the dark side

[sheb]

Usually there are opposite things like good and bad or positive and negtive or ying and yang ... and so on. Do you think that there could be also an opposite thing of the buddhist satori/enlightening? Do you think that we are born as good/bad or just made by outer influences/our environment to the person we are? Can we really change our personality from a bad one to a good one or will be there always a rest of the bad one in us? Is perhaps the bad part of us necessary to stay alive?

[Nadine]

Do you think that we are born as good/bad or just made by outer influences/our environment to the person we are?

I think noone is born bad, but maybe some people have the precondition to become bad, e.g. you are more susceptible for some mental diseases which can result in aggressions and so on...I have also heard that your behavior is dependent on the hormones you received in your mother's stomach.

[Erik]

Deep thoughts from Germany...

I think it's less about good/bad and more about developing empathy, follow-through, and responsibility.

Empathy requires contact with people so you understand them.

Responsibility requires accountability which requires trying to do things and taking risks.

Follow-through requires discipline and focus.

[Musubi Dojo]

If you believe in Free Will then I think you have an answer.

A smart person once told me that I was the sum total of all my choices and that I could always choose a new path.

Cheers
c

[sheb]

I was the sum total of all my choices and that I could always choose a new path.

It's a good answer and I think I have the same/a similar view, but the problem is: If one is born "bad", all decisions are probably influenced by this. So one can't really make "good" decisions and probably can't distinquish between "good" and "bad".
For example I have read that people with a special brain injury can't feel pity for someone anymore. But of course it doesn't mean that they are "bad" ...

It's nearly the same if one was made "bad" by the environment, but in this case there is perhaps a kind of instinctive feeling for the "good".

[Nina]

Do you think that we are born as good/bad or just made by outer influences/our environment to the person we are?

I think we are born neither good nor bad, because this distinction can develop not until we are able to see the difference by ourselves.

[Oniw17]

Usually there are opposite things like good and bad or positive and negtive or ying and yang ... and so on. Do you think that there could be also an opposite thing of the buddhist satori/enlightening? Do you think that we are born as good/bad or just made by outer influences/our environment to the person we are? Can we really change our personality from a bad one to a good one or will be there always a rest of the bad one in us? Is perhaps the bad part of us necessary to stay alive?

I don't believe in good and bad; these are arbitrary ideals. You could argue that things such as killing are inherently wrong, but even these things are relative. For example, it's sometimes necessary to kill in order to stay alive. Besides that, many people are willing to kill animals deemed as pests, and what seperates killing a rat from killing a human? I believe(I'm not sure) rats have a high level of intelligence, and they may even have theory of mind. Even if that wasn't the case, we down kill retards who use our resourses and rarely give anything back; there's no reason to justify killing sentient beings based on intelligence. The only argument that can morally justify the killing of a rat versus the killing of a human being is that of a categorical imperative. Unless you believe that man is somehow special in relation to other animals. That would justify racism. You could draw the line at species or sygameon, but what reason is there for doing so? What's the difference between basing your decisions on who you can reproduce with and who has the same skull type as you? In theory, if the people with dfferent skull types had been isolated from you for long enough, they wouldn't be able to reproduce with you anymore. Then there's the subjective quantifications of good and evil that we all make. We are to some extent born with tendencies toward certain behaviors, but a lot can be changed by the environment. I don't think anyone knows how much of our behavior can be affected by nurture. I believe that nurture outweighs nature, but they both contribute to 'the end product.'(so I guess that's the answer to your question imo).

[Eliz]

I don't know if people are necessarily born good or bad, but I believe some people are naturally prone to find trouble.

[Musubi Dojo]

It's a good answer and I think I have the same/a similar view, but the problem is: If one is born "bad", all decisions are probably influenced by this. So one can't really make "good" decisions and probably can't distinquish between "good" and "bad".
For example I have read that people with a special brain injury can't feel pity for someone anymore. But of course it doesn't mean that they are "bad" ...

It's nearly the same if one was made "bad" by the environment, but in this case there is perhaps a kind of instinctive feeling for the "good".

