The Instigator
Valtin
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JarodM
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Man is naturally Good or Neutral or Evil?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,607 times Debate No: 53718
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Valtin

Pro

This is will be a short debate on whether Man is naturally Good/Neutral/Evil, I propose that Man is naturally neutral which I will explain further in round 2, first round is for acceptance in which you will accept then choose which side, good/evil, and then wait for me to argue, It is recommended that you present yourself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions:

Man: 'Adult Male and Female'

Good: ": correct or proper"[1]

Neutral: ": a person, country, etc., that does not support either side of an argument, fight, war, etc." [2]

Evil: ": morally bad : causing harm or injury to someone : marked by bad luck or bad events" [3]


[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3]http://www.merriam-webster.com...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rules:

1)First round is for acceptance.
2)You must state which side you choose.
3)you are forbidden to use the neutral side.

Breaking any of the rules will result in a conduct point loss(meaning when people vote, they vote conduct to Pro/Con).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Setting:

1) 3 Rounds, first for acceptance, second for arguments, third for rebuttals and closing statements, same thing applies for the fourth round, no (new)arguments allowed in the fourth round.

2) 6,000 Characters.

3) You have 48 hrs to argue.

4) 1 week voting period.

JarodM

Con

I will take up your debate, and I am for Good.
Debate Round No. 1
Valtin

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate, I would like to say that this is a pure philosophy, limit it to that!

We already know between the good and the bad from our moral perspective , depending on our beliefs whether we are Jew, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Athiest, Agnostic, etc, but I believe all humans are naturally neutral, It depends on the enviorment that they evolve in, which changes them, also depends on the childhood, also as I have said earlier on the beliefs, a Muslim(generally) would regard someone who commited adultery an evil man, because of this evil act, while an Athiest(generally) does otherwise, so this 'Naturally Good' & 'Naturally Evil' depends soloely on the things I have mentioned above, which goes back to my main point, that Man is neutral, he will be classfied as evil from someone's perspective whilst being classfied as good from another perspective, therefore good and evil opinions vary from one person to another, based on that we can understand Man can be classified neutral, because it is in the middle, and people will consider their opinion neutral on the said Man, and we can understand that the classification of Man is neutral.

Man can also range from a psychopath to a kind, and just man, you cannot label man to be naturally good or bad, because he will be good to people when he is treated good(mostly) and will do evil acts if he was treated in an evil matter(mostly), this is a nature of Man, to be neutral, you will be evil if you are treated evil or will be good if you are treated good. but if you are treated good by some people and be treated evil by other people you will be neutral, that is why you are neutral now, everybody is probably neutral, you can see from my reasons.

Regards
JarodM

Con

Okay to start off I will state the basis of my philosophy. First off, evil is a notion of religious means, we say someone is evil if it is of sin. Sin is a relation to evil, so to say something is evil is take on a religious notion. Same can be said with good, but the term pure is a better rival to evil.

My philosophy will be based on innocent and tainted. With this word choice it will be easier for me to relate to this debate and describe my position of good. Now let us get into it.

When a child is born he or she does not have the notion of good or evil, but the child is innocent which is a synonym of good. When I look at a child I would say that child is innocent, because the child has not been exposed to the world enough to become tainted. Some children can grow up and never be exposed to what would be tainted. Is this child good, evil, or neutral? The answer would have to depend on your own basis of belief. I would say the person is good in nature with tainted tendencies. Not evil, nor neutral.

The reason for my statement that you can not be neutral, is that, that means there is no notion of good or bad w you. In addition, when first born you have no notion of neutrality nor good nor evil. So the real question is: What is neutral?

Neutral is having no strongly marked or positive characteristics or features or bias. Well, I have a little sister and ever since I can remember she had a bias. She was bias towards my parents and me. She would find more comfort in my parents and she had a notion of good and evil. How do I know this? Well when she was not even a few months old she caught me taking some food and lying about it. When she grew up a bit and could talk, she told my mom this. She knew this was a bad action I committed.

Also, my little sister committed good acts and evil acts. For example, we never told her about racism or any of that, yet she knows it is wrong to point out race and to be of this tendency. She has some innate feeling of wrong and right.
Debate Round No. 2
Valtin

Pro

"First off, evil is a notion of religious means, we say someone is evil if it is of sin. Sin is a relation to evil, so to say something is evil is take on a religious notion. Same can be said with good, but the term pure is a better rival to evil."

