Human race: Naturally good or evil?

[Sainters7]

So I'm working on a persuasive argument assignment for my English class, and we're being asked to argue if we feel humans are naturally good, or naturally evil and goodness is acquired. It's an interesting topic with legit examples to argue both sides. I'm interested to hear what you think, and provide examples if you can.

[MelBridgeman]

Well that depends on your definition of evil....
But i would say evil, i guess...lots of hate still in this world, greed...if thats what you definition of evil is...
not that this helped much

[troutman]

Good. Evil societies would not survive.

Sam Harris in The End of Faith:

Our sense that cruelty is wrong . . . Our ethical intuitions must have their precursors in the natural world . . . [Harris, p. 172]

[flip]

The nature vs nurture debate is a tough one.

So do you have to pick one side? Or is it just a discussion?

One thing to compare this to is homosexuality. There is no definitive evidence to suggest that children are born gay or homosexuality if is learned.

The same could be said for the human race and our evilness. Some of us may be born evil and some may nurtured to become evil.

[blankall]

Neither. The idea of morality is BS. Humans are animals. They are hardwired to survive. We are, however, social animals. So we occasionally do actions considered altruistic because they further society.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by flip

The nature vs nurture debate is a tough one.

So do you have to pick one side? Or is it just a discussion?

One thing to compare this to is homosexuality. There is no definitive evidence to suggest that children are born gay or homosexuality if is learned.

The same could be said for the human race and our evilness. Some of us may be born evil and some may nurtured to become evil.

Ya you have to pick a side. And honestly, I don't know what side I favour. I initially favoured evil, but now I'm leaning more towards good. I'm hoping someone on here will help convince me for one particular side.

[Flashpoint]

First you have to define "good" and "evil". Which is (of course) impossible, as it will always depend on one's perspective. In western society people used to consider homosexuality and interracial marriage as "evil". In 19th century England, bringing "civilization" to the "savages" was considered "good".

You have to look at where the person is in location, time, and cultural values.

Your second problem is "humans". All humans? All humans over 18? All humans who speak English? Western Canadians have a very different set of values from Saudi Arabians. So which are the "humans" you are going to use?

With the knowledge that "good" and "evil" depend on perspectives, and the knowledge that "humans" encompasses all perspectives... well the question is impossible to answer.

Other than that the Oilers and their fans are evil because they are ######bags.

[Aeneas]

"Nothing is good nor bad, but thinking makes it so." Shakespeare quoted from long ago, likely not accurate.
People are capable of actions to which we would ascribe the term good or evil to; however I don't believe that a person is inherently good or evil.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

So I'm working on a persuasive argument assignment for my English class, and we're being asked to argue if we feel humans are naturally good, or naturally evil and goodness is acquired. It's an interesting topic with legit examples to argue both sides. I'm interested to hear what you think, and provide examples if you can.

I think good and evil are two very polarizing words that really don't capture the issue well. My take is that at the core humanity is self-interested and self-lessness is a learned behavior. Out of self-interest what is defined as 'evil' would be the negative side effects of people acting in self-interest. Thus the furthest advanced nations of the world have an econmic system in place that reconizes and harnesses this innate human trait, and a political system designed to identify and rectify situations where self-interest creates negative externalities for the common group. Of course the systems in place are far from perfect, but they reflect the traits of their imperfect designers.

[CaramonLS]

..

[MolsonInBothHands]

This reminds me of that Kevin Bacon movie, Hollow Man.

If a person could do anything they wanted without repercussions, with no chance of getting caught, they would probably do it.

[troutman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil

There is no consensus over whether either goodness or evil are intrinsic to human nature.

[Reaper]

Good? Perhaps. Evil? Perhaps. Self serving? Without a doubt.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

This reminds me of that Kevin Bacon movie, Hollow Man.

If a person could do anything they wanted without repercussions, with no chance of getting caught, they would probably do it.

I pretty much agree with this. I think there's a chance humans are inherently evil, but social contact and social relationships require humans to 'act good'. Sure I've got a certain set of morals right now, but those might change dramatically if my interaction with society/social relationships change significantly (like becoming invisible).

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Neither. Good and evil are constructs of the individual society. What one views as good or evil may be construed as just the opposite by another. Humans are nothing more than a more intelligent and manipulative animal. We do what we need to to survive. The judgment of whether those survival actions is made by the collective, so only the organized collective can be considered good or evil, and only those institutions and mechanisms that guide such collectives be considered good or evil. As Stanley Milgram proved, the average individual gives way to the collective authority, and complies with the demands of the authority regardless of the moral or ethical ramifications. This supports the theory that humans do not commit evil acts on their own accord, but only comply with the evil acts metted out by the society under which they live. This explains why the attrocities such as the Holocaust can take place. On an individually humanistic level, these crimes should never have taken place, as the individual's moral compass should have guided their actions. Once the collective authority is introduced, the individual gives up their autonomy and performs the actions as demanded by the authoritative figure. Hitler was not an "evil" guy on his own, just a guy with a different view of matters. Once thrust into a position of power with an agenda and the assets that allowed disassociation, he was able to make incredibly heinous things happen. The collective allowed for the manifestation of evil, as judged and designated by our society, not the individual.

[JohnnyB]

Naturally a bad question. Who believes in good or evil anymore anyhow??

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Neither. Good and evil are constructs of the individual society. What one views as good or evil may be construed as just the opposite by another. Humans are nothing more than a more intelligent and manipulative animal. We do what we need to to survive. The judgment of whether those survival actions is made by the collective, so only the organized collective can be considered good or evil, and only those institutions and mechanisms that guide such collectives be considered good or evil. As Stanley Milgram proved, the average individual gives way to the collective authority, and complies with the demands of the authority regardless of the moral or ethical ramifications. This supports the theory that humans do not commit evil acts on their own accord, but only comply with the evil acts metted out by the society under which they live. This explains why the attrocities such as the Holocaust can take place. On an individually humanistic level, these crimes should never have taken place, as the individual's moral compass should have guided their actions. Once the collective authority is introduced, the individual gives up their autonomy and performs the actions as demanded by the authoritative figure. Hitler was not an "evil" guy on his own, just a guy with a different view of matters. Once thrust into a position of power with an agenda and the assets that allowed disassociation, he was able to make incredibly heinous things happen. The collective allowed for the manifestation of evil, as judged and designated by our society, not the individual.

This represents just an entirely poor and ill-informed view of the nature of man. I'll follow up on this later.

The question is both an ethical and biological question, you have to understand both.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Naturally a bad question. Who believes in good or evil anymore anyhow??

It can be expected from naturally a bad prof. I think the Q is interesting, but this is arguably the worst prof I've ever had at the collegiate level.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Neither. Good and evil are constructs of the individual society.

Are there not things that are taboo in all human societies? Ex. taboo against incest.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

This reminds me of that Kevin Bacon movie, Hollow Man.

If a person could do anything they wanted without repercussions, with no chance of getting caught, they would probably do it.

But what if what the person wanted isn't "bad".

If I had a free pass to do whatever I wanted, what I'd do likely wouldn't be considered "evil". Mischevious maybe, and guys like Rupert Murdoch and Bill Gates might find the old savings account a little lighter, but I wouldn't go out there and hurt, kill, rape, ruin et cetera.

Well, some people might consider stealing from the super-wealthy evil...

As for the original question, we have to be good. If we were all born bad, how did we ever learn to be good.?