Out of shadows from the past century... in 1926, Minnesota Gov. Theodore Christianson established a state crime commission. At the end of its research, the commission concluded that criminal tendencies were not the result of poverty, education or environment. Instead, it made the following observation:
I see his point, although I wouldn't call a newborn's selfish tendencies potentially
criminal - to me, criminal behaviour denotes immorality (behaviour
contrary to accepted morals), or immorality that has transformed into amorality (
absence of morals).
My definitions of immorality and amorality may be a little out of whack, so I recommend a dictionary definition, but what I'm saying is that babies are amoral - they simply don't know any better yet, and are thus not culpable for their actions. I would hold culpable a man who:
a) Knows what he's doing is wrong and does it anyway
or
b) Behaves in a way he himself does not regard as wrong because he himself lacks a sense of right and wrong
Amoral kiddies get off the hook because they haven't yet had their lessons about right and wrong. But an amoral adult? He's just not been paying attention, and the whole principle of 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' comes into play.
There is certainly some truth in it! Although you are certainly exaggerating as you acknowledge.
It's very interesting that according to those positions it is the theists who believe man is 'inherently evil or dangerous' while the atheists think him 'inherently' good!
That may have more to do with my writing it at 1 in the morning. Still, there is something along those lines...
Stereotypical Pro-Religious Person - The world will descend into chaos without any boundaries because though man has the capacity for good, good is a quality which must be learned. Without it, he will go astray and destroy.
Stereotypical Anti-Religious Person - Boundaries drive men mad. Boundaries are unjust. Man will act justly without boundaries or control. Controlling human behaviour is inherently wrong.
There's obviously something wrong somewhere, and I think that is simply because the first position is intellectually incoherent. God, as theists perceive him, simply cannot be reconciled to that view of humanity. Most perceive humanity as inherently good, I think, whatever their religious views, or lack of them
I personally think it's missing the point to group humanity into Good and Evil. Just based on what I see and what I know in my gut, I think something along the lines of 'Most people act in their own self-interest, but this does not preclude altruism or good faith' is more accurate.
Applying the terms Good and Evil to human behaviour is very vague in my opinion. They only tend to apply to extreme examples anyway. I prefer to think of it like this - Allah/God/Yaweh is the Ultimate Good, to which we must strive, but cannot attain; and Satan/the Devil/er... Loki is the Ultimate Evil, whose temptations we must avoid, and to which we must not sink.
We can never actually become the Ultimate Good, nor can we (I hope) become the Ultimate Evil, but it's a way of orienting ourselves.
Plus, though it's easy to call people Good, it tends to become very difficult to call certain people Evil, once we know more about them as human beings, their family, their aspirations etc. It's easy to call their actions Evil though.
Personally, of course, I would argue that neither offer solutions as they both totally miss the real problem. But that's a topic for another thread.
What would you say is the real problem?
Those worldviews are very similar to the change in political theory. Thomas Hobbes, an important political philosopher, believed that man was naturally chaotic. He called it the "state of nature". He proposed that mankind needed a powerful monarch to keep them in line and direct their energies to productive pursuits.
Then you have John Locke, who proposed that man was naturally good, and that tyranny and monarchs were responsible for destroying personal freedom and liberty.
As is usually the case, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I think it is obvious that mankind needs law and order to fend off anarchy and chaos. The issue is whether religious law and order is more effective than secular law. As an American, I believe secular law to be more acceptable than religious law, as long as my right to worship as I see fit is maintained. I believe both worldviews can live and function together as long one or the other isn't intending to limit the rights of the other.
I tend to agree. To me, it's not monarchs and tyranny per se, it's whether or not the rules are (perceived to be) fair.
And I really need to read Hobbes and Locke.
).
