Humans are bastards. But so is all life on Earth, so that's OK

That is pretty much what I mean. What makes me think that evil is inherent is that these impulses are inherent. Also, that's why I see it as a trait of humanity as a whole, not reduceable to behaviour of individual humans. Individual humans might or might not act upon these natural tendencies, but tendencies themselves are common to the species.

Not exclusive to humans, of course! Only thing exclusive to humans (and other sapient beings) is an ability to control and override their natural inclinations

edited 29th Dec '11 1:22:40 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Let's start with "How are we defining peer pressure" here? And then let's move on to another important factor when measuring morality, and it's free will.

Thing is, if me and my friends force you to kill someone and you did it out of fear, would you say you're a bad person? Because someone else put a gun to your head? Really?

Not all of us can be martyrs and heroes who welcome death in the name of others not dying.

Not to mention that you're forgetting an essential fact and it's that different people react to different stimuli in a different fashion. You talk about tendencies, but I've yet to see any evidence of these.

"My life is my own" | If you want to contact me privately, please ask first on the forum.

Yes, I would consider myself a bad person for it, because I'd still have an option to refuse, even if it leads to my death. The only thing taking away free will is an outright mind control, purely reflexive actions and certain states of mind that are more like temporary insanity than anything else. And before you ask, yes, it would be very easy to force me, so I don't consider myself a good person.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Again, I bring up the point about martyrs. I'm not saying that killing is right under any circumnstances. I'm just saying that there are circumnstances under which you should be able to forgive someone for commiting something. Such as a case where the person is not doing something because they want to but because their life depends on it.

You can't take free will away, but you most certainly can manipulate a choice in order for an individual to walk the path that you desire him to walk. Sometimes a choice with two options is not exactly a choice between two equally valid choices.

So you consider a person's "goodness" (For lack of a better word) based on what they would do in a hypothetical situation?

"My life is my own" | If you want to contact me privately, please ask first on the forum.

I am not saying that it is not forgiveable. It is a perfectly understandable behaviour.

Agreed. But still the choice is here

If the only reason a person does not act, ahem, like a bastard (my apologies, but it is quite difficult to avoid using this word in this thread) is because they never encountered a situation in which they would, that does not speak much about their character. Then again, it does not speak much against it either, and as I've said in one of the posts above, I'm perfectly willing to consider people decent unless proven otherwise. However, this willingness hinges on not knowing what they'd do in a hypothetical situation, not on the situation itself not (yet) coming to pass. So it is not an acceptable reason to form opinions about other people, but might be acceptable in evaluating onself, if one is sure about their own knowledge, that is. Unfortunately, I am more than aware of my own cowardice.

Also, yes, I am aware that it comes uncomfortably close to thoughtcrime, and that is not quite what I mean, but it is a bit difficult to articulate the distinction. I'll try, though. Having shady thoughts without intention to act on them is perfectly fine. What I'm speaking about is not person's own intentions stopping them from acting, but the lack of appropriate circumstances. To put an example - suppose that someone decided to shoot the first red-haired lass that passes by their door, but missed. That would be an attempted murder, right? But suppose that no red-haired lass actually passed by their door that day? Or even in their life? But they still intend to shoot her if she'll ever shows up, and the only thing preventing them from shooting is lack of red-haired girls in the area?

edited 29th Dec '11 11:26:03 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Here you go◊

Also, regarding the objections to the word bastard in this thread, this should get it out of our systems:

edited 29th Dec '11 12:49:46 PM by 0dd1

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Interesting point, about hypothetical situations. I still don't think that makes everyone evil though. If a person were forced at gunpoint to kill another, I would not see it as justified, but I would see it as understandable and forgivable. It wouldn't make them a Complete Monster. It would make them morally grey. Besides, somebody who would pull the trigger in that situation may not necessarily be, say, the kind of person who would shoot innocent people for fun if they could get away with it. The only person who would do that is a psychopath, and they make up 5% of the population at the very most.

What's the point in giving up when you know you'll never stop anyway?

Let's keep in mind that psychopaths (or, more correctly, "sociopaths" for the psychfags here) aren't generally violent people, despite what media might show you. It's simply a condition where one lacks empathy for others — and not by choice, either. A psychopath may wish to empathise with others but simply lack that capacity. Furthermore, for a psychopath to kill, they'd need to actively want to. They're people with feelings, needs and wants like anyone else, but suffering from a significant block in understanding empathic human considerations.

If someone thinks that a lack of empathy equates to a desire to kill, then that reflects more heavily on them than anyone else.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch