jokersarewild Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 We are having this debate in my Social Studies class and I was wondering what you guys think. Oh, and if you can, use references to Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Joques(sp) Rousseau, Something or other Montesque(sp), and John Locke. We are basing our argument on this. Quote RoyalOrleans is my real dad!
phreakwars Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 You mean your looking for a member who will write the paper for you... CHEATER !! Study on your own and quit playing Warcraft. . . Quote https://www.facebook.com/phreakwars
TheJenn88 Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 We are having this debate in my Social Studies class and I was wondering what you guys think. Oh, and if you can, use references to Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Joques(sp) Rousseau, Something or other Montesque(sp), and John Locke. We are basing our argument on this. ME. TOO!! Except it's in politics class today. And.. faints We just had three presentations today on Hobbes, Jean-Jaques Roussea, and Locke!! Whee. Of course there was Hobbes, who believed that everyone was innately evil with selfish intentions and would do what they could to better themselves. And he believed that without a guiding power (and others to moderate that guiding power), people would be reduced to their natural carnal/animal state. Which is why he's anti-democracy. Locke is the opposite. He's the antithesis of everything that Hobbes stands for. He valued people's right and protection of property, liberty, and life. He didn't necessarily believe that people were born good, but that they were born blank and equal. And the presentation on Rousseau was so bad that I can't remember anything :\ As for my opinion - there is NO way to know if someone is born evil, good, equal, or blank. I'd have to say I mostly agree with Locke in terms of good or evil at birth. However, I think everyone has instinct bread into them - which some people classify that, if uncontrolled, is evil. ie. sex, desire to live, selfish, food, shelter, kill or be killed, etc. And since one can only loosely define good and evil, how are we to even argue or judge? The agreed upon evil is basically, "going against societal standards" - ie. killing someone. I don't think that there is an absolute good or evil, so no one can be born that way. Quote
TheJenn88 Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 You mean your looking for a member who will write the paper for you... CHEATER !! Study on your own and quit playing Warcraft. . . oops. Um. Locke hated religion..and..and, hobbes loved it! cough Quote
eisanbt Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 Accually my dear the only things that are 'natural' in human behaviour is the want to eat, sleep and have sex, and thats it. This coming form my roomate who is a psyc majour. Quote http://www.boohbah.com/zone.html "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards" -Lewis Carroll
TheJenn88 Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 Accually my dear the only things that are 'natural' in human behaviour is the want to eat, sleep and have sex, and thats it. This coming form my roomate who is a psyc majour. -shrugs- whatever. less to worry about Quote
tizz Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 Another natural of both human and many animal behaviours is seeking out comfort and security. A child or monkey depreived of living contact will in most cases give up food for something of comfort (It is also necesary to have human or similar species contact for comunication and language and socail behaviour) Man I wish I hadn't slept so much in philosophy (I learned not to take a clss after 9:30 pm LOL) I might be able to help you out a litle bit more if you give some example of what you are going for here Quote "An intelligence that is not humane is the most dangerous thing in the world" Ashley Montague "No one should have to walk alone" Phuong Du "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" Ghandi "If I were asked to define an American in a single phrase, I would say 'An American is a person who has the right to be different' and I think that right is growing" William Manchester
RoyalOrleans Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 Another natural of both human and many animal behaviours is seeking out comfort and security. A child or monkey depreived of living contact will in most cases give up food for something of comfort (It is also necesary to have human or similar species contact for comunication and language and socail behaviour) Man I wish I hadn't slept so much in philosophy (I learned not to take a clss after 9:30 pm LOL) I might be able to help you out a litle bit more if you give some example of what you are going for here We also wish you hadn't slept so much in English Grammar and Basic Spelling, tizz. Quote To be the Man, you've got to beat the Man. - Ric Flair Everybody knows I'm known for dropping science.
