Is Human Nature Basically Good or Evil?

[D_Pubert Stabbingpain]

What is your view on this?

What experience, perception or insight has shaped your view?

Gee, I haven't struggled with this question since seminary!
There I studied the history of how life is a constant struggle to tame our inherent evil ("Flesh") nature and the only way to conquer this was to remain in the "Spirit." There remain major disagreements among the Western denominations, indeed all world religions, to this day about such philosophical questions. Where you find some who think they have discovered the "answer" you will also find "doubting Thomases." When you say "what experience, perception or insight has shaped your view" that is like saying your position is in favor of the "Nurture" argument to which there is considerable merit. The "Nature" argument, when taken to its basic element, is survival of the fittest and all non-human creatures on earth are there for human consumption. IMO, it depends on how you view such things as killing deer, for example, in order to feed your family as "natural" or as "un-natural."

When I was a little tyke, I learned first hand that nature is not "fair" to helpless creatures. There are plenty of examples in today's world that proves that humans, who are separated from animals only by the capability to think and not act on total instinct, if given the opportunity, will take advantage of lesser-equipped persons. Isn't that what the whole competition thing is about? Without it, what would we be? Imagine your favorite sport without competition.:smile:

I twice applied for a Social Work position back in the day when I tried to find a "good, human-serving" job. The only thing I did differently between the 1st and 2nd exam and interview was to answer that people are basically "bad" in the second. One of the interviewers followed me out in to the hall afterwards and told me to apply again as I was their 2nd choice.

Try to be fair and friendly to everyone whose path you cross each day, and chances are your "human nature" will at some point take over and you will piss somebody off.:biggrin1:

Have a nice day!:smile:

 

[Hockeytiger]

Evil. You dont have to teach us how to be mean selfish lie lazy greedy etc. Children have to be taught not to do these things.

Generally, I have to agree with naughty about this one. Though, I think we have to be careful about what we call "evil". In the most primitive conditions we commit all sorts of evil acts because they are necessary for our own individual survival and that of the species. If it is necessary for survival, is it evil? I think so. Civilization teaches us to be good (but only so far as we can afford to be). If resources become scarce or danger is perceived, evil acts become the norm.

 

[Principessa]

Is Human Nature Basically Good or Evil?

What is your view on this?

What experience, perception or insight has shaped your view?

I know it's naive but I believe the nature of most humans to be basically good. It is one's life experiences which make a person evil. So until someone shows me otherwise I like to believe all people are good deep inside.

Yes, this belief sometimes bites me in the ass and I get my feelings hurt. :redface: It doesn't happen as often as you might think, given the state of the world today.

 

[Drifterwood]

The question is rather biased in that the opposite of good is bad rather than evil.

Some might think of themselves as being good for campaigning against abortion or the Gay right to marry, whilst others would consider them bad. I think universal goodness is a philosophical idea rather than a practical reality within the human condition. Though humans are capable of remarkable things, purely good and bad.

Are people generally motivated to make the world a better place, or their place in the world better? Probably the latter on balance.

 

[Love-it]

People, starting as babies, are inherently good but they can be corrupted by custom, greed and religion or by circumstances where the question is not good, bad or evil but survival. And that viewpoint is relative, standing on my side of the ocean, tracks or circumstance.

 

[earllogjam]

Wow, good reading here ... such a wide variety of responses.

I've been thinking about this one for a while and have come to the conclusion that human nature is determined not so much by an individual but rather how that individual is treated. It is a karmic reaction of sorts. People who are not loved are less likely to love or even capable of giving love, more likely to harbor hate and evil. People who have been showered with love have a greater propensity to give love, to be good natured.

I believe being altruisitic is hardwired into us because we are social creatures by nature and being good to others conveys a survival advantage. Social groups can be evil towards one another but within the group they show good nature to each other. Good human nature is taught and can only exist in a social group, bound by the need for others. It is the lube that make societies work. It is what separates men from animals. It is necessary for our survival. And good cannot exist without evil so we must have evil.

 

[deleted15807]

People, starting as babies, are inherently good but they can be corrupted by custom, greed and religion or by circumstances where the question is not good, bad or evil but survival. And that viewpoint is relative, standing on my side of the ocean, tracks or circumstance.

This sounds good. But children can be downright cruel to each other. So not so sure about 'inherently good'. A lot of not so nice things are built in.

 

[lafever]

You cannot live without both good and evil, the chinese knew this well.

