分類
筆記

Human Are Born Evil?

Hereafter is the question by my friend and my opinion.

“Human are born evil?"

It depends how do you define “good” and “evil.”
Selfishness is not necessarily good or evil.

What I mean is that we have no objective and valuable ways to define “good” or “evil.” Some definitions may be accepted by some groups of people, but it does not mean they are correct. If we carefully exam each definition, we will easily notice that all of them, no matter from philosophy, ethics, or religions, are nothing but only preferences among the people, especially in different peoples.

On the other hand, the concept of ethics is only a costless way for us to make some convenient decisions, especially when a person want to live in a specific society. However, it doesn’t guarantee the rules we apply.

Take selfishness as an example. People who provide high-quality goods or services to us are not based on their love for us but their love for money. We all know it. Selfishness performs in a good way, if we define that everyone get benefits from a trade is good. Selfishness can also be evil. If we define that someone kills thousands or million people for keeping his presidency or power is evil, then Mao and Kim Jong-il are apparently evil.

However, some standards are not that prevailed. In most societies, a son cannot marry his mother-in-law; but the same behavior is allowed in some societies, like the Mongolian in the Yuan Dynasty. Some economists believe that it is due to the limited resources in Mongolia. It is apparently difficult to tell whether this behavior is good or evil. Chinese in that time took this as a barbarian behavior.

Conclusively, as we are unable to have an exactly correct standard to make a judgement of being good or evil, we just cannot tell whether the infant is born in good or not.

PS: I wrote here.

5 replies on “Human Are Born Evil?”

“some standards are not that prevailed. "
“If we carefully exam each definition, we will easily notice that all of them, no matter from philosophy, ethics, or religions, are nothing but only preferences among the people, especially in different peoples."
在下贊同這論點。

另外想請教,「平等」、「自由」、「正義」成為目前社會「共識」的原因,如何解釋會較合理?
個人以為是因為推行相關制度的經濟效益,讓採納這些「價值」的組織,在競爭中擊敗不採納的。不採納的組織因而被消滅或改革,採納這些「價值」及以此作為根本的制度。

我認為你的前提:【「平等」、「自由」、「正義」成為目前社會「共識」】這句話大有問題

因為如我本文中所談的:「誰來定義平等、自由或正義?」事實上認真考察各種關於這些東西的論述,你就會發現每個人不過在發表自己的喜好厭惡,根本沒有共識可言。

更甚者,我們更該關心的是人做了什麼,而非說了什麼。很多把上面幾個東西說得很好聽的人,做的完全不是那回事。

感謝回覆,
對我的表達錯誤和模糊不清感到抱歉,
我想問的是,人類社會世界的發展,為什麼「民主」會取代「獨裁」、「寡头政治」、「神權政治」等制度?
為什麼「法治」會取代「人治」?
為什麼部份「人權」會受到許多國家的憲法保障?

這樣的發展,是因為一國內多數人的「喜好」,還是有其他的原因?

1. 其實從西洋史來看,古希臘、羅馬的民主制度,是被後來的獨裁制度改取代了。
另一方面,世界上很多國家也沒有民主、或保障人權這玩意兒。

所以你說的東西,不見得是一個必然的pattern。

2.社會學者喜歡說「民族性」,這跟你的「多數人偏好」其實是同一回事都是「看不見的抽象意向」。當然,如果你相信民意調查這回事,你可以說「很具體」,可惜不管如何,這東西都禁不起科學驗證。

3. Ronald Coase的「The Problems of Social Cost」文章,以及張五常一些「A theory of social cost(這篇1970年代的論文標題我可能記錯)」的文章認為,社會有往減少「租值消散」的方向走的傾向。
換言之,新制度經濟學派認為所謂的道德、人權、法律制度等等,均是為了減少社會費用而發明。

這樣的想法很棒,但卻有淪為「套套邏輯 (tautology)」的危險。往往高手才能避免從此提出爛理論。

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com 標誌

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Google photo

您的留言將使用 Google 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

連結到 %s