Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Generally speaking, excluding biological abnormalities, are we born good and sometimes turn bad because of society and our environment?
Are people inherently good?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Shannon Alexander
Well-Known Member
I have found that in the society in which I live that in general people are inherently good...
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I just realized this question completely depends on your definitions of 'good' and 'bad'.
Are you good because you don't harm anyone else or get involved in affairs that don't involve you? Are you good because you bought your kids a new toy?
I think we should define what a 'good person' and what a 'bad person' is first.
To me, a good person is someone who always considers the options and tries to do the right thing - the right thing being that which causes the most people to benefit as much as possible, utilitarianism.
A bad person would be someone who is only interested in selfish gain, regardless of the cost to others.
Using that model, I'd have to say most people are not inherently good as, especially in America, personal gain is usually the goal in life. Not that that itself is a "bad" goal, it's actually very necessary, but when considering that, I guess you could make any ends justify all means..
Shannon Alexander
Well-Known Member
My first answer still stands for where I'm from...
Rancho Cucamonga
Active Member
You philosopher you.
English philosophers like Hobbes believed that human nature is "tainted". He believed that people will immorally act according to their corrupted nature(ie stealing, cheating, killing, etc) if left without order; hence why he believed in monarchical government. However, philosophers like john locke believed otherwise, he believed that people were inherently "good". Unlike Thomas Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature is characterized by reason and tolerance. Since he believed that humans were "reasonable". He believed that the government should be a representative, nothing more, unlike Hobbes.
I think they are both right to a certain degree, they are just looking at a different angle. "Good-and-evil" are about, morality (Obviously). But let us briefly define these terms. Good by defintion is: morally righteous, the definition of "evil" is: morally wrong or bad. Things will be easier if you understand how morality is rooted. Let us integrate philosophy with science, for a better approach.
Basically, humans evolved as social creatures, we are highly cooperative. Our emotions/morality evolved with us, as it helps us bond. Bonding between members of a certain group is important because it enhances the chance of the members and the group's survival and we all know even primitive cell's sole purpose is to survive. Human are also like that, just a little bit more complex.
"Charles Darwin himself argued for group selection. He postulated that moral men might not do any better than immoral men but that tribes of moral men would certainly have an immense advantage over fractious bands of pirates."
Some human behavior are deemed as good, some deemed as evil depending on the observer, Good/evil are just a matter of our own interpretations. Humans are neither good nor evil, they are labels politicians throw around to manipulate the people. The only thing we can be certain of is that, we behave in such a manner to survive, nothing more nothing less.
Amazingly this response was from Yahoo Answers, one of the last places one should look for answers to such questions.
English philosophers like Hobbes believed that human nature is "tainted". He believed that people will immorally act according to their corrupted nature(ie stealing, cheating, killing, etc) if left without order; hence why he believed in monarchical government. However, philosophers like john locke believed otherwise, he believed that people were inherently "good". Unlike Thomas Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature is characterized by reason and tolerance. Since he believed that humans were "reasonable". He believed that the government should be a representative, nothing more, unlike Hobbes.
I think they are both right to a certain degree, they are just looking at a different angle. "Good-and-evil" are about, morality (Obviously). But let us briefly define these terms. Good by defintion is: morally righteous, the definition of "evil" is: morally wrong or bad. Things will be easier if you understand how morality is rooted. Let us integrate philosophy with science, for a better approach.
Basically, humans evolved as social creatures, we are highly cooperative. Our emotions/morality evolved with us, as it helps us bond. Bonding between members of a certain group is important because it enhances the chance of the members and the group's survival and we all know even primitive cell's sole purpose is to survive. Human are also like that, just a little bit more complex.
"Charles Darwin himself argued for group selection. He postulated that moral men might not do any better than immoral men but that tribes of moral men would certainly have an immense advantage over fractious bands of pirates."
Some human behavior are deemed as good, some deemed as evil depending on the observer, Good/evil are just a matter of our own interpretations. Humans are neither good nor evil, they are labels politicians throw around to manipulate the people. The only thing we can be certain of is that, we behave in such a manner to survive, nothing more nothing less.
Amazingly this response was from Yahoo Answers, one of the last places one should look for answers to such questions.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What would you say makes a person 'good' or 'bad'?
Can a bad person become good?
That question leads me to believe people are not good or bad, they are both, just to different degrees under different circumstances
Honesty, I think people are born bad and then they eventually become good because of society and their environment. Little kids do the most fucked up shit to each other. I remember stealing, pissing in other kids sprite, and making random shit up about people when I was a kid, and then I realized those are shitty things to do because of society influenzing me. But I guess some people just have pessimistic views on life. 
Granny weed
Well-Known Member
I don't know about beng born bad I would say you are born innocent and then you become corrupted by life, some can see the corruption as bad and choose to go the other way some enjoy the corruption and carry on with it. I have done good and bad things in my life I know what's right and wrong but I'm sometimes tempted to do wrong for self gain this I think is human nature. I have always tried to teach my children to do right but it hasn't always worked, so I think as long as they are not hurting anyone else they must make their own mistakes. And you are correct in saying people are not just one thing with regard to being good or bad they are both depending on the circumstances.
oldtimer54
Well-Known Member
I think people are born both ways....evil and good and I think as you progress thru life certain factors influence or determine what path you eventually take.....and let me add that I think at this moment in our socitey there are more people choosing the wrong path.... there seems to be more evil or bad people around now than there was eariler in our soceity..........just an old mans point of view
delvite
Well-Known Member
define good and bad?..................................... there is only choice and information
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You make a choice to act on information, that choice can be either good or bad depending on the context
delvite
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Imo, good and bad are concepts made up by humans, which is why we're all both. Good and bad is subjective.
delvite
Well-Known Member
very lol gr8 question btw, if we are inherrantly good and bad would that mean your choices are pre-determined and follow a set path ( was einstien right
)
BarnBuster
Virtually Unknown Member
Are not good and evil just perceptions?
Apomixis
Active Member
Yes! Yes! Yes!
We have this ability to empathize- to extend our consciousness into another living being. Some call this anthropomorphizing, I call it empathy. And it makes us inherently good. If we don't like to suffer and can empathize with suffering in another organism, we naturally move to prevent it. I see it with children. They don't like when other things 'hurt', even inanimate things....
Unless someone fucked your brain up. But I think that's a modification, not the basis.
We have this ability to empathize- to extend our consciousness into another living being. Some call this anthropomorphizing, I call it empathy. And it makes us inherently good. If we don't like to suffer and can empathize with suffering in another organism, we naturally move to prevent it. I see it with children. They don't like when other things 'hurt', even inanimate things....
Unless someone fucked your brain up. But I think that's a modification, not the basis.
BarnBuster
Virtually Unknown Member
But what if evil has to be done to accomplish good? Two innocent newborn babies in a burning building. You can only save one or neither. You know their future collectively but not individually. One grows to discover a cure for cancer and saves millions, the other another Joseph Stalin responsible for the death of 20 million people. Do you guess and save only one hoping he is cancer cure baby? Or let both perish. Which is the better good? Adding further into this gruesome scenario another baby only this is yours. You can only still save one or none. So is the greater good a better cause? Quite a topic.
Similar threads
