Can someone be inherently evil?

[Regulus]

The point is that everyone's enjoyment of life is equally meaningful, even if it is within everyone's own mind. It is not a rule the mind places on itself, it is a simple fact.

The only way what you say could be true is if you're the only sentient being in the universe.

[Azdgari]

If you'll pardon my butting in: aren't constructs of the mind made real by the consequences they create in the real world? For example, democracy isn't tangible, it is an idea, an illusion of the mind. However, it manifests by influencing people to govern themselves in a certain way. Woeler's enjoyment of something is real to me because it affects how he acts. His enjoyment of beer is real to me because it creates a material reaction: Woeler drinking beer. (what I believer are) Bad morals become tangible in how they create (what I perceive to be) negative, or "evil" actions in the world. The same way I agree with Reg that morality is real, because of its ability to influence people to behave in certain ways.

[DGFone]

Something I just realized today:

This entire topic is meaningless.

Why? Because the definition of "inherently" means without outside influenced. However, thanks to human evolution... a human will die without outside help long before they will even know what evil is. We are not snakes or sharks that know everything from birth, but learn as we get older after we are born.

An inherently evil human is a dead human, because in order to survive, they will need outside help and influence, thus neglecting the "inherent" part. You can raise a child to be evil, but that's no longer inherent.

[Regulus]

Dangit, stop making me wish I could read.

But, in all seriousness, I think this topic refers to being evil without outside influence, in the sense of internally creating evil.

In other words, is it possible to be evil without being taught to be evil? I'm going to say no on that.

[Azdgari]

...It doesn't mean they never learn anything. It's that they are raised but inherently, as part of their nature independently of how they are raised, they are evil. Not that we really ever talked about that anyway. =P

[Woeler]

You guys are still trapped in the idea that this problem is a conscious problem. It is not. The biggest ultimatum we know is the universe. Does the universe care? Does the universe prefer specific actions over other specific actions? No it does not.

Morality are rules and illusions humans place upon themselves that may help them in social aspects. In the beginning nothing mattered and in the and nothing will matter. In the beginning the was no consciousness and in the end there will be no consciousness, no judge, no measurememt, no rankings, nothing. Life is finite, whether you die as a four year old in a car accident, or as a ninty year old in a hospital. You're dead and nothing matters. You are going to die just as Anders Breivik, and not a single difference will be made between the two of you. That may be nihilims, but then again I think Nietzsche was right.
As my answer. Is it possible to be inherently evil? No, it is only possible to be "evil in the eyes of ... "

[Azdgari]

I've always found nihilism to be a cheap cop-out. I think I believe the opposite. If you end up dying and returning to nothing and that's it, then your time on earth isn't nothing, it's everything. And I think that if one really believed in nihilism, they would roll over and die (or become addicted to heroin if they're into having fun beforehand), because nothing they could ever do would have significance.

Of course the universe doesn't care, it's not conscious. But people around you care. So what you do has significance in the way that it affects those around you, since people are interconnected and independence is something of a facade.

[Woeler]

[quote="Azdgari"]I've always found nihilism to be a cheap cop-out. I think I believe the opposite. If you end up dying and returning to nothing and that's it, then your time on earth isn't nothing, it's everything. And I think that if one really believed in nihilism, they would roll over and die (or become addicted to heroin if they're into having fun beforehand), because nothing they could ever do would have significance.[/quote]
Yes, that is the opposite of nihilism and I cannot say you are wrong. The only thing I can say is that I disagree. I can counter that with the argument that if one really believed in extropianism, they would become some kind of stockholmic social irrealist.


[quote="Azdgari"]Of course the universe doesn't care, it's not conscious. But people around you care. So what you do has significance in the way that it affects those around you, since people are interconnected and independence is something of a facade.[/quote]
That's still within the boundaries of consciousness.

[Azdgari]

Fair enough. So what are your morals personally?

[Woeler]

[quote="Azdgari"]Fair enough. So what are your morals personally?[/quote]

I don't know what you mean by that. If you asking what my opinion on morality is:

Spoiler: show

[quote="Nietzsche's Daybreak S19"]Morality makes stupid.-- Custom represents the experiences of men of earlier times as to what they supposed useful and harmful - but the sense for custom (morality) applies, not to these experiences as such, but to the age, the sanctity, the indiscussability of the custom. And so this feeling is a hindrance to the acquisition of new experiences and the correction of customs: that is to say, morality is a hindrance to the development of new and better customs: it makes stupid.[/quote]