Heres a simple example of why we cannot live with good alone in our lives:
Imagine if there was always daylight and never any night, you would miss out on the sunrise and the sunset.

lafever

 

[D_Pubert Stabbingpain]

Wow, good reading here ... such a wide variety of responses.

I've been thinking about this one for a while and have come to the conclusion that human nature is determined not so much by an individual but rather how that individual is treated. It is a karmic reaction of sorts. People who are not loved are less likely to love or even capable of giving love, more likely to harbor hate and evil. People who have been showered with love have a greater propensity to give love, to be good natured.

So, you believe that "nurture" wins out over "nature." I am inclined to agree with that up to the point where one of us gets "cornered" with no way out. Flight or fight is a conscious decision but our inherent nature is mammals fighting for survival.

I believe being altruisitic is hardwired into us because we are social creatures by nature and being good to others conveys a survival advantage. Social groups can be evil towards one another but within the group they show good nature to each other. Good human nature is taught and can only exist in a social group, bound by the need for others. It is the lube that make societies work. It is what separates men from animals. It is necessary for our survival. And good cannot exist without evil so we must have evil.

I agree with the altruistic part of your comment but even within our own "groups" politics is at work and someone eventually gets shit on and often, groups disband over the most simple of disagreements. Some form new groups and some don't. It is not necessary for individual survival to belong to a group. But getting into semantics over what exactly constitutes a group could go on forever. :smile: P.S> If you are saying that being altruistic separates humans from animals, fine. Otherwise, some of the most predatory animals travel in groups so being part of a group does not separate animals from humans.

 

[Quite Irate]

Humans start off as a blank slate. Because we're social creatures, we develop mindsets based on the social condition that surrounds us. Man in neither good nor evil - he simply exists.

 

[2322]

I've been thinking about this one for a while and have come to the conclusion that human nature is determined not so much by an individual but rather how that individual is treated. It is a karmic reaction of sorts. People who are not loved are less likely to love or even capable of giving love, more likely to harbor hate and evil. People who have been showered with love have a greater propensity to give love, to be good natured.

I was going to go into some long Locke/Hobbes/Rousseau thing but meh. For once I'll shut up. Your opinion is very observant and true I think. Not sure about the karma part because I do know exceptions to the rule. We're blank slates, ready to respond to love and hatred.

I believe being altruisitic is hardwired into us because we are social creatures by nature and being good to others conveys a survival advantage. Social groups can be evil towards one another but within the group they show good nature to each other. Good human nature is taught and can only exist in a social group, bound by the need for others. It is the lube that make societies work. It is what separates men from animals. It is necessary for our survival. And good cannot exist without evil so we must have evil.

Also true but doesn't separate us from animals. From ants on up, cooperative societies of animals work exactly the same way. We're not so different. Animals can have favorite friends in their group, take on specific group roles, try to curry favor with high status animals, they can have enemies too and Jane Goodall even recorded a case of premeditated murder among the chimpanzees of Gombe. We're a lot more animalistic than we'd (at least some of us) like to think.

 

[HazelGod]

Humans start off as a blank slate. Because we're social creatures, we develop mindsets based on the social condition that surrounds us. Man in neither good nor evil - he simply exists.

This is actually untrue.

While I won't entertain distinctions of good vs. evil because they are entirely subjective classifications, there are objective standards for defining sociopathy. If there is a such thing as a human conscience, these individuals were born without it.

While specific definitions vary, the common theme amongst all sociopaths is that they possess the intellect and experience to differentiate "right" from "wrong" and proceed along their chosen courses of action regardless.

Of course, they vary in scale from the scofflaws like me who run through red lights at 2:00 AM to those who indifferently gun down bank guards simply because they stood between them and their objective.

There are numerous documented cases of sociopaths who had normal, middle-class upbringing with no abuse or other typical causal environmental factors in their youth that explain other instances of antisocial behavior.

IMO, the sociopaths are the worst and most dangerous threats to social order, simply because they understand the antisocial nature of their impulses and they simply don't care. Also IMO, these people are beyond the capabilities of rehabilitation...and while I don't agree with the use of the death penalty (except in a few extreme circumstances), I don't believe that those identified as true sociopaths should ever be re-released into the general population. And while I also tend to be one of the most vocal opponents of government intrustion into private life, I fervently believe that children who manifest any two or all three of the indicators in MacDonald's triad should be watched with a careful eye.

