha males even rape other males! Is that an act of survival? Well, I guess you could say it is since the alpha male only does it so that he can show the other males that their completely under his control. However, again, say that this was done by a human being, it doesn't necessarily have to be rape, just an act that shows the other threatening parties that you can control them and have your way without them being able to resist, it would probably be considered evil. Dictators do it all the time.

Quote:

Why are you being dumb. Animals and humans are not the same. Arainach proposed a VERY vague statements which implied indirectly that they ARE, in fact, very similar.

I was trying to make analogies to prove my point, that "evil" is a matter of definition and that if you CAN define a human as "evil", then you can ALSO define an animal as the same, not saying that animals can define themselves as "evil". I'm just saying that we act very similarly, without actually acting in the same way and with the same intentions. To be able to act "evil"(based on poplar opinion) you have to know that you are doing. I am very well aware that animals can't do this.

Quote:

Saddam Hussein was considered "evil" by the US and was therefore given the ultimate punishment, death (barbaric if you ask me, I don't believe in the "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth" kind of thinking, but that's another story).

Quote:

Blah blah blah more listening to oneself speak. Saddam thrown in for good measure to make a "hard-hitting" point (which it doesn't, but okay)

I really didn't use Saddam as a means for "good measure to make a "hard-hitting" point". I used him because he was closest at hand. I could have used any old "bad"(based on popular opinion) dictator, like Kim Jong Il.

Quote:

But as I stated before, I don't think we can actually define human nature as "evil" or "good". I mean, we could, but it wouldn't be enough to describe the complexness that is a human.

Quote:

O god, give it a rest. This is another problem with human beings. They think they're so complicated and so diverse.

We're not. Deal with it. It's attitudes like this that will divide us over petty bullshit. The sooner everyone figures out that we're just another boring species with a quirky survival technique, the better.

Again, I beg to differ. I would say that we are far more complex than to only be defined as something black or white, like "good" and "evil". Because that WAS what you where trying to dispute, wasn't it? If not, then your answer isn't relevant.



Now for all modernist type of minds in here (not saying I'm not mostly modernist, I just don't think it's appropriate to define something as something and then settle with that. Especially if it potentially has more layers than that) I have devised a definition, combined with the the two statements Sassiefrassie made, and the one I made:

"The human being is just another boring creature, with a quirky survival technique, that has a higher form of reasoning power(relative)"

Defined, yet not enough to describe the human being, in my opinion. See my point?

EDIT: I just realized I contradicted my own reasoning by defining Sas as a "modernist"(and then defining a human being with one word, which I said you can't, and shouldn't), I'm sure she's more complex than that.

How ya doing, buddy?

Hey, I've got a great idea: Why don't we think of broad, nebulous topics, which have been a subject of debate since recorded history and attempt to come to some meaningful conclusion by cyclical argumentation on an internet forum.

Oh, by the way, I think there needs to be somekind of definition of "human nature" if you're going to even bother arguing about whether it's good, evil, neutral, purple, et cetera.

Because it seems to me that most of you are confusing learned, thoughtful, deliberated action/decision making with instinctual behavior.

FELIPE NO

Human nature is that of co-operative, hunting, tool-using primates with unusually large brains and sexual appetites, that are adapted to live in tribes, take refuge in cliff-like shelters, and form imperfect pair-bonds for the raising of children.

Human nature is not that bad. It's a lot more co-operative and nurturing than most animals, and it's accomplished with consciousness and choice. We are just occasionally forced to think of each other as non-persons, for sanity, or prey, in the case of crime and war. And being so smart, our occasional perversions can get extremely elaborate and malicious.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

All these quotation marks remind me of Dr. Evil's “tractor beam”.

First of all, a dandelion sprouting up on your lawn or your pet cat chasing birds in the yard do not fall in the scope of morality. That's just silly people. Jesus says: Get that shit outta here. Morality is exclusively a human issue. That said, I believe people are born altruistic. We have a natural tendency for moral goodness. It's easy to recognize how society benefits with acts of kindness and generosity. We know the value of promise keeping. For example, if no one had the intention of keeping their promise then no one would bother believing them and this would be self defeating. Goodness is something not taught by our parents but instead is something passed on through evolution. Parents teach survival methods, ie., fire will consume your hand if you hold it in the flames. Parents also teach their children to understand right from wrong but this is different from morality and moral goodness. Children are capable of moral goodness however they lack the higher function of reason and tend to make mistakes because they are not able see the outcome of their actions.

When answering why evil exits or why people do bad things, I feel at least part of the problem lies in the political spectrum of western democracy. Democracy leads society to become selfish. It's emphasis is on the individual. Your rights. Your freedoms. Materialism compounds the problem. We've been programmed with this selfish desire for material goods and live isolated lives. This individualism inevitably leads to conflict because it undermines the shared moral framework that holds society together.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Just something I thought I would toss in the mix... most of us have been brought up by one or more parent, correct? And generally speaking, those parents tend to instill in us some sense of morality. Usually. So we have what our parents say is right and wrong.

However, there are some knee-jerk reactions that most people have which have nothing to do with parents, it seems. Who doesn't flinch, cringe, or get that sick feeling in the pit of your stomach when you see violence, torture, or anything else of the sort for the first time? It's that sort of "Ugh, what the heck, I can't believe that just happened, holy crap, that's not right" subconscious reaction that leads me to believe human nature is inherently good, but harbors desires that might be less than good.

