Are people morally evil?

[DarkAsmodeous]

Ok, you're right, let's assume that for am oment.

Power and the desire for it, is the basis of morality, and the justification for it.

If that's so, then any action is only moral, or we ought to pursue it, if its based upon this want for power. Any action to the contrary, by this system of thought, is immoral, and any actions following it is not subject to moral critique.

Try again, drop the savage rhetoric of people trying to sound smart by denouncing human capability, and think it through for a bit.

[IAMTHEEMPEROR]

Hey, I'm sticking by my side, and I don't want to be talked down to.

Let's just think this over for a moment. Here are a few sources of moral action and why they are acting as restraints.

Religion: With most religions, it involves god FEARING. That means you need to follow the rules, or else.
Government: All governments have rules, being decided by the people who run them who look out for their best interests. People need to follow these rules or else they will be in trouble, which is either a fine, prison, or execution.
Education: You need to do all of your work or else you will be unable to get a good job and you'll be stuck poor and subservient, an Omega.
Parental: Well, I can honestly say that parents make rules to look after themselves now, can't I?

[DarkAsmodeous]

I argue that morality stems from our equality as humans.

Or, to use the terminology, Natural Rights.

"We call a collection of men a society when their actions are mutualy adjusted to one another." - Hayek

If I can logical deduce a reason why men should have certain natural, and equal rights, based on their equality as beings capable of rational choice (not common deffinition of it, but simply the act of choice), that we should have certain rights. We can bicker over what those are, and there's a lot of literature on it, but it isn't needed here. If I can deduce that, then I've established a moral obligation to respect those rights. We ought to respect ____. And so, there is the basis of how ought we act. Men have a love of truth cultivated in their minds, and it is this love of truth that drives many, and the truth in morality is enough for some, and with education, will eventualy be enough for all as we come nearer the truth.

[IAMTHEEMPEROR]

Modern government does what's best for everyone as a whole. That's a standard I can agree with. People may have their own desires, but they also aren't stupid enough to go taking on a whole. You need to agree with it, and look out for mutual interest in that case instead of one's own.

The US's laws were written by the founding fathers, and almost every law came from philosophers from Europe, like Locke and Voltaire. They explained how to make the modern system best for everyone, because (almost) everyone in Europe hated the tyrant monarchs they had to serve. They were rich, spoiled, and most of them dragged their people through the dirt. That is why the French Revolution started.

It may also be that looking out for the interests of others may be in your best interest. I don't know.

But, I'm not saying I even believe all of this. I just picked a side. That's right. If Aliens came to Earth for me so they could kill me, or else they'd kill everyone else, I'd go

This topic is depressing though, maybe I'll start a happier thread

[DarkAsmodeous]

There... is a lot wrong there.

And our decleration of indipendance is a natural rights document btw, equality is the basis of the morals there, not benefit. Also, the social contract is a very, very flawed idea, I reccomend you read up on it, its very illuminating. Also, although locke is thrown around a lot, our system of majority rule democracy is actualy more rosseau, and our constitutional system is more rules utilitarian than anything else.

And those are some seriously Fed up systems.

[IAMTHEEMPEROR]

Yeah, it's for natural rights, hence the first like of "We the people" not "I Thomas Jefferson"

Voltaire and Locke were just two examples. We also covered Rousseau in history class, as well as Montesquieu, and each of them had some part in the laws of America, even though they were pretty much all dead by that time

[DarkAsmodeous]

Appeals to authority only work if the authority is correct. Not to mention that each social contract philosopher fundamentaly disagreed with the rest, thus being moved to write his own theories, and so pulling from them all leads to an inconsistant basis for government, making it moraly indifensible since it complies with none of the authorities to which it appeals.

Not to mention that the social contract is... Well, no, I don't care that much, I can't critique something you haven't studied in depth yet, but if you're interested I can link you to some succinct, great summaries and critiques of the fundamental issues.

[IAMTHEEMPEROR]

Oh please do! I love history and government.

(off topic, speaking of History, I'm bumming because my history teacher, who is my favorite teacher, is being replaced by a stingy old guy, because my teacher has cancer and needs surgery. just found out today and I'm bumming )

Sorry for the off topic-ness

[A_flyboy]

...
My opinion: F___ evil, it's so boring & predictable. Good always pwns in the end.

As for debating morality, well, that is debatable, but foreign morality is no excuse to be a piece o' trash.

[IAMTHEEMPEROR]

Good doesn't always prevail. We're talking about life, not fiction. And the rules in life usually end up as bad things happen to good people.