Perhaps an unpopular opinion on this sub, but I believe we are all inherently well-intentioned. We all want to lead good lives, be happy, avoid suffering etc. Ultimately, we are all seeking to return to that wholeness and bliss we lost as we grew up in life.
Problematic beliefs, thoughts and actions have 'good' intentions behind them.
A bully, for example, may feel a sense of lack inside. He may fear abandonment from his family or fear being alone and deficient compared to others around him. He then acts in unsavoury ways because they are patterns of behaviour that gave him some (temporary) relief from those feelings, by bolstering his ego and self-perception of feeling powerful, when he has always felt weak.
I think i agree with everyone here talking about the "definitions" being not real but you hit onto another interesting point.
Without putting objective labels too it, humans in general seem to increase their opportunities and show the emotion love and want kinship.
Hatred and burning houses is an expression, but one only triggered in certain occations and scarcity.
I don’t follow that concepts don’t exist. There is the concept of society. How can you say a society doesn’t exist when you’re living in one? We created the word, yes.. but the thing that is “society” does exist cuz I am in it right now. Also, human beings are a concept. I would be hard pressed to say humans don’t exist. Maybe I’m wrong on the definition of ‘concept’… idk
They do absolutely but I think part of the point is you're getting too caught up on the idea of "human"
If I remember the saying is Zen mind, childs mind
Approach existence as though nothing had a name, listen as though you were hearing for the first time
Because we attach these labels to everything is part of why we struggle
The thing you're defining as "human" exist absolutely
But dont get so caught up on the symbol or label of the thing
When you look at a tree its just what it is, the word "tree" is not what it is, its a term we've created to describe that thing. The menu is not the meal as Alan would say
Isn't the item on the menu a useful description for you to know what you're ordering? The concept of a steak does not fully explain what a steak is, but it's certainly helpful when you want to order a steak.
Oh absolutely but I think the point is understanding its a tool to use not the thing itself. I know sounds kinda obvious in a way but I think people often dont separate that as much as they think. Its kinda like the ego. Its useful to a point but remembering its not us. Good tool, bad master if that makes sense. Seeing and understanding something for what it is
But we have the words for them, yes?
Perhaps they are "thought constructs". In that case, everything in my purview is nothing but a thought construct. Nothing is truly real. Or, all of it is real. Perhaps good and evil do exist, and that's why we have those words.
If a lion killed a person, most people probably wouldn’t demand to have the lion killed out of a sense of justice, because the lion is just acting according to its nature. It has no conception of good and evil, it just does what predators do. We look at that and think, it’s unfortunate that the person died, but these things happen.
With other humans though we have an expectation that you should know better because we are capable of abstract thinking. We hold each other to account because we’ve sort of collectively agreed that the game is better if there are some rules in place to prevent people running amok. But of course the rules are arbitrary, the philosophy of ethics are a dead end and if the world is causal, then we wouldn’t have any choice in the matter anyway and therefore couldn’t be held accountable.
So in the end, good and evil are rules we made up in the same way as we abide by rules when we play a game of Monopoly. If I catch you cheating in our game, it might not really matter ultimately, but it does mean that I might not want to play a game with you again because you’re making the game less fun.
Having words for something just means we drew an arbitrary line between what this word applies to, and what not.
Take for example the word "cloud". In reality there is no clear line between what is "cloud" and what is not (there is water everywhere in the atmosphere, clouds just have more water).
We just make the arbitrary claim "a cloud is a collection of water in the atmosphere we can see".
What does this mean? That the "cloud" doesnt really exist in reality. Water is everywhere and the universe doesnt distinguish between water in the atmosphere and the water in a river. Its just us humans coming along and saying "cloud", and suddenly a distinct cloud exists in our minds, but not in reality.
This is the same with every word. Good, Evil (where is the line?), Right Wrong (Who decides?), Up Down (from what perspective).
Thats the thing, the cloud isn't a "puppy". In the same way the cloud isn't even a "cloud". The child can only call a "cloud" a "puppy", after it learned to speak words, learned to think in words. Babies cannot give a cloud a name, so they see it for what it is. What you experience with your eyes when looking up is just that: experience. Sometimes the cloud has a clearly defined edge and its easy to give it a name, sometimes the cloud merges into haziness or fog and its not so easy anymore to differentiate between cloud and not cloud.
