Blessed are the Cynical

Remove all ads!

Ok, interesting topic. I've just come across a book entitled Blessed are the Cynical which deals with the removal of the biblical notion of original sin from American society and it's impacts, and that got me wondering about what you all think. To this effect, I have a few questions:

1.) Do you believe mankind is born inherrantly good and pure, and becomes corrupted by an external evil; is born inherrantly evil and vile, and becomes 'corrupted' by some external good; some combination of the above; or that there is no such thing. Mind you, 'good' and 'evil' here may mean more or less whatever you want, theologically moral or societally beneficial, so it would be nice if you would explain it briefly.

2.) If you believe we are influenced by an external force on this matter, what would that force be? Other individuals? Society as a whole? God? The Devil? Malicious little invisible alien space monkeys?

Please keep this civil and do not attack others for their beliefs, or insist that yours must be right simply because you believe them. I would, however, like to hear supporting evidence and the like for your views.

 

Hmmm...

1.) I believe mankind is born inherrantly good, pure, and friggin' stupid. It is society that shapes their paths towards good or evil. For some of the actions made by mankind (either good or evil), stupidity is often the best description for why they chose a particular cousre of action.

2.) I think that society is the biggest force, with family and friends coming in as a close 2nd, and religion ringing in at #3. However, for some, religion is #1 - dissregarding what society, family, and friends say.

That's all you're getting out of me.

 

I think humans are just animals, and as such we do what animals do.

That being said, a lot of human behaviour is not witnessed in animals, or at least not frequently (ie chimps murder each other, but they dont commit genocide, and dolphins commit rape, but arent pedophiles). So humans arent inherently evil, but we are capable of evil acts just as we are capable of good acts. Its the act that is evil, not the person, although some people are responsible for far more evil than others.

Also, there is no external force - only us and the decisions we make.

 

To even begin to answer the question I think we need to first define what is good and what is evil?

 

1) I'd go for "there is no such thing". Joacqin pointed out that you need a moderately solid definition of "good" and "evil" to answer that but I don't think this is a problem, as many people have such a definition through religion, their own moral or ethical compass, or simply by whatever is the law in the country they live in. Because we ourselves define what's good and what's evil, and then act on either one or the other (or in a grey area in-between), I'd say we're born neither good nor evil but instead totally amoral.

2) As for what influences us to go one way or the other, my previous point sort of leads into external forces being solely responsible for influencing or shaping us. Being agnostic these forces would be both other individuals and society itself (two different entities. Family, religion and so on would fall into either one or the other, depending on the specific situation). However I'm going to sort of contradict myself here and say that the decision to go either way rests with us, so in a way it's not entirely down to external forces. The way we react to and how we incorporate external influences into our own belief system is a major factor as well.

 

1) I don't really like good and evil for describing people. They are way too simplistic. No one is in my opinion evil just because they are evil, there is a reason behind acts we consider evil and it's those reasons rather than the evil that we should concentrate on. Otherwise I think the human is both just an animal and something more than an animal. The less predatory we become in our nature the more human and the more good we become.

2) External forces definently affect us and society is the most clear of those. Circumstances define a lot of what we are, most of us are very bound to social norms and follow a path society lays forward us. Deviations from social norms are discouraged and met with everything from physical punishment to ridicule and social expulsion. Of course in the end I think it's our choice what we make of our lives and we could just ignore the social preassure but most of us don't see the point in doing that and are not willing to pay the price it would require. Now as for God or the Devil or space monkeys or whatever, assuming that they exist I don't think they intervene directly, human is free to do as he/she wishes and held accountable for those afterwards. I don't believe the devil is roaming the world tempting people to commit sin, we are prefectly capable of doing that without his generous aid.

 

1.)I don't believe in good or evil. Such arbitrary labels really aren't usefull. The United States, for example, labels Bin Laden and Al Quaida as evil while casting our nation as noble and good. Bin Laden and his cohorts apply the same label to us and cast themselves as noble and good. In my opinion they are both wrong. No man, no organization, no nation is evil. Likewise, no man, nation, or organization is good.

Now, if we change the question to "is man inherently selfish?" this becomes a different matter entirely. To this question, I would answer that yes, we absolutely are.

 

Interesting, interesting. Let me ask you all some clarifying questions, in that case.

