Are humans inherently good or evil?

[Scrat-]

"If man is left to his own notions and conduct, he would certainly turn out the most preposterous of human beings. The influence of prejudice, authority would stifle nature in him and substitute nothing.”

~ Jean-Jacques Rousseau [1712 - 1778]

Rousseau is well-known for his belief that man is born good, but corrupted by society. He claims that a man who is guided to nothing but his own nature will turn out as a pure, kind human being. His theory is not much his own. Mencius [372 - 289 BC] made the very famous claim that man is born fundamentally good. It's a topic often discussed when confronted by criminality, children, and parenthood.

His philosophy is famously challenged by Xun Zi [312 - 230 BC], who claimed that humans are born evil. He points out that desire lies in the core of humanity.
"A person is born with feelings of envy and hate. If he gives way to them, they will lead him to violence and crime, and any sense of loyalty and good faith will be abandoned."
He says that any good action is a conscious, deliberate activity. A person has to make effort to be good, a person 'fakes' to be good, so to say.

So what do you think? Are people born inherently good, or inherently evil? No answer can be right or wrong, just voice your opinion.

[Scrat-]

Marco eredeti hozzászólása:

"Good" and "bad" are completely subjective concepts: what's good to you may be bad to me and vice versa. With the lack of a proper definition, it's impossible to answer your question. Even if there were unique definitions for those two words, Rousseau's scenario still wouldn't make any sense: how do you even imagine a world in which we're not shaped by society? The way our brain works, we're *bound* to get conditioned by the environment, it's part of the learning process. The only means to prevent that would be:
-living life completely alone from birth to death, avoiding any kind of conditioning (absurd scenario, as we NEED human contact at the very least in the early stages of life);
-being unable to learn, thus being stuck to crying and pooping ourseleves until we die of starvation.

That said, I don't think Xun is right either. By *my* definition of good and bad, most people are indeed selfish, hateful pri*ks, only a few have a genuine desire of seeing humanity living in peace and equality. But are humans born a**holes? Nah.

The concept of 'black and white', 'one or another' is one that can always be challenged, and ofcourse it applies to 'good and evil' as well. However, for the sake of challenging the mind, it's fun to set that seperate question aside and try to think of these concepts that have been embedded in our history. Being rational, you could argue that there's never any extremities and all of us exist in the 'grey' area between good and bad. I agree with that too, thus I defy both Mencius' and Xun Zi's claims as well.

[Marco]

Radene eredeti hozzászólása:

Marco eredeti hozzászólása:

"Good" and "bad" are completely subjective concepts: what's good to you may be bad to me and vice versa. With the lack of a proper definition, it's impossible to answer your question. Even if there were unique definitions for those two words, Rousseau's scenario still wouldn't make any sense: how do you even imagine a world in which we're not shaped by society? The way our brain works, we're *bound* to get conditioned by the environment, it's part of the learning process. The only means to prevent that would be:
-living life completely alone from birth to death, avoiding any kind of conditioning (absurd scenario, as we NEED human contact at the very least in the early stages of life);
-being unable to learn, thus being stuck to crying and pooping ourseleves until we die of starvation.

That said, I don't think Xun is right either. By *my* definition of good and bad, most people are indeed selfish, hateful pri*ks, only a few have a genuine desire of seeing humanity living in peace and equality. But are humans born a**holes? Nah.

Not "completely" subjective, as there, for better or worse, is a collective agreement on what is "good" and what is "bad". When dissected the "good" is what makes life easier, more convenient, and puts everyone at less of a risk, and "bad" is what makes life harder, less convenient, and puts everyone at higher risk.

Basically, people like not dying so anything that would bring one closer to death or increase the threat of death, is collectively considered "bad". And if we come to a situation where what's "good" for you is "bad" for the wider community, then the wider community will take steps to make it turn out "badly" for you, too, if you try it.

Some people have a completely ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up idea of "bad" and "good", so I really wouldn't say it's a collective agreement.

[Radene]

Marco eredeti hozzászólása:

Some people have a completely ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up idea of "bad" and "good".

Yes, and we tend to remove such people from the society one way or another. Prison, banishment, electing them as government officials...point is, that last one isn't even a joke. It still works, in a twisted way, to get them away from us.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Scrat- eredeti hozzászólása:

Couldn't be further from the truth. A person alone in the woods never having been in a community could kill for fun, could help animals in need, could show care or violence. There is no specific need for either a community or society in order to show such behaviour.

Seems like you're moving the goalposts. The words you used before quite specifically included things like "stealing" and "murder", which you've left out here. Those are concepts that are crafted from ideas of rights developed by and for societies; they have no meaning "in the woods". An animal that preys on other animals is not committing murder, they are not commiting "evil" acts; asserting this kind of judgement on the world outside of human society is an entirely pointless, self-centred endeavour. There is literally nothing to be gained by asking this question.

If, as in the scenario you describe Rousseau considering, a human being grew up in the wild, became used to killing other creatures and taking things they find as part of that life, and then was brought into society and continued to kill creatures (human or otherwise) and take things they find, anyone who would call them "evil" would be acting with great cruelty in doing so. An insistence on not comprehending the world by any standards but those one is most familiar with is the only evil in this scenario.

