So, it's Sunday - the perfect day to share a recent paper I wrote for graduate school. The topic given was:
Is man inherently good or evil? To answer this prompt, we were instructed to utilize concepts recently discussed in class, and explore the concept of beliefs, morals and values, and reference philosophers/theorists/psychologists mentioned in relevant class readings.
Sure. No problem. I love writing. And I enjoy researching philosophy, religion, and psychology. So, I began voraciously pouring over class discussion posts, recent reading assignments, and checked out a few additional books to cross-reference. I spent a considerable amount of time on this paper - mostly because the original version was exceedingly longer than the prescribed word count limit thus requiring mass editing. Sure. No problem. I was a professional editor for a marketing company several years ago.
When I finally submitted this paper, confident that it would garner a high-scoring grade as my undergraduate papers did, a sense of satisfaction came over me. The previous two papers I submitted for this class were a bit under my personal standard of perfectionism, mostly due to the adjustment of managing my new life as a graduate student [then] working two jobs. But, they were decent. Yet, this paper...This paper was supposed to be pretty good.
At least, that was my hope.
Alas, my professor disagreed. What I thought would be an "A" paper turned out to be a "C+" paper.
Ouch! Needless to say, I was disappointed - not just because I'm a perfectionist, rather because she did not provide feedback as to why the paper was only "C+". And I'm still somewhat unsure as to why the paper fell below the mark as a sub-par piece of work.
Perhaps, I can shamelessly solicit
your feedback
(assuming anyone ever reads this blog). It's Sunday, yes, but the paper discusses religious topic[s]. ;) I would love to hear what your thoughts are on the quality of the paper, any suggestions for improvement, and any words of encouragement as I start hitting the grad school ground running again on Monday. :)
Please and thank you, in advance.
Enjoy.
(Note: the pictures featured here, on this blog post, were NOT included as part of my paper. just so you know. I included them here to break up the monotony of text.)
---
Is Man Inherently Good or Evil?
By Danielle W.
Psych 505
Copyright 2011
What are Beliefs, Morals and Values?
To discuss human propensity for good or evil, it is imperative that a foundation for defining morals, values, and beliefs be established. Morals are interlocking sets of values (what one deems important), virtues, norms, practices, identities, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible. Values and morals together form one’s beliefs which have been influenced by family traditions, customs, religion, environment and other life experiences, and function as a guiding principle for how one conducts daily life.
Early Philosophical/Religious Influences
The question as to whether man is inherently good or evil has been hotly debated for centuries by theologians, philosophers, and politicians alike. From the early Greek philosophers to early Roman Catholic influence which lead to the eventual Reformation, and later to the Enlightenment to modern-day humanism, the concept of identifying the nature of man in hopes of providing a sense of understanding into both human thought and action, is one that continually endures. Ideas may modify and change through the centuries, but the initial motive remains fundamentally same. To answer: Why do men do what they do? [What is the nature of man?] From where did we come? And what is our purpose?
 |
| Aristotle teaching Plato |
That said, it is nearly impossible, if not illogical, to attempt to explore this without examining both philosophy and religion throughout recorded history. Perhaps, the earliest influences on the subject are the prolific ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle who explored this notion at length. Aristotle was, by modern definition, a rationalist. He, along with other non-Christian philosophers, essentially believed that reality is explainable in rational terms through physical evidence and deductive reasoning – which, in turn, was the only way one could both obtain and increase knowledge. (Schaeffer, 145). Furthermore, while acknowledging that man is finite in nature, he alone is capable of discerning what is true and false, and “right” or “wrong”, thus determining his own universalities. It was thought that the most important focus for man was man himself, which would ideally create a sense of universal knowledge about the physical world (because rationalists believe[d] that only the physical world exists). This, in turn, gave man power over their natural desires and their fate. However, Aristotle believed that, despite this freedom of choice, it was only available to certain individuals – upper class Greek adult men like himself. With this, even still, human affairs were neither wholly understandable nor explainable. He did, however, believe that our choices were based on – and consistent with - past experiences and habits. (Journal of Religion and Health, 126). And that our two governing principles – desire and reason – were often in conflict. Reasoning was of paramount importance.
