Was Machiavelli wrong when he said that 'man is more

[LaurenG]

inclined to do evil than to do good'?

I just saw this quote in GD and I wondered about it. With or without religion what do you think?

[The Magistrate]

1. The Weight Of History And Experience, Ma'am

Would seem to back the gentleman's proposition....

[amitten]

3. I disagree. Everyday acts of kindness seldom make history.

Just because it didn't make the news doesn't mean it didn't happen. Of course, war always makes history.

[tjwmason]

5. I think that that's balanced by everyday acts of "badness".

Small things - whether good or bad - do not make history. Large things - whether good or bad - do make history.

[The Magistrate]

7. Indeed, Mr. Mason

That is my view as well.

[amitten]

10. Well, for every action, as they say...

There is a reaction. I think the good and bad are balanced, not just on our little planet, but universe-wide.

And how many evil people do you know? Versus how many good?

[The Magistrate]

9. Of Course People Do Good Things, Ma'am

The question was which tendency tended to predominate.

"It is odd the doctrine of Original Sin should find so little favor in the modern world, as it is perhaps the one item of Christian dogma susceptble of empirical proof."

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. what one has to think of first is

what is evil and what is good.

[LaurenG]

4. A broad definition

Doing things that hurt others versus things not doing that.

[greyl]

21. Using that definition, he was dead wrong.

A creature that is inclined to hurt others will not evolve for 3 million years like humanity has.
Those who would say that evidence is plain to the contrary, are mistaking our culture for humanity.

Humans are no more inclined to hurt others than sharks and leopards are.

[ladjf]

6. He was correct in the sense that any living thing left to it's own

devices will tend to acquire as much as possible. That behavior is called "greed" in human terms.
In so far as the human race has developed more effective means of obtaining what it desires, the trait emerges in modern times as being ultimately lethal to all.

[greyl]

22. That's not true at all.

Living things tend to acquire only what they need, not as much as possible. This is visible in the lab and in the community of life on earth. In relation to other species, life tends to follow the law of limited competition which has resulted in the symbiosis of incredibly diverse creatures.

"the trait emerges in modern times as being ultimately lethal to all."

You are speaking from the myth that our culture represents all of humanity as being its pinnacle of evolution. It's not. There are thousands of other cultures to choose from who don't care in the least about acquiring as much as possible. Sadly, our culture's behaviour has many of those other cultures struggling to keep only what they need.

The fact that our culture has the vision that conquering the world is a 'divine' quest doesn't mean that humans are born with that urge.

It's very happy news, really. :)

[ladjf]

25. You have not understood what I posted and I'm too tired to

write a full essay to explain it. Sorry.

[greyl]

27. Maybe you're too tired to understand what I wrote? ;) nt

[ladjf]

36. No, I clearly understood your post.

[greyl]

37. You've thoroughly convinced me. nt

[Ladyhawk]

8. Damn...I'm agreeing with Machiavelli. Religion is a tool for doing

evil if you look at history.

Here's one of my favorite quotes:

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."-- Carey Goldberg. "Why Are We Here?" International Herald Tribune, Paris ed., no. 36,125; Monday, Apr. 26, 1999; p. 10.

In the past few years I've thought of human nature falling naturally into a bell-shaped curve with a few really evil people, a few really good people and a lot of neutral and chaotic people. The neutral and chaotic people tend to follow whomever has power. I think evil people are more likely to crave power. Either that or my bell curve needs to bulge toward evil.

This has really been bothering me for the past few years. I've seen human nature in my personal life and I find little to make me optimistic. (And no, I don't let myself off the hook.) I've become something of a recluse because I just don't trust human nature.

[Mend]

11. Freud's pleasure principle: people will seek pleasure and

avoid pain. Sometimes that pleasure-seeking hurts or ignores the needs of others.

[LaurenG]

12. I would hypothesize that more people would believe that

Machiavelli was correct during stressful times such as these.