[Marco]

Radene eredeti hozzászólása:

Marco eredeti hozzászólása:

Some people have a completely ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up idea of "bad" and "good".

Yes, and we tend to remove such people from the society one way or another. Prison, banishment, electing them as government officials...

I don't think you understand what I mean, I could elaborate but I'd rather avoid another derail so let's stick to the topic.

[Birdy.J]

chocolatelover67 eredeti hozzászólása:

Xp3nDaBirD eredeti hozzászólása:

You could consider going to church sometimes ; )

Nooooooooo OP don't go to church avoid brainwashing.

I'm not a church person I just bring myself there for the free foods and drinks.

[Scrat-]

Gus the Crocodile eredeti hozzászólása:

Scrat- eredeti hozzászólása:

Couldn't be further from the truth. A person alone in the woods never having been in a community could kill for fun, could help animals in need, could show care or violence. There is no specific need for either a community or society in order to show such behaviour.

Seems like you're moving the goalposts. The words you used before quite specifically included things like "stealing" and "murder", which you've left out here. Those are concepts that are crafted from ideas of rights developed by and for societies; they have no meaning "in the woods". An animal that preys on other animals is not committing murder, they are not commiting "evil" acts; asserting this kind of judgement on the world outside of human society is an entirely pointless, self-centred endeavour. There is literally nothing to be gained by asking this question.

If a human being grew up in the wild, became used to killing other creatures and taking things they find as part of that life, and then was brought into society and continued to kill creatures (human or otherwise) and take things they find, anyone who would call them "evil" would be acting with great cruelty in doing so. An insistence on not comprehending the world by any standards but those one is most familiar with is the only evil in this scenario.

I merely made examples. Besides, even in nature it's considered evil to kill with no other purpose than entertainment. Hunting for food, fighting for territory, those are not the things I'm talking about. There are some animals that kill purely for the enjoyment of the hunt, not for survival. Those animals are shunned by others, and we are the same.
But as I said, I merely gave an example to defy your statements. It's not a setting stone for further arguement, just a tool for it.

[Radene]

Marco eredeti hozzászólása:

Radene eredeti hozzászólása:

Yes, and we tend to remove such people from the society one way or another. Prison, banishment, electing them as government officials...

I don't think you understand what I mean, I'd explain but I'd rather avoid another derail so let's stick to the topic.

And what I mean is that if we have a handful of individuals with screwed up ideas of good and bad, that's irrelevant. Because "morality" is a collective agreement, and not defined by the individual.

[Marco]

Radene eredeti hozzászólása:

Marco eredeti hozzászólása:

I don't think you understand what I mean, I'd explain but I'd rather avoid another derail so let's stick to the topic.

And what I mean is that if we have a handful of individuals with screwed up ideas of good and bad, that's irrelevant. Because "morality" is a collective agreement, and not defined by the individual.

I wasn't talking about a handful of individuals.

[Radene]

Marco eredeti hozzászólása:

Radene eredeti hozzászólása:

And what I mean is that if we have a handful of individuals with screwed up ideas of good and bad, that's irrelevant. Because "morality" is a collective agreement, and not defined by the individual.

I wasn't talking about a handful of individuals.

Then you should have used an expression other than "some people".

[Gus the Crocodile]

Scrat- eredeti hozzászólása:

even in nature it's considered evil to kill with no other purpose than entertainment

Considered by who? Which animals did you interview?

No. The idea that this is "considered evil" is your reading being imposed on the situation, not that of the animals. All the animals can do is, as you say, be observed avoiding particular other creatures. But if animals avoiding other animals means they consider them evil, then we're back to the notion that predatory creatures are evil, which is absurd.

[Marco]

Radene eredeti hozzászólása:

Marco eredeti hozzászólása:

I wasn't talking about a handful of individuals.

Then you should have used an expression other than "some people".

Maybe.

[Scrat-]

Gus the Crocodile eredeti hozzászólása:

Scrat- eredeti hozzászólása:

even in nature it's considered evil to kill with no other purpose than entertainment

Considered by who? Which animals did you interview?

No. The idea that this is "considered evil" is your reading being imposed on the situation, not that of the animals. All the animals can do is, as you say, be observed avoiding particular other creatures. But if animals avoiding other animals means they consider them evil, then we're back to the notion that predatory creatures are evil, which is absurd.

If a creature in a pack, like a wolf or lion, attacks another of his pack without reason, that creature will be either shunned or killed by the others. It's not common for this to happen, but when it does, the reaction from animals around it are extreme.

[Gus the Crocodile]

The entire point of the thread is to discuss a hypothetical creature that exists outside social norms. Not sure what you're trying to achieve, then, by talking about creatures that clearly do have social norms.

[Scrat-]

Gus the Crocodile eredeti hozzászólása:

The entire point of the thread is to discuss a hypothetical creature that exists outside social norms. Not sure what you're trying to achieve, then, by talking about creatures that clearly do have social norms.

Then you missed the actual point of the thread. The philosophers I quoted were only giving hypothetical examples in order to bring out their point in what they believe makes up for the base and structure of one's nature, which correspond with social norms that both we as humans constructed ourselves, and the ones we share with other animals.