Are We Born Good or Evil Essay examples

Thomas Hobbes was born in 1588 in England. Hobbes survived through the English Revolutionary era, and his perspective of human nature built up negatively. He believed that all men were innately bad and evil. Hobbes stated, “... yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves” (Hobbes 1). This quote shows his thought, that all men are selfish and they always think they are better than anyone. Hobbes believed that humans didn't know how to cooperate because same desire would only cause them to be an enemy. Also, Hobbes said that it was the human who limits the development due to their constant war with each other.

A famous philosopher Socrates once said, 'the unexamined life is not worth living.' With that idea, the question 'Are Human Beings Intrinsically Evil?' has been asked by philosophers for many years. It is known as one of the unanswerable questions. Determinists have come to the conclusion that we are governed by the laws of science, that there is nothing we can do about ourselves being evil because we naturally are. Evil is simply the act of causing pain. In this essay I will argue that human beings are born with a natural reaction to 'fear and chaos' to be instinctively evil.

Hobbes believed that people each have their own ideas of right and wrong, and that there is no way to tell if a person’s version of right and wrong is universally right or wrong. Practically, that each person will create their own rationalization and will even kill another person for physical safety or securing

Since the beginning of time there has been confusion about every aspect of life and with confusion comes a number of questions we cannot completely answer or forget. How did we transform from one creature to another? Why are people so violent? Are we inherently good or evil? These are questions that have been asked for centuries, and have taken ever longer to possibly answer. It might be numerous decades from now before they finally answer these questions but, nevertheless many people are trying by using evidence, theories, faith, and science to answer these questions as accurately as possible. Mainly the question about whether we are innately innocent or not. Most people, say humans are inherently evil, that there is evil in all of us. That could be the reason why kids enjoy watching ants succumb when they burn them with reflected rays of sunlight. However, many believe that we are born good with a clean slate and that it is society of whom changes that. I believe that we are born sinful/evil and that society influence us to be good. The facts have proven humans to be innately evil through genetics, control, and mistreatment.

A straightforward question. Are humans naturally good or evil? A simple question that has many of different answers and a question that may require deep thinking. For me, both sides I was drawn to. My household is christian, so I thought of the religious answer, but I also thought that people are born good and their environment and decisions can cause them to be evil. This is what I came up with.

For centuries many philosophers, as well as most individuals, have pondered on the question what is good and what is evil. More-so philosophers of all ages have also stumbled upon a more in depth question which is if the intuitive knowledge of man's nature is good, or if it is evil. Many have claimed to have an answer to these puzzling questions yet most of their answers were found to be incomplete and inadequate at a later date. Religion also tried to provide a solution but to my understanding only caused more of an entanglement if anything.

First, for Hobbes, the nature of nature is perpetually in a state of war. According to Hobbes, the chief reason why men given up their authority to the sovereign is to seek peace, and avoid the “fear of death. By contrast, while Locke does speak of states of war as well, for him they are a subset of the state of nature, and not the entire equation. Locke specifically states that “men living together according to reason…is properly the state of nature. But force, upon the person of another…is the state of war. Thus, by this reasoning, Locke’s state of nature is a much kinder place than Hobbes’, where man’s life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. In addition, another difference between the theories of the two men is that Hobbes speaks hypothetically of states of nature, whereas Locke points out times when state of nature actually exists. Locke believes that all rulers are in a state of nature, and governors as well. The key difference between Locke and Hobbes in this area is the specifying of the existence of a state of nature, the greater negativity of Hobbes, and Locke’s use of examples in contrast to Hobbes’

Firstly, we have the question, “Should individual citizens be free to do what they want”? Hobbes, in this case, would say that citizens should not be free to do as they please and that they should follow the “king”. He believed that a society could only function properly if the all-powerful Leviathan dictated the rules. This king or Leviathan, should be the one that creates all the laws and everyone else with absolutely no doubt must follow them, to create peace and order in society; ultimately avoiding chaos. He thought this way because he lived in a time that was chaotic, where he explored the nature of humans during the English revolution, resulting in a pessimistic yet realist view of his world.

