I understand that you think this is all semantics. But my basic point is that humans are innocent when they are born. They are not developed enough mentally as newborn babies to be selfish or manipulative or any shade of bad/evil. Babies don't cry because they are some shade of bad/evil/selfish. They cry for physical self-preservation.

As we all grow older, we do start to absorb those attributes, and you can start to discuss good/evil. While we may be genetically predisposed to have a particular tempermant, good and evil are learned (nurture, not nature).

the way i see it, human nature is geared around "self-first" behaviours. that doesn't mean that from birth we are sitting around plotting evil, it simply means that when choices become available human nature will instinctively direct us towards the one the benefits us the most (all other things being equal). it is the nurture side of your equation that actually teaches us to consider the effect our actions have on others before acting. consider the small child - do we have to teach them to share, or do we have to teach them NOT to share? one comes naturally, the other is taught.

Ok, we're starting to get closer to one another's points now.

"evil" can have two connotations, at least for me. One is the kind you're talking about - malicious, premeditated, harmful or wrong-thinking actions.

The other one, which is what I'm referring to in this thread, is part of a yin-yang kind of equation. In sci-fi and fantasy books, the metaphor is "order vs. chaos" or something like that. Replace good and evil with order and chaos, and I'd be saying that we are born chaotic, and have to work to achieve order. Same thing.

So I still disagree with you, glatt, but I'm not sure we're talking about the same definition of "evil"...

lookout, i think we are saying the same thing, but i'm not being as clear about it....

Babies are completely selfish, but that selfishness only gets a negative connotation when they're old enough to know better.