Is man inherently flawed?

[sickles]

im just curious.

for christians, this is likely a yes (original sin)
for buddhists, same (we are born uneducated to the dharma)
most others view you as flawed until you join, and since you arent born with membership, you are born flawed until a ceremony takes place (baptism or some other similar mechanism.)

[ChaosBorders]

IMO,the most egregious 'flaw' is the inability or unwillingness to doubt and think and the propensity of man to accept things without evidence.

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, accepting things with little to no evidence is a large part of why our species is still alive. So is a willingness to please others, for that matter. I won't disagree with it being a flaw, but worth keeping in mind before labeling it the most egregious.

[Flail]

IMO,the most egregious 'flaw' is the inability or unwillingness to doubt and think and the propensity of man to accept things without evidence.

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, accepting things with little to no evidence is a large part of why our species is still alive. So is a willingness to please others, for that matter. I won't disagree with it being a flaw, but worth keeping in mind before labeling it the most egregious.

Those who leap before they look might eliminate themselves from the gene pool.

[ChaosBorders]

IMO,the most egregious 'flaw' is the inability or unwillingness to doubt and think and the propensity of man to accept things without evidence.

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, accepting things with little to no evidence is a large part of why our species is still alive. So is a willingness to please others, for that matter. I won't disagree with it being a flaw, but worth keeping in mind before labeling it the most egregious.

Those who leap before they look might eliminate themselves from the gene pool.

And those who don't might get eaten by the lion chasing them. Human mental processes have a ton of time-saving biases that often lead to faulty conclusions, but are accurate enough that overall they have increased our chances of survival.

[Flail]

IMO,the most egregious 'flaw' is the inability or unwillingness to doubt and think and the propensity of man to accept things without evidence.

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, accepting things with little to no evidence is a large part of why our species is still alive. So is a willingness to please others, for that matter. I won't disagree with it being a flaw, but worth keeping in mind before labeling it the most egregious.

Those who leap before they look might eliminate themselves from the gene pool.

And those who don't might get eaten by the lion chasing them. Human mental processes have a ton of time-saving biases that often lead to faulty conclusions, but are accurate enough that overall they have increased our chances of survival.

One musn't ignore the evidence of chasing lions. The most reliable mental process,albeit not perfect, is to 'reason' upon available evidence. It is true,however, that those who refuse to sail for fear of falling from the horizon will survive to be scared of something else or to invent a God,but there is typically no progress in either.

[ChaosBorders]

IMO,the most egregious 'flaw' is the inability or unwillingness to doubt and think and the propensity of man to accept things without evidence.

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, accepting things with little to no evidence is a large part of why our species is still alive. So is a willingness to please others, for that matter. I won't disagree with it being a flaw, but worth keeping in mind before labeling it the most egregious.

Those who leap before they look might eliminate themselves from the gene pool.

And those who don't might get eaten by the lion chasing them. Human mental processes have a ton of time-saving biases that often lead to faulty conclusions, but are accurate enough that overall they have increased our chances of survival.

One musn't ignore the evidence of chasing lions. The most reliable mental process,albeit not perfect, is to 'reason' upon available evidence. It is true,however, that those who refuse to sail for fear of falling from the horizon will survive to be scared of something else or to invent a God,but there is typically no progress in either.

And is progress inherently positive?

[Abraxas]

I would have to say no, though only for the reason that flaw implies purpose and thus inherent flaw would mean inherent purpose. If we weren't meant to do something specific, I don't see how we can be flawed. Certainly we are deficient in many areas, but to me this is a separate question.

[sickles]

You should have stated that definition in the OP. Even using your definition, 'undesirable' and 'negative' are generally subjective qualities, so it comes down to "I think they're flawed, you don't".

yup. i should have. by negative or flawed i mean especially so, when comparing to the rest of the animal kingdom. possessing traits like greed, hatred, cruelty, selfishness. This is a more narrow question.

If we use your definition, then every living thing is flawed because nothing is successfull all the time.

