Cliché Questions: Good vs Evil

[m42]

Man: Inherently good? Inherently evil? Other? Elaborate.

[John A Roark]

Inherently selfish.
Is that good or bad?

[m42]

Inherently selfish.
Is that good or bad?

I'm certain that depends on you, the context, and the value assigned to "selfish" within that context.

Do you feel inherently selfish is good, evil/bad or neither?

[kerrin]

I'm of the opinion that humans have the capability or potential to do good or bad equally. As to their inherent quality of good or bad... I would rather say, "inherently neutral."

Inherently selfish. Is that good or bad?
Well, seeking 'self' that harms others would be bad. But self-preservation is a good. So I would say potential for both good and bad.

[m42]

I'm of the opinion that humans have the capability or potential to do good or bad equally. As to their inherent quality of good or bad... I would rather say, "inherently neutral."


Well, seeking 'self' that harms others would be bad. But self-preservation is a good. So I would say potential for both good and bad.

So your stance is chaotic neutral? ;)

[John A Roark]

LOL @ the D&D reference...

My take is that we are 50.001% good... we're still here and the numbers are increasing every second. My bottom rung of logic tells me that an inherently bad race is gonna wipe itself out, eventually.

No, I do not think that's ever gonna happen. I imagine we will reach the 11 million world population mark (with some wild political times along the way and not a few wars, besides) before things reach a serious enough tipping point that we Humans get serious about our future OUT THERE (and make no mistake, that's where it is).

Now, so long as we are talking about survival of the human race, it's a good thing; putting any other species above our own good is NOT. In that we have suborned the needs of everything else on Earth to our own, we are inherently good. If the time ever comes, and I do not foresee such a time, when the idiots and the loonies of the world (swine like Algore, Ariana Huffington, the whole PETA mob, etc.) persuade the majority of humans to put their own needs and survival second to the rain forest or the tree frog, well...

the rest of us fight as long as we can until we ensure our own survival or die trying.
(incidentally, the philosophical concept known as 'enlightened self-interest,' when combined with pure Capitalism (being both a political and economic theory), is the only path opposed to death)

[kerrin]

So your stance is chaotic neutral? ;)
Yes. I will 'play' that way also. ;)

[m42]

My take is that we are 50.001% good... we're still here and the numbers are increasing every second. My bottom rung of logic tells me that an inherently bad race is gonna wipe itself out, eventually.

Why 50.001%? Why is that increasing?

[John A Roark]

The percentage I derived from the evidence that even though the amount of world population is climbing (the numbers are increasing), it is happening under the most primitive of philosophies... so, call it 50.001%, since the good must slightly outweigh the bad or we would be losing numers, it seems to me. But no more than that, as we still have socialists and fascists and communists and collectivists still breathing--or I might term 'humanity' as 99% good.

[kerrin]

Very intriguing. I have a few questions because I'm not quite sure I understand you:

So in your view is the measure of goodness of a species its ability to survive in a society?

What is this "most primitive of philosophies" that causes the increase in population?

[John A Roark]

The cause of the misunderstanding is mine, so let me be clear(er):

'Man: Inherently good? Inherently evil?'

Well, clearly we are not 100% either way... all inherently good, and we'd be telepathic, teleportational, well-fed, deliriously happy and disease-free--all 999 sextillion of us spread throughout the known galaxy. All inherently evil, and this rock we live on would be a dead, radioactive, sterile chunk of nothing floating aimlessly with the humans who once inhabited it a distant memory.

We are indeed talking about mankind, so the rules are different than if we were referring to any other species, eh? So far as Man is concerned--my definition being 'a wild animal with the motivation to survive, the reason with which to do so...and, so far, the ability to do so under some dreadful conditions'--then, yes, my view of the measure of our goodness is indeed our ability to survive.

I put it at a percentage since we are neither all one way nor the other. I see mankind's history as having just good enough a record to keep its head above water...so it must be just over 50%, mmmm?
But 'the most primitive of philosophies' does not cause the increase in population; in fact, the opposite--had we a decent philosophy of life, conditions would be far above the level of mere survival, and we might actually make some advances. But most men are easily led, and therefore unpredictable, i.e., DANGEROUS. Thus, we are kept scrambling around on the bottom trying to survive in a world populated by a large minority of those who worship death, a much smaller minority with intelligence and wisdom and passion and goodness and stamina and all the other noble attributes, balanced out by the rest of humanity who are basically zombies who desperately do NOT want to die but have no idea how to live.
The unwashed masses of zombies combined with the shining example of the excellent people have, all through history, outnumbered the uncultured swine in about a 50.001% to 49.999% ratio, thus we keep on surviving and manage to increase our numbers, but that's as far as it goes. If we could either wake the zombies up or extinguish the swine (for there will be no conversions, they are dead-set on worshipping death and actively seeking its triumph, culminating in some sort of mass suicide. Yes, Algore will die of suicide, if he has his choice, smiling at the last, knowing that those foul humans no longer pollute Mother Earth), we might make something of the world, or the worlds we will someday inhabit OUT THERE.
Since, in the roughly 14,000 years of civilization, we haven't achieved that suicide, I conclude that Man is inherently good, but just barely enough so to survive. If we could get any better, maybe we'd start living.

Did that help, or did I just muddy the waters even more?