Is humanity inherently good, evil or neutral?

[thestrangequark]

are born without blemish. If a person grows up evil, its because those who raised the person didn't teach him/her well. It the environment that would turn a person evil.

Agreed.

Nah. People are a product of nurture and nature. The theory of the soul as a tabla rasa fell out of favor over a century ago. Neuroscience is young yet, but there is already evidence that brain structure is linked with specific behaviors, including anti-social, violent, and criminal behaviors. You can also take for example the cases of people whose personalities are altered drastically after traumatic brain injury: The famous Phineas Gage, for example.

Also, that puts an awful lot of pressure on the parents. They can't be blamed for every misdeed of their offspring.

 

[iguana_tonante]

^True story, baby! The best part is that I had two books at hand, and the other was Kant.

You have chosen... wisely.

 

[Holdfast]

^True story, baby! The best part is that I had two books at hand, and the other was Kant.

Yes, if you'd hit it with Kant, you'd never know if you actually crushed it in reality or not.

 

[JarodRussell]

Everyone acts selfish. Everyone. Humans, animals, everyone. That's the fundamental truth.

Holdfast got close to the point:

With that caveat, I think there are very few people who actively approach life with the intent of worsening other people's life experiences. I guess that's equivalent to a conventional definition of good, so that's what I ticked, but really it's all semantics.

Good or bad is all about what happens to others when you're acting selfish. Are you destroying the career of a coworker because you want his job, for example? Or are you letting things be, find another way?

And then good and bad is ill-defined. Why is murder bad, for example? When is murder bad? How can it be, that in Christian faith, God first killed all first borns and countless of people, and then declared "Though shalt not kill"? In other cultures, ritual murder was and/or is gladly accepted. Murder on the battle field is perfectly okay, unless you violate certain "rules of engagement", made up by other people. In the United States and other countries, criminals are essentially murdered by state officials as punishment. In Iran, criminals are stoned to death by civilians as punishment. Why is it "good" to kill criminals? Who decided that? And is that decision right?

In the end, in this example, it's the "need for justice". And "justice" means "revenge", which is just compensation, and compensation is a self-serving need. Someone murders your loved one, and you want "justice". For some it's okay if the murderer gets behind bars for the rest of his life. Others need to see the murderer get killed. Eventually, it's all about what makes you feel better. And what makes you feel better is considered "good".

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And then good and bad is ill-defined. Why is murder bad, for example? When is murder bad?

Murder is always bad, because it involves killing for no reason (or reasons that don't make sense). Not all killing is murder, though. If you are a cop and you shoot a perp dead, that is not murder, because you are ALLOWED to kill in that way (it's an acceptable part of the job - I mean, cops don't WANT to kill perps, but sometimes they have to, to defend themselves or other innocent people). So is killing in a military sense - one soldier killing another. And of course self defense, which is a universal right.

How can it be, that in Christian faith, God first killed all first borns and countless of people, and then declared "Though shalt not kill"?

Even God can change His mind, you know. In any case, once Jesus made the supreme sacrifice, the old testament way of thinking was no longer necessary.

In other cultures, ritual murder was and/or is gladly accepted.

Then as I said, it's not murder, it's killing. The two are not the same.

Why is it "good" to kill criminals? Who decided that? And is that decision right?

I don't think it is, no. I'm against capital punishment.

 

[Nowhere Man]

Wasen't it Dawkins who said that man will likely attempt to be peacefull and that it's natural for us to only be hostile towards each other when it comes to self defense? I'm paraphrasing of course, but I think humans are inheriently "good" and what makes you a bad person can depend on environment, but is not nessecarly linked. You can grow up in a good home and become bad, you can grow up in a bad home and become good. You can grow up in a bad home and become bad. There are many scenerios to make one bad or good. I do think we are born pure, how can you be born any other way? Whatever happens in your life determins your personality.

Also, I don't think that people only live by the rules because society has created them. I think rules and laws were created because people over time realized they had to live together in towns or viliages. Obviously laws and rules have been created because of bad people or shady people tried something and thought they could get away with it. Look at it like this, you know the McDonalds warning on the coffee cup that says caution hot? This was created because some dumbass who knew it was hot spilled the coffee on themselves, then complained that there was no warning. That is what happens in society, someone kills someone and then says, "well nobody said I can't kill someone", even though it was understood that you can't do that. Then society made a law, so that nobody else could say that they didn't know.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Thus spoke Zarathustra.

I killed a cockroach with that book once.

If that actually happened and I'm not being dense and missing some pop culture reference, that has to be the most symbolically wonderful use of a book EVER.

I prefer to use Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^True story, baby! The best part is that I had two books at hand, and the other was Kant.

You must turn that into a story or comic or poem; it's too good to be just an Internet anecdote.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Depends on what you roll on 3d20, doesn't it?

 

[JarodRussell]

Murder is always bad, because it involves killing for no reason (or reasons that don't make sense).

That is not the definition of murder. Murder is the "unlawful" killing of a person with "malice aforethought" (doesn't say anything if there is a reason that makes sense. "I killed my husband because I want the payout of his life insurance" is a reason that makes perfect sense.). It's the "unlawful" part that's in question. What is unlawful or lawful, what is good or bad, and why is it? Getting a criminal on the electric chair has definately malice aforethough, but it is not unlawful.

