Original Good or Evil?

[Xyan]

The Chinese Confucian scholars expounded two opposing doctrines about the nature of man: the former maintained the idea of original goodness, and the latter the concept of original evil.

Who do you agree with more?

 

[dwaxe]

Both--that's why Confucius is now only useful for Confucius seyz jokes.

 

[Adamb0mb]

Man is inherently good, it's the women that get us into all the trouble.

 

[puglover]

Man seems to have a certain knowledge of what is right and try to pursue it. But we are more inclined in reality to do what is good for ourselves, as opposed to helping others.

In other words, we have a sense of good, but are inherently selfish and evil.

 

[Dann]

Man is neither good or evil, but he has both good and evil within him. He is perfectly capable of both good and evil depending on the situation. Which one he turns out to be is the result of upbringing and development as he goes along in life.

I will agree though that man is inherently selfish. Even a baby knows "I want" and will reach out and grab anything. He/she will learn to control that urge only upon the teaching of adults. Or when the other baby bites that outreaching hand.

 

[Narz]

Last two options are true.

I believe that, ideally raised and in an ideal society, most men (and women) would be good. There would still be a few jerks but overall folks would be good.

I think a persons propensity towards cruelty is somewhat inborn but if the family and culture nurture that child properly and it's culture praises kindness and frowns upon antagonism and violence (in word & deed) then likely the "evil" will never be triggered and, as an adult, that person will raise his/her children also to value good and abhor evil.

Our culture has many mixed messages about good & evil. Which is why you constantly see supposedly "good" young men & women doing stuff like this.

 

[Fifty]

The vast majority of people are decent folks, and since recent research in moral psychology suggests that a large part of moral character is due to genetics, I'd have to say people are "originally" more good than evil.

 

[LightFang]

We are inherently evil.

 

[Narz]

The vast majority of people are decent folks, and since recent research in moral psychology suggests that a large part of moral character is due to genetics, I'd have to say people are "originally" more good than evil.

Care to share some of that research?

If the majority of people are inherently decent how to you explain stuff like the Stanford Prison experiment and the Milgrim study?

What'd be really interesting is if they did that study all around the world in different cultures and compared the results.

I'd agree people are "originally" more good than evil (since a society with a majority of evil people wouldn't work) I tend to believe though that people in today's soceity tend to deny their dark side rather than accept it and that is why it tends to come out in extreme & stressful circumstances.

We are inherently evil.

But let me guess. This guy can cure us!

 

[Yoda Power]

I simply don't accept that "good" and "evil" exists as absolute terms. So I voted neither.

 

[Stylesjl]

Humans behave according to their preprogrammed evolutionary parameters as well as learned behavior. The concept of good and evil doesn't even begin to apply

 

[scy12]

Humans are both Good and Evil with different the one from the other according to their genes,outside environment , age and their inside environment.

 

[sourboy]

Good and Evil are all a matter of perspective. Man is merely a conscious being capable of choices.

 

[Fifty]

Care to share some of that research?

Most of what I have gleaned from the subject is in here. You can skip to the "empirical evidence" part if you aren't interested in the broad historical overview of the three main approaches to moral psychology.

From the abstract:

Contemporary moral psychology has been dominated by two broad traditions, one usually associated with Aristotle, the other with Kant. The broadly Aristotelian approach emphasizes the role of childhood upbringing in the development of good moral character, and the role of such character in ethical behavior. The broadly Kantian approach emphasizes the role of freely chosen conscious moral principles in ethical behavior. We review a growing body of experimental evidence that suggests that both of these approaches are predicated on an implausible view of human psychology. This evidence suggests that both childhood upbringing and conscious moral principles have extraordinarily little impact on people's moral behavior.

This paper argues that moral psychology needs to take seriously a third approach, derived from Nietzsche. This approach emphasizes the role of heritable psychological and physiological traits in explaining behavior. In particular, it claims that differences in the degree to which different individuals behave morally can often be traced back to heritable differences between those individuals. We show that this third approach enjoys considerable empirical support - indeed that it is far better supported by the empirical data than are either the Aristotelian or Kantian traditions in moral psychology.