[htuttle]

13. "Good? Bad? I'm the one with the gun"

To even begin to answer the question, we'd have to decide what ethical framework would determine 'Good' or 'Bad'. It's not as easy as one might think once you get into the details, since for every ethical 'rule' in most ethos, there are exceptions to that rule. Different interpretations of both these rules and exceptions lead to different definitions of 'good' and 'bad'.

Easy example: In the Abrahamic tradition, there is a rule that says, "Thou shalt not kill." While one might think this is as clear and succinct as can be, consider the exceptions our own society seems to make to this: 'Just war', Capital Punishment, Self-defense,etc... one might even take 'thou shalt not kill' to mean that one should not eat any meat. How removed from the actual killing must one be to be blameless? If I know that purchasing blood diamonds will lead to more killing, am I ethically culpable for that killing if I buy them? This doesn't just vary from tradition to tradition -- it varies from person to person.

So the question in it's current form isn't really answerable. :shrug:

[LaurenG]

17. Defined within your guidelines, your own ethical framework

At this moment in your life was Machiavelli wrong?


edit spelling

[htuttle]

24. I've typed out and then decided not to post a response 2 times now

I'm finding what I think somewhat hard to easily (and briefly) characterize.

To keep it short, the best description of what I think is that humans are not inherently 'evil', per se. Primitive, stupid, and ignorant would all be better terms. I think that behavior that we characterize as 'good' is learned, but a fair amount of what we characterize as 'evil' is learned, too.

Wild animals, while easily characterized as 'selfish', are not sadistic, for example. Sadism is a learned response. OTOH, in many ways, so is cooperation. You can characterize some social animals as 'cooperative', but more often than not, that cooperation (ie., 'goodness') is enforced and promoted by a whole set of rigid social 'laws' or behaviors. Even in a cooperative tribe of chimpanzees, there are dominant and submissive ones, and the dominant ones still usually eat first. But they also don't go out of their way to torture the submissive members of the group for fun -- usually.

Does that mean Machiavelli is wrong? Depends on what your threshold for declaring something 'evil' is, I guess. In my opinion, we are neither 'good' by nature, nor are we 'evil' by nature. The same mental facilities that allow us to decide whether something is 'good' or 'evil' also allow us to be 'good' or 'evil'. I guess that's just the whole 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' story wrapped in a different package, which is kind of ironic, given that I'm not a Christian. Doesn't mean I don't find some interesting and sometimes useful myths there, though.

[ThJ]

19. Thou shalt not kill...

The actual translation is thou shalt not murder (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/versions/1141174008-3042.html#13">You can find this in the New KJV, Young's, Hebrew Names, New American Standard, and New Living Translation versions), thus not all killing is prohibited by the Law; however, the question really comes when Jesus Christ comes to fulfill the law and he proclaims that even be angry with your brother is equivalent to murder in your heart.

Love is the commandment of Jesus Christ, which brings questions about how to respond to hostility, etc. I've recently been reading Deitrich Bonhoeffer, and he has some pretty interesting takes on the topic. Perhaps when I've finished, I'll give a review.

[GeorgeGist]

14. I hope so...

or mankind is doomed to extinction.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

15. On the face of it,

doing good for others often results in less for ourselves. And it is our nature to seek certain things like approval, comfort, security, etc.

So I think most of us are at the least less inclined to do good than just deal with the status quo. True evil also takes a lot of energy and can also wind up costing a lot in many way. I think inertia is our natural state.

But maybe I just need a nap.

[heidler1]

16. IMO instead of judging on a basis of good and evil the call should be

based on selfish intent. Some enlightened people tend to promote selfish acts that include the welfare of everyone while most people think of selfish as just for themselves. True functional selfishness needs to meet the test of working for the entire society or the person promoting the selfish act will most likely inadvertently destroy the system that is essential to his own well being. Commonly called shooting your self in the foot. Bush seems to be very adept at doing this. Bush's crackpot ideas about how to change our government have destroyed his political capital that gave him his swagger, what could be worse for him?

[ThJ]

18. No, he wasn't wrong

Man is sinful by nature and therefore inclined towards evil, but through God's grace man can do good, even though we may often slip up occassionally.

