Would you describe a dog as capable of being evil? Or a cat? Or a chimpanzee? Most likely you could not. We humans belong to the taxonomic kingdom of Animalia and are therefore animals. Our species has evolved from animals that looked and acted more like the modern chimpanzee than we do. So at what point did we go from being creatures of instinct do developing the concept of morality? A great deal of literature has been written about morality, examples of which can be located in fiction and non-fiction as well as in scientific, theological and philosophical fields. Specific examples include the bible, as well as the writings of Plato (c. 424-348 BCE), Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) and John Steinbeck (1902-1968). Morality is a trait that is developed as a result of practical material situations and experience as exemplified in The Grapes of Wrath, challenged by St. Matthew, but reinforced in the writings of Plato; we humans are born morally neutral. John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath tells the story of the Joad family as they travel from Oklahoma to California. The story has some very realistic examples of people learning lessons in morality, whether they realize it or not, as well as the values of being moral. Steinbeck wrote: The families learned what rights must be observed—the right of privacy in the tent; the right to keep the past black hidden in the heart; the right to talk and to listen; the right to refuse help or to accept, to offer help or to decline it; the right of son to court and daughter to be courted; the right of the hungry to be fed; the rights of the pregnant and the sick to transcend all other rights (Steinbeck 194). He wrote that families learned about these rights, meaning at one point they did not ... ... middle of paper ... ...elop morals as a result of practical material situations and experience as described in The Grapes of Wrath and confirmed by the ideas of Plato. We humans evolved from creatures of pure instinct into something that craved a sense of order; the concept of morality is likely a byproduct of this. Ultimately it is more likely that we born morally neutral as opposed to good or evil. We were born creatures of instinct, but we have the capacity to distinguish right and wrong. This is entirely due to cultural upbringing as well as experience and practical material situations. Works Cited Plato. The Allegory of the Cave. A World of Ideas. Ed. Lee Jacobus. 9th e. Boston: Bedford, 2013. Print. Steinbeck, John. The Grapes of Wrath. New York: Viking, 1939. Print. St. Matthew. “The Sermon on the Mount”. A World of Ideas. Ed. Lee Jacobus. 9th e. Boston: Bedford, 2013. Print.
Throughout the past centuries, the concept of instinctive morality has been debated back and forth. One philosophy with a strong viewpoint on this subject is Puritanism, because they believe that since the beginning of the world, people have been born sinners. Puritans felt that Adam and Eve’s temptation by Satan had cursed all of humanity to be born evil. A few decades later, Deists shifted their ideas away from religion and believed that every person could choose whether they were good or bad. Then, Transcendental ideas began the thought that humans were born innately good, and that God and Satan had nothing to do with people’s morality. Throughout the major literary philosophies in the United States, one can see how the innate character of a human progresses from being evil to being innately good.
In his Allegory Plato shows us how a man ascends from the darkness of a cave to the light of the outside world. In this ascent Plato’s man passes through four distinct stages of cognition: from imagination, to belief, understanding, and finally knowledge.
In conclusion, the relevance of the “Allegory of the Cave” lies in the fact that its culmination continues to reoccur throughout history. Socrates, Galileo, and Martin Luther King Jr. are examples of important historical figures that have been condemned for their ability to make the journey out of the cave and return to deliver their community from the bonds that limit human growth. I believe the most important lessons to be found in Plato’s allegory are that we must learn to look beyond our immediate reality and that our actions should be geared toward unifying our communities. Only then will we arrive at the ultimate goal of living for the greater good.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s “On the Genealogy of Morality” includes his theory on man’s development of “bad conscience.” Nietzsche believes that when transitioning from a free-roaming individual to a member of a community, man had to suppress his “will to power,” his natural “instinct of freedom”(59). The governing community threatened its members with punishment for violation of its laws, its “morality of customs,” thereby creating a uniform and predictable man (36). With fear of punishment curtailing his behavior, man was no longer allowed the freedom to indulge his every instinct. He turned his aggressive focus inward, became ashamed of his natural animal instincts, judged himself as inherently evil, and developed a bad conscience (46). Throughout the work, Nietzsche uses decidedly negative terms to describe “bad conscience,” calling it ugly (59), a sickness (60), or an illness (56); leading some to assume that he views “bad conscience” as a bad thing. However, Nietzsche hints at a different view when calling bad conscience a “sickness rather like pregnancy” (60). This analogy equates the pain and suffering of a pregnant woman to the suffering of man when his instincts are repressed. Therefore, just as the pain of pregnancy gives birth to something joyful, Nietzsche’s analogy implies that the negative state of bad conscience may also “give birth” to something positive. Nietzsche hopes for the birth of the “sovereign individual” – a man who is autonomous, not indebted to the morality of custom, and who has regained his free will. An examination of Nietzsche’s theory on the evolution of man’s bad conscience will reveal: even though bad conscience has caused man to turn against himself and has resulted in the stagnation of his will, Ni...
Plato. “The Allegory of the Cave.” A World of Ideas. 9th ed. Ed. Lee A.Jacobus. Boston: Bedford/St.Martins, 2013.Print
Whether or not humans are instinctively good or evil has been a much talked about debate for many years and is known as an unanswerable question. Determinists, such as Thomas Hobbs, have come to the conclusion that humans are naturally evil and it is within our basic instincts to be greedy, selfish and otherwise drawn to chaos. Hobbs states that “our true nature arises in times of strife and it is within us, when threatened, to self preserve.” I on the other hand disagree with this famous philosophers take on human nature. In this short essay, I will argue that human beings are born with the instinct to be good and to love one another, as well as to be loved.
