Human race: Naturally good or evil?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

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

Even social acceptance or taboo shouldn't be used as the absolute standard. How do you judge genocide? That's where transcendence comes in handy.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

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

BUSH!

It's an interesting question, I don't agree that it cannot be defined. Maybe not in a simple yes or no, but in more complex ways. If you look at it from a political perspective, believing that man is naturally "scum", you would be a realists. Liberals would tell you man is, by nature, a good willed being.

So, ya, it's kind of realism vs. liberalism.

Not that is even easily defined. The current US admin for example has a very realist international relation policy, but their trade polices are liberal.

[troutman]

Ethics, Memes and Morality:

http://altman.casimirinstitute.net/meme.html

An issue of long-standing debate in the study of ethics lies in the problem of infinite regress. If morals are forged from early experience molded through impressions delved from authority figures and societal expectations, from whence did they originate?

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/ph2.shtml

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by troutman

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

Doesn't make the perp evil, just the action is considered evil. That person is still capable of "good" actions.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

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.

That's like Plato's The Ring of Gyges, where he basically makes the point that morality is a social construct. Would you rather be unjust but considered just by others, or the opposite?

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

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.

I think our "good" and "evil" actions are just byproducts of us acting in our own self interest; or our selfish behavior being judged, so to speak. However, I think there are no unselfish acts and that selflessness does not exist at all. Rather the learned behavior of certain people results in a mindset that produces more "good" behavior as a result of them acting in their own self interest.

For instance, suppose you steal $1000 from someone to further your own self interests. Most people would see this as "evil" behavior. Then suppose you felt bad about it afterwards and donated it to charity. Or that the authorities were closing in and you give it all to the local orphanage to cover your tracks. Most people would see that as "good behavior." However, this "good" behavior again derives from your own self interests: in the first case you donated the money to charity to eliminate some of the guilt you felt from stealing in the first place. In the second case, you did it to evade potential capture. So even though both actions are considered good behavior, they are still derived from your own self interests.

Even if you, say, donate to charity anonymously I believe the ultimate reason behind this would be a selfish one. Perhaps you possess a certain set of moral beliefs that needed to be satisfied (ie: helping others), or else maybe it just made you feel good.

As you said Cowboy89, I think the reason capitalism is the best system humanity has come up with so far is that it acknowledges humanity is inherently selfish and uses this to benefit society as a whole.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by FlamesAllTheWay

That's like Plato's The Ring of Gyges, where he basically makes the point that morality is a social construct. Would you rather be unjust but considered just by others, or the opposite?



I think our "good" and "evil" actions are just byproducts of us acting in our own self interest; or our selfish behavior being judged, so to speak. However, I think there are no unselfish acts and that selflessness does not exist at all. Rather the learned behavior of certain people results in a mindset that produces more "good" behavior as a result of them acting in their own self interest.

For instance, suppose you steal $1000 from someone to further your own self interests. Most people would see this as "evil" behavior. Then suppose you felt bad about it afterwards and donated it to charity. Or that the authorities were closing in and you give it all to the local orphanage to cover your tracks. Most people would see that as "good behavior." However, this "good" behavior again derives from your own self interests: in the first case you donated the money to charity to eliminate some of the guilt you felt from stealing in the first place. In the second case, you did it to evade potential capture. So even though both actions are considered good behavior, they are still derived from your own self interests.

Even if you, say, donate to charity anonymously I believe the ultimate reason behind this would be a selfish one. Perhaps you possess a certain set of moral beliefs that needed to be satisfied (ie: helping others), or else maybe it just made you feel good.

As you said Cowboy89, I think the reason capitalism is the best system humanity has come up with so far is that it acknowledges humanity is inherently selfish and uses this to benefit society as a whole.

What about the Holocaust? You can't explain that in simple terms of rational choice and self-interest.

[Ford Prefect]

According to roman catholic dogma we're all born with original sin, therefore humans must start by default as evil.

However, based on what I've seen in babies, I'd have to say that's a bunch of crap. Some babies seem to have evil born into them, but most are caring, empathetic, loving creatures, and don't start learning evil until they start interacting socially with their peers. Even then, the majority do not become evil. So overall, I'd say the species is good by nature, with a few truly evil creatures that influence others and draw them to the dark side.

[GoinAllTheWay]

If I had to pick either one word answer, I would have to say evil. I just simply don't see/read enough good in the world to say otherwise.

Personaly, I think the only real reason why we live together as well as we do is because of society and infrastructure. If we ever saw a major collapse in infrastructure like suddnely the taps stopped delivering fresh, clean water and power went out indefinetley, we would really begin to see the real evil in people. I really don't see everyone working together to get through the tought times but instead would break down into a "every man for himself" through looting and crawling over others to get the last of the bottles water or fuel to run generators and such.

I guess one could say that is merely the survival of the fittest response kicking in but if we were a truly "good" society, we would try to help one and other out first but does anyone really see that happening?

[Sainters7]

Great debate guys, I'm using alot of what I've read in this thread for my paper. I was a little worried at first, as the whole first page everyone seemed to be expressing the same view. And even though we need to lean a certain way in the paper, we need to have justifiable arguments for the other side. But I see the "good" and "evil" people have chimed in on page two, which has given me examples and helps my paper become more well-rounded.

[Thunderball]

Cowboy is right... good and evil are relatively vague, yet polarizing words.