Kitrax:
Is one path (good or evil) easier to follow than the other? And do you consider religions seperate from society in terms of influences?

Proteus:
From your statement, it sounds like you would consider such things as rape and murder to be evil (agian, this doesn not have to be a religiously moral definition). You also seem to suggest that, while humans are animals, we have risen above (or perhaps sunk below) the position of other animals. Is this correct or am I reading into it? If we are 'just animals', how do you explain the many unreasonable, unproductive acts that humans commit? How do you explain serial killers, torturers, etc.? Are there reasonable, natural purposes behind these acts? Assuming that not all of them are mentally ill, that is.

Joacqin:
Please use your own definitions for these terms, but if they vary wildly from the 'norm' please define them to avoid confusion.

Ziad:

Does us defining these terms make us inherrantly amoral, or do our actions with respect to these definitions define our position with respect to them. It's fine to say we make our own frame of reference, but that doesn't mean we have to be in the center of it. Many people who commit crimes do so considering that such acts are evil.

Morgoroth:

So, considering the reasons, motives, and situations, and considering that, given similar reasons, motives, and situations, different people will act differently, can we say that given reason X, act X is an evil act, while act Y is a good one?

Drew:
Does this mean you don't believe any such definition could possibly be reasonable? Sure, Bin Laden and Bush may disagree on what is evil, and I suspect you disagree with both of them, but do you think terms like 'evil' and 'good' are simply smokescreens? What about this 'selfish' you used? Could it be categorized in a larger grouping of negative characteristics you would be comfortable calling 'wrong', or do you believe it is honestly an amoral and secular characteristic?

To all of you, may I ask you to consider human nature where it is best revealed? As Morgoroth pointed out, I believe society is an inherrantly limiting factor to both the development of exceptional good and exceptional evil. It is the nature of society to force everyone within it to conform, thus trying to make the unusually 'good' person more banal and the unusually 'evil' person more caring. This, then, suggests that human nature should best be revealed in those that are less bound by society, or are less aware of their social bonds. It seems to me that this leads us to four groups:

1.) The elderly. They are commonly seen, at least in the US, as having 'done their duty' and most any actions by them are excusable. Old people can be cruel and malicious and we'll just say he's a mean old man, or they can be wonderfully kind and generous and we'll just say she's a nice old lady, maybe a touch senile.

2.) The exceptionally rich. These people are capable of removing themselves from the social bonds to a greater degree than perhaps any of us. Not only that, but they are also capable of fulfilling their desires better and fuller than any of us.

3.) The exceptionally poor, especially the homeless. These people, like the elderly, are generally given excuses for just about anything they may do. They are generally seen as 'outside society'. Additionally, the strain in their lives to simply survive may pull out the nature of humanity under stress.

4.) The very young. These people, I think, are the best indication of the basic nature of humanity. All of the above have already been heavily influenced by outside forces, whatever you may consider them to be, but children have not. They are given a great amount of leeway in society, especially modern society which tends to view them as inherrantly good and innocent, and are generally given excuses for any actions they take. What's more, they tend to be provided for pretty well, so they aren't really 'forced' to do anything. Given all this, I think they are the best group to look at in determining what we really are like. Obviously, there are adjustments to be made due to brain development and the like.

Any comments, criticisms, other ideas?

 

Yes, I do believe that terms like good and evil are simply smokescreens. As far as how I classify "wrong", it would be any action that hurts others. In cases where you have to hurt someone, the "wrong" action is the one which causes greater injury.

 

Our actions define our position on the spectrum, of course. I was not suggesting that defining good and evil makes us amoral, or that because we define the references then we fall exactly in the center (what the D&D system defines as "neutral"). I meant that we are born amoral, then define our spectrum, then our actions (or way of life in some cases) place us, and others, on that spectrum. So I may end up as "slightly good" on my spectrum but "slightly evil" on yours, while you may end up as "good" on both mine and yours. All combinations are technically possible.

I would have said "more banal" in both cases, but I get the feeling that society (well, most societies) is more forgiving of extreme good than of extreme evil. This is apparent in laws as well: murder is always unlawful (social, ethical or moral connotation: because it's evil), but there are no countries that I know of where, say, donating to the poor is unlawful.

 

I stick with original sin - errr... you know what I mean. God created us good, we became burdened with disobedience and concupiscence (our lusts and failing nature) and so here we are, good by nature but needing grace to be saved from evil.