Morals are developed from the moment we are born to the moment we die, and are cultivated by what we see, hear, and do within our lives, but more importantly by the people we meet. In the world there are all manner of things for us to bear witness to, whether it be the beauty of birth or the gritty horror that is war, in either case men and women are shaped and changed by these events whether it be good or bad. The greek philosopher Aristotle is quoted as saying, “And to say what makes good morals vs what are bad ones is completely based on self, for no two people have the same upbringing, class, or position in life, for how is a slave who has known nothing but the brutality of his/her master to understand under what morals, owned by their
Our brain controls our body, because of our brains, we are able to tell qualitative differences between colours, tastes of food, our fears, and what brings us happiness(citation). In addition, the concept of what is right and what is wrong is controlled by our brains, which means that it’s truly an illusion that differs from person to person. The same concept can be applied to acts like sexual assault and murder. What makes something like these terrible acts wrong for the majority of the population and not just a distasteful act. To explain further, what a person considers distasteful versus what a person thinks is right or wrong is just a personal illusion that you personally apply to other’s. This makes me question where our moral judgements originate from, or could they just be figments of our imagination? The reason for this is simple, moral judgements are not physical objects and they do not have a mass. The only explanation that I think is reasonable comes from Steven Pinker’s “The Moral Instinct”. The explanation is that “Perhaps we are born with a rudimentary moral sense, and as soon as we build on it with moral reasoning, the nature of moral reality forces us to some conclusions but not others”(Pinker,
First, for humans to evolve spiritually, it must go from an inferior stare to a superior state. Second, for humanity to evolve spiritually there must be a state of interiority. Thirdly, an inferior state includes a time when there is both moral and natural evil. Fourth, therefore for humanity to evolve spiritually there must be a time when there is both moral and natural evil. Before going into detail, I will define some terms. Moral evil is the type of evil caused by intentional action or inaction in some cases. They include but aren’t limited to lying, killing, theft, and other injustices. Natural evil can be defined as an evil that occurs as consequences of nature such as diseases, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. An inferior state is state of lower quality and a lesser, more mediocre version of something. A superior state is a state of better quality and enhancement. In this case, the superior state is the result of evolving spiritually and developing virtues to reach a more enlightened state.
In the article “What makes us moral” by Jeffrey Kluger, he describes how morality is defined and how the people follow rules. Kluger discusses about scientific research that has been done to point out the important reasons of morality. Kluger explains that a person’s decision to do something good or bad is based on empathy, that humans tend not to do bad to those they sympathize with. Kluger also compares humans with animals and thinks that morality is the only thing that separates us from animals. I do agree with Kluger that people are born with a sense of right and wrong, but we should be taught how to use it. We learned to be nicer to those around us because we already know the type of person they are, and the morality we learned as children
In book seven of ‘The Republic’, Plato presents possibly one of the most prominent metaphors in Western philosophy to date titled ‘Allegory of the Cave’.
I will begin with Kant, as he was the first to develop his theory of morality. Kant published the Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals in 1785. Kant’s entire hypothesis of morality revolved around the basis of us being motivated by the logic of obligation and having a moral duty to oblige and uphold as good beings. Kant believed that our moral actions were the result of reasoning and ones moral worth was dependent upon motive, not the end or the consequences resulting from ones actions. As rational beings we are expected to act and behave accordingly for the sake of the moral good, but with practical reason. This then results in universal morality according to Kant. This was all defined under Kant’s categorical imperative. These imperatives are things that one “ought” to do according to Kant. Kant believed that following ones duty was not measurable by the end means, yet it “is good only through its willing”. This meant that it is good only if it is good in itself. He believes under the categorical imperative, one must only act upon the maxim if it is willable under the universal law. And these maxims must be contradiction free and purposeful to be considered moral.
Historically people from various societies and cultures have struggled to define, characterize, and set the parameters of good and evil. Albert Einstein said, “God did not create evil. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of God.” (Goodreads.com) A lot of people believe that evil is not inherent; it is nurtured. What if we are all really born evil and we have to be taught to be good? From early childhood, people are taught to adhere to guidelines that identify good or bad behavior. Unfortunately, no amount of guidance and moral teaching can prevent people from abusing power and proliferating evil deeds in a community. Good judgment can easily become overcome by temptation. The lack of empathy also allows people to do despicable things to others. Nonetheless, the definition of evil is dependent on what a community perceives is good. The topic of good versus evil has been examined extensively in history books, literature and world religions.
For years, the matter of morality has been a widespread topic of discussion, debating whether it is a product of our chemical composition or our free will. Before I get started, I will provide you with what I believe morality exactly is. Ethics is a “code of conduct,” much like a University’s student handbook, but applied to the expected morality of a larger group or society. Morals are how individuals choose to interpret and follow such code. Just as a student may not always act in complete obedience with the student handbook, humans also deviate from their ethical codes of conduct. Therefore, morals are the set of a person’s specific values and opinions formed by their interpretation of their society’s code of ethics. With this version of the meaning of morality, I believe that individual free-will and the neurological hardwiring in which we are born with both significantly influence the development of our mature human morality due to a variety of factors including: human brain development, differences in our upbringing and education, which give rise to disparities in matters such as what is considered right or wrong, decision-making processes, and our ultimate behavioral choices, and lastly, because morality cannot exist if based solely on human nature, it must also involve our own self-determination. My position that morality is not the product of one side of the debate or the other, but rather arises through the integration of both components, allows for a complete demonstration of morality in its entirety. In this system, the ambiguities present in the one-sided arguments are removed, making it easy to link any individual’s action to their personal moral accountability.
The source of origin is the human mind. As the construct of morality is created from inside the mind, it can be subjective.