It depends mostly on the moral values of the judge. For my part the answer would be no, because I have not ever recognized evil only bad and good values as they pertain to me and society.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are We Born Into Depravity?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
I concur.
Quite often it is the guidance that makes people evil. The most obvious examples are consumerism, militarism and demographic inconsequence, but there are many others.
We are born unaware of our ethical duties, mainly because they can't exist without the awareness of our impact on the wider world beyond our own personal conveniences. Ethics is an emergent ability that comes from the meeting of reason with empathy, and empathy requires some understanding of needs and suffering of others.
So no. We are born needy and we soon become beings of conformity to the social environment that we come to believe we need.
Whether that amounts to a tendency to commit evil is not a function of human nature, but rather of how ethically healthy our culture (starting with immediate family) happens to be.
I agree culture has an impact but also see genetics and experience as important.
Do you think some cultures are more positive than others?
IOW, is there a universal good that all societies should seek or should contemporary culture dictate what is good and what is bad?
May you remind me of how genetics figure into it?
I'm fascinated with all the "I believe" answers, but there is a better answer based on science. Humans are a social species of animal, and social species are regarded as highly interactive with members of their same species and whose psychological well-being is associated with social interactions. These social interactions require members to have a level of cooperation and altruism. You can observe this in very young children, who notice unfairness (are "inequity averse") by the age of 3. When this is encouraged, children tend to grow up more emotionally healthy.
If inequity aversion is discouraged, however, this can lead to a later life of anti-social behaviour.
More importantly, however, humans -- unlike some other social species -- can default, or act independently of fairness concerns or altruism. A beloved dog, for instance, will often fight to the death to protect its pups or its owners. Ants and bees will die protecting the colony or hive. Humans, through the use of reason independent of instinct, have little difficulty defaulting.
When humans cooperate, we accomplish great things -- we can build entire cities. This is true for termites, building enormous, air-conditioned nests for the entire colony, or for cooperative wolves laying a trap for prey. But humans do not always cooperate. One of the reasons for this is the very flexibility of our cooperation. The social insects (bees, ants, termites) are generally very closely related. The workers in an ant colony, for example, are all the offspring of a single queen. This, of course, helps the queen's genes to get passed along to new generations, so the evolution of this sort of cooperation is easy to understand.
While humans also tend to live in family groups, and are highly cooperative within them, we have evolved the flexibility to cooperate among other, more distantly related, or even unrelated. Humans have scaled up cooperation from hyper-local, small-scale family units to large-scale societies through devising effective institutions and norms to incentivize people to cooperate when they might otherwise be tempted to cheat or to “free ride.” For example, institutionalized forms of punishment, like the police, help to coordinate a more cooperative equilibrium.
We are also unlike other species in that we’re very concerned with how we appear to others. We often behave more cooperatively when we believe that we might be observed and when our reputation is at stake. Just look at the real world, in which many contemporary foraging societies, where individuals hunt for meat that will be brought back to the camp and shared with everybody. And, surprisingly, it’s often the most generous hunters that occupy a central social position and are able to leverage social capital themselves if they ever fall into a time of need. It's easy to see the long-term benefit, isn't it?
Now, look at the human reactions to our most recent pandemic, or to the threat of climate change. Our response to the pandemic so far has been rather parochial and piecemeal, as can be seen in how vaccines have been distributed around the world. We are really interdependent, and we’re not going to get out of the pandemic until we’re all out of the pandemic. But this doesn’t seem to be the thinking of various governments around the world. Although we are a social species, and interdependent, we humans have also evolved the capacity for independent thought and action.
I rather think that this is because independent thought and action can help to pass on our own genes. As noted, ants and bees can't do that -- their genes are common throughout the colony or hive. But human social cooperation spans gene pools, which I think tends to weaken cooperation imperative. And if that goes too far, you wind up at some very selfish, and often very bad, behaviours.
If inequity aversion is discouraged, however, this can lead to a later life of anti-social behaviour.
More importantly, however, humans -- unlike some other social species -- can default, or act independently of fairness concerns or altruism. A beloved dog, for instance, will often fight to the death to protect its pups or its owners. Ants and bees will die protecting the colony or hive. Humans, through the use of reason independent of instinct, have little difficulty defaulting.
When humans cooperate, we accomplish great things -- we can build entire cities. This is true for termites, building enormous, air-conditioned nests for the entire colony, or for cooperative wolves laying a trap for prey. But humans do not always cooperate. One of the reasons for this is the very flexibility of our cooperation. The social insects (bees, ants, termites) are generally very closely related. The workers in an ant colony, for example, are all the offspring of a single queen. This, of course, helps the queen's genes to get passed along to new generations, so the evolution of this sort of cooperation is easy to understand.
While humans also tend to live in family groups, and are highly cooperative within them, we have evolved the flexibility to cooperate among other, more distantly related, or even unrelated. Humans have scaled up cooperation from hyper-local, small-scale family units to large-scale societies through devising effective institutions and norms to incentivize people to cooperate when they might otherwise be tempted to cheat or to “free ride.” For example, institutionalized forms of punishment, like the police, help to coordinate a more cooperative equilibrium.
We are also unlike other species in that we’re very concerned with how we appear to others. We often behave more cooperatively when we believe that we might be observed and when our reputation is at stake. Just look at the real world, in which many contemporary foraging societies, where individuals hunt for meat that will be brought back to the camp and shared with everybody. And, surprisingly, it’s often the most generous hunters that occupy a central social position and are able to leverage social capital themselves if they ever fall into a time of need. It's easy to see the long-term benefit, isn't it?
