I don't think a person choses good or evil, I think they are influenced, and are bound to a certain pole on the scale. I myself try to be good, but am constantly pulled towards a sadistic, hateful, planing and cruel side.
Basically from what I hear, there is neither good nor bad, only the inner workings of society or our interactions with certain entities (earth, humans, animals, anything that could have any significant role).
Progression of a society, or hindrance of a society (or of other individuals). You can say that progression is good and hindrance is evil, I guess, but that is the near-fundamentals of human interactions.
Usually hindrance is the intent of the progression of the self, while society progression is the more well-thought out intent of the progression of others, with the progressing themselves as well (even in martyrdom, because it is satisfying their own needs, therefore is selfish.)
Most everyone likes the think that if given two choice, one 'good' and one 'bad', they would choose the 'good' one. But ponder this.....
Suppose someone gave you the chance to kill a well known terrorist before he has a chance to go to trial. What would you do? Killing is viewed as wrong, but then again he is a terrorist. Yet...you do not know if he even killed anyone. Perhaps he was only an economic terrorist. Would killing him be right or wrong?
The choice could be made either way. And each side has it's own solid reasonings.
In the end, good and evil are all only notions in our over developed minds. There were times in our history when killing was a part of everyday life.
I would say we are near bad. We cut down trees of rain forest and set some animals to being near extinct... if there are aliens they would see us as primitive to their type.
Suppose someone gave you the chance to kill a well known terrorist before he has a chance to go to trial. What would you do? Killing is viewed as wrong, but then again he is a terrorist. Yet...you do not know if he even killed anyone. Perhaps he was only an economic terrorist. Would killing him be right or wrong? The choice could be made either way. And each side has it's own solid reasonings.
The problem with that one might not be "would you", but "could you"? Many do not have what is needed to kill, not even when it is the only thing to save you.
I'd say humans are selfish by nature... what we do is based on the simple question 'how does this help me?'. Any action will probably be done because someone gets something out of it. Good and/or bad are just names for the consequences of those actions.
I remeber a quote saying that 'all technologies are morally neutral until we apply them'. I think this can be applied to human behaviour. Leaving God out of it I belive that all people are born with the free will to do what they choose and with different personalities. It is completely up to these factors that determines whether a person is 'good' or 'evil' not some sort of innate instinct to be one or the other.
Most everyone likes the think that if given two choice, one 'good' and one 'bad', they would choose the 'good' one. But ponder this.....
Suppose someone gave you the chance to kill a well known terrorist before he has a chance to go to trial. What would you do? Killing is viewed as wrong, but then again he is a terrorist. Yet...you do not know if he even killed anyone. Perhaps he was only an economic terrorist. Would killing him be right or wrong?
The choice could be made either way. And each side has it's own solid reasonings.
In the end, good and evil are all only notions in our over developed minds. There were times in our history when killing was a part of everyday life.
There is a difference between executing and murdering when it comes to law. Killing a innocent, unimportant person with a personal motive, such as spite, vengeance, or just because you wanted to (maniacs) is considered murder. If this person is infamous enough, the government can give out writs so that people can hunt this person and kill him lawfully, considered executing.
An example: There is a reward (writ) for Osama Bin Laden, and it has been out for many years, wanting him dead or alive. You bring him dead, you get the reward, and the same for alive. You kill him, you aren't a murderer, however, there must be 3 things that must happen first:
--the person must be declared an outlaw
--the government must officially issue a warrant for the outlaw
--You must accept the writ for the warrant
If these three things do not happen, you can be pressed charges for murder. If Bin Laden was not declared an outlaw and you kill him...well, in the US you'd be declared a hero, but ties between the US and Afghanistan would plummet even more than it already is. If you kill a person that was declared an outlaw, but the government hasn't issued a warrant, then you'd be pressed charges. If you didn't accept the warrant and you kill him, then you wouldn't be pressed charges, but you wouldn't get the reward. =/
[quote='Drace']Im basically following the idea that human nature does not exist.[/quote] Hmm, that sounds interesting... what would that break down to then? Please explain
