Are humans inherently evil?

/thread
Unironically

people from countries going to shit the fastest are moral anti-realists

really makes you think

moral relativism

based
I thought everyone here is retarded, I guess I was wrong

way to out yourself as a newfag

it's a trash hominid, worst than their chimpanzee cousins, orangutans are much better and well behaved
THD

Go suck Hume's gayass cock in hell with him, bud.

moral relativism is a subset of anti-realism that specifically ties morality to subjective or cultural frameworks rather than denying moral facts altogether as the broken frenchmen you quoted did

Yes but your mistaken. You are both good and evil and not accepting that dichotomy hurts your soul. Wee aren't any better than how animals kill one another. We've allowed evil to spread by not fighting back or getting angry. This an example how anger can be good as it looks towards justice and morality. When you accept those parts of yourself and come to know truly who you are then nothing can stop you.

ties morality to subjective or cultural frameworks rather than denying moral facts

If morality is subjective, then moral facts don't exist.
You're wrong and haven't quoted anyone.
Not sure if you're a jeet or a bot.

jews and niggers are

Humans are inherently retarded.
Good and evil are not concepts a human is born with.

If morality is subjective, then moral facts don't exist.

moral relativism doesn’t deny moral facts entirely like the frenchman you quoted (the second person you replied to in your post) did
it redefines them as context-dependent truths.

for example, a relativist might say, "In cultureA, it’s a fact that stealing is wrong because that’s the cultural norm."
these are still considered moral facts within their specific framework, just not universal or objective facts.

let's have a real discussion and not do the whole "you're a jeet/jew/bot"
it's a topic i'm very interested in.

Star Wars thread.

based

Id love my people either way

Yes. Otherwise we couldn't choose to be good.

my position is moral realism, that is, the truth value of moral claims exist independent of human minds or social conventions.
it's held by most people (even many atheists) intuitively.
the smallbrained argument against this position is that moral claims require minds to be known and articulated, but this is true of any truth, whether scientific, biological, philosophical, etc.

the truth value of moral claims exist independent of human minds or social conventions.

Without god, who's the arbitrators of those values, and how do you discover them?
One thing atheists and Christians agree on is that you need a God to have objective morality.

i'm baptist and agree that objective morality needs a foundation beyond human minds or social conventions.
atheists might struggle to ground objective morality without a transcendent source, but they're still able to hold to the same view.
there are some atheist philosophers like erik wielenberg and russ schafer-landau who (attempt to) defend moral realism from within their non-theistic framework, mostly citing intuition as their epistemic justification and pointing to brute facts or abstract objects for their ontology.

Everyone has a "good" and "bad" side, that's the nature of the universe. Yin/Yang.
Most people aren't who they pretend to be in public.
youtu.be/qRiDcv19luo?si=jD-PAAbkZTqkB8sZ

You have to understand evil so you can be good

Intuition and logic are not the same, how can you argue against a psychopath whose intuition is to murder people that murder is bad without invoking some transcended being whose word is absolute?
You can't logily induce that anything is good or bad in a vacuum, having an intuition or preference is simply having an intuition or preference and nothing more.

basically good, you're a libtard if you think otherwise. How do you imagine civilization got here if not by human goodness? Slavery to an evil god? foh

Great album

this is missing the point.

you're assuming moral epistemology (how we know moral truths) and moral ontology (the existence of moral truths) must be rooted in a transcendent being, but that's precisely what moral realism denies. atheists who accept moral realism argue that moral facts are brute truths, self-sufficient and irreducible. philosophers like the ones i'd mentioned defend this position by pointing out that moral knowledge can be grasped rationally without needing divine commands.
invoking a transcendent being doesn't actually resolve the problem you're bringing up, if morality is defined by God's word then we still have to ask why those commands are moral, which runs straight into the euthyphro dilemma. moral realism bypasses that issue entirely as it posits that moral truths exist, period, independent of human minds, conventions, or divine dictates.

the existence of moral truths doesn't depend on whether or not people intuit them correctly, it depends on whether those truths exist objectively, beyond individual perception. a psychopath misunderstanding morality doesn't negate the existence of moral facts any more than someone misunderstanding calculus negates the truth of mathematical principles. if moral realism is true, the truth value of moral claims exist independent of any individual's personal intuition or preferences.
atheists holding to moral realism isn't incoherent, it's just inconvenient for those who insist that objective morality requires theism.

someone from the country that has already gone to shit is the last to respond

predictable

Are humans inherently evil?

I would say that humans are inherently non-moral beings. Biological machines that have evolved for billions of years into higly complex organisms. There is no morality about this it just is.

