Are people inherently good or bad?

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I believe people are inherently selfish, sometimes this leads to good behavior and sometimes it leads to bad. I really don't think people are inherently good or bad, just that they sometimes make bad decisions that might take them down the wrong road.

Then there are some people who have had such a fucked up life that they just don't give a shit about anybody or anything.

i think the type of people who are inherently good are those who do the right thing when it comes down to it. they are the people who will help their fellow man when he is down. they have morals. they have a good conscience guiding them.

Yes, but I could argue they are still acting selfishly as they are helping people out just so they do not feel guilt.

i edited my post after you quoted me to say helping them out when they are down or when they aren't down just to be helpful. i enjoy lending a helping hand. i don't see how that is selfish of me or that it alleviates guilt. a lot of helping out is voluntary. you can choose how much you want to get involved.

I have done "good" things in the past because I knew if I didn't I would feel bad about it for a long time afterwards. Therefore I did not really think of it as a "good" act, but more of a selfish one.

KT

It's still good. If you were a bad person you wouldn't even feel guilt for not helping out.

This thread is about humanity and our species overall (if I understood it correctly), and if humanity as a whole is generally "good" or generally "bad".

Under that context, I would say in general our species is "bad". That doesn't mean we never help out our fellow man, but from a nature (not nurture) standpoint people generally do the "bad" thing for society. People definitely help out, and do "good" things all the time without a doubt. Unfortunately, I believe that humanity is generally "bad".

If you believe we are "good", then how come you wouldn't let a random stranger stay in your home? Because you can't trust that they are "good". If you could, we would be able to let anybody in our home. Would a "bad" person sometimes be allowed in and do "bad" things? Yes, but we would believe that our fellow man was "good" and allow them into our home without question IMO.

We differ in opinions.

I wouldn't let a random stranger stay in my home, no, but I would help him find a place to stay. Does that make me a bad person? No.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
We differ in opinions.

I wouldn't let a random stranger stay in my home, no, but I would help him find a place to stay. Does that make me a bad person? No.

I find that I have a unique view on the human psyche, so that doesn't entirely surprise me 🙂

I'd say that you are not the average person then. I'd bet that if you took a person, had them go to 100 different houses asking for help that most would either tell them look elsewhere, let them make a phone call (to like a homeless shelter), or just give them some money. I don't believe that any of those 3 options really are "good", and also believe that most (over 75%) would fall into one of those 3 categories.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: brownzilla786
I would say they are inherently weak, as in they are very susceptible to doing bad things, but I do not think they are born good or bad. A lot depends on how they were raised etc...

i agree with the last part, but definitely not the first part. people are born without any real need for weakness or strength, that is a character trait that is developed as you grow.

 

[Pheran]

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: Pheran
We got asked this in high school (a long time ago!) as part of an assignment after reading Lord of the Flies. I've spent time on and off over the years coming back to the question. Ultimately I think it's a misframed question, and that people are not inherently good or bad. However, in general I think that people are inherently selfish (self interest is an evolutionary adaptation after all), which can sometimes lead to bad behaviors. The human mind also has an unfortunate proclivity for classifying people into categories, making it all too easy to create "them" vs "us" scenarios.

You should become a politician.

Good lord, why?? I don't lie enough to be a politician. 🙂

 

[AreaCode707]

If people were inherently good, it would take effort to take bad actions. Therefore lazy people would generally be good and only industrious people would tend to act badly. The world would be a much better place if people were inherently good.

 

[LtPage1]

No such thing. Good and bad are human constructions, and do not exist outside of our measly little heads.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Bad, by far. Even the people who do nothing but good in life are bad, because they only do that good because some freak mutation in their mind makes them feel good when they act good, so they are actually only doing good for selfish reasons.

So to open another can of worms, if nothing but external benefit is brought about through selfishness, is selfishness such a bad thing?

No, of course not. That is how we evolve.

And just to look at the other side, sometimes "good" actions lead to negative results. For example feeding homeless people who may go on to commit crimes in the future- society would be better off if we just let them starve/die, this is an example where what might be seen as a "good" act actually has a net negative result.

 

[SlitheryDee]

The vast majority of the people are good. We've already killed off or ostracized into genetic extinction most of the really bad apples. Besides, if there weren't vastly more "good" people than "bad" people then society would be much worse than it is. The problem is how you define "good".

I'm going to copy and paste a post I made in a similar thread:

You have to identify what good and evil are supposed to be in order to make that judgment. Not what they actually are right now, because that's always going to change somewhat, but the reason we feel the need to identify things as either good or evil. Good and evil are always going to be relative to society or the human race in general. What is good is anything that is mutually beneficial for all (humans) involved. What is evil is destructive behavior for no benefit to any or for the benefit of one at the expense of the other.

As with many elements of human behavior, I think this is best explained in evolutionary terms. Human society functions best when its constituents are "good", which is to say, generally respectful of others and willing to help in times of need. This fosters an atmosphere of security and mutual dependence in addition to assuring maximum genetic diversity through more individuals surviving to reproduce. Each individual performs his/her end of this bargain for purely selfish reasons, because of the awareness that the likelihood of reciprocation is greater when they do. That is not to take away from the feelings of gratitude and fulfillment on both ends of every exchange of favors, but only to identify them for what they are.

An "evil" individual is actually a malfunctioning member of this social structure who acts in a manner that decreases the likelihood of reciprocation and therefore ostracizes themselves from the rest of society. What are things that we typically think of as universally evil? Killing another human being by itself may not be counted among them, because there are cases where this might be justified. If we define murder as unnecessarily killing another human being for no reason other than one's own benefit or pleasure in full knowledge of the impact this will have then we have an evil act. The reason for this is simple. Society is disrupted irreparably if its members are in constant fear of being killed by each other. This logic can be extended to the entire range of acts that are considered evil. Evil acts are carried out by individuals who do not even pay lip service to the idea that they must give in order to receive. The "good" people will therefore align themselves against the "evil" people in the interest of the human race as a whole.

In this light, good and evil can be viewed as wholly separate forces each with their own potential values. Within each overall "good" individual is a small amount of "evil", which is defined as their likelihood of acting in a manner that reduces their chances of reciprocal benefits. There is not a single bar with good at the top and evil at the bottom, but two bars labeled "acts which increase likelihood of reciprocation" and "acts which decrease likelihood of reciprocation". An "evil" person has the evil bar high enough that humanity is uncomfortable having them around, while the opposite is true for a "good" person. One can also draw another conclusion from this. Because society continues to operate in a more or less stable fashion, it could be said that the natural state of people in general is overwhelmingly "good". If evil were as rampant as some think it is the result would be anarchy far beyond what is observed today. No, the vast majority of humans are aware of their place in society and their responsibilities toward it, which is what makes the deviants so notable.

 

[darkxshade]

Neither, they are inherently morans... some more severe than others.