 

[RegFan]

Humans are born neutral, but most have a natural tendency towards good. True, there are some people who honestly don't care about others at all or outright enjoy others' suffering, but the vast majority are benevolent and clearly more good than evil. Just look at all the good we've done already: the creation of medicine, laws prohibiting things such as racism and violations of human rights, we've always taken care of our friends and family, we are mostly polite and respectful to each other etc...

 

[BlobVanDam]

Humans are born neutral, but most have a natural tendency towards good. True, there are some people who honestly don't care about others at all or outright enjoy others' suffering, but the vast majority are benevolent and clearly more good than evil. Just look at all the good we've done already: the creation of medicine, laws prohibiting things such as racism and violations of human rights, we've always taken care of our friends and family, we are mostly polite and respectful to each other etc...

Call me cynical, but I'd say if anything we have a slight leaning towards evil. Ok, evil is much too harsh a word, but humans are born self centered, for the sake of self preservation. We have to be taught to care about others, and this comes from experience of good. But natural leaning, I'd say people only care about themselves initially. Now I wouldn't say that's due to evil, but I would say that when we're young we don't have much regard for the thoughts of others (although arguably at that stage we're too young to understand it, so maybe it's irrelevant). If not taught to care about others and raised well, I think humans tend to fall into evil quite easily.

Anyway, I'd say it's fairly close to neutral overall. The cynic in me wants to point out the perceived horrible nature of the common man, but there are also plenty of good people who don't get the same attention as the troublemakers simply because they're nice enough to not get noticed.

 

[JarodRussell]

Studies have shown that little children have an instinct of helping each other. They do not have to be taught to do that. And they trust everyone, and they are curious about everything. The evil and bad stuff, the scheming, the distrust, the fear of foreign things, comes with the age.

 

[BlobVanDam]

It depends on how young you mean. I went to a kid's party today of 3 and 4 year olds, and they were getting along nicely, but in my experience, kids younger than about 3 are still pretty much all for themselves, and need to be told to share etc. Whether or not they'd learn these things on their own instinctively, it's a bit hard to take parental intervention out of the equation.

 

[Kestra]

That's why you only study kids who have been raised by wolves.

 

[Mary Ann]

It depends on how young you mean. I went to a kid's party today of 3 and 4 year olds, and they were getting along nicely, but in my experience, kids younger than about 3 are still pretty much all for themselves, and need to be told to share etc. Whether or not they'd learn these things on their own instinctively, it's a bit hard to take parental intervention out of the equation.

The supposed selfishness of very young children isn't really selfishness as we know it because they are, for the most part, utterly incapable of thinking beyond themselves. They cannot see things from another child's perspective because they don't understand that other people have perspectives. It's all part of normal development; you need to sort your own little world out before you can begin to understand the viewpoint of others. Often children will first learn to share because it makes the adults who care for them happy, not because of an intrinsic happy feeling. That comes a little while later.

I agree with those who said that nature plays a role as well as nurture. With very few exceptions, such as true psychopaths, we all have the potential to be good, though for some people it's naturally easier to fall off the rails.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

It depends on how young you mean. I went to a kid's party today of 3 and 4 year olds, and they were getting along nicely, but in my experience, kids younger than about 3 are still pretty much all for themselves, and need to be told to share etc. Whether or not they'd learn these things on their own instinctively, it's a bit hard to take parental intervention out of the equation.

The supposed selfishness of very young children isn't really selfishness as we know it because they are, for the most part, utterly incapable of thinking beyond themselves. They cannot see things from another child's perspective because they don't understand that other people have perspectives.

Exactly .

 

[RandyS]

I think people start out trying to be good, but then the real world gets a hold of them and, well.......

Except for me of course. I'm violently evil and wear my evilness like a badge of honor.

 

[RegFan]

Call me cynical, but I'd say if anything we have a slight leaning towards evil. Ok, evil is much too harsh a word, but humans are born self centered, for the sake of self preservation. We have to be taught to care about others, and this comes from experience of good. But natural leaning, I'd say people only care about themselves initially. Now I wouldn't say that's due to evil, but I would say that when we're young we don't have much regard for the thoughts of others (although arguably at that stage we're too young to understand it, so maybe it's irrelevant). If not taught to care about others and raised well, I think humans tend to fall into evil quite easily.

But humans are the ones raising the children. That means they have a natural tendency towards good. And I think people do naturally care about others; it's a survival advantage to groups.

Anyway, I'd say it's fairly close to neutral overall. The cynic in me wants to point out the perceived horrible nature of the common man, but there are also plenty of good people who don't get the same attention as the troublemakers simply because they're nice enough to not get noticed.

Humans naturally accentuate the negative, because noticing the positive only makes one feel good, whereas noticing the negative leads to making things better. I think that if you count every single good and evil action in the world, the good far outweighs the evil. There are lots of good actions that are almost always ignored. Some examples:
1. Answering a question. One person needs information and another gives it.
2. Parents and friends taking care of you.
3. Deciding not to kick or insult someone.
4. Being polite and respectful.
5. Compliments.
6. Giving advice.

 

[iguana_tonante]

That's why you only study kids who have been raised by wolves.

Wolves are very kind and selfless animals.