What did Thomas Jefferson believe about people’s nature; are we naturally good or evil?
925998
He thought we were evil, so he strived to become perfect. Going so far as to keep a list of how often he sinned and what sins he commited each day.
1070756
the soul is neither good nor evil. its the choices that we make which are good or evil.
652920
By Arthur Custance \n"Man in Adam and in Christ"\n\nTO MY MIND, one of the saddest and most disastrous results of the theory of evolution as applied to man is that it has led to an entirely false conception of what man's true nature is.\n\nIf human evolution is true in the sense that Huxley and Simpson have held it to be, then man is an angel in the making, changing steadily for the better as he moves further away from his animal ancestors. His propensity for wickedness is recognized as unfortunate, but more in the nature of a relapse, a temporary set-back, a kind of unfulfilled-ness, which there is every reason to believe he will in time grow out of.\n\nBut if man is a divinely created being who has fallen from grace and can by nature change only for the worse, then his propensity for wickedness is something more than merely evidence of unrealized potential. From the biblical point of view it is a demonstration that something has gone dreadfully wrong from which there now seems no possibility of self-recovery.
810997
I feel that the most evil acts are commited when someone feels they are doing nothing but pure good. Good and Evil, while they exist within us, are drawn amongst a thousand shades of grey. Even the most vilified psychotic (such as charles manson) felt what he was doing was infact "good". I consider myself to be someone who thinks of what is not only good for me, but others as well. In my opinion to be truly good, is to "catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar". To not do what is right just for "myself" but what is ultimately right for others to. Buddha said "if you do not live for others than you do not live" while I am not a religeous person (lol) I do agree with this statement to some extent. I think being good is having the common sence that you cannot commit good acts on the backs of people. Right now George Bush feels what he is doing is good and so does Osama Binladin, but billions of people disagree with both of them. Even if you ask the biggest creep on the planet if they think they are a good person they will say yes. I believe everyone has good in them and the potential to be good people, truly not just subjectively. So I guess what I am saying is their is subjective goodness and Objective goodness. Objective goodness is goodness in truth because you are able to say "how does this make others feel?" and think in the mindset of how people around you will react to the stimuli you feed them. I try to do what I feel is right. Just like anyone else. However am I a good person? I try not to ask myself that question and just be as I am.
655449
Thomas Jefferson\n\nIn the thick of party conflict in 1800, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a private letter, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."\n\nThis powerful advocate of liberty was born in 1743 in Albemarle County, Virginia, inheriting from his father, a planter and surveyor, some 5,000 acres of land, and from his mother, a Randolph, high social standing. He studied at the College of William and Mary, then read law. In 1772 he married Martha Wayles Skelton, a widow, and took her to live in his partly constructed mountaintop home, Monticello.\n\nFreckled and sandy-haired, rather tall and awkward, Jefferson was eloquent as a correspondent, but he was no public speaker. In the Virginia House of Burgesses and the Continental Congress, he contributed his pen rather than his voice to the patriot cause. As the "silent member" of the Congress, Jefferson, at 33, drafted the Declaration of Independence. In years following he labored to make its words a reality in Virginia. Most notably, he wrote a bill establishing religious freedom, enacted in 1786.\n\n\nJefferson succeeded Benjamin Franklin as minister to France in 1785. His sympathy for the French Revolution led him into conflict with Alexander Hamilton when Jefferson was Secretary of State in President Washington's Cabinet. He resigned in 1793.\n\nSharp political conflict developed, and two separate parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, began to form. Jefferson gradually assumed leadership of the Republicans, who sympathized with the revolutionary cause in France. Attacking Federalist policies, he opposed a strong centralized Government and championed the rights of states.\n\nAs a reluctant candidate for President in 1796, Jefferson came within three votes of election. Through a flaw in the Constitution, he became Vice President, although an opponent of President Adams. In 1800 the defect caused a more serious problem. Republican electors, attempting to name both a President and a Vice President from their own party, cast a tie vote between Jefferson and Aaron Burr. The House of Representatives settled the tie. Hamilton, disliking both Jefferson and Burr, nevertheless urged Jefferson's election.\n\nWhen Jefferson assumed the Presidency, the crisis in France had passed. He slashed Army and Navy expenditures, cut the budget, eliminated the tax on whiskey so unpopular in the West, yet reduced the national debt by a third. He also sent a naval squadron to fight the Barbary pirates, who were harassing American commerce in the Mediterranean. Further, although the Constitution made no provision for the acquisition of new land, Jefferson suppressed his qualms over constitutionality when he had the opportunity to acquire the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon in 1803.\n\nDuring Jefferson's second term, he was increasingly preoccupied with keeping the Nation from involvement in the Napoleonic wars, though both England and France interfered with the neutral rights of American merchantmen. Jefferson's attempted solution, an embargo upon American shipping, worked badly and was unpopular.\n\nJefferson retired to Monticello to ponder such projects as his grand designs for the University of Virginia. A French nobleman observed that he had placed his house and his mind "on an elevated situation, from which he might contemplate the universe."\n\nHe died on July 4, 1826.
1015093
Hi there,\n\nI believe that nature is impersonal, and is naturally unfolding.\n\nI believe that things are not really good or evil, small or large, together or seperate, these are just human concepts.  However, this doesn't change the fact that our chemistry produces 'feelings' and it doesn't therefore change the way our reasoning works.  The universe simply is, no more no less.\n\nI believe in being good to people because I understand the consequences as if it were done to me - as I don't value myself above anyone or anything else - indeed I see myself as simply part of something else, I am not seperate from my surroundings.  I don't need the treat of eternal hell fire or the promise of eternal bliss to make me do/be 'good'.\n\nI see too much unintelligent design & too much injustice to believe in a creator, the evidence & logic to me points towards an impersonal creation.\n\nI think it's great as it means we are not bound to live our life in one particular way whether we like it or not.\n\nI think it's great I can devote my time and intention to living a virtuous and humble life rather than devote my time worshipping a god.  Indeed if there is a god, it doesn't need my worship.\n\nWorrying about life-after death can detract from the life experience is something I believe as well.
