Is humanity inherently good, evil or neutral?

[thestrangequark]

I've posted in this thread a lot without really addressing the question, so, here's my take on these things (and I am far friendlier towards science than I am towards philosophy). Foremost, "good" and "evil" are ridiculously simplistic terms when talking about people. Ideas and actions may be good or evil, people may do good or evil things, but people themselves are too complex to be described thusly.

I suppose there are three things that determine a person's character: nature, nurture, and situation. No one has any evidence as to what percentage of our characters are determined by nature as opposed to nurture, but I think most people who study human behavior in any capacity (psychological, neurological, etc) would concede that both play important parts. And frankly, that's all pretty obvious to me. No one is born a tabla rasa, nor are we born with a determined character, rather, our environment interacts with our predispositions, our experiences inform our innate traits and vice versa. The third aspect, situation, I suppose plays a greater role for some individuals than for others, but I think most people, when faced with certain situations, might find they are able to act in ways they never considered part of their characters -- this may be good or bad: Some people perform feats of great heroism and bravery when faced with trying circumstances, performing acts of immense good when even they wouldn't have expected themselves to be so capable. Likewise, some normal people (more, it seems, than is comfortable) can do acts of great evil when coerced, the Milgram Experiment (not to mention the Nazi atrocities of WWII) are prime examples.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Legality is very much that way ("adjustable," to use JarodRussell's term); goodness knows some of the abuses we see come out of the courts, even in the best of systems, make that clear. Legality very often becomes a systemized form of rationalization exactly as you describe. As a concept, however, it has nothing to do with the actual moral law, the actual right or wrong answer (even though the intent is that it should).

Regarding the violence in the Bible, this is a subject that I am definitely studying. There are ideas forming on the subject but I am not yet ready to put them into words. But I certainly acknowledge it as a matter requiring thoughtful research.

 

[Mary Ann]

The third aspect, situation, I suppose plays a greater role for some individuals than for others

Part of this has to do with resilience. Like other personality traits we're born with varying levels of resilience, which is why there can be, for example, two children in the same family receiving the same kind of nurturing yet one child can easily handle challenging situations while the other child cannot handle them at all. It is possible to help people increase their resilience, but some people will always have lower levels than others, no matter how much extra support they get.

 

[thestrangequark]

The third aspect, situation, I suppose plays a greater role for some individuals than for others

Part of this has to do with resilience. Like other personality traits we're born with varying levels of resilience, which is why there can be, for example, two children in the same family receiving the same kind of nurturing yet one child can easily handle challenging situations while the other child cannot handle them at all. It is possible to help people increase their resilience, but some people will always have lower levels than others, no matter how much extra support they get.

Indeed. I am currently working with an epidemiologist at NYU who, back in the '80s, did some fascinating work studying drug addiction from an epidiomological view. She treated drug addiction as a viral epidemic and looked at resiliency factors in individuals in the same way one would when studying the spread of the flu: treating the behavioral as the biological. Very interesting stuff.

 

[Captain_Nick]

Poll: 1) Is our species good for the most part save a few bad apples or 2) is our species prone to self-destructing behavior and we only held in check by our civilization and social structure? 3) Or are we born neutral and we become what we become because of our environment?

I don't intend for this to become a religious debate. I'm simply interested in what the general consensus is.

There is no question to answer. The duality of 'good' and 'evil' is a product of the marriage of the mind and language. Reality is what it is, infinitely diverse and unknowable.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I very much agree with what you wrote, tsq, but I will highlight two passages that are worth considering.

No one has any evidence as to what percentage of our characters are determined by nature as opposed to nurture, but I think most people who study human behaviour in any capacity (psychological, neurological, etc) would concede that both play important parts. And frankly, that's all pretty obvious to me.

I agree, it should be obvious, but even from the small sample provide from this thread, it's far from it. Some people think babies are born "pure" (whatever it means) and are only corrupted by life experiences, and some people claim that we are all born "evil", to justify why we need some kind of external "salvation". To steal one of your expressions, I would say they are both ridiculously simplistic positions, but the very fact that people hold them, against what I would say is common sense, is food for thought. What kind of thought, is left to the reader as an exercise.

I suppose there are three things that determine a person's character: nature, nurture, and situation.

You touch upon another very important issue, that of the randomness of human actions. We think of ourselves as moral beings: we may rise to our best intentions, or we may fall to our worst instincts, but we like to think that our decision, good or bad, are our own. For the most part, that's certainly true. But somehow, the inherent randomness of existence sneaks into our deterministic mindset, with unsettling consequences. Call it the uncertainty principle of human behaviour, if you wish.

I see no other way to justify the way people act sometimes, without any real reason or rationale. It might be for good, or it might be for bad, but we can't escape that our brains are complex machines, and as anyone who ever tried Windows can tell, sometimes shit happens, and you will never know why.

Sometimes, in the split second we have to take a decision, there is no reason, no emotion, no God, no laws, not even ourselves, just the random firing of neurons, and then we have to live with the consequences.

Sometimes we do horrible things to each others for the smallest reasons, or for no apparent reason at all. Maybe we were angry. Maybe we had a shitty day. Maybe we were just bored. It works the other way too: sometimes we do wonderful things just because we were in a good mood, or because we just felt like doing it.

