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?

[Divine Insight]

My argument is not whether people can do good or bad things. Of course everyone can do good and bad things. My argument is, if sufficiently tested, anyone can do the most evil and vile things.

I would disagree that this shows that these people are themselves evil or bad people. To the contrary I would say that it just shows that they are stupid, naive, and possibly even afraid to object to authority.

This would especially be true in a situation like Nazi Germany. In that situation they are under the impression that their very culture is condoning this behavior.

Even soldiers of a country like the USA are very likely to carry out orders that they may not personally agree with. After all, who are they to question their country to commanding officers? Not only this, but by refusing to carry out an order they could even face personal retribution.

So I don't see these kinds of experiments demonstrating that people are innately bad. They are innately stupid, and naive perhaps. Possibly even afraid to buck the system or question authority. But bad? No, I don't buy it.

Unless they were the ones who came up with the idea in the first I wouldn't be so quick to label them as being bad people.

Those experiments even said that the people who were participating in them were not comfortable with what was going on. It's not like they were actually enjoying torturing someone.

The real question is whether they would choose to do anything like this on their own. If not, then branding them as bad people would be a grave mistake.

[otseng]

My argument is not whether people can do good or bad things. Of course everyone can do good and bad things. My argument is, if sufficiently tested, anyone can do the most evil and vile things.

I would disagree that this shows that these people are themselves evil or bad people. To the contrary I would say that it just shows that they are stupid, naive, and possibly even afraid to object to authority.

In the case of objecting to authority, as the Milgram experiment shows, it is difficult for people to do this, even when it goes against one's personal morals. Inside of us, most people know it's wrong to torture or kill another person. But, when confronted with a situation where we are commanded to do something against our own values, authority easily trumps our own personal ethics. This results in evil being easily committed, whether it's in the workplace, in schools, in the military, or practically anywhere. How would anyone be able to object to any authority? I believe the only way is to appeal to a higher authority.

In the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis said they were just following orders. The prosecution had to appeal to a higher authority in order to make their case. International criminal law (Nuremberg principles) had to be created to argue against the superior orders defense. But, international criminal law was not in place when the Nazis were killing the Jews. So, how could any Nazi have been able to appeal to any higher authority?

For Christians, God and the Bible are more authoritative than any boss, teacher, general, president, or king. If anyone tells a Christian to do something morally wrong, we can appeal to God which would override any authority on earth.

[Mithrae]

For Christians, God and the Bible are more authoritative than any boss, teacher, general, president, or king. If anyone tells a Christian to do something morally wrong, we can appeal to God which would override any authority on earth.

Meaning that if the bible says to kill witches, homosexuals and adulteresses, or to slaughter and drive all worshipers of 'false' gods from the promised land, or a person hears God telling them to kill their own children, in theory no humanist principles and no other recourse is available to save the victims. I would argue that deferral of responsibility to bronze and iron age texts and diffusion of responsibility throughout the church are among the primary reasons for the many Christian atrocities throughout history.

If it's a bad thing that we are so easily swayed by the authority of modern folk, be they public officials, scientific experimenters or whatever, it seems truly absurd to propose that the best solution is to instead heed the authority of far more ignorant and generally more savage folk from primitive cultures!

Why not instead fight against authoritarianism altogether, social and theological alike? Why not promote the truth? The reality (regardless of whether or not there is a god) is that no-one is responsible for your moral framework but you. Those who choose to build their moral framework on nothing but the selected musings of primitive minds seem to be making a rather unwise decision, to say the least; and those who then insist that these quite limited opinions they have constructed are the very opinions of God himself are being incredibly arrogant.

[Elijah John]

How would anyone be able to object to any authority? I believe the only way is to appeal to a higher authority.

Or their internal sense of right and wrong. People do this all the time.

In the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis said they were just following orders. The prosecution had to appeal to a higher authority in order to make their case. International criminal law (Nuremberg principles) had to be created to argue against the superior orders defense. But, international criminal law was not in place when the Nazis were killing the Jews. So, how could any Nazi have been able to appeal to any higher authority?

Civil disobedience. Internal sense of right and wrong. Passive or active resistance.

For Christians, God and the Bible are more authoritative than any boss, teacher, general, president, or king. If anyone tells a Christian to do something morally wrong, we can appeal to God which would override any authority on earth.

True, but the override is almost always authoritative only for the rebel (in your example the Christian). The "authority" figure or government does not necessarily defer.

If a person is good enough, and strong enough, they too can resist tyranny, and need not be a Christian. They could even be a principled atheist. So the examples you provide do not support the doctrine of human depravity. A non-Calvinistic (or non-Pauline) Theist would argue that even the atheist's internal sense of right and wrong was implanted by the Creator. The good in a given individual ultimately comes from God, whether acknowledged or not.

Judaism, Islam, non-Calvinist Christianity and psychology teach that people are either "blank slates" or a mix of good and bad. The Confucian classic I Ching teaches that the original nature of man is good, but becomes tainted by contact with worldly influences. These teachings seem more in line with observable reality than does Pauline or Calvinist dogma. People are not born bad. Imperfect? Yes, but not evil.

If Jesus says that imperfect people are "evil" that would be what we here would call a "blanket statement" . I would call it hyperbole.

Yes, when severely tested evil sometime prevails in a given individual. For others, heroism. Regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

[Bust Nak]

My argument is not whether people can do good or bad things. Of course everyone can do good and bad things. My argument is, if sufficiently tested, anyone can do the most evil and vile things.