 

I will just grab hold of the selfish line and use that. We are in my experience and in my opinion selfish biological machines. Pretty much everything we do we do for our own good whether we are aware of this or not. We banded together in societies for our own long term safety and security. We behave in a way that is approved of by the society for our own good. People who break the rules are either stupid or desperate. If you have spent any time with criminals you would see that their main characterstic is an inability to see further than their own immediate needs. They dont understand that by playing by the rules the generally benefit themselves. Children is the pinnacle of selfishness, their only concern is for their own comfort and do not care one bit about anyone else. They are humanity without socialisation. The main reason we do not go out and do exactly what we want, be it stealing, raping or pillaging is that we consider possible punishments greater than the possible reward. Put a man in a warzone and that restraint is taken away and he will very soon have no problem with gangraping twelve year olds and slicing her father into little pieces before her eyes simple because the man struck while trying to stop the rape. This isnt strange and anyone who is surprised by this kind of behaviour during war is naive to the extreme. The entire goal when training soldiers is to get them to shed off the restraints they have, to make them accept that it is ok to kill other people. If you believe they will then put limits on what they do shows a very innocent view of the world.

All this of course is if you look at things from the broadest possible picture, some are coded harder than others and some even hard enough that they actually are willing to do things that go against their own interest even if it is exceedingly rare. Even though I do not like to use the word as "evil" is usually just put on people who do things that goes against your own interest and the people using it are generally the most or more or less the only "evil" ones out there I am perfectly convinced that we as humans are all "evil" in that our main and most of the time only motivation is our own wellbeing.

To get a bit personal here, I know that I myself have plenty of things I would like to do but dont for the simple reason that whatever benefit I might derive from it would not compare to the possible hurt it could do to myself and anyone who claims they are perfectly "good" are more or less full of crap and the ones starting the bonfires as soon as they get a chance. Know yourself and you can be your own watchman. Paraphrased from Samuel Vimes, wonderful character.

 

Ah, Original Sin. Now there is a topic. William Blake said it best, and no one has improved upon him:

Who stands to gain the most from the uses of Original Sin than the priest himself?

EDIT: I had to edit this post, as I felt I was being more cynical than even the subject himself and who is "blessing the cynical." That may or may not be a bad thing. Was I more of a cynic than the cynic? I guess cynics may be blessed and cynicism is OK as long as it's not directed at our own particular "sacred cows." So, since we are discussing reward and punishment, I will turn to Blake once more:

So much for cynicism....

 

I think you go to far, here. While punishment most assuredly does deter many crimes, fear of punishment is not by any means the only reason for following the law. The reason I've never committed rape is not because I fear punishment. It is because I wouldn't want to be raped myself. I don't steal because doing so would hurt my victim. I don't pillage because doing so would hurt my victim. While there are people who do require such deterrents, such people are rare. If people were really this selfish, humans would never display self-sacrifice. Fathers would never sacrifice their lives for their children, holocaust-surviving professors would never sacrifice their lives for their students, soldiers would never sacrifice their lives for their comrades. Self sacrifice is actually quite common. Hell, even animals often display such self sacrifice. As a species, we are all inherently selfish, yet most of us grow beyond it.

 

First off, I believe that Original Sin happened, but it is only between Adam and Eve and God. We are not accountable for their first sin. We will screw up enough on our own, without having to answer for the sins of our ancestors. That takes it out of the equation for this discussion.

I love that line, and it sums up my thoughs much better than I can express them.

As for the second question, We start out with a spiritual connection to God and the pre-mortal existence, even though our memories are wiped, we can still feel right from wrong, the love of and for our families, and the like. This fades over time, and is replaced by what we learn, first in the home (Parents, siblings, extended family), then to Community (church, school, state or neighbourhood).

Greater capacity of mind, greater opportunity for extremes of behaviour.

Agreed. It's not people that are good or evil, but that which they do that is judged as such.

Evil seems a lot more fun, and makes the path of good seem much harder (like repentance, or sobriety). If you can train yourself to do that which is right, then it becomes almost natural (like declining alcohol or weed when offered, excusing myself from the room when pornography is prominently displayed). It was suggested that the term 'evil' be replaced with 'selfish' for this discussion. That sounds more accurate, as many "sins" come with an immediate gratification.