This is the old Nurture vs Nature arguement. That Johnny is a bad seed, just like his old man....I also think you are talking about sociopaths. There I think it's a case of genetic predisposition possibly triggered by environment.

I dunno, mental illness is very real, but the mentally ill have lucid moments when they can make decisions that will affect their non lucid moments.

As for Dr,. Hiberts 'Evil Gene' I don't believe in it. (Simpsons quote for those whos missed it. )

Then you take ten kids raised in horrible homes, will horrible abuse and see how many actually turn out "bad" by society's standards. I sure they are higher than norm but people do over come that kind of thing.

[Nadine]

There are also studies with twins which show, that the accordance between monozygotic twins in respect of criminal behaviour is higher than with dizygotic twins...

[Jaclyn]

I think we all have the potential for good or evil, and each of our actions is a choice towards one or the other. I wouldn't consider truly insane people evil, just because I think evil is a product of a conscious decision, which means there must be the capacity to make the decision in the first place.

Then again, Hannibal Lecter's clearly insane, and also clearly evil. Hmm...

As for Dr,. Hiberts 'Evil Gene' I don't believe in it. (Simpsons quote for those whos missed it. )

You question Dr. Hibert???

[John Lucas]

There are also studies with twins which show, that the accordance between monozygotic twins in respect of criminal behaviour is higher than with dizygotic twins...

Im glad you brought up twin studies, we talked about them just yesterday in my Psychology class. To respond to your comment briefly, you have to take into account the fact that there are so many preconcieved ideas about how identical twins should behave in society, that similarities in their behavior are not necessarily determined only by their genetics.

I don't want to get too personal on this board, but I have an older half-brother. We are raised in the same single-parent house hold, with the same mother, he is five years older than me, but is naturally predisposed to sociopathic behavior. For example, When we were younger, I became sick at the idea of violence to animals, and was plagued by night-terrors and violent dreams. he, on the other hand feels no wrong in killing a neighborhood pet. At about 12 years of age, he would even perform pointless surgery on living animals without remorse. And if you don't think that's bad, trust me, I can go further

Given that we are only five years apart, how do you account for the complete opposite nature of our behavior? Is it because he experienced some kind of severe psychological trauma within that short time? Or was he just born that way?

[Jeff C.]

Sven, you asked specifically about buddhist satori, and whether there is an "opposite." No, there isn't. Everyone is born enlightened. Then through overly-structured patterning most people forget their enlightenment. A lucky few realize their enlightenment again later on in life.

Jeff Cook

[John Lucas]

He actually matured out of that behavior without the need for counselling. As far as I know he works a 9-5 job and lives a normal life right now.

Sven, you asked specifically about buddhist satori, and whether there is an "opposite." No, there isn't. Everyone is born enlightened. Then through overly-structured patterning most people forget their enlightenment. A lucky few realize their enlightenment again later on in life.

Jeff Cook

The idea of enlightenment as a prevalent force that exists in everyone, but is masked by the thought patterns that we assume in our daily lives is very intriguing to me. Recently a friend of mine told me that they defined genius as a person's ability to understand and manipulate their thought patterns, and essentially allowing them to fine tune their brain to fit specific situations.

[sheb]

Thanks for the answers.

I also don't think that one is born bad. In my opinion we are the sum of several things like for example experiences and environment, but also nature/inborn "things". I suppose some people has a better feeling for what is good than others and that "some people are naturally prone to find trouble" like Eliz wrote.

On the other hand a lot of definitions of "the good" are made by our society - or is there a objective definition of " the good" (for example not to kill others)?

Everyone is born enlightened. Then through overly-structured patterning most people forget their enlightenment. A lucky few realize their enlightenment again later on in life.

I know this buddhist view and I like this idea. But although I don't think, that there could be an "antisatori", the question is, why there isn't? It could be seen as a basic principle of nature, that there are usually to opponent things. Does it only seem like that, but in real it's just an illusion because of our restricted view/capabilities?

[Jeff C.]

It is easier to see these things as "black OR white," rather than "black AND white" or "grey." The concept of "good OR evil" is a good example. A hurricane is a natural event that kills people. Is it "evil?" An insane mass-murderer, because of his "nature," kills people - it is a "natural event" for him to do so. Is he evil? Crocodiles have the "natural" behavior to occasionally kill for needs other than food. Is the crocodile evil?

