Human Nature Good Or Evil

People of virtue go out of their way to put others first and think about how they can help others and the world around them. Conversely, evil is understood to be morally repugnant behavior or acts which intentionally cause harm to others. Someone who is bad only thinks about themselves and how they can use others to their own benefit. I think that good and evil is inherent in all of us, as humans, and has been within us since the beginning of our existence.

In Man’s Nature Is Good and Man’s Nature Is Evil, Mencius and Hsun Tzu argue about the true meaning of human nature. Mencius believed that humans are inherently good and Hsun Tzu believed that humans are naturally evil. Is it possible humans can be both good and evil? When it comes to whether human nature is good or evil, most people will choose one or the other.

Proctor also admits to elizabeth “ My honesty is broke, Elizabeth; I am no good man.” (Miller 136) In saying this, proctor takes responsibility for what he did, thus proving that he knows his actions are what caused him to be where he is at. In the end proctor says “ let rebecca nurse go like a saint; for me it is fraud” and “it is evil and I do it.”

The word monster does not apply to a creature that is physically intimidating, but it describes the parts of an individual 's personality that allows them to perform purposefully harmful acts on innocents and feel justified. People hold many beliefs that allow them to do terrible things. Prejudice and arrogance, for example, can lead an individual to behave cruelly, even if they treat the people they approve of with respect and kindness. Any concept that puts one person above another in every-day, human worth is monstrous because it allows one person to feel justified in harming another, verbally or physically.

1.3 Is the suffering good? Normally, suffering is considered as bad in the sense that if there is no suffering, the human life be better than the present situation. So suffering in human life, in itself gives a negative connation, because sufferings are evil in itself. And no one really and voluntarily accepts suffering.

All people have the ability to be good and help others, however, it can be very difficult for them to do so. On the surface, people can appear to be very good and civil due to the influence that society has on them. However, when one gets too much freedom away from their societies rules, the surface where one is good and civil goes away leaving only the ugly truth where people are evil. In Lord of the Flies by William Golding, Simon, a representation of Christ, demonstrates the contrast between who people really are and who people should be. Instead, many try to deny their evil nature but it is illuminated that at the root all humans are, in actuality, evil.

Normally humans inflict emotional pain to one another out of pleasure, the feeling of doing the action and simply because it is in our nature. Any human has the capability of commiting appalling actions under the right conditions. In Mark Twain’s “The Lowest Animal” there are many observations he has proven to be correct. In his essay he states the true reality of mankind and how cruelty resides in their human nature.

However, the good will may depend on outside factors to bring about good in a person. Thus, I argue if Kant’s theory were true, it would be very difficult to be a good person as utilitarianism do not allow for acts that go beyond duty. Kant’s argument suggests that good will is the only thing good without qualification. First, Kant begins to distinguish between things that are good without qualification and things that are good only under certain qualified conditions.

Positive in the sense that if a person breaks the rules and law and does well to the society then he is positively sanctioned that is he is rewarded. For instance, if a doctor goes beyond the rules of hi discipline and invents something which will benefit the society then he will be rewarded. Negative deviance means that when a person breaks the laws and harms the society in some way or the other, in which case he negatively sanctioned and punished. For instance, if a person commits rape or sexually harasses someone he is said to be deviant and his actions harm the whole society. Sociologists majorly deal with the negative aspect of ‘deviation’.

The first is that “without freedom there can be no morality. “this is also used as justification for his view that only action can have a moral judgement associated with it. The second is that morality is an innate function of humans “we have it within ourselves”. Jung also heavily implies that the collective unconciuos is a force of good and that styling our actions in accordance with its “wishes” we can find the “right” path. This is not the same as trying to be “normal” which Jung calls “a hell of sterility and hopelessness” but rather the act of conforming to the moral ideal of society.

Questioning if God is not omnipotent, the entire idea of God creating the world can be called into question. Another issue is that if it is said that God is no longer entirely good there is the possibility to say that God has evil or bad intentions, and we should denounce him. Lastly, if one says that evil does not exist, then there is no possible way to separate those people who are considered to be deviants of society. This would mean that those who commit crimes that are evil in nature like murder and rape would be considered to be normal and acceptable.

Response to “On Being an Atheist” Ida Hart PHIL 201 – B30 LUO Dr. David Beck McCloskey’s article, “On Being an Atheist” contains arguments that he uses to explain Atheism, the non-existence of God. Using the claims made by theists and attempting to taint the character and nature of the Christian God, he points out what he calls several defects of the arguments. In his introduction he offers a brief reminder to fellow atheist stating the grounds and the inadequacies of these grounds for theism. He later calls them “proofs”, alleging that the proofs do not provide adequate justification for believing that God exists. This only proves that he is among the many that choose to use the arguments in the wrong way.

For centuries, many famous philosophers debate whether humans are naturally born good or evil, or if they are influenced by their environment and circumstances. People such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes have conflicting points of view on this matter. Early on John Locke believed that all humans were born with a clean mind, and therefore they were naturally good at the time of their birth. Thomas Hobbes disagreed with John Locke and introduced the theory that man is wicked and must be controlled. This extraordinary classic, Lord of the Flies, written by William Golding has presented more of a cynical perspective on human nature.

The foundation of Judeo-Christian beliefs is the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. This belief is held in absolutes, even in the face of evil and tragedy. Those outside of religion see these beliefs as contradicting, arguing that God cannot be all-good and all-powerful while at the same time allowing evil to occur. The “argument from evil”, often used by those who are agnostic or atheist, are a set of premises that have stumped theists in the argument for an all-good and all-powerful God in the presence of evil (Pojman 117). However, the belief of an all-good and all-powerful God can be defended by considering what the meaning of the word “good” is in the first place and how it relates to God’s influence on humanity.

Good vs. evil. Reason vs. instinct. Civilization vs. savagery. These are all examples of internal battles that occur within oneself and which can lead to horrifying consequences. In William Golding’s, Lord of the Flies, a group of young boys find themselves stranded on an island, after a plane crash.