They have their several decades of experience. There is much to learn from them if they care to share what they know. If you don't like what they've become, look to them as a warning, rather than an example.

Self gratification is so much easier when you can go forth and buy the material things you desitre, and bribe others to go along with you. I would imagine the desire to fulfil your desires and others be damned would be more pressing on a rich man because they can, as opposed to the rest of us who don't have that financial clout.

They may be the ones that most need help, but they are not above such desires. I've heard that some panhandlers make more in a year than many working people. With lower expenses, they are free to do as they please with the meagre funds they receive. This casts aspersions on the ones in more legitimate need. Society needs to look more closely at this segment to determine what they can do to help.

You are neglecting a fifth group: The Mentally challenged or mentally ill. There may be some that can't learn right from wrong, or may see these things incorrectly. To what degree are they accountable for their actions?

Christ extends his hand, we still have to reach out to grab it.

And for centuries, they have handled it in the worst way...

Ideally yes, but how many people actually do? Even some acts of self sacrifice may be for more selfish reasons--like sitting through a movie you don't like hoping for sexual gratification from the woman you went to the show with?

 

Drew, you obviously did not read my post or at least you did not understand it. I probably used the word punishment wrongly because you seemed to think only of prisons and fines. You are even proving my point by yourself, you say you do not rape because you do not want to be raped yourself. In there you have agreed with the principle of what I was trying to say. It is the self interest of society, we dont treat others too badly because we dont want to be treated, it is in our own self interest and I dont know why I am repeating and replying, you didnt reply to my post, you adressed it to me but you dont seem to have read what I wrote.

 

Well, I would say we are both more and less than animals.

You know when you see movies involving hostile aliens, and the humans win, and everyone gets a warm fuzzy feeling of pride that the noble humans won? Looking at what we do to each other, I dont think we should be proud at all. If an alien race came to me asking whether they should initiate contact with our race, I would probably tell them to leave us alone for their own safety.

Yes, some humans are capable of unbelievable compassion and kindness. Unfortunately, our race as a whole is not compassionate or kind - sometimes the opposite. Some members of our race are capable of the most depraved and evil acts (torture etc), while most of the rest of us are apathetic towards fellow humans at best.

 

This is not an example of self sacrifice. Self sacrifice is when you do something against your own self interest for the good of someone else. Risking your life to save your child, jumping on a grenade to save your comrades, sacrificing your dreams to care for a sick relative...these are examples of self sacrifice. Sitting through a chick flick in order to get laid, while commendable, is most assuredly not an act of self sacrifice.

Simmer down, Sugar! I understood your point just fine. I just disagree with it. I only quoted a small portion of your post in order to save space. In it, you assert that The main reason we do not go out and do exactly what we want is that we consider possible punishments greater than the possible reward. I disagree with this on the grounds that risk-reward never comes into the equation for me where theft, murder, arson, or any other social vice is concerned. The reason I don't do these things is that I don't want to hurt other people. Not out of some grand respect for the self interest of society or fear of reprisal, but a simple desire not to hurt other people. Even if murder, theft, or rape were legal and acceptable, I would not commit such acts.

You further assert that a man in a war zone will very soon have no problem with gang raping children and killing their parents for resisting. While an alarming number of soldiers do a great many horrible things during war, it is by no means a majority of them. Even under extraordinary duress, most soldiers do not commit such atrocities.

If you were to apply your template to a small microcosm of society I'd have no problem with your arguments, but I feel that you have painted with too large a brush, here.

 

Again, for some, that seems more automatic, but for most, that's either something they wouldn't think of or simply wouldn't do.

That's actually my point there. Many will do "the right thing", but only if they see something in it for themselves. I see self sacrifice as being more rare these days...

 

Gnarff, if you think sitting through a chick flick is an example of "doing the right thing", you are indeed a truly deplorable human being. Watching chick flicks leads to the creation of more of them! If we (men) continue to attend, rent, or tune in to these modern day incarnations of Dirty Dancing or Ghost, they will continue to produce even more of these abominations! No, my friend, doing the right thing would mean refusing to even attend theaters or watch TV stations that have shown chick flicks. Indeed, we should even refuse to purchase service from cable or satelite providers that carry, or have ever carried, the lifetime channel.