English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

do u think we were good even if there were no religions and even social laws?!

2006-07-16 19:41:27 · 17 answers · asked by MoFar 1 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

=> good, bad and man's nature are defined in morality

2006-07-16 19:53:44 · update #1

17 answers

The definition of bad or good is the point.
In some societies killing others in cruel painful ways is thought a good thing. The ground of evaluation is not even.
Thinkers and people, coming to the western way of thinking, are split half and half when it comes to your question.
I dont think you will ever have a definite answer.

2006-07-16 23:58:44 · answer #1 · answered by yukasdog 3 · 0 0

Neither- the terms "good" and "bad" are usually used to describe variations on the mean. Actually, all high-level human behavior is dependent on experience- if there were no religions or social laws, people would still be defined mostly by experience (or, rather, complex extrapolations of instinct based on experience)- a person raised in complete sensory deprivation would display no more behavior then a newborn baby (they might make some extrapolations based on their own thoughts, but nothing complex enough to be called "good" or "bad", which are concepts relating to society anyway)

As a matter of fact, I'd submit that human instinct in regards to other humans consists mainly of grouping behaviors and basic emotions such as jealousy and love. Good and bad are much more high-level classifications which are reliant on both human nature and human experience.

Sorry, but like most questions involving human behavior, there really is no easy answer- if human behavior were a simple thing, everyone might actually understand eachother!

edit: eh, to put it another way: both "good" and "bad", as behaviors, are dependant on experience.

2006-07-16 20:42:16 · answer #2 · answered by -artifex 2 · 0 0

I like to believe that man's nature is inherently good. This is what we're born with. But, life gets us into various drama and depending on the method of child rearing one has been exposed to one hates, seeks revenge, put down others to make them selves seem better, etc. Still, truly wise, long-term seeking individuals would not need religion because they'll realize, the only way we can find happiness is by making the people and things around us happy. But, I do think, the social laws is necessary because the very definition of happiness may differ from person to person and it may conflict. To resolve it peacefully, there's got to be a social contract, a.k.a. social law. Great question. Very deep!

2006-07-16 19:53:05 · answer #3 · answered by Nikki W 3 · 0 0

Surely religions and social laws had importance in the past. More than religions the importance of social laws still exist. But religions, like a worn out cloth, has to be removed as it produces foul odour out of long usage. No one knows how to wash it. As the social laws are revised these days by the governments, we cannot totally condemn it.

I think, without religion, individual will have a better access to God.

2006-07-16 20:03:45 · answer #4 · answered by latterviews 5 · 0 0

Man's nature is to understand the dualistic qualities of both "good" and "evil", which are inherent in all people; man struggles and suffers to understand -- and find a balance between -- them.

Man's nature is predicated on the fact that he (and I mean that as a generic term; it's not gender-specific) possesses an internal struggle between each, and his nature is to find a middle way between the two.

2006-07-16 21:01:51 · answer #5 · answered by The_Fisher_King 2 · 0 0

Good and bad are human concepts, not nature's. Humans use them to judge each other. So for humans to judge themselves as either good or bad by nature would take away the purpose for coming up with those concepts to begin with.

2006-07-16 20:45:35 · answer #6 · answered by Grist 6 · 0 0

All man... meaning humanity in its young and old forms... is good. Society corrupts us and then everybody is bad. So we are only good when we are in our infancy, then we all become bad no matter how much good "deeds" you do or have done. Nobody can get the badness out of them even if they seems so nice.

2006-07-16 19:47:20 · answer #7 · answered by darkomega168 2 · 0 0

Man,if we look at him as a spirit soul and not his "coverings",such as race,beliefs,character,is a pure servant of God!But due to his enviousness towards the Supreme,he has been transfered to this materiral world,in order to play God's role!That's why you see:everone from the tiny ant to mankind,all want to be master!Now,even women want to be controllers,heads of state,whereas they should have a submissive role.
True religion teaches how to surrender to God by behaving in a divine way-non-violence and sinless,and so,he will be able to re-join God in His abode.

2006-07-16 21:22:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

What do you mean by nature, good and bad? Nature, good and bad means different things to different people. I think you will need to redefine your question so that people understands your question and you will get a more specific answer.

2006-07-16 20:50:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

As i am interested in freud and write my extended essay about freud, i like the picture he gave us:
id is devil
ego is human
superego is angel

so, if we remove ego and superego, teh morality we'd be like devil. Not because the drives inside our id are bad, but because their interaction creates all 'bad' things.

2006-07-16 20:21:19 · answer #10 · answered by Solveiga 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers