There’s the inevitable argument of whether human nature is good or evil, but then there are the arguments compliant to both perspectives which make the claims all the more absurd and easy to criticize from my couch.

Apparently the entirety of your approach to this world is based on what you’re made of. Whether you really are originally made of broken cancer cells or are pieces of a God. The assumption that human nature is good, and that we have a natural tendency towards doing good as well as feeling instant guilt at the potential of doing evil, doesn’t really help explain the murderers and rapists out there. On the other hand, the inherently-evil theory falls short due to the same reason; there are good people. The thing is, you can’t really take the high road, debating inherently good or evil, using humans as an example simply because we’re too many to fall compliant to one man-made theory. But what is more is not whether we are actually good or evil, for some article will definitely not shape your perspective on a subjectively ongoing debate that has aroused the interest of thousands throughout history.

Assumption #1: Humans are good.

This is likely to place more emphasis on the fact that our desires should be accommodated within the limit set by our ethical and moral codes. This perspective is likely to be based on the ideology of maintaining one’s desires, balancing needs and wants, and limiting the extent to which our vice may lead us, to exercise self-control. If one were to assume that the creator is judged upon his creations, then human nature, being inherently good, would imply that the creator himself is good.

Assumption #2: Humans are evil.

On the other hand, this places more emphasis on the direction of nature towards destruction. It often implies that the destruction caused by man is justified by the intrinsic nature that has a higher tendency towards evil. It even further insinuates that this temporary life would be unfair if we were to be expected to do good and be governed by laws that prohibit us from letting our inherent desires lead us. And if one were to assume that the creator is judged upon his creations, then human nature, being inherently evil, would imply that the creator himself is malevolent.

To conclude the points made, the implications made from the nature of human nature would be most significantly related to Epicurus’ quote in describing the creator. When we observe the creations, we are doing so by calculating the smaller parts of the larger equation. Figuring out the nature of the creation gives us potential insight into the creator himself.  Epicurus concisely states all four possibilities and they form the basis for the debate on human nature. All possibilities including the creator either being “capable of preventing evil” but not “willing” and therefore “malevolent”, or whether “incapable but willing” and therefore not “omnipotent” or “incapable and unwilling” and therefore not “God” or “capable and willing” to which the answer and the question remains: “where cometh evil?”


Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Pin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on TumblrShare on LinkedInShare on RedditEmail this to someone