The randomness of it might be scary, but I think it's wise to face it, and accept the fact that we can't control everything, sometimes not even ourselves. Not sure how it blends with current topic of humanity being inherently good or evil, but that was something that it's worth considering in my opinion.

 

[Caliburn24]

Man is evil, and I have conclusive video evidence to back up the claim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj-J_NKiqlY

 

[Danoz]

I am a Star Trek fan. Humanity is not only good, we are so good that we light the way for other races

 

[Mary Ann]

The third aspect, situation, I suppose plays a greater role for some individuals than for others

Part of this has to do with resilience. Like other personality traits we're born with varying levels of resilience, which is why there can be, for example, two children in the same family receiving the same kind of nurturing yet one child can easily handle challenging situations while the other child cannot handle them at all. It is possible to help people increase their resilience, but some people will always have lower levels than others, no matter how much extra support they get.

Indeed. I am currently working with an epidemiologist at NYU who, back in the '80s, did some fascinating work studying drug addiction from an epidiomological view. She treated drug addiction as a viral epidemic and looked at resiliency factors in individuals in the same way one would when studying the spread of the flu: treating the behavioral as the biological. Very interesting stuff.

Very interesting indeed. I wrote a paper on emotional resilience in children for a course on childhood I took a few years ago. I enjoyed the entire course but that paper was the most interesting and enjoyable aspect of the course for me.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

I would say humility is inherently good, its just these days because we can see what goes on around the world at the press of a mouse button it feels like the world is going to hell in a hand basket, simply because bad stuff makes for better media focus than good.

But you have to take the rough with the smooth i suppose.

 

[Jadzia]

Likewise, some normal people (more, it seems, than is comfortable) can do acts of great evil when coerced, the Milgram Experiment (not to mention the Nazi atrocities of WWII) are prime examples.

Humans have a way with language, that allows people to justify pretty much anything they want to justify.

People who do spiteful things will often see their actions as being a means to a greater end, even though those actions may cause suffering in the short term, they are believed necessary to bring a better future.

For example, the idea of "being cruel to be kind", or "things must get worse before they can get better", or "It's for your own good". Whether evil is big or small, it's can often take these forms.

Another example can be found within utilitarianism. This philosophy aims to provide "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". which is an optimisation process that reduces people to statistics, and which can ultimately lead to minority groups being mistreated/neglected (however subtly) as a matter of policy, because that arrangement happens to benefit the greater number of people.

 

[JayOwl]

Neutral - We can be either, depending on our surroundings.

 

[STR]

People are selfish. Selfishness is evil, or at least is somewhat contradictory to good, which is generally some kind of altruistic ideal. Good vs evil in and of itself is a far larger argument than can be expressed on a web forum. The problem is with people doing evil things and pretening they're doing good. Self deluding hypocrites are the worst people, capable if doing horrible things.

 

[scottydog]

Neutral - We can be either, depending on our surroundings.

This is essentially the position taken by folks in my profession of social psychology. The situation exerts an influence on us and can bring out the best in us or the worst in us.

From this perspective, terrorists and the Abu Ghraib prison guards aren't evil people. They were caught up in a bad situation or exposed to bad indoctrination.

Also from this perspective, good Samaritans aren't necessarily good people. They simply react, sometimes without thought, and do the right thing. Or they are exposed to good indoctrinations.

 

[JarodRussell]

Neutral - We can be either, depending on our surroundings.

This is essentially the position taken by folks in my profession of social psychology. The situation exerts an influence on us and can bring out the best in us or the worst in us.

From this perspective, terrorists and the Abu Ghraib prison guards aren't evil people. They were caught up in a bad situation or exposed to bad indoctrination.

Also from this perspective, good Samaritans aren't necessarily good people. They simply react, sometimes without thought, and do the right thing. Or they are exposed to good indoctrinations.

You are what you do.

 

[Captain_Nick]

The responses in this thread are telling me more about the posters themselves than answering the original 'question'.

 

[scottydog]

Neutral - We can be either, depending on our surroundings.

This is essentially the position taken by folks in my profession of social psychology. The situation exerts an influence on us and can bring out the best in us or the worst in us.

From this perspective, terrorists and the Abu Ghraib prison guards aren't evil people. They were caught up in a bad situation or exposed to bad indoctrination.

Also from this perspective, good Samaritans aren't necessarily good people. They simply react, sometimes without thought, and do the right thing. Or they are exposed to good indoctrinations.

You are what you do.

And I agree with you 100%. The situation may bring out the best or the worst in us, but in the end we all make choices that define us.

 

[thestrangequark]

The responses in this thread are telling me more about the posters themselves than answering the original 'question'.

Indeed, it actually makes for a far more interesting read from that perspective than from a philosophical one. (Then again, I find almost anything more interesting than philosophy.)

 

[infinix]

And I agree with you 100%. The situation may bring out the best or the worst in us, but in the end we all make choices that define us.

So what you are suggesting is that people are defined from decision to decision and that each decision is independent of one another?

 

[Captain_Nick]

people are defined from decision to decision

What does that mean???