Original sin or original innocence?
 

     Many of you are likely familiar with this debate. Are we born pure, only to have our spirits darkened by society or are we born with sin in our hearts striving to be better than our nature?
     It should be noted that 'Original sin' is an important theme in Christianity. Adam and Eve tainted mankind when they ate of the fruit.
     Others maintain that children are perfect in their innocence. Pure and untainted.

     Thoughts?

Ooops...
 

     I forgot to mention that original sin is not a purely christian idea. There's an argument that infants are utterly selfish. That they care about nothing but themselves and only develop any moral structure with age because it's taught to them. Sorry, 'bout missing that the first time around.

We are born naked, screaming and hungry. For better and worse, we learn the rest.

I don't buy the original sin concept. That's like giving us an 0-2 count upon birth...nonsense.

interesting thread, whit.

I think you can argue for the "original sin" idea in two ways.

The first is kind of implied in your framing of the question. If we are not born with some penchant toward doing evil, then where do we learn it from? If the answer is from society (as seems to be the common culprit), how do you account for the ethical impulse of the group being evil when the ethical impulse of each individual is toward good? Is there some latent evil in social behavior that is not evident in "natural man" (apart from social interaction)? If so, how is this different from the idea of original sin?

The second line of reasoning is, I think, more interesting. There seems to be several aspects of the human condition that are peculiar, for lack of a better term. One of these is the almost universal admiration toward, and desire for, ethical heroes. We inherently admire the Good, the True, the Courageous, and particularly those individuals that embody them, the Mother Theresas, the Martin Luther Kings, the Ghandis, etc.

If there is a (nearly) universal desire to achieve and embody these ideas, and yet a just as nearly universal complete inability of humans as individuals, and society as a collective, to achieve them, there must be something disconnected, broken, or incomplete in the transition from moral thought to human behavior. Call this whatever you like, but "original sin" seems to fit.

This may devolve the thread a bit, but collectively, these "peculiarities" of the human condition seem to indicate that humanity was (take your pick: created, conditioned, evolved, designed) to be something other than that which it presently exists as.

-sm

[ed: i's grammur is fer suck]

Since good and evil are concepts created by society, how could anyone be born either?
Good vs evil is the grading system society uses to measure how their training of a child (person) turned out.
Strictly subjective.

When was the last time you had to teach someone to be bad?

It's inborn. We have no choice, only inhibition.

     Um... If the logic is that evil is taught by society then you're talking about 'Original innocence.'
     Ya know, as far as the idea of the human desire to embody or aspire to good... I think people are generally more interested in symbolizing good than being good.
     It's easy to admire people that we see as good. Yet very few actually even attempt to live up to the standards of what we consider noble. For instance, people generally accept that honesty is "good". Yet being truly honest is virtually unheard of. I don't believe this is due to a great level of difficulty. I think that the convenience of a lie is to much of a temptation to pass up. Yet we all hate to be lied too. Obviously this is a double standard, and it's common in the extreme.
     As much as we admire those we believe live up to a higher standard most people accept that it isn't for us. Or as Hobbes, of Calvin and Hobbes, once said, "virtue needs some cheaper thrills."

     Hey Bruce, of course it's subjective. If you can apply the terms after people are 'trained,' then why can't you apply the terms beforehand? :3eye:

Cultures that believe in reincarnation think that we enter the world with a certain amount of entries on the karmic balance sheet depending on one's behavior in past lives ... therefore each time around the wheel of life is spent both working off prior accululated karmic debt as well as generating new entries. While negative or bad karma is not viewed in the same way that Judeo-Christian cultures view sin, it's to some extent analogous.

This whole discussion, however, leads to the one about the existence of evil. (I'm pretty sure about that one, personally. Evil is quite real, tangible, and observable in many cases.)

No, the evil is still latent in the individuals, and only becomes apparent when they interact in society. This is what "original sin" postulates, that there is a tendency toward evil behavior within humans.

The burden is on those who oppose "original sin" to demonstrate how society, as constructed of individuals, can be evil and teach evil when each of the individual members is purely good.

