do you agree with Erich Fromm that human nature is completely neutral in ethical sense-"neither good nor bad?

Answer 1

.....Fromm is right. Human nature is to meet the needs of survival and other needs. In this way, we are like our animal brothers and sisters. Bad comes from intentionally choosing to harm others. This potential exists within every human being, but not everyone chooses this kind of behavior...it's not in their basic nature to act this way. There is the potential for good in every human being, too.

Besides good and bad aren't the same in every culture. For example, some cultures treat women like property and it's not considered bad by them. It's OK for the husband to beat the woman for any reason he chooses. So there you go.

Answer 2

The error is in not differentiating between the human being and the Spiritual Soul that animates the human being. The Soul is composed of NSgy [Neutral Spiritual Energy] and this is an Absolute Energy.

However the resonance, or vibrational reality of the Energy of the Soul cannot manifest itself on the physical plane of existence... and thus the Whole Human Being consists of three simultaneously existing and yet separate realms of vibrational energy.... all sharing the same time and space.

So the nature of ones Soul is Neutral, in fact NSgy, but the nature of the human being is never "neutral". It is either manifesting as Yin energy or Yang energy, the two dimensions of the MIND realm.

Ethics as conducted on the physical plane cannot be of an Absolute nature, a Spiritual nature, or of a Neutral nature. If Fromm is speaking of the Soul and it being of an "ethical" sense.... this would be True, but would be quite irrelevant in terms of "human nature".

Peace

Answer 3

This is from my own enlightenment... Everything observed is neutral. So whatever we believe about anything that happens 'out there' is merely a reflection of our own thinking. That includes what we think about human nature.

So, when you *believe* something is bad, you *feel* bad about that thing and it makes you *act* badly towards that object by means of elimination, invalidation, harm, dismissiveness, teasing, passive aggressiveness, avoidance, etc. What you believe as bad turns you into the very bad thing you are judging.

When we see everything as good and right as it is, then we *feel* good about it. This is the ONLY way people keep from harming others. If I don't see anything as bad, including you and your actions, then I won't have any reason to harm and/or eliminate you from my life.

Answer 4

Not completely. I think anything that harms another person is basically wrong and I think anything that harms or kills something else must be done thoughtfully, and not just for the thrill of it.
I think man is born amoral and he learns what is right and what is ethically wrong. I don't think right and wrong have a natural order, but I think we are evolving in a certain direction that has developed certain ethical and moral principles for the good of the whole and individuals.

Answer 5

i think the real problem with discussing morality and constructs such as good and bad is that they're not real.

these ideals that we operate under are the creation of society not nature. in nature there is no good or bad there is only survival, reproduction, and adaptation (which of course determines your chances for the other two).

animals kill in nature daily (of course that killing is due mainly to survival) and mate as often as possible. do we consider this "bad" or "evil?" of course not.

but humans killing other humans isn't typically based on survival most would argue. and i'd be forced to concur, these killings are most often motivated by greed and/or envy. neither of which is a natural phenonmenon. they are creations of society and the advent of ownership. were we able to exist without a need to own material goods in order to assert our place in the pack then these killings would all but stop. of course so would crimes like rape, larceny, and assault.

so in short, humans in their natural state have no true concept of good and/or bad. these are man-made and society forced ideals that like many of our behaviors are learned. that's not to say it's a bad idea to teach folks that killing and other violent crimes are bad and one should refrain from doing so. i only meant to point out that fromm, locke, hobbs, etc. all fail to point out that these ideals of good and bad are truly dependent on the existence of wealth and society and are not innate nor are they naturally imposed.