People are instinctively self-interested. Not good or evil (with a few evil exceptions). If helping others makes them feel good, they do it. If harming others makes them feel good, they do it. What stops many people from doing "evil" is the concept of reciprocity. If I rob someone, I will more than likely go to jail, and lose significant standing in society. I also risk being robbed myself in an anarchist state. Therefore, I will behave and do my part in society. Some people are missing that little "fail-safe" mentality in their heads though.

Societies exist to forward self-interest. Its in the interest of most people to live in a common protectorate and avenue for commerce. Thats also why capitalism is so successful. Conversely, its also why Scandinavian socialist countries work so well... everyone is geared to their own self-interest, which in that case is the preservation of their state.

Everything else is essentially learned from life.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

That's where transcendence comes in handy.

Yes, it most certainly does. Also refered to as the universal-cop-out, it allows you to work outside the constraints of any singular perspective. I can't wait for this to spin into some Kantian epistimological BS argument about our inability to understand the constructs of knowledge itself and net being able to know the answer to the question. Always entertaining.

[Antithesis]

Either you missed the existentialist argument or you have labelled it 'evil'. There must be a third option ... humans are born neither good nor evil, however, their experiences shape them into either of those moulds.

I choose this option!

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by peter12

What about the Holocaust? You can't explain that in simple terms of rational choice and self-interest.

I'm no Holocaust expert but I was under the impression much of Germany saw the Jewish people as the root cause of many of their country's problems. Hence, "The Final Solution."

Now if Hitler and the Nazi's truly believed the anti-semitist propaganda they were spreading (which I do believe they did), would it not make sense to eliminate the Jewish population and thus, the eliminate cause of your country's problems? By doing so you would create more wealth and prosperity for Germany as a whole, as well as yourself.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

What about the Holocaust? You can't explain that in simple terms of rational choice and self-interest.

Sure you can. Its just a perversion of logic.

Enough Nazi party elites felt that their society was simply better off being racially pure and not having Jewish/Slavic/etc. elements. They felt these people hindered their people and they wanted them gone. So they organized a sophisticated way to do so.

To us, its evil. To them, its serving a self-interest and disposing them systematically and quickly was rational.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yes, it most certainly does. Also refered to as the universal-cop-out, it allows you to work outside the constraints of any singular perspective. I can't wait for this to spin into some Kantian epistimological BS argument about our inability to understand the constructs of knowledge itself and net being able to know the answer to the question. Always entertaining.

On the side of transcendence, I was talking more about Burke, Oakeshott, Voegelin, who all say that society is terribly complex, but that it is complex for a reason. We have the institutions that we do in order to govern our passions appropriately.

Voegelin is definitely on the right track when talks about the spiritual health of a society and it's importance in providing guidance to evaluating moral situations.

[Dion]

He saw that men who worked hard, and earned their scanty bread with lives of labour, were cheerful and happy; and that to the most ignorant, the sweet face of Nature was a never-failing source of cheerfulness and joy. He saw those who had been delicately nurtured, and tenderly brought up, cheerful under privations, and superior to suffering, that would have crushed many of a rougher grain, because they bore within their own bosoms the materials of happiness, contentment, and peace. He saw that women, the tenderest and most fragile of all God's creatures, were the oftenest superior to sorrow, adversity, and distress; and he saw that it was because they bore, in their own hearts, an inexhaustible well-spring of affection and devotion. Above all, he saw that men like himself, who snarled at the mirth and cheerfulness of others, were the foulest weeds on the fair surface of the earth; and setting all the good of the world against the evil, he came to the conclusion that it was a very decent and respectable sort of world after all.

Charles Dickens - The Pickwick Papers

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Sure you can. Its just a perversion of logic.

Enough Nazi party elites felt that their society was simply better off being racially pure and not having Jewish/Slavic/etc. elements. They felt these people hindered their people and they wanted them gone. So they organized a sophisticated way to do so.

To us, its evil. To them, its serving a self-interest and disposing them systematically and quickly was rational.

And they engaged in an attempt at global conquest which ended in absolute ruin for a country of 70 million. There is no interest in such absolute conquest. It's mass perversion.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I'd look at it from a different angle.
Don't try to decide what category our behavior fits into.
Meaning, don't get hung up on good or evil, as these are subjective.
I'd go at it by describing human nature, wich tends to be self serving, just as any other animal is, that is how evolution works.
Once you've defined the general nature of our actions, then choose whether this should be defined as good or evil.

I'm probaly being a little confusing here, but what I'm saying is that instead of trying to debat which side of the question the answer falls on, try to debate the meanings and applicability of the labels in the question.

Edit: I guess a more clear way of putting it is don't bother using examples of human behavior to debate which side we are on, as there are way too many examples on both sides and you'll end up in an endless "yeah but what about" type arguement. Instead, acknowledge the middleground of human nature, and then debate whether the definition of good or evil really applies to it.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

And they engaged in an attempt at global conquest which ended in absolute ruin for a country of 70 million. There is no interest in such absolute conquest. It's mass perversion.

Of course, they were run by a lunatic. It made sense initially, and got horribly out of hand.

I should add that some people are born evil. Most are just born self-interested.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by troutman

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

Nine out of ten Hutterite colonies support incest, as do Edmontonians and certain southern US states with a high percentage of hillbillies.