Said the machine, according to itself

I've been trying to find the core of blackend sludge. I think it's Noothgrush but they kinda do some of that stoner/doom wall of sound thing sometimes.
youtu.be/9Zwvcek7og4?si=UWECFzXL1t73d5BU

if morality is defined by God's word then we still have to ask why those commands are moral

I mean, because God said so, that's an axiom.
Without God, where are the moral truths? How do you discover them? How did those truths come to "being"? How do you prove them as true? How do you know the things you consider as moral truths are indeed moral truths?

Humans are human. Some are evil, some are good.
It is simply a way to categorize malicious individuals, doesn't necessarily mean it's a purely moral concept.

so me using my time machine to travel back in time to when you were 6 and rape you is acceptable and not a "bad" or "evil" thing?

Are humans inherently evil?

no.
they are hypocrites though.

ontology:

where are they

how did those truths come into being

you're assuming moral truths need a 'source' the same way contingent things do. but some truths exist necessarily, without needing to be grounded in anything beyond themselves, like the laws of logic or mathematics.
moral realism argues that morality falls into this category. moral truths exist in the same way that 2+2=4 is true, independently of any mind or decree.
asking "where did moral truths come from" is like asking "who invented the fact that contradictions can't be true," it's simply the wrong question.

epistemology:

how do we find them

how do we prove them

we discover moral truths the same way we discover other necessary truths (rational reflection, logical consistency, experience)
just as mathematical axioms are grasped intuitively and refined through formal reasoning, moral facts can be identified through ethical reasoning, coherence with other truths and practical application. proving moral truths doesn't require empirical testing the way scientific claims do, instead they can be demonstrated through rational argumentation and consistency. for example, if we accept that unnecessary harm is objectively bad, we can derive moral truths by applying logical principles to specific cases.
the fact that different moral theories exist (like in your earlier psychopath example) doesn't mean moral truths are unknowable, it just means (like in philosophy and mathematics) understanding them requires careful reasoning and debate.
moral truths are discovered, not invented, by recognizing their logical necessity rather than relying on external validation.

(sidenote: i'd like to clarify i am only arguing that non-theistic moral realism is coherent, as a Christian I don't think it's true, but for different reasons than the ones you're presenting, specifically: God exists.)

Maybe whites, they have the highest rates of psychopathy

malicious individuals

Malicious to who? Good an evil, and morality, are used to simultaneously disenfranchise the strong, and put restrictions on the minds of men.
I put my life on the line since the moment I was born. Everyone does, most of them just don't know it. If I suffer, then I have nothing to blame but the miserable fate the world has assigned to me and move on. Simple as that.

They are real as concepts in the human mind. These concepts cause humans to act in very real ways.

That's because psychopathy requires a certain level of intelligence.
Brows are usually the kind of evil that immediately ends up in jail.

Yes, but so is the entirety of creation so it can’t be helped.

Probably yes, because humans know the difference between "good" and "evil". But we're not nearly as bad as how a lot of other animals treat each other for survival. Chimps are just assholes though.

when everyone is evil, no one is.

I put my life on the line since the moment I was born. Everyone does, most of them just don't know it. If I suffer, then I have nothing to blame but the miserable fate the world has assigned to me and move on. Simple as that.

you didn't answer my question, you goalpost moving disingenuous faggot. is me traveling back in time and raping you a "BAD" thing? is it "EVIL"? yes or no, faggot

That’s like saying when everyone utilizes aerobic respiration to live no one does, or when everyone human is mammalian no on is. Evil is a fundamental quality of the universe.

Just the jews.

All humans have the capacity for evil. Jews are evil by default and by choice.

no

/thread

the universe is inherently a cruel and unjust place, people are mostly a product of their environment and circumstances.

succinct and truthpilled

if by human you mean whites, no

Nope. It's neither good nor bad. If it happens, it would have needed a cause to happen, therefore it was inevitable. In short: it is what it is.

you goalpost moving disingenuous faggot

Maybe I misunderstood your question, or you were too fucking ambiguous. In either cases you're a homosexual.

Yes. Watch the intro of the Tree of Life. It's all explained there. The way of nature vs the way of Grace.

Jung said that if you ever want to fuck older women you might have a mother complex.

well, not everyone utilizes aerobic respiration to live. If you were to call someone a "mammal" it would indeed be fair to respond that all humans are, therefore one is not especially.

You're alright, paki.

Mammal remains a valid classification because other animals are not mammals.
Aerobic respiration remains meaningful because other organisms use different methods to survive.
Terms only exist when their absence, opposite, or alternative is conceivable.

Jews aren't human though.

No, and jews aren't human...