What's your point?

that your definition is useless for my question, which i wasnt clear on, so its all my bad. I should have been more clear.

A lack of success isnt a flaw, its an outcome.

Flaw: An imperfection http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flaw

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect
Perfection: b. satisfying all requirements

Success: A measure of succeeding (same site).

Succeeding: b : to attain a desired object or end (Same site).

If you are not able to attain a desired object or end, you have failed to satisfy the requirements needed to attain that desired object or end. If you fail to satisfy all of the requirements, you are imperfect, and if you are imperfect then you are flawed.

yea then everything is imperfect, but i meant especially so.

And if nothing can meet your definition of perfection, why use it at all?

Because you didn't restrict your definitions in the OP like you should have. Besides, I personally define God as perfect, so not exactly nothing that can meet my definition (which is the dictionary's...).

god is obviously imperfect. but thats another thread.

Besides, being flawed isnt a lack of perfection, and being perfect is objective.

Definition one of perfection: 1 : the quality or state of being perfect: as a : freedom from fault or defect : flawlessness. (Same site as above)

If you lack flawlessness, you are flawed, so yes being flawed is a lack of perfection.

i attempted to redefine above

As to perfection, we are perfect. We are perfectly suited to do what we were built to do.

And what, exactly, were we 'built' to do? Not that it particularly matters, since the question only asks whether we are flawed or not without specifying a definition, all I have to do to prove it in the affirmative is show we fail even a single definition of perfection, thus have an imperfection and meet the definition of flawed.

we lived for hundreds of thousands of years in the past, and that way of living brought us success. we are built to do what we have done. Evolution weeds out failures. yea i redifined .

Gorillas are perfect in what they do, as are lions, wombats, and platypus. They and us were perfected through hundreds of millions of years of trial and error. If it wasnt perfect, it wouldnt have lasted through that process.

If you are referring to evolution, unless it has mysteriously ceased to occur, the process of 'trial and error' is still ongoing, thus indicating we are still not 'perfect'.

i didnt ask if we were perfect. i redifined above. i was using perfect subjectively. sloppy of me.

Millions of years is along time for imperfections to be weeded out.

And a long time for more imperfections to be introduced.

imperfections tend to lose thier representation in the gene pool to more successfull strategies.

So ill ask again, on what basis do you assume that every human is born more flawed than the rest?

The rest of what? I never indicated that humans were any more flawed than anything else, only that they were flawed.

i felt my context was clear for this question, in this post. you know what "the rest" is. gorillas wombats and so forth.

That every human is born greedy, selfish (beyond the selfishness other species i.e. survival), murderous, and cruel is what you are saying. So, prove it.

I never said any of that at all. If that is how you choose to define flawed, you should have done so in the OP. You should not put words in my mouth just because you failed to specify what you meant. Perhaps you should make a new thread, with an OP that actually asks what you want it to and defines words as you intend them to be used.

a miscommunication , i digress on that.

so what say you now to the new definition?

Is man inherently born with greed, selfishness, and cruelty?

[sickles]

Depends upon how you define 'flawed'. I would say that man has inherent desires and needs and how and in what society he fulfills them will determine the extent and nature of his 'flaws'. IMO,the most egregious 'flaw' is the inability or unwillingness to doubt and think and the propensity of man to accept things without evidence and to be led around by the ears to please others.

this is a survival strategy. Those that did react to alarms with thinking were more likely to die. Those that did react to "orders or whatever" quickly tended to not die as often. That trait is likely bred into us. How about cruelty, selfishness, and greed?

[ChaosBorders]

Is man inherently born with greed, selfishness, and cruelty?

Probably not any more so than most animals with higher brain functions.

[sickles]

Is man inherently born with greed, selfishness, and cruelty?

Probably not any more so than most animals with higher brain functions.

what does that mean? its a yes or no question. are you saying chimps and dolphins are more greedy, more selfish, and more cruel than an amoeba? we'll use the amoeba as a baseline.