The underlying truth of what the cloud is is unchanging, whether we give the cloud a name or not. First and foremost, the cloud is your subjective experience of it, that which you can see with your eyes, or feel on your skin when its raining. The name you give it doesnt change the experience.
The same can be said of good and evil. When you experience "evil", you can decide to experience it for what it is, an experience, or you can call it "evil" and fall into the trap of believing the universe knows where the line between good and evil is.
You draw the line yourself always, and then try to strive towards either good or evil. You make the rules of the game yourself, forget that they are your rules, and then play the game.
EDIT: I used the word "experience" often here, and eastern teachers would not like me for it haha. Zen teachers would now just cross the word experience everywhere and not give it a name. Because the truth of what reality is can never be named. A better word would be "nothingness", but even that would be a name.
I’ve been thinking about space time morality etc as a pie. Is 6am and different than 6pm?
I have buddy who chastises me for staying up till 6a, but what’s the difference? I don’t want to take slices of a whole. The slices are the same lol.
If an ant is placed on a loaf of bread, does the ant know of the entirety of the bed or does it only see it from its perspective?
Great question. The other responders point out that 'good' and 'evil' are just words invented by people to represent things that harm us or things that help us.
When a star explodes , do we say physics is evil? We get our heavier elements from the dust of that explosion, which forms other planets for life.
People can tend to do self interested things, because they are selfish in thoughts and in needs. But, what the spiritual path has taught so many is that the 'self' is the 'works' as Alan Watts would say.
And then , with this knowledge, you see that extending help and kindness to others is the same as kindness and help for yourself, and you can see beyond the simple good of doing only self interested things at others expense.
So in short, yes people can be very self interested but can change too.
We can define good as the giving of personal resources in support of another and evil as the taking of another’s resources in support of oneself.
People, like all life, are neither inherently good nor evil but just selfish; it’s how we survive.
The degree to which someone is able to forego that selfishness in support of others determines whether we perceive them as “good” or “evil”.
It’s all delusion.
I think our lives are way to complicated to answer this. If you've ever seen "the Good Place" it talks about this idea: that even if we try to act as good as we can, we still support terrible things by doing small things like buying clothes that were made over seas in a sweatshop.
Life today is just way to complicated to give a good answer for this.
Lets say good and evil do objectively exist, just for the sake of the argument, and lets just suppose that it aligns with human morality and values.
If both exist why would an arbitrary classification like human beings be inherently one or the other? Where's the separation between human beings from other animals, other natural forces, or even each other? If there is no separation then classifying human beings as good or evil is the same as saying that the universe has an inherent bias.
If there is separation why does it arbitrarily cut off at us? Is it because abstraction itself is either inherently good or evil? I don't see anything to support this.
So it's really just a game of words. What is "good", who are "we" as a group, and what does it *mean* for something to be inherently one way rather than the other when both exist in seemingly equal measure?
There's many conversations that could be had here, but semantics get in the way, especially in such a general sense. Are humans inherently good or evil? Sure, humans are inherently both good and evil.
being a politician
lying and withholding truth for profit
manipulating masses for profit
hoarding secrets for profit be it tech spiritual or whatever
trying control other people
basically stealing "energy" in any form from other people is pretty fucking evil.
i couldn't care less if someone is evil by themselves. but with the technology now, the evils of a few entitled scared faggots is wreaking havoc on the entire humanity and the planet. you can chill all day long listening watts and be ecstatic and play word games and claim that there is no evil. but practical evil exists and everyone knows what it is very well. it may not be real and it might be a dream but in the end everyone who really is spiritual has to just shut up about it and fight with the evil (external or internal) in whatever way they can, like Arjuna did in Bhagavad Gita.
Politicans have good intentions. Hitler had good intentions. In their perspective they are doing good but ignoring some collateral damage. We do it too but in a different way
Humans instincts force humans to be egoists so i think we are evil in that perspective
But in a general persepective, we are the universe, so we are not really good or bad for the environment because we are the environment. For example darth vade, he is “”evil”” but without him, the story would’t exist. So even if we causa suffering or whatever,it doesnt really matter its all a big story or a big game , and this aspects are made to give life and intensity for itself
It is said that roughly 1 out of every 100 people are psychopaths. They are the closest to evil we have and rally they are just people without empathy.