jokersarewild Posted October 5, 2005 Author Posted October 5, 2005 ME. TOO!! Except it's in politics class today. And.. faints We just had three presentations today on Hobbes, Jean-Jaques Roussea, and Locke!! Whee. Of course there was Hobbes, who believed that everyone was innately evil with selfish intentions and would do what they could to better themselves. And he believed that without a guiding power (and others to moderate that guiding power), people would be reduced to their natural carnal/animal state. Which is why he's anti-democracy. Locke is the opposite. He's the antithesis of everything that Hobbes stands for. He valued people's right and protection of property, liberty, and life. He didn't necessarily believe that people were born good, but that they were born blank and equal. And the presentation on Rousseau was so bad that I can't remember anything :\ As for my opinion - there is NO way to know if someone is born evil, good, equal, or blank. I'd have to say I mostly agree with Locke in terms of good or evil at birth. However, I think everyone has instinct bread into them - which some people classify that, if uncontrolled, is evil. ie. sex, desire to live, selfish, food, shelter, kill or be killed, etc. And since one can only loosely define good and evil, how are we to even argue or judge? The agreed upon evil is basically, "going against societal standards" - ie. killing someone. I don't think that there is an absolute good or evil, so no one can be born that way. I was talking about this with a friend of mine (most of you know him as AITUK) about how we were good in society, but when we were separated from society i.e. Hurricane Katrina, you see that we become savages bent on survival, no matter the means. From this, we actually attained that man was inherently evil, but society made rules that made him leave his natural instincts behind. Quote RoyalOrleans is my real dad!
tizz Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 We also wish you hadn't slept so much in English Grammar and Basic Spelling, tizz. What's funny is, in real life I have always been the grammar Nazi. NO ONE wanted me checking their papers LOL I can even catch other people's spelling errors but when I go to spell it myself I suck at it (only in writing) It's always been that way. (I was the straight A kid until high school LOL) Quote "An intelligence that is not humane is the most dangerous thing in the world" Ashley Montague "No one should have to walk alone" Phuong Du "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" Ghandi "If I were asked to define an American in a single phrase, I would say 'An American is a person who has the right to be different' and I think that right is growing" William Manchester
fullauto Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 Humans are inherently evil! that is, the same traits that make us evil, also make us the most successful species on the planet! From the birth of the first species of 'true' humans, THEY have painted in caves, buried their dead, traded for goods and searched out new and fertile grounds... They had the divine spark that makes man man... The had a creativity unlike any other animal... The had the ability to apply value to things other than food, and trade for them and goods and services... But most of all, they had the desire to hunt for new land and hunting grounds... This is the spirit of discovery that has launched man to the top of the food chain! This desire to discover and solve new problems is what makes us evil, and what makes us so great... Try to keep in mind perspective... is it evil to sleep have incestuous relations with mom or dad? Sure it is... If you read the bible, the supposed all mighty book of what is evil... But if you read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, you'll find that Lot's daughters got him drunk and did just that thinking that they were the last people on earth! So was it evil? When you ask a question like that, you have to keep in mind perspective... A crowded elevator smells much different for a midget! MRIH thinks that what Islam did in the name of God on 9/11 was evil, but AIG thinks it was justified... So which is it? PERSPECTIVE people.... What you think is evil may not be itself evil! Most people think what the Germany did to the Jews in WWII was unprovoked... You're probably one of them.... Now view the picture... see what a difference in perspective can do... Quote Liberals... Saving the world one semester at a time "I'm not a racist... I'm a realist! And if you don't know the difference, You're an Idiot!" -- Fullauto Present - 1. (Noun) The point that divides disappointment from hope
tizz Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 So man is not inherently EVIL, but he is GREEDY.... Sounds right to me LOL Hmm Did the jews provoke the holocaust..... Will have to get PJ over here for that one (it's one of his favorite subjects) Quote "An intelligence that is not humane is the most dangerous thing in the world" Ashley Montague "No one should have to walk alone" Phuong Du "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" Ghandi "If I were asked to define an American in a single phrase, I would say 'An American is a person who has the right to be different' and I think that right is growing" William Manchester
fullauto Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 they didn't provoke the holocaust, but they certainly had some doing in the hostilities that led up to them.... Quote Liberals... Saving the world one semester at a time "I'm not a racist... I'm a realist! And if you don't know the difference, You're an Idiot!" -- Fullauto Present - 1. (Noun) The point that divides disappointment from hope
tizz Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 HHHMM sounds like a new thread and I REALLY need to introduce you to PJ on this subject. And OK I will say as much as I don't totally DISagree with you Quote "An intelligence that is not humane is the most dangerous thing in the world" Ashley Montague "No one should have to walk alone" Phuong Du "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" Ghandi "If I were asked to define an American in a single phrase, I would say 'An American is a person who has the right to be different' and I think that right is growing" William Manchester
builder Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 The difference between man and beast is culture. I believe in bacteria. It's the only culture many people have. Quote Persevere, it pisses people off.
