Do u believe people are basically good?

[Sam Samson 0]

I saw all those theological remarks in the "ring around baghdad." Doesn't really fit there and I'd be glad to spar in here with you on the subject.

let me cut through to an important subject right away:

I believe nothing has greater influence on determining your social and political views than whether you view human nature as basically good or evil.

I personally believe the latter to be true.

if you believe that people are basically good, God and religion are morally unnecessary, even harmful.

after all, if you're good already you don't need a redeemer who takes your sin away, do you?

Why would basically good people need a God to provide moral standards? this is why the crowd that believes in innate human goodness tends to either be secular or to reduce religion to social workers, etc.

no need for moral standards and moral judgments.

if you believe people are basically good, you, of course, believe that you are good - and therefore those who disagree with you must be bad, not merely wrong.

You also believe that the more power that you and those you agree with have, the better the society will be. That is why such people are so committed to powerful government and to powerful judges.

On the other hand, those of us who believe that people are not basically good do not want power concentrated in any one group, and are therefore profoundly suspicious of big government, big labor, big corporations, and even big religious institutions.

I think the notion that people are intrinsically good is utterly erroneous.

Jesus said: face it, you're bad. a sinner. you must be spiritually born again to become good. how? by faith in him.

Are people basically good or bad?

What do you say?

[Guest]

By saying 'good' or 'bad' you already assume that there is an absolute moral position.

Apart of that, I believe that a person is a tabula rasa when it is born. From there, depending on external input it can evolve into something good or bad (relative the social context it grows up in). You can teach a kid to be anything.

[Renagade 0]

unless the genetic makeup of the kid has some influence on the outcome

[Jinef 2]

I agree, people use good and evil far too freely without realising that they are just terms and have no substance.

Religion defines good and evil and therefore gives structure to people's lives so no it is not redundant but i just don't want to follow it that's all.

If someone nicks my new DVD player i will resent them but i won't think they are evil and need to be re-educated in the ways of god, just that they have their reasons bit it inflicts the stress of doing insurance paperwork on someone else.

The only things that can be really seen as true evil and good are satan and god because no one knows the what the fuck they are about and if they do exist their administrative section is probably the worst in the world as they haven't got round to any public appearances or demonstrations and quite honestly, their popularity is declining!

[Tovarish 0]

I believe that we, like every other animal, are flawed. Only problem is that we are too "smart" for our own good, and so our imperfections have the potential to destroy the entire world.

That said, I don't believe that religion is necessary for a moral structure. I turned away from religion a long time ago and I consider myself a pretty moral guy.

[FSPilot 0]

I believe people are inherantly bad.

By "bad" I mean generally selfish, not caring about their fellow man, violent, so forth.

[cybrid 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FSPilot Posted on Jan. 12 2003,169

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe people are inherantly bad.

By "bad" I mean generally selfish, not caring about their fellow man, violent, so forth. <span id='postcolor'>

I agree totaly. Could you imagine if we lived in a world without laws or enforcement?, the whole world would be like the ghettos in L.A. My one friend actually likes the idea anarchy, but I think I've convinced her to see my point of view .

[Necromancer- 0]

I consider every human who consumes a lot of the Earth's resources bad, including myself.

The only things humans do that i consider "good" are humans that account OFP as a good game.

[Sam Samson 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 12 2003,21:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By saying 'good' or 'bad' you already assume that there is an absolute moral position.

Apart of that, I believe that a person is a tabula rasa when it is born. From there, depending on external input it can evolve into something good or bad (relative the social context it grows up in). You can teach a kid to be anything.<span id='postcolor'>

am I right to assume you don't believe that there is such a thing as an absolute? no natural, inherent guideline in the soul of a person to help him make a judgement? all guidelines are merely superimposed?

but you do believe in right and wrong?

well.

if you believe people are born good - or are neutral blank slates -, you will attribute evil to forces outside the individual.

Let me develop that:

That is why folks in secular humanistic culture often attribute evil to poverty or a lack of education.

millions of Westerners - even intelligent ones - believe that the cause of Islamic terror is poverty. They believe that people who on strap bombs to blow up families in pizza places, plant bombs in Bali, slit stewardesses' throats and ram airplanes full of innocents into skyscrapers do so because they lack an income.

these people - liberals? - can't accept the fact that many people have evil values and choose evil for reasons having nothing to do with their economic situation.

the greatest fight you'll ever fight is the one against yourself, your baser instincts, self-centeredness, lack of discipline, etc.

if you believe people are born good, you won't stress character development when you raise children or at school.

au contraire: you'll have schools that teach young people how to use condoms, how to avoid tobacco smoke, how to recycle and how to prevent rainforests from disappearing.