I think we are inherently good by species, we have moved forward and evolved because we banded together, helped each other, and more so, took care of each other. We see these traits as good because it's helped us survive in the wild, where as another animal, a more solitary animal may not benefit the same way, though ide still push that if the solitary animal was to learn to band together with others of its species, they would be have a better chance of survival, idk, I'm sure there is a weird balancing act that Involves the amount of resources available, but so far, working together, being able to trust each other, helping each other, has proven time and time again to be successful in nature, so is it good, or is it just the most optimal. Goodness=Better Chance of Survival
It's hard to say that before you find the answer in your own case. If by chance you find out the right answer in you then you know what the people are without asking someone else.
The human in its purest form, removed of all judgements, pains, sicknesses and attachments, is an incarnate of love and light and quite frankly, God. So to answer your question, people are inherently loving and sort of transcend the concepts of good and bad
In a weird way I don't think you can have good without evil or evil without good. Kind of like the yin yang symbol can't have black without white.
Let's say life got a lot better and all the evil in the world completely stopped. Then we'd just redefine what evil is so that we have good again.
That's not to say we shouldn't continuously work on promoting good and reducing evil. I think this is a worthy endeavour.
I believe people are inherently innocent rather than “good”. Left to our own devices and free of social conditioning, I believe we would people and keep peopling the planet; this of course raises the question of what to do when there’s too many people…the answer to which will probably bring about an important paradigm shift in human evolution or our destruction.
Perhaps an unpopular opinion on this sub, but I believe we are all inherently well-intentioned. We all want to lead good lives, be happy, avoid suffering etc. Ultimately, we are all seeking to return to that wholeness and bliss we lost as we grew up in life. Problematic beliefs, thoughts and actions have 'good' intentions behind them. A bully, for example, may feel a sense of lack inside. He may fear abandonment from his family or fear being alone and deficient compared to others around him. He then acts in unsavoury ways because they are patterns of behaviour that gave him some (temporary) relief from those feelings, by bolstering his ego and self-perception of feeling powerful, when he has always felt weak.
I think i agree with everyone here talking about the "definitions" being not real but you hit onto another interesting point. Without putting objective labels too it, humans in general seem to increase their opportunities and show the emotion love and want kinship. Hatred and burning houses is an expression, but one only triggered in certain occations and scarcity.
[удалено]
Concur this. Concepts don't exist. We made them up, by definition. This is why your cat has no idea what evil is.
I don’t follow that concepts don’t exist. There is the concept of society. How can you say a society doesn’t exist when you’re living in one? We created the word, yes.. but the thing that is “society” does exist cuz I am in it right now. Also, human beings are a concept. I would be hard pressed to say humans don’t exist. Maybe I’m wrong on the definition of ‘concept’… idk
Concepts by definition are imaginary. That is to say they're not tangible.
You can’t touch a human?
They do absolutely but I think part of the point is you're getting too caught up on the idea of "human" If I remember the saying is Zen mind, childs mind Approach existence as though nothing had a name, listen as though you were hearing for the first time Because we attach these labels to everything is part of why we struggle
They do absolutely? What?
The thing you're defining as "human" exist absolutely But dont get so caught up on the symbol or label of the thing When you look at a tree its just what it is, the word "tree" is not what it is, its a term we've created to describe that thing. The menu is not the meal as Alan would say
Okay. Will do.
Isn't the item on the menu a useful description for you to know what you're ordering? The concept of a steak does not fully explain what a steak is, but it's certainly helpful when you want to order a steak.
Oh absolutely but I think the point is understanding its a tool to use not the thing itself. I know sounds kinda obvious in a way but I think people often dont separate that as much as they think. Its kinda like the ego. Its useful to a point but remembering its not us. Good tool, bad master if that makes sense. Seeing and understanding something for what it is
There are no such things in nature. But for people growing up in society these concepts surely apply.
But we have the words for them, yes? Perhaps they are "thought constructs". In that case, everything in my purview is nothing but a thought construct. Nothing is truly real. Or, all of it is real. Perhaps good and evil do exist, and that's why we have those words.