-sm

     Oh ok, Smooth. Sorry 'bout the misunderstanding. Hmm, okay I'll play devils advocate though. Don't you think the pressure society puts on us to "succeed" and have material things might lead people to stray from what they know is good?       Hey Syc, what about all the kids that are born retarded and/or otherwise disabled? They sure as hell started off with the score stacked against them. Why not start off a big ol' blackmark on the soul?

Here's the reason: because sin and Adam and Eve and all that shit is <b>made up</b>. Because babies <b>are</b> born retarded, and as Lewis Black says, if there was a just and loving God, he wouldn't allow that kind of shit to go down. It's all dreamt up for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it's nicer to believe there's a reason your kid is retarded instead of thinking that it was just dumb fucking luck and bad genetics. Unfortunately, religion (especially Christianity and Islam) has spread like wildfire, so we have billions of misguided people doing all sorts of crazy shit in God's name (again, most of which he wouldn't let happen if he really existed). The Holocaust has been traced directly to the fundamentalist Christian notion that all Jews, past and present, are responsible for the crucifiction. Then we've got the Crusades. And hey, most recently, fundamentalist Muslims crashing planes in to buildings to kill infidels.

Religion does a lot of good, but it does far more harm. I didn't want to step up and alienate at the time, but juju is right when saying that religion is a crock of shit. He just needed to narrow it a bit and say that any one that believes in a single benevolent creator has their eyes so fucking closed that it seriously isn't funny (as in millions and millions of people unnecessarily murdered not-funny).

So, this whole concept of "original sin" is a crock of shit. It's made up. Pray to the fairy fucking godmother for all I care but let's stop trying to intellectually discuss religion. It's like trying to find an explanation for Neo's flying abilities in the Matrix. It's a made up story. We're discussing fairy tales.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oh and as far as the whole Jews killing Christ goes ever listen to Lenny Bruce? He said some really funny shit on the topic.

Infants, like other animals, are trying to survive. It's part of our instinct, because we have evolved by surviving. The ones without that instinct are fossils.

So if they're selfish, it just means that they're survivors. We didn't get where we are today by being generous and doing unto others as we'd have them do unto us. We said "hey, I am hungry and that guy is weaker than me. If I kill him, I can take his meal."

That's how babies are selfish. If you were going to argue that they had an inherent desire for money or jewels or something, I'd suggest you reconsider your argument after engaging your brain. But I don't think that's what is being argued.

Anyway, every living thing is selfish. Why? Because the ones that aren't already died by throwing away their chances.

Dave, why is there this 'hardwired' respect for selflessness if it is an evolutionary disadvantage?

(see the praise lauded on Syc's stranger as a relevant example)

-sm

whit -

You can't say anything about the moral standing of "society" and have it mean something other than the collective moral standing of the individual members. If Society promotes evil behavior, then there must be something evil in the collective morality of the members.

To put it another way, picture a closed system with nothing inside of it. Now, one at a time, you introduce babies that have had no prior interaction either inside or outside of the system. At some point as they grow and interact, "evil" behavior starts to emerge. How was it introduced to the system? There's nothing in there apart from individual humans. The corruption that exists must have existed in the individual members in order to be present in the collective group.

Unless, ya know, you wanna look for something outside that makes people evil :angry: [cue evil Satan laugh]

-sm

Because selflessness helps the selfish survive. If some dumb shit gives me a meal because I'm hungry, it means I get to live a little longer or a little better. We're thankful for suckers, because they increase the chances of our survival.

I'd even go further and say that if you whittle it down, people that give more are less able to defend themselves from the attacks of the vicious, survival-minded people (having fewer steaks to eat, for example), and therefore make easier targets. Decreasing the population increases the average ration size and makes life better for others.

We're always thankful to those who make it easier for us.

Now, I don't condone being an asshole, and I myself am fond of giving whenever I have an opportunity and am able to do so. But I definitely think that being selfish is what makes human beings a viable species. Without it, we'd be nowhere.

To go another way: humans definitely have built-in tribal instincts to be social and to encourage communication. We've also added layer upon layer of civilization and culture to our mental toolbox. And then we've mixed those instinctive, emotional reactions in with our learned behaviors to the point where it's hard to distinguish one from another.