Of course everyone can do the most evil and vile things. That doesn't mean much without an argument for if sufficiently tested, anyone would do the most evil and vile things.

So, if someone is powerful and can take advantage of a weaker person sexually, can he or she resist the temptation? For many it would be no.

How many, is many? Would do say it's most?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 25 by Divine Insight]

A lot of atrocities were done in the name of religion, Jesus, and God. Including horrific acts in America against black slaves. Were the Bible-toting people who did those things "evil"?

I am sorry DI, but you are grossly underestimating the role of God in evil.
The horrible acts against black slaves were indeed invoked using the Old Testament as justification for that evil. Using the authority as that "righteous" man Noah.

But you are forgetting the "Manifest Destiny," when President Polk said God endorsed the genocide of the North American Indians. Surely an evil act.

Why bring up Hitler and the Nazis when Christians have committed similar atrocities in the name of Jesus Christ?

Why do you distinguish Nazi from Christians when in order to become a Nazi you needed to swear an oath to God?
Hitler claimed to be a Christian, publicly and in his intimate letters. The Nazi Oath was an oath to God. At the time almost all of Germany was Christian.

I see this as a tell-tale that any deity of the sort does not exist. I mean, why wouldn't a God whose name is being invoked, intervene?

But a lot of people object to this, saying God would never treat his people that badly. For those of you who object, I would point you to the Bible and history of tragedy that Hebrew decedents brag of AS their "proof" of being God's people.

It seems to me the treatment of "Jews" in 1940 Germany is simply another example, to them, of how God treats them in order to show they are God's people...

I feel this is just an example of Weinberg's statement:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

AKA GOD.

[otseng]

Meaning that if the bible says to kill witches, homosexuals and adulteresses, or to slaughter and drive all worshipers of 'false' gods from the promised land, or a person hears God telling them to kill their own children, in theory no humanist principles and no other recourse is available to save the victims.

Perhaps so if only the Old Testament laws was referenced. However, as Christians, we are to obey the Law of Christ. Jesus never killed any witches, homosexuals, or adulteresses, so he didn't set that example for us.

I would argue that deferral of responsibility to bronze and iron age texts and diffusion of responsibility throughout the church are among the primary reasons for the many Christian atrocities throughout history.

Go ahead and present your case in a separate thread.

The reality (regardless of whether or not there is a god) is that no-one is responsible for your moral framework but you.

I agree each one is responsible for their own actions. But, each one is also easily swayed to commit evil. Again, those who committed the atrocities (whether in an actual concentration camp or in an experimental lab) are regular, normal people.

Those who choose to build their moral framework on nothing but the selected musings of primitive minds seem to be making a rather unwise decision, to say the least; and those who then insist that these quite limited opinions they have constructed are the very opinions of God himself are being incredibly arrogant.

I would argue those who believe they are somehow smarter or better than those who commit evil are the ones who are arrogant. It is the normal, regular people that can commit evil. If someone thinks they are better than normal, regular people, that by definition would be arrogance.

[Zzyzx]

.
I agree that 'regular people' are often guilty of committing atrocities.

If someone thinks they are better than normal, regular people, that by definition would be arrogance.

Would arrogance also apply to those who think or claim that they are more moral than normal, regular people because they worship in certain ways --and who claim to follow a superior ethical code (even when their actions indicate non-compliance)?

Reminds me of a monk quoted as saying, "At humility we are the best" (source long forgotten).

[otseng]

Or their internal sense of right and wrong. People do this all the time.

Yes, most people can pass the easy tests. But, under harder tests, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to trust only on one's abilities and innate sense of morality.

Civil disobedience. Internal sense of right and wrong. Passive or active resistance.

The Nuremberg prosecution did not appeal to civil disobedience or an internal compass. They did not say to the perpetrators, "You should've exercised civil disobedience. You should've had an internal sense of right and wrong. You should've resisted." Even they had to appeal to a higher power (which they had to invent).

The "authority" figure or government does not necessarily defer.

And most likely would not defer to a higher authority.

A non-Calvinistic (or non-Pauline) Theist would argue that even the atheist's internal sense of right and wrong was implanted by the Creator.

I would say that everyone (including Calvinists) would agree that everyone (including atheists) has an internal sense of right and wrong. The question though is, if tested, would people always choose the right thing? I argue no.

These teachings seem more in line with observable reality than does Pauline or Calvinist dogma.

Here's what I observe. All people can do good or bad. But, given certain circumstances, anybody can commit the most vile evil.

As a note, Calvinism is not the only position that accepts total depravity. Arminianism does so as well.

It is advocated to various degrees by many Protestant confessions of faith and catechisms, including those of some Lutheran synods, and Calvinism. Arminians, such as Methodists, believe and teach total depravity, but with distinct differences. The key distinction between the total depravity embraced by Calvin and the total depravity taught by Arminius is the distinction between irresistible grace and prevenient grace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity

[Danmark]

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?

Good
Good
No

I take the evidence of people like Frans de Waal seriously.


I don't pretend to know if there is any genetic (evolutionary causation), but whether we have evolved a universal culture, with or without a genetic component, we appear to have 'evolved' to value reciprocity, empathy, and a sense of fairness that we share with other mammals, not just primates.

This 'fairness' impulse is far short of a reflex or instinct. Virtually all of us feel a pull toward it while we feel a strong pull toward short term self interest. We see this cross culturally and cross species. The fact that other mammals have this same sense of fairness informs us that our own sense of this is not unique, but is part of our nature.