936806
You're right, the Declaration of Independence does say that.\n\nHowever, it was a declaration of the colonies' independence from Britain.  Not a blanket declaration of everyone's independence from recognizing the laws of any country they want to live in.  And, if you'll remember your American history, it was independence gained after a brutal war.\n\nThe Declaration is a great document; inspiring and idealistic.  But it was followed by a Constitution which lays out the laws of the land.  They are not interchangeable.\n\nRecognizing the right of all humans to seek freedom and happiness is not the same thing as recognizing all humans' right to immigrate into another country, wherever that country may be.\n\nSomeday, maybe, we'll live in a world with no countries and no borders.  No laws, even, perhaps, though I doubt it. Until then, though, the ideals laid out so inspiringly in Jefferson's words are something to strive for, within the framework of the laws of our land.
714986
Thomas Jefferson was one.
837808
Jefferson spent a lot of time in Paris, loved France and felt they should be courted as our closest ally.\n\nHamilton felt that we should align ourselves with Great Britian.  I think he felt their values were more in line with what he saw as our future, with a stronger centralized government than what Jefferson envisioned.\n\nThey sparred about this, quite a bit.\n\nAre we doing the groundwork for your social studies report, or what?
1146779
Human nature is the fundamental nature and substance of humans, as well as the range of human behavior that is believed to be invariant over long periods of time and across very different cultural contexts. The existence of a human nature has been criticized by thinkers such as Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Structuralism and postmodern theory. Recently the biologist E. O. Wilson formulated a scientific defintion.\n\nFor more details:
601714
"Every now and then the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants."\n\n\n Thomas Jefferson.\n\n\n AKA Hell yeah. Vive la revolution!
902904
if everyone was good how could we compare how evil somethiing is to how  good?
418969
Jefferson's personal records show he owned more than 650 slaves in his lifetime, some of whom were inherited from his parents and through his wife. Some find it hypocritical that he both owned slaves and yet was publicly outspoken in his belief that slavery was immoral. Many of his slaves were considered property that was held as a lien for his many accumulated debts.
471353
Human creation in the past, was something beautiful, a being full of life, joy and pride. Even created by nature or God. Now, we are nothing but something dark and without souls, fighting each other for the greed that consumes all. In time, our greed inside, will be the end of us and of our beautiful planet...
230552
john locke thpught that man was bassically good and had only to be left alone and his goodness would come out. he thought that every mans "self" ( including his) was of God and perfect and woule eventually result in a good world. He did not think it was necessary to force man to be good with rules and punishments and so forth. his basisc nature was to be kind and love and share and help. \nHe was one of the first people to express what is now called a liberal philosophy, in western philosophy of the more modern era. Of course these ideas were not new but at the time were radical as his nemesis, A guy named HObbes, had written an important political book expressing just the ooposite, that man was eveil and had to be controlled to prevent him from anarchy and chos and sin. Both were wrong as men are all things and each is unique.
626444
He was absolutely correct.  However, he intended that they should be educated in what he would have called "Republican Principles". (Which has nothing to do with what Republican means today as a party name, and meant instead limited central power for certain listed or "enumerated" functions, with most real power reserved to the people at the State and local level.)  But with the liberal slant of education today what students get is politically correct brainwashing rather than true education on the principles that would make good government.  Too many of todays teachers teach that big government is good and right (rather than wasteful, inherently corrupt, and self destroying).  That "rights" means entitlement and government policing (rather than liberty and freedom to make free choices to as large an extent and in as many areas of life as can be possibly realized without threatening the nation's ability for self defense, or internal harmony).  \n\nYes Jefferson was absolutely right, but he did not forsee that his radical republican ideals would be outdistanced by more radical socialist or social democratic ideals.  Jefferson believed the role of government was to provide liberty and justice to allow people who worked hard to keep the fruits of their labor.  Many people today believe government's role is to provide security and "a minimum standard of living" to everyone whether they work hard or not out of a big central honey pot (which naturally draws flies and puts a strain on the "worker bees") filled with about 30% of everything an American earns in a lifetime (unless, of course you can afford to lobby for loopholes or subsidies or whatever, then you can keep maybe 15%)\n\nJefferson wanted freedom for people to work and earn what we today would call "the American Dream".  The liberal agenda of today is working to consume the American dream to save the poor, the lazy, and the drug addicts from themselves, and the ultimate result will be to take so much of what people earn to support the social programs and their expensive bureaucratic machinery, that the incentive for hard work will be erased and everybody will see that its easier to live off the state and do drugs than to work and create like our forefathers did.\n\nYou can't legislate a "Great Society" you have to let the people pursue their own interests and goals while carrying as little deadweight (Bureaucrats and Bureaus and entitlees)as possible.  The natural result of freedom in a free economy is that people find a useful niche and produce economically.  The natural result of the "safety net" is that a certain percentage who fall into it are satisfied there and never climb out.  Thus you come to the basic flaw of the liberal agenda, somebody has to hold up the net, and it keeps getting heavier and heavier.\n\nUnfortunately, the conservatives of today do not believe in limited government either.  America only has limited government in history class these days.
1012946
Each of us are judged on what we did with the time, health and wealth that God blessed us with. If we had a hand in harming our environment, we will be judged accordingly, and if we did our best to help our environment, we will be judged accordingly. No one will have to worry about being held accountable for another's sins, and no one but you can account for your own self.