With specific regards to Machiavelli, he saw man's evil nature as the impetus towards government - the need to protect ourselves from the evil intent of our neighbor.

[rug]

20. Actually, according to Catholic theology, man is good by nature.

As a creature of God he was made good. Sin is considered a deviation from his nature. Common, but not natural.

As for Machiavelli, he's wrong. If evil predominated, nothing would hold together, society would end. What keeps it going is the daily cooperation between humans.

[ThJ]

26. The key there...

The key there is that man was made good, but has fallen. His original nature - the nature which will be returned to him once he is perfected - was good, but man's fallen nature - the state we live in - is not good, and thus, men are inclined towards evil. If you read enough Machiavelli, this is his something he clearly realises: in general, men are selfish, weak, greedy, myopic, and coniving.

A few quotes:

"all men are evil... men never do good unless necessity drives them to it." (Discoursi, 1.3)

"men are always adverse to enterprises in which they forsee difficulties" (Prince, 10)

"the generality of men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, dissembling, anxious to flee danger, and covetous of gain." (Prince, 17)

"men are easily pleased with their own qualities and are readily deceived in them." (Prince, 23)

Also, Machiavelli never said evil predominated, only that men are inclined to evil rather than good, which drives mean to seek protection in government - the necessity of protecting themselves from evil will drive men to good.

[Igel]

23. I agree with Machiavelli on this one.

Religion or no, it doesn't matter. Religion is just another form of peer pressure, a set of rules couched as a belief system. You can have the system be nicely thought out, have it include a deity or not, or even have it be more of a set than a system. Socialization is internalizing the set of rules decided on by your peers.

"Right thinking" people find a way of rationalizing their internalized values, atheist or not. Sociopaths play no such game with themselves. Some people engage in the game so much they impose far more rules on themselves than their peers would.
It's not what you do when people are watching--then you could suffer severe loss--it's what you do when you're by yourself. Enron.

OTOH, game research shows that people consistently get more when there's a consensus towards trust. But people might get more when they violate trust. Hence the tension: The safe thing, or the chance at a pot of gold.

But of course, if you're Ayn Rand, then 'evil' takes on a different meaning, and it's bowing to peer pressure that can be construed as evil. Then Machiavelli is wrong. But let's stick to something like the meaning of the term a naive listener will assume.

Note that Machiavelli didn't say that man *did* more evil than good. Whether there's a perfect balance, or humans do 90% good and 10% bad, or 60% bad and 40% good--all that's completely beside his point.

[trotsky]

28. I think it would be more accuate to say

humans are more inclined to be selfish than selfless. But then, that's what one might expect in nature. Gotta look out for #1. Although sometimes individually selfish behaviors benefit society as a whole. E.g., why band together in a tribe? Well, because I'll have a better chance of surviving.

[ThJ]

29. That's exactly what Machiavelli makes note of...

See quotes in post #26

[trotsky]

30. I guess I part ways on the use of the word "evil."

I don't think that being "selfish, weak, greedy, myopic, and coniving" necessarily makes one "evil." Like I mentioned, having those kinds of motivations can sometimes benefit others, too.

[greyl]

31. I agree with that.

Evil is a cultural definition that doesn't necessarily relate to the real world.
Living systems behave the way they do because the behavior works, not because they're right or wrong, good or bad.
To our culture, a mother eating her children may seem bad or evil, but the behavior serves the survival of the group.

[heidler1]

32. You and I seem to agree on the use of the evil word, see post 16 above.

I've noticed lots of people balk at thinking selfishness can be good.

[trotsky]

33. Selfishness good.

Cripes, the entire capitalist system requires selfishness to function!

[heidler1]

34. I believe the common use of the word selfish should be called

stupid instead. This is why calling Bush selfish is wrong, to me, and stupid is a much better fit.

[ThJ]

35. Well...

regardless of how one define evil, and Machiavelli is not out to remove evil or deny it its place in the social context, but that is the point he is making.

[greyl]

38. "Chimps Prove Altruistic and Cooperative"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x18245

food for thought.