These are definitely undesirable behaviors, but due to our limited or no ability to see things the way they really are, we have the parallel need to artificially categorize everything.

Jeff Cook

[P Goldsbury]

It is easier to see these things as "black OR white," rather than "black AND white" or "grey." The concept of "good OR evil" is a good example. A hurricane is a natural event that kills people. Is it "evil?" An insane mass-murderer, because of his "nature," kills people - it is a "natural event" for him to do so. Is he evil? Crocodiles have the "natural" behavior to occasionally kill for needs other than food. Is the crocodile evil?

These are definitely undesirable behaviors, but due to our limited or no ability to see things the way they really are, we have the parallel need to artificially categorize everything.

Jeff Cook

Taking a cue from Mr Cook, I think the question could be generalized further. Are the boys in Lord of the Flies actually evil, especially Ralph and his group, who kill Simon and Piggy? I think Golding himself thinks so, but this is because of his established convictions, which perhaps led him to write the novel in the first place.

I have problems with Mr Cook's last sentence, probably because such diverse things/events as hurricanes, mass-murderers and crocdiles are considered together as one broad category, as behavior. I think we can really see the 'behavior' of hurricanes and crocodiles for what they are. Hurricanes happen; crocodiles hunt because of their nature.

But analysis of the behavior of mass murderers has a moral dimension and so cannot be analysed in the same terms as the occurrence of hurricanes and the biological instincts of crocodiles.

It is a further question whether the behavior of mass murderers can be comnsidered as evil and, if so, why. I think Golding read Milton's Paradise Lost, which I think is required reading as a background to any discussion of good and evil.

Best wishes,

[Musubi Dojo]

I have a Calvin and Hobbes carton that describes the "anti-satori". I'll try and remember to scan it tonight.

IMHO evil is mostly defined by a society.

When you get into a religious definition of evil things change.

I also believe there are some acts of evil that transcend most cultures. An instinctual aversion to evil or something like that.

These are opinions formed over the years with any footnotes or bibliography.

Cheers
c

[Jeff C.]

Taking a cue from Mr Cook, I think the question could be generalized further. Are the boys in Lord of the Flies actually evil, especially Ralph and his group, who kill Simon and Piggy? I think Golding himself thinks so, but this is because of his established convictions, which perhaps led him to write the novel in the first place.

I have problems with Mr Cook's last sentence, probably because such diverse things/events as hurricanes, mass-murderers and crocdiles are considered together as one broad category, as behavior. I think we can really see the 'behavior' of hurricanes and crocodiles for what they are. Hurricanes happen; crocodiles hunt because of their nature.

But analysis of the behavior of mass murderers has a moral dimension and so cannot be analysed in the same terms as the occurrence of hurricanes and the biological instincts of crocodiles.

It is a further question whether the behavior of mass murderers can be comnsidered as evil and, if so, why. I think Golding read Milton's Paradise Lost, which I think is required reading as a background to any discussion of good and evil.

Best wishes,

Dr., I agree with you from a purely moralistic standpoint. Philosophically, however, I differ slightly. There are many examples in the animal kingdom of animals killing for reasons other than hunting/sustenance - wild and domestic animals. These killings are instinctual, unless we give credit to animals for being capable of "free thought" and "choice."

Morals and laws are necessary to keep the peace. Morals and laws are artificial constructs, further accentuating our inability to see things and occurences for what they truly are.

Jeff Cook

[Erik]

Three levels of evil:
1) Intentionally doing harm,
2) Knowing better but allowing harm to happen through laziness or cowardice,
3) Not knowing better and allowing harm to happen but being too lazy or spineless to bother to learn what ones' actions or inactions have done.

And I don't count this as evil:
4) Not knowing better, allowing harm to happen or causing it onself, then learning and trying to fix things or at least (though this is the weak way out as it doesn't seek to fix previously caused problems) not causing that harm in the future.

As we're all growing and learning throughout life, one cannot be blamed for making mistakes but one CAN be blamed for not bothering to pay attention and try to figure things out.