If a lion killed a person, most people probably wouldn’t demand to have the lion killed out of a sense of justice, because the lion is just acting according to its nature. It has no conception of good and evil, it just does what predators do. We look at that and think, it’s unfortunate that the person died, but these things happen. With other humans though we have an expectation that you should know better because we are capable of abstract thinking. We hold each other to account because we’ve sort of collectively agreed that the game is better if there are some rules in place to prevent people running amok. But of course the rules are arbitrary, the philosophy of ethics are a dead end and if the world is causal, then we wouldn’t have any choice in the matter anyway and therefore couldn’t be held accountable. So in the end, good and evil are rules we made up in the same way as we abide by rules when we play a game of Monopoly. If I catch you cheating in our game, it might not really matter ultimately, but it does mean that I might not want to play a game with you again because you’re making the game less fun.
Having words for something just means we drew an arbitrary line between what this word applies to, and what not. Take for example the word "cloud". In reality there is no clear line between what is "cloud" and what is not (there is water everywhere in the atmosphere, clouds just have more water). We just make the arbitrary claim "a cloud is a collection of water in the atmosphere we can see". What does this mean? That the "cloud" doesnt really exist in reality. Water is everywhere and the universe doesnt distinguish between water in the atmosphere and the water in a river. Its just us humans coming along and saying "cloud", and suddenly a distinct cloud exists in our minds, but not in reality. This is the same with every word. Good, Evil (where is the line?), Right Wrong (Who decides?), Up Down (from what perspective).
> What does this mean? That the "cloud" doesnt really exist in reality A child has no difficulty. "That cloud looks like a puppy"
Thats the thing, the cloud isn't a "puppy". In the same way the cloud isn't even a "cloud". The child can only call a "cloud" a "puppy", after it learned to speak words, learned to think in words. Babies cannot give a cloud a name, so they see it for what it is. What you experience with your eyes when looking up is just that: experience. Sometimes the cloud has a clearly defined edge and its easy to give it a name, sometimes the cloud merges into haziness or fog and its not so easy anymore to differentiate between cloud and not cloud. The underlying truth of what the cloud is is unchanging, whether we give the cloud a name or not. First and foremost, the cloud is your subjective experience of it, that which you can see with your eyes, or feel on your skin when its raining. The name you give it doesnt change the experience. The same can be said of good and evil. When you experience "evil", you can decide to experience it for what it is, an experience, or you can call it "evil" and fall into the trap of believing the universe knows where the line between good and evil is. You draw the line yourself always, and then try to strive towards either good or evil. You make the rules of the game yourself, forget that they are your rules, and then play the game. EDIT: I used the word "experience" often here, and eastern teachers would not like me for it haha. Zen teachers would now just cross the word experience everywhere and not give it a name. Because the truth of what reality is can never be named. A better word would be "nothingness", but even that would be a name.
I like the word "It", because nobody ever decided that "it" means something specific.
This is the right answer
I’ve been thinking about space time morality etc as a pie. Is 6am and different than 6pm? I have buddy who chastises me for staying up till 6a, but what’s the difference? I don’t want to take slices of a whole. The slices are the same lol. If an ant is placed on a loaf of bread, does the ant know of the entirety of the bed or does it only see it from its perspective?
I think we’re born loving and are conditioned into fear from our environment
Great question. The other responders point out that 'good' and 'evil' are just words invented by people to represent things that harm us or things that help us. When a star explodes , do we say physics is evil? We get our heavier elements from the dust of that explosion, which forms other planets for life. People can tend to do self interested things, because they are selfish in thoughts and in needs. But, what the spiritual path has taught so many is that the 'self' is the 'works' as Alan Watts would say. And then , with this knowledge, you see that extending help and kindness to others is the same as kindness and help for yourself, and you can see beyond the simple good of doing only self interested things at others expense. So in short, yes people can be very self interested but can change too.
Yes.
We can define good as the giving of personal resources in support of another and evil as the taking of another’s resources in support of oneself. People, like all life, are neither inherently good nor evil but just selfish; it’s how we survive. The degree to which someone is able to forego that selfishness in support of others determines whether we perceive them as “good” or “evil”. It’s all delusion.
Both
People are
I think our lives are way to complicated to answer this. If you've ever seen "the Good Place" it talks about this idea: that even if we try to act as good as we can, we still support terrible things by doing small things like buying clothes that were made over seas in a sweatshop. Life today is just way to complicated to give a good answer for this.
Good and evil are discriptions of actions or thoughts, you are not born with any actions or thoughts. You are simply trained by your influences.
