10. is man by nature good or evil? can it be changed? what are your implication of your position?

Question

i will give 5 points to the best answer!!

Answer 1

Man is by nature good; however, we still have the capability to do great evil. This is because when a person is born he/she is not corrupted by life, politics, materialism and the media. However, when one keeps getting exposed to all this corruption which surrounds them they tend towards it and become part of in, maybe not completely engulfed by it, but at least partially corrupted. So, because one is always exposed to this corruption, but still find some good, through basic thought of good things and seeing beauty and meditating they still remain slightly uncorrupted. But if a person is surrounded by all bad things they would become corrupted (mostly).
It can be changed by thinking of all the good things and trying to better things by doing good things because then you'd create a better atmosphere for developing and growing as a person and as part of society. Or vice versa to switch it to worse.

Answer 2

Man by nature is evil, but yes it can be changed. No baby has ever had to be shown how to be selfish. From the beginning, humans have to be given guidelines about how to live a good life. Every society in the world has laws and police forces to cut down on the evil being done. When laws are loosened, people do not become better, they become worse. It is human nature to test the speed limit, for instance, to try to go over the limit and get away with it.

Yet, human nature can be changed, though not externally. Every form of behavior modification, environmental adjustments, legal enforcement, and more has been tried. No external pressure or influence has ever made human beings naturally loving, good, and unselfish.

To change, the heart and mind must be changed. That takes a divine act. If God does not step in to change the heart and mind, then human beings would become like "The Lord of the Flies."

Implications: Without a belief in the afterlife and God as Creator and Savior, then the human race would deteriorate to the point of self-destruction. However, when one believes there is a God, and that God can and will change the heart and mind, then there is hope. As has been said before, "Seek, and you will find; Knock, and the door will be opened."

Answer 3

Man is by nature an animal with an internal conflict. He is a mammal who evolved from reptile ancestors and retains the reptilian hindbrain, upon which his higher mental functions, including his sentimentality, has been overlaid.

That's why humans make a moral fuss about killing. Killing someone else is frequently advantageous, and it is occasionally necessary to the killer's survival. But the mammilian behavior pattern is to "care," in the first place for children, and the ideal of "caring" has been extrapolated to other people in general. The broadening of the principle was partly, though not entirely, carried out at the memetic level: e.g., by religion.

(And certain cultural institutions have done the reverse. What feminism mostly "liberated" women from is the influence of that higher mammalian instinct to care for others, to be a selfish, strike-first, don't-give-a-damn reptile.)

The "good versus evil" dichotomy is not real; it is a social concept. The difference between good and evil depends entirely on which moral definition you use to tell them apart.

On the other hand, the "good versus bad" dichotomy is a real spectrum: it pertains to your survival chances. Whether those chances are improved or worsened by a given choice is not a matter of opinion. In every case, a choice of action has a socially independent effect on your odds of surviving, or on the advantages or disadvantages you will incur. Although opinions may vary with respect to what the truth is about the goodness or badness of a choice, that truth is not itself a matter of opinion.

The question of whether Man is by nature good or evil is not particularly valuable because the answer is subject to manipulation. Simply shift the moral code by which the estimation is made, and you can shift the answer as your whim dictates. And that's why moral codes should not be based on a-priori thinking.

The question of whether men's choices are good or bad, however, is quite valuable. The justification and the purpose of any moral code is the survival of its practitioners, collectively. The moral code that is best is the moral code that endures, without squandering its strength, since that requires, de facto, the survival of the moral code's practitioners.

Answer 4

Neither.
Good and evil are semantic terms developed by men to use in understanding other men. Man by nature is natural, there are no attachments. In Society we judge good and evil, but I find that nearly everyone would judge themselves as good. So man is by nature good. But I also find that if we were to judge mankind as a whole, then one may be inclined to judge mankind as evil.
There is no changing because it is just the matter of things. Are you good or evil?

Answer 5

If a good man does one evil deed, he can still be a good man. An evil man can never do enough good to become a good man. The nature they chose is their own decision, but it is decided by their deeds and the choices they make. Not by birth and circumstances beyond their control.

Answer 6

good or evil has nothign to do with mans nature. Would you say that an animal is by nature good or evil, no it has nothign to do with it, an animals nature has to do with its instincts.


Same here with man, mans naite is two fold, emotioanl and rational. Man is DOING good when he is in line with hsi nature and doing bad when he is not. But the idea of good ro badis not one of guilt or taboo but one of naute and that whichis relative good to that nature

Answer 7

.he is not good nor evil .he is the point that good and evil work through .he is a decision maker to do evil or good he is not either

Answer 8

man by nature is evil. he is destined to change, but that is his choice.

Answer 9

Evil. Yes. Only if you need it.