Outlaw2747 Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 Humans are one of the few creatures in the world that have the ability to destroy the entire planet. Our existance is nothing more than a super sharp double-edged sword. Not to mention our exisance alone means the world possibly has the Sword of Damocles hanging over its head. Quote "I wish I was in Tijuana, eating barbecued iguana." - Wall of Voodoo http://www.sucksbbs.net/data/MetaMirrorCache/fb910e0baa5b4e108ffee98f66cdb3cc.gif
TheJenn88 Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 I've been giving this some thought since we're still discussing it in politics class. I've never really believed that good or evil exists. How can it when it is us humans that define it in the first place? I don't think such concepts innately exist, they are actually just concepts based on unquestioned ideologies. At birth, I don't think man is either good OR evil. In fact, I think we're blank. However, I guess most people define certain innate human traits as being either good or evil. To me, man cannot be good or evil. There is simply no such thing. We govern ourselves to suit the best of our desires and needs, nothing more. We are just multi-cell organisms that are spiced up. Yippee. Quote
fullauto Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 Read... http://www.enkispeaks.com/Essays/18Kain&Abael.htm Quote Liberals... Saving the world one semester at a time "I'm not a racist... I'm a realist! And if you don't know the difference, You're an Idiot!" -- Fullauto Present - 1. (Noun) The point that divides disappointment from hope
tizz Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 To label an act "EVIL" is just kind of giving it an excuse and to label one "GOOD" is more of a gratification thing. We do what we do regardless of how other people perceive or label it. Quote "An intelligence that is not humane is the most dangerous thing in the world" Ashley Montague "No one should have to walk alone" Phuong Du "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" Ghandi "If I were asked to define an American in a single phrase, I would say 'An American is a person who has the right to be different' and I think that right is growing" William Manchester
Humchuckninny Posted October 18, 2005 Posted October 18, 2005 So far from what I've seen, most people on this thread have been referring to the Natural State of Man by Thomas Hobbes. He says that in the absence of society, man is naturally greedy and selfish, and at war with every other man. Basically, man is inherently evil. However this argument has been shot down numerous times, because no matter what theory of creation you believe in (whether it be God, Big Bang, Evolution) there was a time when society did not exist. In order to create society man had to compromise, and to compromise they could not be in a "constant state of war." If Hobbes' theory was correct, we should still be in this constant state of war. Locke, on the other hand, believed that man was born with an innate sense of morality. His claim is that the reason man would willingly come into civil society is not to shake his "brutish state" (which Hobbes argues), but rather that he may advance his ends (peace and security) in a more efficient manner. To achieve his ends man gives up, in favour of the state, a certain amount of his personal power and freedom. Locke claims that man came into society as "a method of securing natural morality more efficiently." To Locke, natural justice already existed and that is displayed in law. Rousseau's ideas about the natural state of man are similar to Locke's, however he claims that man is corrupted by society and civilization. That's all I can really remember about Rousseau off the top of my head (pertaining to men being good and evil that is). Who was the last one? Montesquiou? I have no earthly clue. Just steer clear of him. Hope this helps out a bit! 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.