 |
| Kant |
Interestingly, another well-known Greek philosopher, Socrates, believed similarly that men had the ability to discern “good” from “evil”, but took on a more spiritual tone. For instance, Socrates would not say that a good deed was good simply because the gods deemed it as such; rather it was good because it benefited both the person who did it and the people unto whom the good deed was done. Socrates believed in the notion of moral virtue, and whether it was either taught or inherent. He implied that wisdom was good and ignorance bad (Journal of Religion and Health, 126) but also taught his students that man knew right from wrong but forgot this knowledge at birth and had to be re-taught. Essentially, Socrates taught that man’s conscious was above the law (“free will”), which, unfortunately, led to his eventual death sentence under Athenian order. Even German philosopher Immanuel Kant centuries later endorsed the idea of “free will”. While Kant generally deemed good and evil in more absolutist terms; for example, certain acts such as adultery, murder, and theft are universally evil, he did, however, believe that both virtue [good] and malevolence [evil] (Journal of Religion and Health, 126) lay within an individual’s ability to choose. He, like Aristotle, believed that the basis of all human actions was reasoning; therefore, every choice and action had consequences.
Thus, when speaking in terms of what is deemed good or evil, it only makes sense to examine early religious writings and practices and how those ideologies have enduring influences on modern-day thoughts of what is moral [good] and immoral [evil]. Perhaps, the two historically most influential religions were Judaism and Christianity. Early Judaism lent itself to many of the early Christian theologies. Thus, the two religions paralleled each other in several aspects. Eventually, these two religions polarized, however, and Christianity became, in essence, the so-called dominant religion influencing much of papal and political thinking and policies through Europe – and abroad. Two of the first influential men on early Christianity (after the time of Christ) were Augustine and Pelagius. Augustine believed that free will was responsible for sin because it implied one’s ability to do evil, whereas Pelagius rejected this notion believing that, based on the teachings of Christ, people have the capacity to choose; that God would not establish laws or commandments that men were inherently unable to follow because he was, by nature, “bad”. Man has both good and evil in him, hence the ability to choose whether or not to follow God. Furthermore, Pelagius believed that sin was not the result of human weakness; rather man’s agency, thus making man autonomous. This was rejected by the early Roman Catholic Church because it was thought that Pelagius did not fully recognize the importance or the need of grace or salvation, focusing more on humanity’s ability to choose allegedly trumped the power of God. Incidentally, despite being “damned” as a heretic by Roman Catholicism, many of Pelagius’ thoughts have transcended both time and theology; the Reformation, the Humanism of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and modern Liberalism – and even major Christian denominations and other religious sects echo remnant ideas akin to what Pelagius proposed centuries prior. (Appleton, 1911). Regardless of the religion, it can be said that there is a shared belief that man has the ability to choose for himself how to act. This is not a revolutionary concept, after all the Bible states: “The commandments that I lay on you this day is not difficult for you…today I offer you the choice of life and good, or death and evil” (Deuteronomy 30:11-15, NKJV).
Societal/Cultural Views
The influence of religion on societies and cultures cannot be understated. Regardless of what the major religious affiliation is in a certain region, its historical roots inevitably play an influential part in the cultural fabric of society. Moreover, the concept that people have an innate right to choose for themselves, what is good or bad. We are responsible for our own actions and the consequences of those actions. For instance, in the United States, where freedom of religion is not only touted but practiced, and the separation of church and state is vehemently argued and defended. The fact remains that there are certain standards of “moral” and “immoral” behavior within our society, much of which has been inherited from early religious tenets. It is universally agreed upon that murder, theft, rape and lying immoral behavior, and even punishable by societal laws. Conversely, characteristics of honesty, charity, trustworthiness, loyalty, and hard work are “good” qualities. This can be said to be in some other societies, as well. Generally, humans, as a whole, tend to agree on certain aspects of what is considered evil behavior versus good behavior. How those actions are interpreted (i.e., punishment for crimes, rewards of freedom for upholding the law), may vastly differ from one society to another, but the premise remains the same. People have the ability to choose their actions, whether they be “right” or “wrong”, and, in turn, are accountable accordingly.
