Total Depravity of Man

[Milk Sheikh]

Some theologians explain Calvin's concept of total depravity in this manner. Our bodies are imperfect, subject to disease, pain etc. Since our minds depend on our bodies (mind doesn't exist independently even according to materialists/atheists), our minds too are going to follow a similar pattern: prone to error, lack of proper judgment, and so on.

In this context, doesn't it prove that man is basically evil? Not in the moral sense but because of a weak, helpless body, our minds too are going to be just as weak and helpless and incapable of doing the right thing. This we can call evil.

I know people are going to post 'there is no such thing as human nature' bla bla without even reading the post. But this is only for people who can keep an open mind and not get into a hysterical fit every time the word evil or depravity is mentioned.

Thank you.

[thesadmafioso]

The primary flaw in your argument would be that physical weakness is not equatable to immorality or the existence of general human nature which is inherently evil. You are drawing a conclusion which is far too sweeping and absolute given the pitiful premises upon which it is dependent on.

[#FF0000]

In this context, doesn't it prove that man is basically evil? Not in the moral sense but because of a weak, helpless body, our minds too are going to be just as weak and helpless and incapable of doing the right thing. This we can call evil.

Er, I wouldn't use "evil" in this situation. People can make horrible lapses of judgement, and do things that are "wrong" but, uh, yeah, like thesadmafioso said, it is a huge claim to make based on this premise.

[Lord Testicles]

In this context, doesn't it prove that man is basically evil? Not in the moral sense but because of a weak, helpless body, our minds too are going to be just as weak and helpless and incapable of doing the right thing. This we can call evil.

How can man be evil, but not in a moral sense?

[Revolution starts with U]

You call it imperfection. I call it adaptability. :thumbup1:

On the topic of evil tho... that's much more of a personal thing, very fickle to base your views on.

[Thirsty Crow]

In this context, doesn't it prove that man is basically evil? Not in the moral sense but because of a weak, helpless body, our minds too are going to be just as weak and helpless and incapable of doing the right thing. This we can call evil.

Sure we can call that "evil", but we could also call it "gordonnity".
In other words, the normal, everyday use of "evil" is utterly non-consistent with your idiosyncratic use. In yet other words, natural limitations of humans cannot be used as "evidence" for their essential moral corruption.

[Raúl Duke]

n this context, doesn't it prove that man is basically evil? What's evil? How can we know/perceive what is evil, objectively?
I do not know, but it seems there's no such thing as an objective universal ethics that can be perceived purely through science/objectivity

Ethics, in a way, are subjective social norms. Some have put out "universal moral codes" (which turn out they weren't, and some things in these codes we would consider out-dated, etc) but the truth of the matter is that in the realm of cold objectivity there's no ethical guidelines per se. The "universe"/"natural world" is silent on the matter.

Nevertheless, do not construe this as me saying "well, sure go and kill a million!" Ethics "exist" and are "true" but subjectively in the sense that they're rules societies and cultures have "made up" over the years. After all, for humans to live in groups they need to "play nice" to each other and follow group rules so a group can be stable/etc.
However, ethics are in general situational. In most societies, killing is considered bad yet some societies think it's ok to execute people for crimes. Killing may be considered bad now, but in times of war or revolution (extraordinary circumstances) some will find "killing in the name of the revolution/war" to be permissible (albeit some might have qualms about the whole thing).


Not in the moral sense but because of a weak, helpless body, our minds too are going to be just as weak and helpless and incapable of doing the right thing.
What's right? Societies and cultures across the world have different conception of right virtues/actions/etc. In Japan, seppuku was considered honorable and "right" but in medieval Europe it would probably be considered cowardly and a sin.

You should look up cultural relativism, it would expose how ethics/morality is relativistic (culturally).


This we can call evil.Why should we accept your conception of "evil" out of the many others out there?
Personally, I don't find your conception of "evil" convincing, especially if mere mistakes and weaknesses of being human ("prone to error, lack of proper judgment, and so on") is labeled "evil." Your conception doesn't seem to go towards any practical use (i.e. facilitating peaceful co-existence among people in a society).

[ZeroNowhere]

What's evil? How can we know/perceive what is evil, objectively?More importantly, what does this question even mean? What would it constitute to know that something was evil 'objectively'? Morality and empirical propositions are different facets of language, don't confuse the two. Both are simply ways of seeing the world, somewhat like lenses, of which ethics is the highest.


Ethics, in a way, are subjective social norms.They aren't, though. To act according to ethics is not to act according to social norms, they are different things.


After all, for humans to live in groups they need to "play nice" to each other and follow group rules so a group can be stable/etc.Ethics have no higher justification. Why should one keep a stable group rather than not? In either case, matter is simply constituted differently. To be ethical is to be willing to die to serve the good.


You should look up cultural relativism, it would expose how ethics/morality is relativistic (culturally).It's an odd idea that what is good is to act according to social norms. That would mean that everybody should act according to social norms. But that would mean that there aren't any social norms to act in accordance with.


In this context, doesn't it prove that man is basically evil? Not in the moral sense but because of a weak, helpless body, our minds too are going to be just as weak and helpless and incapable of doing the right thing. This we can call evil.I'm not particularly interested in 'evil in a non-moral sense', because in either case it's not what we consider 'evil'. If we are in fact helpless, we're not doing something evil.

[Milk Sheikh]

I'm not particularly interested in 'evil in a non-moral sense', because in either case it's not what we consider 'evil'. If we are in fact helpless, we're not doing something evil.

I meant in this way. A man has a body subject to hunger. Let's say he's been hungry for a long time (due to poverty). He naturally becomes desperate, angry, frustrated, and whatnot. As a result, let's say he loses it one day, and steals, kills, whatever. Likewise, most 'evil' acts can be traced to the body.

[heiss93]

The doctrine of the Total Depravity of man played an important progressive role in European history. The Catholic Church during the Renaissance had resigned itself to a humanistic doctrine of moderate hedonism. This served the Italian merchant class which laid the seeds of trade-capitalism. However in order to create true industrial capitalism based on production not trade, it was necessary to have a Puritan Revolution that would emphasize hard work, thrift, and labor. Calvinism served this purpose. The universal sinfulness of man was also a lever on which to attack the decadence and debauchery of the ruling aristocratic class and clergy. Because the rising bourgeois could not consume their earnings as luxury, they were forced to re-invest it as capital. M-C-M replaced C-M-C.

Total Depravity put to rest any Pelagian notions that man could save himself through his own free will. First off this meant that the institutional church was not needed for individual salvation. At the same time it opposed the ultra-individualistic notion that free will was a good in itself. The Arminian heresy is where you get the origins of modern American individualism, where it is just the egotistical self that counts. Thus the modern-day Prosperity Gospel should not be confused with the Calvinist work ethics. Modern day Evangelicals believe that the free-willed individual can achieve anything on his own, this reflects the ideology of late decaying American capitalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Being flawed and limited is not the same thing as being evil.

Deprivation and desperation can drive people to perform acts they would not otherwise have even considered. But that's the whole point - it is primarily the circumstances in which we find ourselves that drive our actions for good or ill. If one lives in a desperate rat-race where every day is a struggle, then one is going to either adapt to that or be left behind.