The question “What makes us who we are?” has perplexed many scholars, scientists, and theorists over the years. This is a question that we still may have not found an answer to. There are theories that people are born “good”, “evil”, and as “blank slates”, but it is hard to prove any of these theories consistently. There have been countless cases of people who have grown up in “good” homes with loving parents, yet their destiny was to inflict destruction on others. On the other hand, there have been just as many cases of people who grew up on the streets without the guidance of a parental figure, but they chose to make a bad situation into a good one by growing up to do something

His opinion of human nature was low. In Leviathan, Hobbes portrays humans as selfish, unsocial creatures driven by only two need, survival and personal gain. Therefore, human life is characterized by “constant struggle, strife, and war” with individuals against one another in a battle for self preservation . Hobbes claimed that there was “a general inclination of all [human]kind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death.” Therefore, Hobbes concludes that because of the selfishness of humans, they have no capacity of self government. Locke view humans is a different perspective. Locke developed his own philosophy, which is referred to as tabula rosa. Put simply, this refers to the idea that the human mind at birth is a blank slate without rules for processing data. Data is accumulated in the mind as the rules of processing data are formed. According to Locke, these rules are formed solely on a person’s sensory experience, therefore, Locke will argue that a person is neither good nor evil at birth, it is the summation of their experiences that determine the person that they become. That being said, humans can be educated to an inclination of good rather than evil. As a result, “the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all [human]kind, who will but consult it, that being

Schools teach kids to disregard others and seek enjoyment. Technology is not an adequate substitution for human interaction, so kids get bored with its commonplace entertainment. As a result, they are compelled to create their own fun. With society’s inadequate regulations, children seek danger for entertainment. Clarisse is “afraid of children [her] age” (27; pt.1) because they have no fear or empathy. While Montag was running across the street, a car full of kids tried to run him down “for no reason in the world” (122; pt. 3). Killing an innocent man would not have bothered the young people because they do not fear mortality or

and violence come from a natural instinct and some times are fear driven. These young children where thrown in to a unmanageable situation, I will be breaking down the idea of savagery, violence as I saw them presented in the novel.

Firstly, Locke believed in a system of justice that was based on freedom, self-governing, and the ideology that all people are naturally good. Hobbes would explain that Locke’s arguments are inherently flawed in that he doesn’t recognize that we are constantly in a state of war. This natural state of humanity or state of war is

The concept of morality plays an important role in human society. Through the discovery of what, exactly, determines that which is “good” and that which is “bad”, humans develop mechanisms that determine how they respond to or judge any given situation. What remains a mystery, however, is what, exactly, is the basis of morals. It is commonly believed that morals are learned through lived experiences, as well as, from those who act as each person’s individual caretaker(s). Even though these factors do play a significant role in determining morality, these factors alone neither create nor determine a person’s moral compass. In Paul Bloom’s work, Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil, we are introduced to the idea that morality, while partly learned, is something that is ingrained in humans from birth. Through multiple studies, performed both by Bloom as well as other psychologists, it is revealed that not only are babies able to perceive what is right and what is wrong, but also, from birth, babies are instilled with the innate knowledge of empathizing, valuing fairness and status, and valuing those who look similar versus those who look different. In spite of previous ideas, Bloom proves that babies are smarter than previously thought, while simultaneously recognizing the shortcomings of this “elementary” form of morality. Bloom’s finding prove to be revolutionary, in that they allow for the examination of different social structures, their shortcomings, and what

Genesis 1:31 says, “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed it was very good.” Since God said that what he has made is good, humans were created with a sense of goodness. In Genesis 2:16-17 it states, “And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’” According to this verse Adam knew that that there were consequences to eating the fruit of the forbidden tree, which indicates his sense of morality, and shows that humans, being descendants of Adam know the difference between good and bad. Therefore, humans having morals shows that they are made in the image of