 |
| Nietzche |
That said, despite human tendency to compartmentalize; to say that good and bad behaviors are mutually exclusive is to not only over simplify, but to forget that the two are connected. Even in Biblical times, “good and evil were viewed as connected [because] every person possesses the ability to do either […] According to the Bible, good is not just a value” it was a way of life; it was an active choice to follow a higher standard – or, in this instance, God’s law. Yet, even that is up for interpretation. Even Fredrick Nietzche believe that good and evil were relative; that those who are good deemed themselves as such by conforming to the so-called “norm”, while those labeled as bad are those who went against the grain. In other words, societal definitions of good and evil, though laced with theological and philosophical hand-me-downs, are, essentially determined by its leaders based on its cultural values which can change as the society evolves (Journal of Religion and Health, 134).
Psychological Theories
Alas, even psychology cannot fully explain one’s propensity or capacity to perform good or evil acts. While many theorists such as Piaget and Karen Horney, discuss the subject of morality, it can be said that choosing good is not merely part of one’s genetic code, but based on teaching and experiences. People have the capacity to both good and bad for reasons that may, on the outside, defy reason. However, Sigmund Freud, like Aristotle, believed desires tended to override one’s ability to reason; therefore we must learn to how to consciously avoid the prior from overriding the latter.
Is Man Good or Evil?
Summarily, to answer the question: Is man good or evil, the answer is – both. Humans are complex individuals, and good and evil are not black and white. The human experience lends itself to much gray – as we have both good and bad habits. There are myriad factors that play into both human biology and the human experience – whether it is religious teachings, parenting, education, psychological well-being, or cultural/societal influences. In truth, each of these factors impact someone’s ideas and actions. Lest we not forget – one’s ability to choose what is right or wrong is a significant piece of the puzzle. These ideas may change overtime, but the fundamental measure if a person is good or bad is probably best assessed by both their intentions and their actions. Because, again, humans are capable of both good and evil – some more so than others, but we all possess such tendencies nonetheless.
---
According to , the definition of "move" is as follows:
Typically, when I talk about movement, I am thinking of dance/choreography/dance therapy. Movement is not only about dance, per se. It's about our body language. personal progression, our intentions and how we go about manifesting those intentions. Movement is the intricate way in which we interact with others, even our Higher Power; the natural energy that attracts us to others (or, in other words, the ebbs and flows of our relationships). It's our personal power and energy in relationship to nature. (After all, everything has an energy source because matter cannot be destroyed. Therefore energy vibrations - even from emotions - are given/received from all that's within and around us.) 
This reminds me of something a very dear friend shared a few years ago. To paraphrase: sometimes we stay in the same situation even if it's not the best for us because it's familiar, and it's scary to go outside of our comfort zone.
According to , the definition of "move" is as follows:
Typically, when I talk about movement, I am thinking of dance/choreography/dance therapy. Movement is not only about dance, per se. It's about our body language. personal progression, our intentions and how we go about manifesting those intentions. Movement is the intricate way in which we interact with others, even our Higher Power; the natural energy that attracts us to others (or, in other words, the ebbs and flows of our relationships). It's our personal power and energy in relationship to nature. (After all, everything has an energy source because matter cannot be destroyed. Therefore energy vibrations - even from emotions - are given/received from all that's within and around us.) 
This reminds me of something a very dear friend shared a few years ago. To paraphrase: sometimes we stay in the same situation even if it's not the best for us because it's familiar, and it's scary to go outside of our comfort zone.
