Naturally evil?

I am currently looking up reasons why or why not humans are natuarally evil, I thought it might make a good discussion thread.                                                                                                         So I'll start off; Humans are good becasue there is no such thing as good and evil until society defines the boundries of what is good and evil. 

Ralph represents good, Jack represents evil and Piggy represents
innocence.

Edited by -ProDigY- - 23 May 2007 at 8:57am

Who gets to define good or evil? Why do you perceive particular actions or behaviours as evil or good? Is it possible you could be wrong, or that other interpretations could be used as well?

1. Identify "Good" and "Evil"
2. Nature Vs. Nurture debate
3. Someone gets the b& hammer
4. ???
5. Profit

choopie911 wrote: Is it possible you could be wrong

No.

True. Meat on Friday. Working on Sunday. Blah blah blah. These all however have ties to Religion, and it is a man-made fantasy to what is defined as good and evil.

Example? Gluttony. Being fat is evil? Nah. You are not evil just because some stupid book labels you so.

However there are some that go above and beyond religion. What we're programmed to believe in. Example? Mugging people! That is just flat out evil. Ganging up on somebody walking home one night to remove him of his posessions is just evil.

Robbing people, raping people, killing somebody in cold blood, etc. These are all essentially evil traits. Unless you can find the instance where shoving a girl into an ally and raping her is God's will and you're doing the community a public service... But I'm going to doubt that.

I disagree. From one extreme evolution perspective, shoving hundreds of ladies into an ally and raping them better increases the chance of successfully passing your genetics to another generation. I think Khan (or some other Asian ruthless fighter) was rumored to have had a significantly high number of children resulting in 16 million + (in this generation) of his genes circulating on this earth. This would be very good from an evolution perspective.

By bringing in God's will your adding religion into the mix.

Taking someone's possessions at night? Survival of the fittest. Murder? Again survival of the fittest. Gang members killing each other for turf are trying to "survive."

Now whether or not someone would do these things is not relevant based on society's or personal definitions of good and evil but I still stand by the notion that it is all a matter of perspective. There is not "predetermined good and evil."

Edited by Hades - 23 May 2007 at 12:51pm

It was Khan.

1 out of 200 peoples are Direct Decedents of Khan.

but remember Khan just procreated... A LOT he didn't rape his wives.

Panda, not sure what children's history book your reading but....

Link

article wrote: Khan's eldest son, Tushi, is reported to have had 40 sons. Documents written during or just after Khan's reign say that after a conquest, looting, pillaging, and rape were the spoils of war for all soldiers, but that Khan got first pick of the beautiful women. His grandson, Kubilai Khan, who established the Yuan Dynasty in China, had 22 legitimate sons, and was reported to have added 30 virgins to his harem each year.

Edited by Hades - 23 May 2007 at 1:05pm

Regardless, the point still stands. The more chances of spreading genetic material to the next generation the better chance of evolutionary survival, which biology would say is "good."