RE: DEBATE: Is Human Nature Good Or Bad?
Morality, and as such good and bad, are a human construct. We define what is good, and naturally we define good as what benefits us. So humans are inherently good because we say so.
If I go kill someone who eats chicken, is that good or bad? Yes, I took the life of 1 human, but how many chickens did I save from being eaten? It's a negative for us, a benefit to chickens.
If I destroy someone's car, is that good or bad? Regardless of your take on climate change, at the very least that car (presuming gas powered) lets out mildly toxic fumes.
Good and bad are all a matter of perspective. No one does something THEY think is truly bad at the time, short of actions compelled by mental instability. As you allude to in your article, it's also circumstantial. Stealing is wrong, unless maybe if it's the only way to feed you and/or your family.
I find more often than not judgement is counter-productive. Stop what could hurt you or others, but maybe hold off when it comes to situations you're not fully knowledgeable of.
Why would stealing be good if its the only way to feed your family? Is rape also good if its the only way to have sex.
No, you don't need sex to live. If it's a matter of life or death, you do what you need to do. You disagree?
Keep in mind, I'm talking about a hypothetical where there is no other option.
You dont need to live to reproduce. You need sex to reproduce. If its a matter or reproducing you do what you need to do.
There is the option to starve. Dont forgot that.
You make some very good points @johnyliltoe ! Thanks for your insights!
Your relativist argument makes the concept of good or bad more subjective than it needs to be. Can't even argue the subject from the premise you're jumping off of.
We can quantify good as an action that alleviates suffering or at the very least doesn't generate more suffering. And we can quantify bad as something that generates suffering.
Everyone agrees that they do not enjoy suffering (I hope) so it's unanimous that suffering is a negative stimulus.
Yes, but many actions serve to alleviate the suffering of one while causing suffering for others. If you look at a serial killer, they're typically acting on an impulse that would cause them suffering if they ignored it. That's what makes good and bad extremely subjective, particularly the bad. No one does something in the interest of spreading only negativity. There is always some sense of alleviation behind it.