But since all higher order animals include learned behaviors as part of their adaptability, we shouldn't make any assumptions about human nature based on the behavior of an infant. We all know that humans are not "finished" until they complete the learning phase, and considering children as fundamentally different from adults is pretty universal.

We don't say that since baby birds can't fly, the very nature of birds is not to fly. We take the learning phase of bird development as a given.

To call a baby good or evil is like saying they're stupid because they can't read and write. It simply doesn't apply because you haven't taught them what they have to do to meet your judgements.
That's what good and evil are, subjective judgements.
Some people see a kid tearing up the supermarket and see the demon seed.
Others see spirited tyke.
I see a speed bump.:eek:

Bruce, it seems to me that you're trying to apply common sense to a high-falutin' philosophical argument. Don't you realize that the ultimate goal here is to fizz everything into one giant mush of intellectualism?

The Amish are an extreme example. The certainly drill the kids in what they believe to be acceptable behavior but don't chastise them for not doing it. At about 16 to 21 the kid makes a decision on whether to join the order or not. If the do, then there is no more leeway. They must follow the rules.

Nah...we're talking two different realms here.

The whole original sin concept, IMO, is one of the vestiges left from the days when God was considered an angry vengeful god. You still see that today in some of the Protestant religions. Catholicism still carries the original sin concept, but at the same time, Catholicism is symbol-heavy.

The way I see it, I didn't ask to be here. I didn't do anything wrong. And even if I did anything wrong, I didn't know any better. When a child comes into the world, it is the purest piece of mankind...so how the hell can anyone say that that child is with "original sin?" I understand that many Christians believe this, and I completely respect their right to worship in religions that go down that path. But don't push it on me like the sales guy at an appliance store.

In the end, I think it's horse puckey. Just more subjective nonsense being forced down our throats by fanatics, some completely aware of their intent, others not realizing the error of their ways.

I don't know if this conversation is really possible until people are sitting at the same table. Until you've established that there is such a thing as evil, to ask whether people are born with a propensity toward it is rather meaningless. Until there is some agreement on the validity of people having an ethical orientation that is proper to their nature, asking what direction that orientation points is also meaningless.

The questions are worthwhile, but it's evident that a lot of groundwork needs to be laid prior to the present conversation. We should do so.

-sm

I think the basis for the struggle between good and evil is the struggle between rational thought, societal pressure, and animalistic desire.

Society requires us to conform to a social contract that is often in conflict with our personal desires for money, food, power, a mate, etc. Our animalistic desires are the main drivers in our lives. our raitonal mind is the arbiter of empathy and attempts to control the animalistic urges. Society provides the framework from which our rational mind derives it's rules for governing personal desire.

i do not believe - like Freud that these different aspects of self are polar opposites, but I think he was right about the gist of the strucure of human thought.

In this sense, yes we are born with original sin. We learn the societla constructs later.

I don't understand how you got that conclusion from what you just said. Are you saying that "animalistic urges" are inherently evil? And that rationality is inherently good? If so, I'm not sure I agree.

there is no evil, only man

Evil is a concept constructed to cordon off behavior that violates the social contract. In and of itself it has no meaning. I am not saying that all animalistic desire is behavior that would break the social contract, but different societies have differenc bounds for their social activity - in that sense evil is relative to those who perceive it.

Rationality allows one to adhear to the social contract and to imagine a condition beyond the contract. It is not any more good than it is evil, but it does allow one to make judgements about whether ones desires and the bahavior they elicit are appropriate for a given environment.

But Saddam thought it was rational to kill and torture opponents.
So rational is as much subject to the individual as good and evil.

Some aboriginal tribes in Australia still maintain the practice of stabbing offenders (usually in the thigh) as instant retribution for crimes. The stabbing rights are afforded to the victims family.
Personally I consider this to be torture (which sometimes leads to death through islation and infection, not to mention a complete lack of compassion for the stabee (?)).
The Aborigines, of course, do not share my opinion.
Good=Evil=Opinion=Inability to comprehend that which is perfectly acceptable to others=My brain melting.