 

[Quite Irate]

This is actually untrue.

While I won't entertain distinctions of good vs. evil because they are entirely subjective classifications, there are objective standards for defining sociopathy. If there is a such thing as a human conscience, these individuals were born without it.

While specific definitions vary, the common theme amongst all sociopaths is that they possess the intellect and experience to differentiate "right" from "wrong" and proceed along their chosen courses of action regardless.

Of course, they vary in scale from the scofflaws like me who run through red lights at 2:00 AM to those who indifferently gun down bank guards simply because they stood between them and their objective.

There are numerous documented cases of sociopaths who had normal, middle-class upbringing with no abuse or other typical causal environmental factors in their youth that explain other instances of antisocial behavior.

IMO, the sociopaths are the worst and most dangerous threats to social order, simply because they understand the antisocial nature of their impulses and they simply don't care. Also IMO, these people are beyond the capabilities of rehabilitation...and while I don't agree with the use of the death penalty (except in a few extreme circumstances), I don't believe that those identified as true sociopaths should ever be re-released into the general population. And while I also tend to be one of the most vocal opponents of government intrustion into private life, I fervently believe that children who manifest any two or all three of the indicators in MacDonald's triad should be watched with a careful eye.

But this is a case of the exception becoming the rule. There are always abnormalities and variations. In order to apply a generalization correctly, you've got to say it in a way that deals with the ever present exception. This can't be done with human nature, whether you're arguing that people are inherently evil or inherently good. The term "human nature" isn't a formula, it's a general outline - a standard. In order to be as accurate as possible, the only response you could give to such a question is that individuals are individuals. That is human nature. How one interacts with others and the social context of one's life are both important in how an one acts, but beyond all these things is the individual. They make the final decision.

 

[Meniscus]

"It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the
great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being
fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being
fundamentally people." --Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett, Good Omens

 

[invisibleman]

Human nature is a complex pastis and scope of emotional continuums. Some people are good in some situations. Evil in others.

I can vouch that I am not good. I am evil. But when I am evil--there is a reason for it. I am not perfect. I am not good. :smile:

 

[earllogjam]

So, you believe that "nurture" wins out over "nature." I am inclined to agree with that up to the point where one of us gets "cornered" with no way out. Flight or fight is a conscious decision but our inherent nature is mammals fighting for survival.

I believe that people have their own free will but that free will is limited and constricted by the society in which you live. I don't believe our inherent nature is animalistic because we are part divine. This sounds corny I know. But we can decide our fate unlike animals. We have the capacity to understand what is right and wrong unlike animals. We have the ability to control our nature to suit ourselves and survival unlike animals.

It is not necessary for individual survival to belong to a group. But getting into semantics over what exactly constitutes a group could go on forever. :smile: P.S> If you are saying that being altruistic separates humans from animals, fine. Otherwise, some of the most predatory animals travel in groups so being part of a group does not separate animals from humans.

I don't know of many hermits anymore. Everybody relies on some group to live. Ted Kaczynski even relied on society to survive teaching math inorder to eat. You cannot be a human being outside the context of society. You would be an animal. By group I mean any social unit. Altruism is not unique to humans however. Social animals exibit the same qualities instinctually.

Animals can have favorite friends in their group, take on specific group roles, try to curry favor with high status animals, they can have enemies too and Jane Goodall even recorded a case of premeditated murder among the chimpanzees of Gombe. We're a lot more animalistic than we'd (at least some of us) like to think.

Premeditated murder among the chimpanzees? huh amazing - can evil exist if you don't know right from wrong? I know tom cats kill kittens from other litters - would you say this is evil or just part of nature? I think evil is a human construct which only exists if you have a conscious. This is why mentaly retarded people who have killed are never put to death. The don't have the ability to understand right from wrong.

"It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the
great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being
fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being
fundamentally people." --Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett, Good Omens

Very nice quote Meniscus. I still like your "people like the smell of their own shit" quote better though. :smile:

 

[novice_btm]

I try to believe that we're basically good, but then, on occasion, I'll pop on here, and my belief in evil will be restored.

 

[Mem]

I think people are basically good. I think some people that are thought to be "evil" like Jeffrey Dahmer are actually insane.

 

[Meniscus]

...Very nice quote Meniscus. I still like your "people like the smell of their own shit" quote better though. :smile:

Oh God, you remember that?

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

I doing my best to tip the scale in favor of evil.