Man is inherently evil

RefutationsThe following is not an argument it is clarifications. What you ought to do is a good definition but I believe we should consider it like this:"Man has to choose to help him self or help others collectively for no personal gain,"I believe this is too simplistic of a definition for something as amorphous as morality. If Pro cannot demonstrate reasonably and adequately why we must accept this definition, then the debate itself is pointless, as he essentially trying to prove somethng about morality is true, before giving as even a reason to believe that morality even exists. the man has never learned from another living thing and actions are out of instinct Pro must also prove this premise to be true (not with solid evidence but with rational reasons). The odd thing is, I am learning something about Pro right now, as I read his arguments, therefore, I believe his argument is self-destrutive, given that he and I are both "living thing
. " The nature of this debate is a form of communication, the language we use already proving that man learns from each other, as no single man created language alone. "pro would say he would help when self every time he is given said optionscon would say we would help every one else every time he is given said options. "If Pro cannot adequate reason why we should accept these premises, this no longer is a debate but a mere expression of opinion. Argument beings here:"I believe a baby is born with no sense of morals. "Indeed, that is because in order to be immoral, one must have knowledge of good and evil. So by default, Pro has disproven his resolution that "Man is Inherently Evil. " He concedes that man is born of no moral incliniation. "A completely unsocialized and untaught human would only help himself and other people that are important to his life(Mate and offspring). " That depends on how this human being defines what it means to "help himself. " Self-interest is not limited to selfishness. If that was the case, we inherently have no reason to care for our mate or offsprings, as is the case with numerous insects and animals that leave their young to care for themselves. Therefore, self-interest is something that can be beneficial to everyone, indeed, this is what want any rational human being would want: prosperity for all. "Man is evil and when given absolute power over people will take advantage of them and possible even enjoy it, I will cite the Stanford Prison Experiment. "What is absolute power, and how does one attain it? "Three things humans are programmed to do is eat(and defecate) sleep and reproduce. The goal is the reproduction and eating and sleeping are the needed steps to get there. If any one of this thing are denied humans will not act morally. The goal is not only reproduction but also survival, as reproduction is especially signficant if your own genes survive. "Case oneIf denied food people will do drastic things even unmoral unthinkably things. I will use the "Holodomor" as an example, during this time of forced famine in the Ukraine many people were arrested because of cannibalism. The most common act of cannibalism was to eat the smallest child. "From a utilitarian[1] perspective, this makes sense. The smallest child has the least amount of chance for survival and likely were the first to die in times of a famine. It is not necessarily immoral to eat what is already dead, especially if the alternative was death. In my view, if I were to die in a famine, I would no hold ill will against people that were to eat my corpse, especially i it made the difference between life and death. If Pro cannot disprove the utilitarian theory of morality by proving his own definition to be more reasonably sound and true, I believe the debate cannot progress in a progressive way. [1]. http://plato.stanford.edu... "Case Two Studies show that when sleep deprived people take much longer to decide on the morality of something on top of becoming irritable and angry. " I do not see how this proves that people are inherently evil. Yes, sleep-depravation has side effects that may stall a person's judgment process, bu I fail to see how this helps Pro's arguments. Counter ArgumentFirst of all, I would like to point out that morality does not exist as a physical or natural law. One does not get smitten by god/nature/karma for doing something "evil. " Morality by nature is something humans make up and decide, and ethical theories are what we have in regards to how we determine what is or is not ethical/moral. Morality is not instinct alone, it is inherently developed through relationships, meaning it is not a isolated process as Pro argues. Different cultures have different moral codes and customs, the relevant distinction is the process in which this moral code is established. Are we relying on our emotions and intuitions to decide what is moral? Or are we using logic and reason? Is it a mere matter of faith? Until Pro can soundly reason for why we must accept his definition, this debate cannot continue in a meaningful way. I await Pro's response.