I agree that good and evil are basically human attributes, which religiously can be explained by Adam taking the fruit from the tree of knowledge or what have you, but purely scientifically speaking, they are completely and totally defined by ourselves. But the discussion is on human nature in relation to these set values of good and evil... one could argue that things one perceives as evil are usually perceived as good by the instigator (take Hitler for example) but generally speaking, most humans feel that taking away someone's life is bad.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

When answering why evil exits or why people do bad things, I feel at least part of the problem lies in the political spectrum of western democracy. Democracy leads society to become selfish. It's emphasis is on the individual. Your rights. Your freedoms. Materialism compounds the problem. We've been programmed with this selfish desire for material goods and live isolated lives. This individualism inevitably leads to conflict because it undermines the shared moral framework that holds society together.

So western democracies inspire evil through individualism? I guess things were just hunky dory before all the evil individualists came along. Western democracies do not program citizens with selfish desires for material goods and isolated lives. These ideas are the result of the values of smaller social stuctures. And democracies allow for a multitude of different social value scales. Maximizing one's potential under the rule of law doesn't necessarily undermine a "shared moral framework" as the definition of a "shared moral framework" is extremely diverse within a democracy. Individualism gives citizens the freedom to choose to collectively join together or not. This freedom of choice, however, does not directly inspire "evil" behavior.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I only said democracy was part of the reason which can explain the moral decay of society. I could easily add religion to the fray. How many people have been murdered in the name of God? How many free thinking women were burned during the witch hunt? Evil has been around since the beginning, but then again democracy didn't just pop up last week either. And I still stand quite firm in my belief that democracy contains the seed of it's own destruction because as I said it puts the individual above society. People ultimately see their well being as more important than that of society's which places us in a primeval survival "my life or theirs" state of mind.

Materialism is of course especially dangerous and America was well quick in exploiting its seductive powers. "Lets control the masses by making them believe they need shit they don't really need". This had a very negative side affect to those who were suddenly driven by materialism but didn't have the means of acquiring the material good in question. A current example of the negative impacts of materialism would be the poor sods standing in line on PS3 launch day only to have some crazy fucker point a pistol in their face demanding their “PS3 money”.

There's probably a million and one theories which try to explain why that happened. Maybe my democracy and materialism theory don't work well in that specific case, however, I do believe they help explain the roots of why people go astray and do evil. Religion, of course, is another reason.

Most amazing jew boots

So when kids get held up for their PS3 money, materialism is to blame? Are you kidding? I guess robbery may result from materialism in some roundabout way, but there are several other factors that are more directly related like addiction, poverty, and simple greed.

I disagree with the idea of blaming problems within human nature on democracy and religion. Humans have and always will be just as self seeking as they are now despite their stuctures of government and religious institutions. Throughout history humans have experimented with different forms of government in attempt to find the best method. Democracy may not be the end all beat all answer, but it's certainly has benefits that were not present in previous systems of governing.

In the example of Christianity, many people have been killed in the name of God, but who is reponsible for the deaths of those people? Is it the religion's fault? I think religion here is used as a scapegoat. The basic ideas of Christianity like love God and love your neighbor as yourself weren't reflected in the Crusades. To dismiss any religion based on the actions of some of it's followers is too simplistic. In the same way, it is unfair to judge or dismiss Islam based on the actions of extremists.

"People ultimately see their well being as more important than that of society's which places us in a primeval survival "my life or theirs" state of mind."

Again, I do not think that this is a problem stemming from decmocracy, but rather as a result of millions of years of evolution (or from the fall of man for those who are inclined to a Judeo Christian way of thinking). This is the way humans are, and unfortunately it's difficult to speed up a process of moral evolution. What's strange to think about is the exponential increase in understanding of science and it's application through technology within the last 200 years. Yet, when was the last time we had a major breakthrough to a higher moral understanding?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Materialism does push people to demand of themselves, and others, more than what anyone rightfully needs.

Which basically is the driving force and sole motivation of the oligarchy, thirst for power/control so as to continue their materialistic fervor.

I don't see how you can really argue that it isn't true. Then again, I'm not equating democracy/free-market capitalism to materialism.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Ah, from my perspective, the thirst for power/control is often times purely for the sake of itself. Power and control enable the option to indulge in materialism and other nasty behavior.

FELIPE NO

Human nature, eh? Seems to me that, from what i've gathered skimming over this thread, is that to attempt to apply this good/evil tag to nature is quite impossible. It seems most of you agree. You know, nature being inherently neutral due to the fact it lacks capacity of thought and foresight and, well, everything that pretty much defines us as "human" and "sentient" and all that on the whole.

So,what's the question? What is our nature? I like to believe that we must be something like 50% gray. Right there, flat in the middle of this little dichotomy. That we hold equally the capacity for selfishness and compassion.

This morality thing, this, whatever, good and evil - we are both these things. And we apply them to the decisions and actions we make every little minute of every little day. We adapt to situations, get tugged in one direction sometimes, sometimes in the next.

And when all is said in done, we have this intelligence and memory that allows us to look back at the sum total of our lives and wonder if leans one way or the other and then wonder if it was because of me? or was it just my nature to do so?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

There's certainly no easy answer to this. Philosophers have been debating about morality and goodness since Aristotle. The most important question to ask is, does good even exist? Can you find goodness in the external world or is "good" simply a word that happens to have a meaning attached to it? If we can discover absolute moral truths then at least we have a tool to measure the actions of humans. Otherwise how can anyone truly decide what is to be considered good? Immanuel Kant goes further and says even a virtuous man can perform bad deeds in the absence of a good "will". Morality then comes from a sense of duty. Kant's ethical theory is the one I follow in my private life.

Meth, after thinking about it maybe I should narrow the term democracy down a bit and instead call it the "failed liberal dream". I think that's how Leo Strauss would have referred to it.

Jam it back in, in the dark.