Instigator / Pro
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#6669
Man is not good by nature.
Status
Debating
Waiting for the next argument from the contender.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Description
I believe that man (i.e. mankind) is not inherently a good being; his primal and primitive thoughts are driven by animal instincts and reflexes, and it is only society and civilization that confine him within moral frameworks. I also do not believe that man is evil by nature, but rather **PRONE** to evil and feels a natural attraction toward it.
Round 1
Forfeited
Greetings,
while I agree that humans are influenced by animal instincts and reflexes, it is important to clarify that instincts are not inherently negative. Animal instincts include both survival-driven behaviours, such as aggression for protection or obtaining food, and nurturing instincts, such as a mother’s care for her child and social bonding within groups. These nurturing and cooperative instincts are naturally ingrained in human behaviour and form a fundamental part of what it means to be human.
Further, addressing the claim that morality is purely shaped by society, I would argue that moral behaviour cannot be built entirely from scratch by social frameworks alone. Even in early human evolution, there is strong indication of basic social bonding and cooperative behaviour necessary for survival. From early hominins such as Australopithecus afarensis to modern humans like Homo sapiens, traits such as empathy, cooperation, and group protection have played a crucial role in survival and development.
This suggests that the foundation of moral behaviour is not purely a social construct, but is rooted in natural human instincts that evolved over time. Therefore, human beings possess an inherent capacity for goodness, and morality is not solely a product of external societal circumstances.
Thanks!
Round 2
(Thank you for joining this debate. Please forgive me if my replies are a bit delayed, but I've had a lot on my plate lately :v)
Generally, I think we agree on the animalistic instincts of humans, but if I understand correctly, you lean more toward the belief that human beings are inherently closer to good. I must admit that lately I've been torn between moral constructivism and moral objectivism, specifically when reflecting on human nature.
I will repeat my thesis: by nature, humans are essentially neither good nor bad. Feeling empathy toward a friend is just as primal as ruthlessly finishing off our enemies or antagonizing our foes.
However, assuming that humans created morality, I align more with Kant, who argued that the moral norms we've established simply work in practice (there are a lot of nuances to this thesis, but that's a topic for another time). If we tried to imagine a different kind of morality—a different metric for good and evil—we would quickly realize that we wouldn't be able to survive even in small groups, let alone in a civilization.
I believe that—leaving aside any belief in a higher entity that imposes objective, undeniable moral norms for us to discover—we created these norms ourselves. We did so not primarily because we initially deemed them 'good,' but because they proved effective in the long run.
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet