Samael_Khan
Goosebender
The problem is that we are all influenced by our surroundings, so how do we measure such a thing. Even in change that isn't radical, our surroundings are manipulating us to an extent.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
can a person's moral nature change?
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
The problem is that we are all influenced by our surroundings, so how do we measure such a thing. Even in change that isn't radical, our surroundings are manipulating us to an extent.
By comparison to the ideal of a perfect man - Jesus
And an to ideal of a most evil man - Hitler
And seeing how people measure up to these extreme ideal types
I think what you say makes sense
None of those examples is of a person deliberately - wilfully - changing
- maybe changing into something that is against their true nature, on a superficial level
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
How did you determine the perfectness of Jesus?
the evilness of Hitler?
I completely disagree
I think we can say that a person who consistently performs bad acts is a bad person and a person who consistently performs good acts is a good person - and that there are such things as good traits (virtues) and bad traits (vices/sin)
It's simply a matter of labelling based on how you perceive them
Not sure if you mean the following but it amounts to the same - in that damage to certain parts of the brain can alter the personality of an individual, thus seemingly indicating that certain parts of the brain are involved in how we present ourselves. The incident I know about (and well known) saw a tamping rod/iron (used to place explosives in a deep hole) accidentally fired through the brain of the individual, and which normally would have killed anyone. He apparently survived but his character, as you mentioned, did change quite drastically.
Phineas Gage - Wikipedia
Hitler is responsible for the death of 6,000,000 humans in the holocaust and started a war that killed ten times that - he tried to conquer the whole of Europe
And Jesus was without sin and died a painful death to free humankind from the burden of its sins - if you believe in Christianity (as I do)
One did a lot of good and the other a lot of bad
From this we can tell that each of them must possess certain moral characteristics - such as racial hatred, or compassion
We can make each of them a model and place them at the extreme ends of a moral continuum
The acceptance that you're an addict and need to change is just such an example. The seeking of help with mental illness is another. And so on.
And it's not uncommon for kids whether male or female who've been wild during adolescence settle down into decent citizens in time. Which of these do you say is their true nature? I say both are, because aspects of our nature change with age.
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
How many did Hitler kill?
Not ordered killed, but actually killed?
So it is my opinion that the ones who actually did the killing are more "evil" than Hitler.
So far it appears to me that you have not actually put much thought into this good/bad scale or even how to measure the good/bad of those you would judge.
syo
Well-Known Member
Nah.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Oh thanks a lot. Maybe this is the one. I will read it and see. Yet, thanks a load.
I'd say that the one who ordered the killings is of the same nature as the people who carried them out - there would be no killings without the orders
Anyway, Adolf Hitler and Jesus Christ are both archetypes
There is no need to put lots of thought into it
They both serve as extreme examples, in the popular imagination
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
I am looking for reason to take your based upon completely arbitrary and without much meaning claim seriously.
Thus far you have not presented one.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
in previous threads I have posted a scenario.......picture this
Jesus, Judas and Adolph.......at the Table
breaking bread
sharing a sauce bowl
and looking each other ......in the eye
I'd use the word "intuitive" rather than "arbitrary"
Heyo
Veteran Member
I'm with @syo on this one.
Only that there are no people who consistently perform good or bad acts.
Hitler loved animals and was a vegetarian, Jesus whipped people who didn't think they did anything wrong.
Yes, that's OK.
Yes, and I'm against labelling people good or bad.
According to some (most?) philosophers of morality, only acts can be moral/amoral/immoral (independent of what you declare as moral). This view gets rid of most problems that come with labelling people.
If moral (as in 'moral nature') refers to voluntary choosing, then how could a human carry out an act unwilfully?
VoidCat
Pronouns: he/him/they/them
I am not the same person I was when I was 7. My thoughts on morality have changed the older I have gotten. I know you say that a persons true nature could be covered up by socialization. But I beleves socialization is what determines your morality along with genetics. It is neither nature nor socialization but a mixture of the two. Morality is subjective.Its based on culture mostly
Not necessarily, it depends.
I think we need to know more than just their motivations. There are other things that can effect their actions.
I disagree.
I disagree.