I disagree, evil necessarily is the opposite of good, do not limit it to religion as people and religion can agree to something as evil(generally).

I can see through Con's argument he did not understand my drift, I will explain it plainly, since many have different perspective because of that we consider humans are neutral, in the middle, balanced.

The premise of Con's argument:
1)Children are innocent.
2)innocent is a synonym of good.
3)therefore Children are good and thus naturally good.

Some people consider that children are born to sin, sin is evil, therefore children are naturally evil, other people think otherwise, so it all comes back to neutral, balanced, also Con approves of my theory:
"When a child is born he or she does not have the notion of good or evil"
"The answer would have to depend on your own basis of belief."

Con further says:
"Neutral is having no strongly marked or positive characteristics or features or bias."

I disagree, if you have read my theory you'd understand that what I have meant by neutral is balanced, or in the middle, or not taking either sides.

"Well when she was not even a few months old she caught me taking some food and lying about it. When she grew up a bit and could talk, she told my mom this. She knew this was a bad action I committed."

You are contradicting yourself, as you said earlier:
"When a child is born he or she does not have the notion of good or evil"

So as your words say, she did not have a notion of 'good' or 'evil', but later on she knew it was wrong because it was taught to her.

I think you have not understood my theory, please rebut it as I have explained it above.
JarodM

Con

I am sorry if my meaning was confusing. When I said the line "When a child is born he or she does not have the notion of good or evil" I was taking on your perspective and acknowledging your point. I refuted it with my sister example. I should have labeled those more concisely yes, but that was my meaning.

Now to your belief of neutral as balance. That definition is the scientific definition of neutral. I was taking on the philosophical/psychological meaning of the word, which as I stated. I know your argument, I am just stating you are coming way to close to a theology debate with it.

By your definitions in Round 1, neutral would be closer to my definition of no bias. A person taking no side is not balanced they are unbiased. To have a balance you must acknowledge that man is a good and evil, but that is straying far from the current debate. If your stance is that man is neutral because he is balanced, then you are standing at that man is Good and Evil equally. If so, then I understand your point and believe for this to be a more correct theory of the basis of Man. I state that Man is Good but learns Evil.

You bring up multiple religions using them as your basis of why it differs. "...a Muslim(generally) would regard someone who committed adultery an evil man, because of this evil act, while an Atheist(generally) does otherwise, so this 'Naturally Good' & 'Naturally Evil' depends solely on the things I have mentioned above..." Well, I would say this is wrong, you do say generally, but you can't make that basis for goes against your example. We are getting into grey areas, if a Muslim, generally, disapproves of Adultery, what about the ones that aren't in that generally. Well by a Muslims standard that person is not a true Muslim, same with the Atheist. This is should not be a basis of some beliefs say its good and others say its evil so it must be neutral, instead a basis of the moral norm. The moral norm for, let us say murder, murder is wrong because it takes a life. Law would agree with this and law is set to reinforce norms that religion or other beliefs can no longer informally enforce. Since, law agrees with this is consider an "evil" act then it can never be a good act, therefore, a murder is across the board evil and not neutral. Going back to my stance that Children are innocent therefore good; I would say that by law a child is good, because by law anyone under the age of 7 does not know what is evil. A child has instinctual feelings of wrongs and rights, and will naturally go to the good feelings for they make them feel good. This is, of course, in a completely health child. Feelings that usually make you good are those that will equal praise. From birth a child knows, unless views the act, that hitting and attacking are bad things. You may say that children hit and bite, but only after seeing others do it in a connotation that will make the child believe it is good. Look into the Clown Experiment under sociology or psychology sections. A child knows by vestigial instinct to latch onto there mother for comfort. Children know the feelings of warmth and comfort which attribute to good feelings. They know hugs are good not bad. Children have an innate for Good thoughts and behavior and are taught Evil

On another just quick note.
You are correct that culture by culture an action can be evil or good. But, that does not stand by your reasoning, because in sociological debate the answer would be yes instead. The side you should have taken, instead of neutral was "yes".

