Okay, so I've thought about this idea on numerous occasions and, in this case, I often end up irked by the perceptions that others hold. I'm usually very good at empathizing and doing my best to understand others perspectives when it comes to philosophical ideas because there is often no definite or provable answer, but my beliefs on this subject in particular lead me to firmly back my opinion when the subject is brought up.
The idea that has often bugged me is the concept of of human morality. The idea that humans are naturally "good" or "bad". First off, I become seriously frustrated with the fact that people often fail to explain what defines a human as "good" or "bad" in the first place. I believe that this initial mistake creates a hole in many people's logic.
In my opinion it is foolish to believe that human nature defines us as either "good" or "bad". In fact, I see us as more of a neutral figure just as any other animal on this planet. For example, when a lion kills a gazelle to feed it's not because it's a bad lion. It's not because lions, by nature, are evil creatures out to cause the suffering of other organisms. It's simply an animal instinct; an act supporting every creatures biological need to survive. Why then do we label our own drives as greedy and selfish, and therefore "bad". Like any other animal we do what we feel necessary to survive and even prosper. Maybe that makes us selfish, but if we are simply doing what we were programmed to do how can that make us "bad"?
I'm not saying that there is no such thing as a good or bad person. Our intelligence as humans gives us the opportunity to act on a level that other animals are not capable of. There are certainly those who have taken that ability to extremes on either side of the spectrum. I am simply saying that I do not believe that humans were born, as a whole, either good or bad, which is what some people imply is factual.
I also do not think it is logical to protest that humans are "good" by nature. I personally do not believe in selfless acts. There is motivation behind every action, just as there is a reward behind every action whether intentional or not. For example, one may say charity is an act of selflessness, and sure it's a very nice thing to do, but that certainly doesn't mean the giver doesn't also benefit from giving. Even if it's not a tangible, people receive a mental reward from such acts of "selflessness", and therefore, it is not an act of selflessness, or a marker "good". In fact, I think that one could even go as far to say that because every decision indeed has some personal benefits attached to it, that every action is a selfish one, and if this were true then one could therefore claim that donating is a selfish act, and because many have defined selfish as "bad" donating would also be considered "bad" as well. Does that make any sense?
I get that there are many factors that come into play, a big one being religion, so I understand why one might feel inclined to believe that humans are "good" or "bad" by nature, but I feel that if you take the time to think about what I've explained you may at least be able to understand my opinion as well, or at least where I'm coming from, and that's all I ask.
No comments:
Post a Comment