evil is just a term people label behavior they find morally objectionable morals are developed through cognition and experience. so evil is also the same way.
Evil is like demonic shit in which influences innocent beings such as humans. And that shit arises from within us from the sensations of being around others and actually "feeling". But in this world, only survival exists. Good and Bad, Evil and Righteous is created by society as a label to make one feel guilty so they choose a side and know consequence. Just so people hope for a better world thinking they change people with this 'religion'. And I THINK that's how people are forced into 'this' religion sometimes. So in a sense it's actually both. We're born with what we died with. Naturally, humans are evil but I DO NOT think that is human intention. The human mind is way to complex to understand the emotion and interaction with another human. Your mind is own enemy. And of course our environment surrounding us. Which is, what? You guessed it, the human mind!
Humans aren't inherently evil. Nothing is. Selfish, (self oriented) yes, but not evil. Selfishness is a normal part of survival and instinct, though. A human may act in a way perceived to be evil, but evil does not power the actions, motives do. From the perspective of the person in question, their motives are always justified in their mind. A being will never waste energy on something that has no motivation behind it. Therefore, evil can't exist.
what about behavior that harms one party but doesn't benefit the other? ie if i murder someone just because i feel like it. it wouldn't be out of selfishness or a need for survival. i might get a weird sense of fulfillment out of the act but it is surely not crucial to my survival nor well being. wouldnt someone that does something like that be "inherently evil" as you put it? if the ideal that murder is evil is true, then that must mean some people are just evil. conversely if murder is not evil then no one can be evil and therefore self-fulfillment plays no determinant role. edit: and just to expand on that point, how would you explain choices people make that ultimately lead to the same conclusion? consider this scenario: if i could murder 10 people for $50 or i could murder 1 person for $50 or i could murder no one and work 2 hours for $50. wouldn't choosing the first option be more "evil" than the second than the third? if i knew the outcome of each choice and chose a more eviler choice wouldn't that make me "inherently evil?"
Incredibly interesting and intricate question. Yes and no I would say. On one hand, some people are just made up different to others. Some people have mean streaks, they don't like people. I don't think they have too much of a choice, I am a little bit like this. I'm not some kind of pyschopath, but I'm pretty cynical about anything and everything, which usually includes everyone else and sometimes people in general. I'm pretty optimistic and happy, just enduring and inexplainably quick to criticise and find depressing aspects about things. I can't see that it should be different for people feeling enduringly and inexplainably hateful of things... or themselves. Insecurity undoubtebly is a factor in a lot of 'evil' things in my opinion, because it goes with jealousy usually. Anyhow, a lot comes from nurture too. This is pretty obvious, if you're bought up believing evil is good and good is evil then you'll do evil etc. This is probably the dominant thing I'd think, but it certainly doesn't explain kids from nice families who go and kill people or many other evil things that have no relationship to 'nurture'. Thus, I says both.
Your example still does benefit the murderer. You're absolutely right about it not being a crucial act of survival, but it is still an act of self-empowerment/fulfillment, so to speak. It is filling the murderer's illusion of facilitating his existence. I say illusion because it obviously doesn't help him from an objective perspective; It does though, in his mind. I can see what you're trying to convey. The concept of evil is subjective though and is relative to accepted behaviour. If such an example exists where one harms the other without motivation or benefit from it, you'd have to get past the concept of an entity not needing self-fulfillment. One way to get past the concept of the need for self-fulfillment is to not exist. Alright, self-defeat. Another way to get past that need is to become completely apathetic towards all consequences. This would entail taking the path of less resistance. Which means some actions produced by the person in question would indeed conform to the observer's idea of evil. But is it really living, being void of all emotions, positive and negative, self-empowerment and self-degradation, which is a vital part of existence? I'm not sure, but in a way it is self-defeat too. Stating that you don't need self-empowerment is like saying you don't need to survive; it's like saying you don't need the self. Which is a false statement, unless you don't exist. I forgot the topic. Conclusion: evil is learned.
So good is learned as well? And what of morality, (the knowledge of good and evil) That is innate, but we learn evil?
"Evil is merely another aspect of suffering. Suffering is a product of ignorance. Once one is aware of oneself will recognize that one is capable of evil only in ignorance. Suffering and pain can be ended through the pursuit of truth and self knowledge. Because evil occurs in the world, it provides an opportunity for compassion, an empathy with those who suffer, for when one suffers, all suffer. We are not individuals, but rather a part of a whole and as such it does behoove us to understand evil and to attempt to eliminate it from our lives and that of others in general." Evil in our world is man made only, there was no original sin. We are the authors of our own suffering, discontent, well being, and happiness. There is only one race- the human race
I don't believe good and evil exist independent of human creation. We have our innate human behaviors + conditioning developed through our life experiences. Then we come along and label the immoral actions as evil, and moral as good; and morality is a human concept/creation as well.
Evil would not exist without Good. Good would not exist without Evil. We never know which one came first. Evil is the balance of Good, we crave that balance, and it fuels human nature. So I believe yes, it was learned at first, but has evolved into something much more innate.
Sure, I'd say that (as others have said) good and evil are certainly dependent upon social more and subjectivity - good and evil are thus learned according to custom and such. Morality is largely innate, it's fairly universal across the globe that murder is wrong etc. So, in response to this complex question- 'Good' and 'evil' are innate in that some people are genetically made up with different mindsets and inclinations towards 'good' and 'evil' manifestations of these mindsets. 'Good' and 'evil' are the product of nurturing, as our perception of 'good' and 'evil' depends largely upon the social mores of the community we grow up in, our parents etc. Even here, 'good' and 'evil' are individually subjective, which further complicates the whole thing... but yeah, nurture certainly has a large role to play too. Morality is kind of applicable to both since morality is 'the knowledge of good and evil', which is both socially subjective and often socially universal. Thus, I say it's a bit of both