(Just an outside note from the debate)
I hope I cleared up any confusions for my side, I have trouble explaining my thought process over typing. I do sincerely apologize for that.
Debate Round No. 3
Valtin

Pro

Thank you.

"Now to your belief of neutral as balance. That definition is the scientific definition of neutral. I was taking on the philosophical/psychological meaning of the word, which as I stated. I know your argument, I am just stating you are coming way to close to a theology debate with it."

Even though I have stated this is a philosophical debate, we both had gone astray and debated on philosophical theology, which is the current situation, and what my whole theory revolves in, which is reality.

Scientific definition of neutral is the following: "describes a chemical substance that is neither an acid nor an alkali: "[1]
It is not what are we talking about.

"By your definitions in Round 1, neutral would be closer to my definition of no bias. A person taking no side is not balanced they are unbiased. To have a balance you must acknowledge that man is a good and evil, but that is straying far from the current debate. If your stance is that man is neutral because he is balanced, then you are standing at that man is Good and Evil equally. If so, then I understand your point and believe for this to be a more correct theory of the basis of Man. I state that Man is Good but learns Evil."

I have given my definition of neutral as in the middle or not taking any sides or what you have said(underlined).
Again I have shown that Babies can be born evil from a different perspective, and can be considered good in some other perspectives, that means It is balanced, if you point out at a man I have known I will tell you yes he is good, but I can tell you the evil, or the bad points of the person, which again makes him neutral.


" Law would agree with this and law is set to reinforce norms that religion or other beliefs can no longer informally enforce. Since, law agrees with this is consider an "evil" act then it can never be a good act, therefore, a murder is across the board evil and not neutral."

But still there are holes in your argument, law cannot be the ultimate judgement, It is same as saying justice is good, but what about the people that win through being unjust, do they consider justice good, no, same applies for law, do the serial killers say that killing is evil, no, but actually support it because they are killers, they practise this act.


"Going back to my stance that Children are innocent therefore good; I would say that by law a child is good, because by law anyone under the age of 7 does not know what is evil."

You are arguing from ignorance, there are many who have been raised by evil or through an evil environment, but they are good, therefore again neutral, and reinforced with my previous stated theory, same goes for babies.

"A child has instinctual feelings of wrongs and rights, and will naturally go to the good feelings for they make them feel good. This is, of course, in a completely health child."

It varies, some children have different 'feelings of wrongs and rights' I think something is wrong, while you disagree, still arguing from ignorance.

"Feelings that usually make you good are those that will equal praise. From birth a child knows, unless views the act, that hitting and attacking are bad things."

I have seen people praise someone for hitting another person, your statement is illogical.

" You may say that children hit and bite, but only after seeing others do it in a connotation that will make the child believe it is good. "

Not true, if all people would jump into fire, would you too? would that make the fire good for you? No.

"You are correct that culture by culture an action can be evil or good. But, that does not stand by your reasoning, because in sociological debate the answer would be yes instead. The side you should have taken, instead of neutral was "yes"."

I have shown throughout the debate my theory, and if it is, the 'Yes' then I am already in the 'Yes' side.

disclaimer: I have not intended to offend anybody, if you are offended I apologize.
JarodM

Con

JarodM forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by JarodM 2 years ago
JarodM
Um so.. didn't let me post my fourth round... I kept doing trying but it wouldn't pop up. I will just post what i remember here.

I wish to thank you for this debate, I felt it was a good first debate for me on this site. You are still misunderstanding what I am saying on some parts.

"Feelings that usually make you good are those that will equal praise. From birth a child knows, unless views the act, that hitting and attacking /../are bad things."

"I have seen people praise someone for hitting another person, your statement is illogical."

That piece there, I stated "unless views the act" this includes praising the act. When and If a child hits someone and is praised that still supports my argument children are naturally good.

I will concede to some of your arguments, especially the view of good and evil based on the culture.
Posted by Valtin 2 years ago
Valtin
For the fourth round, I have forgotten to add the following:
[1]http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
Posted by revic 2 years ago
revic
Oh man, I wish i had time for this debate. I'm very convinced man is naturally evil and I have my own "theory" of how come humans are able to do good things as well.

Good luck, i'll try to follow this debate!
No votes have been placed for this debate.