Are people good or bad?

[otseng]

Even if the Bible did not exist, the notion that it is good to love others would still be there. I find it hard to get my head around the need for some sort of instructional manual to tell us how to be good people.

For debate:
Are people good or bad?
Are we inherently good or morally depraved?
Do we need an instruction manual to tell us how to be good people?

[Purple Knight]

The only way a person can obtain eternal life and avoid damnation if to confess that they are indeed a bad person and ask God for undeserved grace.

Therefore only bad people can go to heaven. After all there are no good people according to Christian theology so there are no good people to go to heaven.

This is also absurd, because if bad people can be accepted into heaven based on undeserved amnesty, then all bad people can be granted undeserved amnesty and there would be no reason why all humans couldn't have just been created in heaven in the first place.

I agree wholeheartedly. I tried to exemplify this by asking the forum why I shouldn't just become a vampire. I'm already bad, I already need forgiveness, and if I become worse, I will still be bad. I will still need forgiveness. So why not?

I think I was a little off the mark and not a lot of people understood where I was going.

Anyone who needs an instruction manual to tell them how to be good is already a bad person. And even if they happen to follow the instructions in the manual that wouldn't make them good.

As a bad person, I agree with this in a way that a person can only agree with something they have learned through experience to be absolutely true.

Besides, why should a bad person even bother to follow the instructions in a manual that claims to be instructions on how a person should act to be good?

They shouldn't. The only reason they would is if they believed the false promise of becoming good if they follow these rules. Selling people like me this lie has nothing but good consequences for society at the expense of the bad people, whom the good people have scammed.

If they want to be a good person, then they already are innately good and they shouldn't need a manual to tell them how to behave in the first place.

I don't think this is true for anything. People want to be what they aren't.

If they are bad, then what would be their incentive to become good?

To be as good as the good people who are already good.

When I get lectured by good people, I feel hurt. I don't want to feel that.

That hurt wouldn't exist if I were every bit as moral as the person lecturing me, and it only exists in the first place because it puts a sharp point on my failings: That I fall short of others; that others are literally better than me in the most important way there is.

[otseng]

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 92 by otseng]

I liked your post. I like the arguments and your use of supportive facts. For now, let me focus on a single statement.

Even though we intuitively know we should do right, we cannot rely on our own internal compass to do right.

I think this misstates the argument. Let me rephrase your statement.
"Even though we intuitively know we should do right, and we know what is right, we fail to do it."
I do not believe, for most of us, that the problem is that we cannot rely on our internal compass. We can. The problem is not with the compass, but with our will to trust and follow it.

[otseng]

[Replying to post 92 by otseng]

I liked your post. I like the arguments and your use of supportive facts. For now, let me focus on a single statement.

Even though we intuitively know we should do right, we cannot rely on our own internal compass to do right.

I think this misstates the argument. Let me rephrase your statement.
"Even though we intuitively know we should do right, and we know what is right, we fail to do it."
I do not believe, for most of us, that the problem is that we cannot rely on our internal compass. We can. The problem is not with the compass, but with our will to trust and follow it.

I agree with your correction. (Hopefully I will not get reported for posting a one-liner )

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 92 by otseng]

I liked your post. I like the arguments and your use of supportive facts. For now, let me focus on a single statement.

Even though we intuitively know we should do right, we cannot rely on our own internal compass to do right.

I think this misstates the argument. Let me rephrase your statement.
"Even though we intuitively know we should do right, and we know what is right, we fail to do it."
I do not believe, for most of us, that the problem is that we cannot rely on our internal compass. We can. The problem is not with the compass, but with our will to trust and follow it.

I agree with your correction. (Hopefully I will not get reported for posting a one-liner )

I could always return as a moderator emeritus with special limitations to facilitate appropriate discipline. However, if you were reported I would, in this case, dismiss the report. It appears to me your response, tho' brief, is a specific response to a narrowly defined issue, and thus it functions to advance the argument (or achieve consensus). Therefore it does not qualify as a 'one-liner.'

[Purple Knight]

Practically everyone believes that they are good people. But, we often give ourselves more credit than we deserve. We can enter a class and think we know everything about that subject and think, "I don't need to attend the lectures. I don't need to study. I know it all." But, what determines what you know is not what you think you know, but how well you do on the tests. Likewise, what demonstrates how good we really are is through the tests of life. And pushed to the limit, we will fail. We can fail in different areas depending on our own weaknesses. We might fail through sexual temptation, greed temptation, financial temptation, abuse temptation, etc.