If the majority of people are inherently decent how to you explain stuff like the Stanford Prison experiment and the Milgrim study?

I think those aspects are there innately. I don't want to make it seem like everything about us is naturally good. We're products of evolution, and it would be foolish to suppose that such a process would make us all good. My basic thought is just that, if moral traits are largely genetic, and if people are largely good, then its fair to say that we are originally more good than evil, even acknowledging the evil.

What'd be really interesting is if they did that study all around the world in different cultures and compared the results.

Yea, it would be interesting to see if "power responses" were higher in tribal societies, which after all often have much higher incidence rate of rape, war, murder, and subjugation of women.

I'd agree people are "originally" more good than evil (since a society with a majority of evil people wouldn't work) I tend to believe though that people in today's soceity tend to deny their dark side rather than accept it and that is why it tends to come out in extreme & stressful circumstances.

I agree that it comes out in extreme circumstances, but I don't think that is because we deny it (although I agree we do in fact deny it). I think it comes out in extreme circumstances just because thats probably what it was "designed" for, evolutionarily speaking. At least, it seems plausible that everyday group behavior would benefit more from good dispositions, and "extreme survival" situations would favor amoral (if not immoral) behavior.

 

[classical_hero]

Last two options are true.

I believe that, ideally raised and in an ideal society, most men (and women) would be good. There would still be a few jerks but overall folks would be good.

I think a persons propensity towards cruelty is somewhat inborn but if the family and culture nurture that child properly and it's culture praises kindness and frowns upon antagonism and violence (in word & deed) then likely the "evil" will never be triggered and, as an adult, that person will raise his/her children also to value good and abhor evil.

Our culture has many mixed messages about good & evil. Which is why you constantly see supposedly "good" young men & women doing stuff like this.

If people are inherently good then there would be no evil and every time an "ideal" society has been tried it has always crumbled because no matter how much people try to ignore the fact that we are evil, they still believe that only if you had this and this and then evil will not occur. Many people start off with "noble" ideals but every single time it has broken down. I am sure that even Robert Mugabe was trying to create an ideal society.

It s also a well known fact that most people will follow an order from an authoritative figure even if that command is going to harm the other person. I know they did a study about this in the 50s or 60s about this. And this study was replicated only a few years ago and it is a great study into the nature of man since it shows even when we think we are doing good we often are doing things that are evil.

 

[zxcvbnm]

If people are inherently good then there would be no evil and every time an "ideal" society has been tried it has always crumbled because no matter how much people try to ignore the fact that we are evil, they still believe that only if you had this and this and then evil will not occur.

First, there is no good and evil. There are only things perceived as such. And most of what is universally considered good is beneficial for everyone, so there is still a reason to support them.

But that people couldn't be inherently good; I could (and will) turn it upside down, saying that if people were inherently evil there would be no good. The people could be inherently good, but the outside pressure from some twisted individuals turns it to evil. In "ideal" societies it has always been the minority which screws all up.

Many people start off with "noble" ideals but every single time it has broken down. I am sure that even Robert Mugabe was trying to create an ideal society.

Every single time? Looks like you haven't heard of
democracy
free speech
equality
small group communes
and so on.

It s also a well known fact that most people will follow an order from an authoritative figure even if that command is going to harm the other person. I know they did a study about this in the 50s or 60s about this. And this study was replicated only a few years ago and it is a great study into the nature of man since it shows even when we think we are doing good we often are doing things that are evil.

And exactly: the people may be inherently good, but some people twisted to evil by outside influence can turn entire masses to evil.

 

[Phlegmak]

People are inherently neither good nor evil.

 

[holy king]

good and evil are human concepts to help organize complex societies and keep them functioning. at birth you are of course neither.

 

[Fronx]

Imo, Good and evil are definable variables, not absolute constants.

That still leaves room for possibility that a person would be inherently good or evil (from the perspective of his parents / ancestors) tho, but I don't believe in such.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

We are inherently good, but free will causes us to do bad things.