Now, look at the human reactions to our most recent pandemic, or to the threat of climate change. Our response to the pandemic so far has been rather parochial and piecemeal, as can be seen in how vaccines have been distributed around the world. We are really interdependent, and we’re not going to get out of the pandemic until we’re all out of the pandemic. But this doesn’t seem to be the thinking of various governments around the world. Although we are a social species, and interdependent, we humans have also evolved the capacity for independent thought and action.
I rather think that this is because independent thought and action can help to pass on our own genes. As noted, ants and bees can't do that -- their genes are common throughout the colony or hive. But human social cooperation spans gene pools, which I think tends to weaken cooperation imperative. And if that goes too far, you wind up at some very selfish, and often very bad, behaviours.
☆Dreamwind☆
Active Member
I don't believe in sin. I believe in unethical behavior. If you're harming or killing another creature out of maliciousness, to exploit them, for pleasure, for control, then they're the sick ones.
If you kill other creatures for food, survival, accidentally and defense, I don't see it in a bad way. We also can't go through life without harming something, whether it be through words in a fit of temper, breaking hearts, because we stepped on bugs unknowingly, or pulling up weeds.
If you're enjoying your life with sex, food, chemical substances, material goods, media, and cash it's not sinful. It can become a problem, but that has more to do with health.
The people who scream loudest about sin, depravity, and wickedness are always the most unethical, abusive, cruel and depraved of all when given a chance to harm others. Screw those people! I wish they'd take a look in the mirror and see themselves for the monsters they truly are.
If you kill other creatures for food, survival, accidentally and defense, I don't see it in a bad way. We also can't go through life without harming something, whether it be through words in a fit of temper, breaking hearts, because we stepped on bugs unknowingly, or pulling up weeds.
If you're enjoying your life with sex, food, chemical substances, material goods, media, and cash it's not sinful. It can become a problem, but that has more to do with health.
The people who scream loudest about sin, depravity, and wickedness are always the most unethical, abusive, cruel and depraved of all when given a chance to harm others. Screw those people! I wish they'd take a look in the mirror and see themselves for the monsters they truly are.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe a person carries his evil tendencies from past lives. This tends to vary from person to person.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Because of the doctrine of original sin and the union of church and state. The doctrine is based on Paul's implied misrepresentation of David as a liar.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I have walked out on depravity at the movie theatre.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wow! I don't go to those sorts of movies.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
No. Amd it's one of the reasons I consider Christianity inappropriate and unsuitable for children as they (no one, really) don't need torn down in such a disgusting way and told they are inherently bad and will continually do bad. Myself, it's also why I dobat times emohasis Christianity/Jehovah/Jesus took away my ability to see myself as a good person.
It simply isn't good or healthy to believe, and it's rightfully considered a misanthropic worldview.
If evil is regarded as the extreme end of the behavioral spectrum I would say mostly not, given that we do seem to exhibit spectrums (and often bell-shaped) as to all sorts of things, and hence most will be more neutral as to good and bad behaviour with few being complete saints or complete sinners. We do have a tendency as to self-interest and/or fear of others however and hence many perhaps tend to surround themselves with thick walls (wealth perhaps) so as to avoid contact with others.
And, as others have mentioned, our actions and behaviours will more likely come from our dispositions (genetic inheritance being one aspect), our early environment and experiences, and possibly all education we get or don't get - with some bad luck perhaps thrown in.
The numbers of combatants in wars who abuse/rape civilians (Russians in WWII) or those who join in gang-rapes opportunistically perhaps does say something as to circumstances often dictating behaviour though - given there are not so many brave people around like the one who tried to put a stop to the Mai Lai massacre during the Vietnam war.
Last edited:
Babies are born with rudimentary "operating system" which comes built in with personality traits. Some are more extroverted, some introverted. Some with a happier nature. Some with a more positive or negative outlook.
This by itself is not a total answer but I think it acts like a butterfly effect. One child will naturally see an incident in a positive light and make choices as a result of their positive view which will lead to other circumstances which encourage their continued positive outlook. The same for someone who naturally has a more negative view. So two kids undergoing the same event will choose completely different paths because of personality traits they were born with.
I think the interactions between genetics and environment becomes very complex so you can not point to any one trait or event as being the cause of the resultant personality.
While we don't choose the traits we are born with, and we may later in life have some choice over the events but even then, the life that happens is not usually what we expect. I believe any control over the personality we possess is very limited.
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, I believe we were born good, not evil, but we have two natures so we can choose to follow our lower material nature or our higher spiritual nature.
“In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man’s Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.” Paris Talks, p. 60
THE TWO NATURES IN MAN
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I think we have a dual natural. I believe we have a yetzer hara aka an inclination to evil, which is our animal instincts. And we also have a yetzer hatov, or inclination to good, which is our conscience.
Most people are familiar with the story of the two wolves. The Cherokee grandfather says to his grandson, We all have two wolves within us, a good wolf and a bad wolf, and they fight each other. The grandson says, "Which will win?" And the grandfather says, "The one you feed."
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Personalities are complicated things that are due to many factors, genetics included. Some people are simply naturally more empathic and have no wish to hurt others. And then there are psychopaths, who lack empathy and conscience, and who end up hurting the people they come into contact with. A psychopath does not choose to be a psychopath -- their brain simply isn't structured the same way. They do not feel fear or pain the same way a normal person does. Psychopathy tends to run in families. Recent genetic research suggests modest to high heritability of psychopathic traits.
In my view of Life yes I judge some cultures superior to others but this is because of my education, societal structure and experiences. It is also true that the people that live in those cultures see their own life as morally superior to mine.
No, I do not believe in a universal good.