Without some sort of external control (God, religion, law), there is no power within ourselves to do what is right. This is evident in the Milgram experiment. We might know what is the right thing to do, but we are easily swayed to not do the right thing. When there is nothing to hold us back, then we easily descend into our lower nature as evidenced by Rhythm 0. If we believe we are good and haven't done anything bad, I submit it's because you haven't been truly tested. Would you have passed the Milgram experiment or the Rhythm 0 experiment? These experiments also show evil is not just committed by deranged psychopaths, but by ordinary people.

I wish. I really, really wish that this actually described the vast majority of people.

But it's just not the way I see it. I'm not presenting an argument here but I see the vast majority of people as not only good, but shining paladins of moral perfection.

Regardless of whether they are religious or not, most people seem to have this amazing moral certainty that I don't have a shred of. I look at them and wish in my horrible jealousy that they really would fail the Milgram experiment, but how could they?

Over and over, their swords of moral perfection come down, smiting evil. They have no problem knowing right from wrong, and laying into evil like a chainsaw, tearing it apart for all to see. I'd like to know how that feels.

It amazes me that the problem could be failing to do what is right while knowing it. Looking at the exaltation people get for doing the right thing, I have no idea why anyone would do anything else... if they knew what it was.

[Thomas123]

otseng
Post 13
We all would like to think that we are good. But, just because we think we're good doesn't mean we really are good.
Post 83
We are not robots that only follow a predetermined program.

If we follow the exam analogy in 13, then surely it is the grade that counts. If we consistently fail then surely this shows that we are on a predetermined program of our own making. This analogy indicates that this imaginary test is either too complex or unsuited to our current abilities. We are, way over our head trying to create good abroad. We have this natural default ability to apply to only our extended family . Even then we need stern troop discipline to support our decision making.
We are action and consequence programmed by default.This was clearly indicated in the excellent exhibits provided.
There is only one test available unfortunately so that we need to study more. We need to get better. The unfathomable questions in Maths can only be overcome and appreciated, by first learning addition. It will not happen by looking at something we cannot even read. Let's all admit that we are useless at these hypothetical maths.Great thread.
We are only bad because we overestimate ourselves and we underestimate the challenges that our aspirations present. This stuff is difficult. and if we need study techniques to facilitate our progress along, then use them. If you used a theistic model to consistently fail in the past then why would you use it again. Change it up!

[Thomas123]

Even if the Bible did not exist, the notion that it is good to love others would still be there. I find it hard to get my head around the need for some sort of instructional manual to tell us how to be good people.

For debate:
Are people good or bad?
Are we inherently good or morally depraved?
Do we need an instruction manual to tell us how to be good people?

This was in my opinion, a well presented thread on the exact subject we speak about.

In summation it appeared to demonstrate in a very convincing manner that the goodness in all of us sits on a very fractured bedrock. It shows that we can be easily manipulated , it shows little self control in our moral directions and it illustrates both the weakness and vulnerability inbuilt within the general human species modus. Please reconsider the tests within this thread in this regard,
I think that there should be a recognition of the necessity for an external objective reference for our actions.

[Purple Knight]

I want to head off the usual response to this about how much good a person can do to show we are good. Yes, people can do good things, but that does not make them a good person.

Suppose someone murders a person. At his defense, he tells the judge, "Your honor, actually I'm a good person. I love my family, I feed the poor, I go to church. Since I do so many good things, I am not a bad person." How would the judge respond? Would he say, "You're right, your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds. You are declared innocent." No, he'd say, "It doesn't matter what you think you are are or how loving you are to other people. Because you have murdered someone, the state considers you to be a bad person and you will have to be punished."

My response (as the judge) is thus: You already reaped the benefits of doing good. You were respected by your community, you passed on your genes, and your family is fat and happy with fried chicken for dinner every Tuesday. Now you must also reap the consequences of your bad actions. To jail with you. Don't drop the soap. (Inner monologue: I hope he drops the soap.)

The truth, however?

There are no good or bad actions, just good or bad people.

If this fellow is good, then he probably had a good reason for what he did and imma probably burn for punishing him. If he's evil he was probably just doing those other good things to try to become good, but he can't, because he's evil. Once you're evil you can never become good, because your motivation is always selfish: To become good. To be good you have to start good.

This is the most depressing thing that exists.

[William]

Good and evil are concepts and were created by human beings due to the experience they are having. This continues on into the next phase of their existence, as they try to make sense of things from their limited perspectives.

To consider oneself good or bad are simply positions and neither are true - these come from not knowing/understanding who we all really are, playing a game which involves costumes and lines - acting parts so seriously we even fool ourselves.

We are eternal beings entertaining ourselves with our creative inventions.