But you won't teach them that their main struggle in creating a better world is against their own nature.

[Guest]

6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Jan. 12 2003,236)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">am I right to assume you don't believe that there is such a thing as an absolute? no natural, inherent guideline in the soul of a person to help him make a judgement? all guidelines are merely superimposed?

but you do believe in right and wrong?<span id='postcolor'>

It is a bit difficult to answer. I don't believe in absolutes per se but I realize the necessity of having some form of rule book for a collective to work together. Introducing some forms of artificial social absolutes is inevitable. I do believe in right and wrong within the context of a social structure, but not in an universal sense.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well.

if you believe people are born good - or are neutral blank slates -, you will attribute evil to forces outside the individual.

Let me develop that:

That is why folks in secular humanistic culture often attribute evil to poverty or a lack of education.

<span id='postcolor'>

I would again like to step away from the clear definition of right and wrong. I don't believe in god so for me right and wrong are human constructions that can differ from one individual to another and one culture from another.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">millions of Westerners - even intelligent ones - believe that the cause of Islamic terror is poverty. They believe that people who on strap bombs to blow up families in pizza places, plant bombs in Bali, slit stewardesses' throats and ram airplanes full of innocents into skyscrapers do so because they lack an income.

these people - liberals? - can't accept the fact that many people have evil values and choose evil for reasons having nothing to do with their economic situation.

<span id='postcolor'>

They are not evil values. They are different values. Just as you don't consider the dropping of the abomb as evil there are people who don't consider ramming airplanes full of innocents into skyscrapers as evil. There is nothing in the world, but our artificial social rules that say that one thing is better then the other.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

the greatest fight you'll ever fight is the one against yourself, your baser instincts, self-centeredness, lack of discipline, etc.

if you believe people are born good, you won't stress character development when you raise children or at school.

au contraire: you'll have schools that teach young people how to use condoms, how to avoid tobacco smoke, how to recycle and how to prevent rainforests from disappearing.

But you won't teach them that their main struggle in creating a better world is against their own nature.<span id='postcolor'>

I wouldn't put it like that at all. When a human is born it doesn't have the skills to meet the requirements of our society and culture. These skill need to be developed. That's the incentive for improvement (relative the requirements of the social structure).

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If only it were all so simple!  If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them.  But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

-- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn<span id='postcolor'>

P.S.  Sam, if your new dog keeps you waiting name it Godot.

[Oligo 1]

Each of us is walking a razor's edge, when it comes to "good" and "bad". Each of us is constantly tugged between choosing altruism or selfishness. Humankind as a collective structure could not function, if a certain degree of altruism was not exercised by each member. Individuals could not rise up to extraordinary acts (thus benefiting the society also), if certain amount of selfishness was not exercised by each individual.

Thus as a species, humans are typical pack animals.

Each of us struggles to advance themselves. It depends on genetic background and educational background how much of our energy we devote on altruism and how much on selfishness. As in everything, the middle road is the best for yourself and your fellow man.

Ironically the so called "terrorists" are very altruistic people, willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of their families, friends and society, as they perceive it. Mother Theresa was also a very altruistic person. So I ask, which is good, altruism or selfishness? Which is bad, altruism or selfishness?

[CosmicCastaway 0]

The concept of 'good' and 'bad' is essentially a product of society. Different societies have different concepts of what the term 'good' or 'bad' may represent.

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Jan. 12 2003,22:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I consider every human who consumes a lot of the Earth's resources bad, including myself.

The only things humans do that i consider "good" are humans that account OFP as a good game.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree  

I will not even get started in this discussion, but its nice to see that only 1 so far believe in such extremely simplified thinking. There is most certainly no such thing as anything 'absolute' in the entire universe (or indeed in any of the universes). Almost everything we know about human nature is just a product of our own time; what we today call a human being have never existed before, and will never exist again (atleast when talking in centuries).

One positive thing (in my opinion) that most social researchers agree on is that human development goes more and more towards 'oceanic' charasteristics; that is (in my interpretion) away from more concrete rules and conceptions in society, and towards more abstract and undefined ones - which also brings the need of constant critical thinking... Certainly less productive but also more 'human'.

Shit, I did got started in this discussion  

Well, to finish off, a link to:

the Milgram experiment

Not the best site I could find indeed, but probably the shortest Now, are these people born EVIL - or are their actions just products of a social context???