Humans? No.
Despite the heinous shit people do, true humans still have altruism in them and this means we have the capability to strive for good.
Lesser humans however, yes they're genuinely evil.
Everyone outside the European genetic base is evil and only focuses on self serving behavior and takes great joy in tearing other people down to their own low level.
They don't even have the potential to be genuinely good, because they don't have the concept of empathy in their brains. They don't understand what it is and see Western altruism as insane behavior.

Nah, just more intelligent chimps and chimps can be pretty fucking cruel. Because of our intelligence we can up that, but we can also show compassion which chimps aren't capable of

The discovery that other people are human conclusively ended religion. Only pagan polytheism, long discredited, offered an explanation for multiple different, equally true, religions. There is simply no way to square an evangelistic imperative with the obvious reality of other people and faiths being equally virtuous. It used to be possible to conflate European civilization with Christianity and therefore declare Christianity superior, but hindsight makes it fairly obvious which one was driving, to say nothing of current circumstances where atheism and Islam build equally huge worldly institutions.

The last refuge of religion is to call everything evil and say only a few are ever turned good again, but the obvious reality is you'd rather live among humanity, with the virtuous pagans, than be transmuted into pure god energy and taken away from it all. This is our place, the human place.

asians are the least evil because asians are the most populous or fruitful in number, whoever there are least of (((jews))) are the most evil

Evil and stupidity are the same thing. Evolution itself practically has 'evil' (stupidity) as a primary organizing principle. Intelligence is antithetical to that, it breaks all the rules and is a threat to the natural order. This is why nature not only does not select for intelligence, but every creature with the potential to develop it is hard wired to seek out an eliminate it within its own species, perceiving it as weakness just like any disease or genetic disorder. Humans are the one time where intelligence won out, but its losing the long term war against nature bigly. The Happening isn't so far from the truth, but its not the trees, its our own built in self destruct mechanisms manifesting in big ways.

1000 years of feudalism and order in Europe: undone

FPBP
/thread
XD

Nons are, as a white person I’m well aware that we have been too kind to you and it’s going to stop.

Yeah it's not like Euros did some heinous shit through the middle ages and the holocaust, dindu nuffin

Fpbp and /thread

The world is. The entire way everything works is evil.

For anything to survive it must eat another thing.

Then there's the fact that there is physical pain. And wouldn't ya know it, turns out eating something causes that thing immense physical pain. And so do any number of other things.

Even if you evolve to a state like humans have and you begin to eliminate physical pain in the every day lives of a large amount of people through technology and modern conveniences, new problems arise.

First and foremost is the way we continue to treat other things. We are far more intelligent than any other thing, and because of that we know better. The way we eat is we first torture the things we eat in physical and mental ways for extended periods of times before subjecting them to often physically painful deaths. We do this even though we know it's wrong.

Then there's the fact that there is limited resources. We live on a self contained sphere with limited rocks, limited food, limited everything. We're already running into supply issues and we haven't eliminated physical pain from the every day lives of ALL people yet, just some of them. Which means we likely never will be able to.

It also means that it inherently creates competition amongst things, not just on the human level but on all levels.

The whole world is evil. It's all setup to produce pain and suffering, and to enforce that pain and suffering will occur no matter what, and on massive scales across gigantic expanses of time.

If you are strong enough, realize that no one loves you--they love how you make them feel or how you fit into their resource scheme. --hyatt

I’m getting ready to holocaust you and I’m completely serious

I know you are but you're trash and I recycle you

Are humans inherently evil?

NO

"be children in understanding evil."; God

Oscar Wilde was a degenerate

said the explosion of pure goodness, life and moment
even the structure of reality itself comes in for criticism of being inferior to you

Is evil means selfish. I guess so.

You drunk? That made no sense.

Without God, where are the moral truths?

From you. I see genuine empathy as a moral truth. No God or gods needed

moment is an abstract noun too, like "momentous"

They have not even begun to understand the meaning of that word. But they will soon. Oh they fucking will. Not even The World Wars were as despicable as what is about to happen to this yearling planet of "ours". I do hate this place. Almost as much as I hate humanity. This will be fun.
youtu.be/5aAj9rqZiEQ

least gay memeflag post

No.
Humans cannot BE evil, anymore than we can be divine.
Humans can DO evil things, and holy things, but humans can neither just be good, or evil.
Yes, even kikes and niggers etc etc.

none of what you said is inherently evil, only compared to the opposite. Pain -> pleasure, predation -> harmony etc. If those alternatives don't exist in the natural world, they can only come from God -- the same God who made the world evil. Who dares criticize?

ackshully I never said goodness doesn't exist, the world is also inherently good

you're pathetic

It's clearly acceptable and not a bad thing to the person doing it.

Does that make it right? No. Does that make it evil/bad? Yes