Reply to comment

 Ha, people aren't born good or evil, they're born neutral. It is not until they are presented with options, acted upon, and interacted with do they develop a "good" or a "bad". Sure, if the child has a genetic tendency for violence (was that even proven?) or alcoholism (definitely proven), or if the mother does drugs whilst pregnant, they are have already been pushed in one direction before birth, but that makes me think about how good and bad are all relative. Anyway, I firmly believe that humans are intrinsically neutral, but lazy, and by lazy I mean they take the path of least resistance (which might not be considered "lazy"). Most will take the easiest path to survive. Key word: survive. If that means stealing your food instead of working for it, so be it. Stealing is generally considered "bad". There are about 1000 examples of how doing something "bad" is easier than doing something "good", and that is why we see "bad" so often in the world. Humans = lazy, bad = easy, humans = bad. It's not our fault, oh wait, it is. Is it? But all we want to do is survive! this is what is called a "moral dilemma". 

"I could not take the cookie becuase mommy told me not to but being hungry for cookies is sooo hard *takes cookie*"

"I could not borrow my friends homework becuase cheating is bad but I couldn't possibly stay up past 3 AM again. *cheats*"

"I could not steal this mans money but I have to buy drugs or I'm going to feel terrible *steals*"

"I could not steal this mans money but I need to provide for my family *steals*"

The last example is where the dilemma part comes in, and it is something we see in Parable. I think this would be an interesting thing to talk, most likely argue about, in class, because everyone has a different morals+survival+laziness line. For some people, it never changes ,and for some, it changes all the time, and that is something we see in Parable as well.