[DarkLight 0]

What is evil? In my opinion some world leaders are the most dangerous and evil ppl out there, while others admire them.

Personally i believe we are all bad, thank god some people have brains and try to help others...

[Placebo 29]

IMO the majority are good but the bad done by the minority outweighs the good.

[theavonlady 2]

Chosing between good and bad is what life is all about. And good and bad may be relatively measured when dealing with different people and circumstances.

One exception: moderators are intrinsically bad.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Jan. 13 2003,17:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">IMO the majority are good but the bad done by the minority outweighs the good.<span id='postcolor'>

People do "good" every day, it just doesn't reach the public eye. Bad news sells papers, so to speak. We just hear about the bad more than the good.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Jan. 13 2003,16:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, to finish off, a link to:

the Milgram experiment

Not the best site I could find indeed, but probably the shortest <span id='postcolor'>

Thank you for citing the Milgram experiment.  Anyone with a little spare time should read Stanley Milgram's entire essay, The Perils of Obedience.  Amasing stuff.

[Jinef 2]

I didn't say religion will structure people lives and is neccessary, just that it is an institution which can heavily structure someones life if they want.

George Bush is apparently a good Christian but i didn't see him forgive the sins of others and say that these people were martyrs, did he?

I agree that there is no good or evil just different interpretations. In some south America cultures women are the leaders and men worship them, not likely to happen anywhere else due to different cultures. In western society there have been very few women leaders, America hasn;t had one female president. We had Margaret Thatcher but there are doubts about her as a whole - she wanted to use nuclear weapons in the Falklands! I'm glad we had some power to refuse in the RAF then!

[Bart.Jan 0]

It's really difficult to define good and evil. I think, generally, good is everithing that leads to survival of species. Evil is everything thet leads species to its destruction. But this definition can not be used on behaviour of people from big society.

If your women horribly suffer from disease and probably will die it's good to kill and rob man that refuse give you medicine because you have no money. It's good for survival (life of one human female is more valuable that live of one human male; and his behaviour his harmfull) but it's unacceptable behaviour inside "civilized" society - it's evil for socitey because it can lead to its destruction.

What I think is that most of people are generally good. If they live in small self-sufficient society they themselves makes rules that helped them to survive - many of this rules can be considered as evil and barbaric inside "civilized" society - it can be canibalism, killing of defected newborn children, immiddietly execution of person that breaked critical rules etc.

On the other side "civilized" society can be considered as evil because it accepts virus behaviour - people lives at cost of dying nature (rainforests, global warming, sometimes almost poison water and air) and it's acceptable for society.

About religion. Only one, I know something more about, is Christianity. My opinion is that it only gives people some meaning of their lives. It gives them some rules that help them get over live crisis. But there are several things about it I don't like :

1)It is not free. Ususally you must pay service that it gives you. In the past people were forced to pay 1/10 of everithing they had and in the present day some pice of taxes (that I pay in Czechia) is for Christian church and no one ask me what belief I have. Christian church has more power than it needs.

2)There are some rules for Christians in The Holy Bible and maybe in several other books. I do not want to write if these rules are "good" or "evil", but I hate that many Christians doesn't care about the rules their religion dictate. If they break some rule they simply go into church, they give some money for church and they receive forgiveness. In the WW2 there were catolic priests on all sides of conflict. Another thing are atrocities that were happen in name of christian god in medieval. In the present days pope (why is he 1st man after god ?) and other high ranked members of Christian church are living in high standard and comfort, even christians are ordered to live in poverty, and many people on the Earts starving and dying. They sermon water but they drink wine - double standards.

3)Spook of evil satan worked in the past, but in present days it can cause many unnecessary suffering. No artifical abortions, no pre matrimonial sex , absurd protests against everything that "comes from satan" - sexual edification on grammar and high schools for example.

These are three major things I really don't like about religions generally. It's more bussines and power gaining that live style or whatever it should be.

On the othere side Cristinity brought some good standards (for society), education, hospitals into medieval Europe. I think the other religions also bring many good and bad things into another parts of the Earth but, of course, by another way.