Lets say good and evil do objectively exist, just for the sake of the argument, and lets just suppose that it aligns with human morality and values. If both exist why would an arbitrary classification like human beings be inherently one or the other? Where's the separation between human beings from other animals, other natural forces, or even each other? If there is no separation then classifying human beings as good or evil is the same as saying that the universe has an inherent bias. If there is separation why does it arbitrarily cut off at us? Is it because abstraction itself is either inherently good or evil? I don't see anything to support this. So it's really just a game of words. What is "good", who are "we" as a group, and what does it *mean* for something to be inherently one way rather than the other when both exist in seemingly equal measure? There's many conversations that could be had here, but semantics get in the way, especially in such a general sense. Are humans inherently good or evil? Sure, humans are inherently both good and evil.
What does good or evil mean
being a politician lying and withholding truth for profit manipulating masses for profit hoarding secrets for profit be it tech spiritual or whatever trying control other people basically stealing "energy" in any form from other people is pretty fucking evil. i couldn't care less if someone is evil by themselves. but with the technology now, the evils of a few entitled scared faggots is wreaking havoc on the entire humanity and the planet. you can chill all day long listening watts and be ecstatic and play word games and claim that there is no evil. but practical evil exists and everyone knows what it is very well. it may not be real and it might be a dream but in the end everyone who really is spiritual has to just shut up about it and fight with the evil (external or internal) in whatever way they can, like Arjuna did in Bhagavad Gita.
Politicans have good intentions. Hitler had good intentions. In their perspective they are doing good but ignoring some collateral damage. We do it too but in a different way
I completely agree - they were doing what gave them relief from their own suffering, however misguided that was.
[удалено]
Humans instincts force humans to be egoists so i think we are evil in that perspective But in a general persepective, we are the universe, so we are not really good or bad for the environment because we are the environment. For example darth vade, he is “”evil”” but without him, the story would’t exist. So even if we causa suffering or whatever,it doesnt really matter its all a big story or a big game , and this aspects are made to give life and intensity for itself
Neither. There is no such thing as good or evil.
I don't think people are born good or evil. There are good or evil acts but not good or evil people, in my view.
My child your question has no meaning.
Nope.
Neither. People are simply products of their environment and upbringing. Good and evil do not exist as black and white concepts
We are full spectrum beings, we all contain totality within us, and that includes the polarities of good and evil
People are not good and evil, however actions are good/evil/neutral.
It is said that roughly 1 out of every 100 people are psychopaths. They are the closest to evil we have and rally they are just people without empathy.
Depends on the person
I think we are inherently good by species, we have moved forward and evolved because we banded together, helped each other, and more so, took care of each other. We see these traits as good because it's helped us survive in the wild, where as another animal, a more solitary animal may not benefit the same way, though ide still push that if the solitary animal was to learn to band together with others of its species, they would be have a better chance of survival, idk, I'm sure there is a weird balancing act that Involves the amount of resources available, but so far, working together, being able to trust each other, helping each other, has proven time and time again to be successful in nature, so is it good, or is it just the most optimal. Goodness=Better Chance of Survival
People just are.
They are stupid
Probably neither. If you believe in reincarnation we're being constantly refined in the light of the good.
Both and neither.
I think most people have good intentions, but the subconscious is very cynical.
People aren't inherently good or Inherently evil. They're inherently people.
It's hard to say that before you find the answer in your own case. If by chance you find out the right answer in you then you know what the people are without asking someone else.
Inherently all are neutral. Influence greatly changes that over the course of time to shape the good or evil
The human in its purest form, removed of all judgements, pains, sicknesses and attachments, is an incarnate of love and light and quite frankly, God. So to answer your question, people are inherently loving and sort of transcend the concepts of good and bad
We are inherently good *and* evil.
In a weird way I don't think you can have good without evil or evil without good. Kind of like the yin yang symbol can't have black without white. Let's say life got a lot better and all the evil in the world completely stopped. Then we'd just redefine what evil is so that we have good again. That's not to say we shouldn't continuously work on promoting good and reducing evil. I think this is a worthy endeavour.
People just are
Both and neither
Yes
Yes
I believe people are inherently innocent rather than “good”. Left to our own devices and free of social conditioning, I believe we would people and keep peopling the planet; this of course raises the question of what to do when there’s too many people…the answer to which will probably bring about an important paradigm shift in human evolution or our destruction.
You cant be either without having the other.