[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 88 KB, 400x319, disgusted_girl-11889b6713526c8dfdf878141a2f46ad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6479703 No.6479703 [Reply] [Original]

>I heard that you thought humans are inherently good

>IS that true?

>> No.6479709

Yeah, people do bad things on occasion, but I believe they are good overall. What's wrong with that?

>> No.6479713

Define 'good'

>> No.6479718

yeah its actually been proven, according to leading sciecne text books

>> No.6479726
File: 259 KB, 1024x712, depositphotos_6374619-Two-girls-giggling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6479726

>>6479718
>wait, did you just say that there is an objective standard we can use to measure morality?

>> No.6479727

nop, original sin, humans are fucked

>> No.6479733

>>6479726
looks like somebody hasnt beene reading the latest txet books

>> No.6479762

>>6479703
Heck no, but I don't think humans are inherently bad either.

>> No.6479769
File: 90 KB, 1644x1339, fables.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6479769

>>6479727
>original sin

Heh.

>> No.6479788

>>6479769
nice argument atheist but fables can have morals too and might make an influence on you if you actually bothered to read them

>> No.6479790
File: 55 KB, 294x313, Dear OP.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6479790

>>6479703

>> Implying anything could be judged as being good or bad without humans.

The question doesn't make sense. No matter how you judge the actions of people the question doesn't matter. If you believe people to be good, there's no problem. If you believe people are bad, there's no alternative, but to accept it. If you punish them they will still be inherently evil. If you destroy us the question becomes irrelevant as there is nothing left alive that can value this course of action.

>> No.6479801
File: 2.11 MB, 312x173, ok.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6479801

>>6479788

>> No.6479803

>>6479801
is this some liberal shill or what or is this gif just proving ur a feminist cunt?

>> No.6480880

>>6479703
Human nature differs from person to person, strict ontologies are too restrictive.

>> No.6480907

>>6479703
>2015
>not realizing that "good" and "evil" are social constructs

>> No.6480974

>>6480907
>2015
>accepting moral relativism

>> No.6480980

>>6480974
>2015
>believing in objective morality

>> No.6480982

>>6480974
>>2015
>>not accepting moral relativism

>> No.6480987
File: 31 KB, 680x383, Monogatari-21-4-deishu-kaiki-phone.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6480987

If humans are inherently good, then an act of good is not noteworthy because it is merely a human acting according to its nature

An act of good only has value if humans are inherently evil, is that would make it an actual effort to do good in spite of an inclination to do evil. If humans are inherently good, then the highest goal any human can strive toward is neutrality and status quo.

>> No.6480989

I like to think so, but the fact is that some people are just cunts.

>> No.6480993

>>6479703
No, IT'S not.

>> No.6481012

>there is such a thing as "good" and "evil"

Life isn't a fucking Saturday morning cartoon.

>> No.6481016
File: 127 KB, 539x450, spinoza_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6481016

>>6481012
Child please, you embarrass yourself

>> No.6481128
File: 1.17 MB, 2560x1536, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6481128

>Good

>> No.6481138

>>6481012
Read Kant you uneducated swine.

>> No.6482072

>>6479726
That's the ugliest laughinggirls.jpg I've ever seen

>> No.6482092

>>6479703
haha, well spooked my friend!

>> No.6482690

>>6481138
Read Schopenhauer you uneducated swine

>> No.6482807
File: 43 KB, 320x624, Laughing Girls by Francisco Goya.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6482807

>>6482072

>> No.6484554
File: 12 KB, 185x277, 6a100d204ead0361bb40f973c05ed6d8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6484554

>>6479703
I don't know, but this might go a long way to helping you figure it out.

>> No.6484637

Good is a human concept, so of course we're good by nature. We invented the definition.

>> No.6484735

>>6479703
they are. not in all cases...but in many...psych problems arise from either chemical imbalance or just plain going against our good natural instincts. so they find themselves in existential dilemmas or with anxiety, or even angsty teenage opinions well beyond their teenage years. kind of like you, op.

>> No.6486608

No we are not.There is no such thing as morality in Nature as a whole. We are just following our instincts and try to make our species advance. Morality is a construct that helps in it. It's not natural it's artificial. Morality changes to rapidly to be called natural. It is also not present in any form in any other species.

>> No.6486749

Whether an action is good or bad is determined by it's consequences. Whether an action is moral or immoral should be determined by the motive behind the action.

>> No.6486781

>>6484735

>psych problems arise from either chemical imbalance or just plain going against our good natural instincts

What about the instinct of male infanticide that is found in many competitive mammal species including our close relatives? Considering that humans are not a strictly pair-bonding species it would be reasonable to assume this instinct is still in our DNA to some degree and would have likely been more easily seen in prehistoric societies.

>> No.6486786

>>6479790
This is perhaps the dumbest response I've ever seen.

>> No.6486794

>>6484554

>CS Lewis

It boggles my mind how christians think he is the pinacle of religious intellectual arguments:

>God is all good so he created the best world

>The concept of God is proof that he exists

>God gave mankind free-will, so that's why evil exists.

Entirely circular reasoning, like always.

>> No.6486795

>>6484637
Infinity is a human concept, so of course we're infinite by nature. We invented the definition.

Inhuman is a human concept, so of course we're inhuman by nature. We invented the definition.

Please never communicate again.

>> No.6486820

>>6486795

Neither of those statements are true.

Infinity and inhumanity exist without humans. Good does not.

>> No.6486827

Better question...Are people who browse 4chan inherentiley shitposters?

>> No.6486834

>>6479703
Humans are conditionate to react to other people facial reactions, that's why things like coughing, disgust, laughter, crying and yawning are contagious. Humans also generally feel distressed by seeing a neutral (non-enemy) person being tortured. That's being said, humans are inherently good

>> No.6487132

>>6480987
you think effort is moral value wtf.

>> No.6487141

>>6486834
If that's how you define good.

What the fuck is inherent supposed to mean in this context anyway. How is inherent good different from plain good.

>> No.6487154

>>6486608
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/12/09/empathic-rats-spring-each-other-from-jail/#.VUWRfRfndKp

>> No.6487949

>>6487154
Empathy not equals morality. These are two different things.