humanity

1. The meaning of the topic now it has almost become the consensus of human beings that human nature is inherently evil. Whether it is the biological evolution research conducted by scientists through controlling variables or the mainstream of philosophical thought, the self-protection of human beings has been recognized. Group living is not out of the basic good, but out of the need to fight against natural enemies, altruism is not out of nature, but out of the rational choice of equivalent exchange. So why is it still relevant to talk about human goodness? Because we still have hope in humanity, because even the worst of us can understand guilt and insecurity. And the conscience in the heart is the root of goodness. We may not be all altruistic saints, but we can still be relatively kind. The same debate about values has different meanings in different times. Although the first time I saw the topic of the debate was the same old meme that has been discussed many times in Chinese debate circles, I was devastated. Jiang Changjian's sentence "The night gave me black eyes, but I use it to find light" is really a timeless classic, it is a need to admit self-worth, have the courage to recognize the desire and desire to live in harmony with their own, to create more social and personal wealth. Now, our heart has recognized that human nature is evil, the independent personality of the generation after 90 has already awakened, reform and opening up has been carried out for 30 years, today to see this topic, perhaps there is a bit of moving meaning. Material life has been basically guaranteed, so in addition to having the courage to recognize our inner desire, should we also start to reflect on whether our spiritual level can be upgraded accordingly? So many have fought on the front lines to protect their homes. Is it their hope for the next generation to create a warmer, more peaceful, more benevolent world? Therefore, at this stage of history, can we discuss the possibility and evidence of the inherent goodness of human nature and look for a more realistic hope for the bright future of the world? 2. The definition of Good and evil that interests me most in this debate is not human nature, but "good" and "evil". But unlike the definition of other arguments, the contestants must find a boundary between "good" on the one hand and "evil" on the other. So what is the line between good and evil? Kindness, like optimism, tolerance, freedom and equality, cannot be a limit without measure or control. So relative kindness should be something we can talk about. In this competition, the players all define "good" as "altruism." This definition is vague and infinite, because in a mutually beneficial relationship, although there is self-interest and altruism, there is no discussion of good and evil. Only when there is a contradiction between self-interest and altruism, in other words, only when there is the possibility of self-interest at the expense of others and altruism at the expense of oneself, can good and evil be highlighted. There is no dispute that self-interest at the expense of others must be evil, and that self-interest at the expense of others can also be identified as the category of saints, rather than the relative goodness of ordinary people. There are also two situations, not at the expense of others, and not at the expense of others. Not hurting others to benefit oneself is the premise of survival, because life itself is to take care of yourself. Relative kindness is shown by not harming yourself to benefit others, or very lightly harming yourself to benefit others, such as stopping for a few minutes to point out directions to a lost person. In the final, the pros and the pros were drawn. Babies cry in the middle of the night to drink milk, and disturb their parents' sleep to avoid the presence of younger siblings. Babies may not be conscious themselves, but this crying habit is the result of biological evolution and natural selection. The opposition is trying to show that people are inherently evil. I do not agree with this point, because there is a new situation here, not knowing the harm of others, but at the expense of others. Taking care of other people's feelings and understanding them are as much perceptual and experiential as understanding the objective world. It is not an innate instinct. So the baby can not take care of themselves, but also can not think of a way to survive without harming others and self-interest. It is the existence of natural selection, biological instinct reveals the hardships of life, but more can reflect the softness and goodwill of human heart. Self-interest is the essence of survival, do not know self-interest life can not move forward. From the point of view of human nature as inherently evil, the question is whether the self-serving way is harmful to others. If there is a selfish impulse in human nature to benefit oneself at the expense of others, then human nature is evil. From the perspective of the inherent goodness of human nature, the problem lies in whether it is beneficial to others without harming oneself. If the enthusiasm of helping others exists in human nature, then the inherent goodness of human nature can be proved. The opposite side is also repeatedly used as an example of desert island survival, cannibalism to feed, to the desperate human reaction to determine human nature is can harm others self-interest evil. But I don't think that's a valid example, because cannibalism in extremity, that's the embodiment of evil, that a good person with a conscience would peacefully accept death instead of killing his fellow man. The problem is that the desperate "evil" can prove to be human nature, I do not say desperate will stimulate human evil, I mean, desperate will reflect a person's character, the so-called adversity is a friend indeed, but this character is an adult after years of experience accumulation of self-cultivation, rather than is the nature of itself. Therefore, the middle value of good and evil is not to harm others to benefit oneself -- survival itself, the relative good is no matter how to keep the bottom line, and the relative evil is knowing that will harm people, keep the moral bottom line.