I think people do not need religion but unfortunately religion become part of our lives and it become too powerfull many years ago, so there is no way how to erase it from our living. It can give to people many small good things but it can also give few big bad things to all mankind now.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Jan. 13 2003,17:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One exception: moderators are intrinsically bad. <span id='postcolor'>

/shakes head

why the f!@# did i help her with 1944 Steal the car?

when it comes to 'good' and 'bad' there are two categories(of each). absolute judgement, and relative judgement, for absolute value judgement we have no or little questions about how it goes. like killing innocent ppl is not justified in ANY culture. however, problem arises in the detail(As Ross Perrot said-"Devils are in details").

what is "good"? what is "innocent"? and etc. this is where relativity sets in. and relativity is usually influenced by cultural understandings and etc.

so i really don't want to bet on whether ppl are intrinsically good or bad. as someone said earlier, this is byproduct of countless factors.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Jan. 12 2003,18:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Chosing between good and bad is what life is all about. And good and bad may be relatively measured when dealing with different people and circumstances.

One exception: moderators are intrinsically bad. <span id='postcolor'>

-Zero tolerance-

BAN HER

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bart.Jan @ Jan. 13 2003,19:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On the other side "civilized" society can be considered as evil because it accepts virus behaviour - people lives at cost of dying nature (rainforests, global warming, sometimes almost poison water and air) and it's acceptable for society.<span id='postcolor'>

I hate it what effect the Matrix (the movie) has had on popular culture thinking, since some "truths" proclaimed in that movie are completely false. The most unfortunate such "truth" is the infamous "All animals except humans develop a balance with their environment. But humans multiply until they destroy everything. There is only one other group of organisms that behaves like that: viruses." -quote. This statement is complete crap.

All animals solely aim to multiply. There is no instinct to "develop a balance". It's just that animals do not have such things as medicine and agriculture. Therefore after a busy multiplying session, a population of animals will suffer plaques and famines, which curfew further population growth. Furthermore, for example herbivores can eat their environment so empty of their food plants that they cause a local extinction of the food plant and thus their own demise as well. Compare this to human impact to the environment and you see the similarity.

Humans behave just like other animals, we multiply. But we're also so smart that we have developed efficient weapons to combat famine and plaques. Thus we have managed to press our population limits upwards and our impact on the environment has been the greatest of the animals of our time. But we have still not managed to raise above the limitations of nature, just look at the famines blooming around the world. Those famines are nothing but nature curfewing human population growth. Also remember that the vegetarian argument of "We should only eat plants so could feed everyone on the planet." is also wrong. Even if we only ate plants, human populations would multiply until there would be enough of us to suffer famines even with everybody on flora-diets.

Viruses on the other hand have developed a brilliant way to survive, being essentially mere hard-shelled pods of DNA, able to survive almost indefinitely in the soil and water of our environment. There they wait, until a sufficient host goes by, which they infect. The poor host produces a score of new viruses, before it dies. The new virus particles then resume waiting for new hosts and believe me, they are more patient than anything else in this world. Viruses have secured the proliferation and preservation of their DNA code way more efficiently than we have so far managed.

I also doubt that polluting the environment is somehow "evil" in the absolute sense of the word. After all, even "innocent" animals do it all the time. However, polluting is of course quite detrimental for our survival.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Jan. 14 2003,08:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hate it what effect the Matrix (the movie) has had on popular culture thinking, since some "truths" proclaimed in that movie are completely false. The most unfortunate such "truth" is the infamous "All animals except humans develop a balance with their environment. But humans multiply until they destroy everything. There is only one other group of organisms that behaves like that: viruses." -quote. This statement is complete crap.<span id='postcolor'>But it was meant to be complete crap, spoken by the film's main antagonist.  I wouldn't worry that the ideology of Agent Smith has amassed any significant following.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Jan. 14 2003,08:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But we have still not managed to raise above the limitations of nature, just look at the famines blooming around the world. Those famines are nothing but nature curfewing human population growth.<span id='postcolor'>What do you mean by rising above the limitations of nature?  I would say that the vast majority of the planet's population is no longer controlled by natural limitations such as disease and famine.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Jan. 14 2003,08:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also remember that the vegetarian argument of "We should only eat plants so could feed everyone on the planet." is also wrong. Even if we only ate plants, human populations would multiply until there would be enough of us to suffer famines even with everybody on flora-diets.<span id='postcolor'>I disagree.  According to your statement, the countries with the most food should have the highest population growth.  That's just not true.  Germany's population has been shrinking for decades and will probably continue to shrink regardless of what they eat.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Jan. 14 2003,08:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Viruses have secured the proliferation and preservation of their DNA code way more efficiently than we have so far managed.<span id='postcolor'>Yes, but have they got cable?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Jan. 14 2003,08:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I also doubt that polluting the environment is somehow "evil" in the absolute sense of the word.<span id='postcolor'>Which is why the absolute sense of evil doesn't mean as much as its relative sense - at least according to what most folks have posted in this thread.