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?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 28 by otseng]

I feel you are wasting your time. No amount of people doing bad things would change that people are a mix of good and bad. Typically more good than bad because we are biologically wired to be social.

Being wired to be social needn't have much overlap with being benevolent or altruistic. The most social mammal of all is the naked mole rat, but to date I have never referred to that species for moral inspiration Perhaps it's telling that in our efforts to delegate labour and distribute resources within a society, the 'best' (or certainly most prevalent and successful) model we have so far arrived at is one which is explicitly oriented around the pursuit of self-interest in competition with others.

We all know that there are a billion or more people in this world going without even enough food or shelter - no-one can pretend they're unaware of that! To my mind a good person who recognizes the severe deprivation of others and has the means to help them, at zero detriment to her own needs, will do so. But how many people are 'good' by that measure? Sure we toss a few dollars to a charity each month, maybe, and then spend dozens of times more than that on cars, bigger houses, new phones, better appliances, juicy steaks, overseas flights... luxuries which are not only unnecessary, but often actively contribute to resource scarcity and degradation of the planetary environment on which we all depend (to the disproportionate harm of the poorest and least adaptable societies).

I'd like to tell myself that this is a systemic failure and a consequence of the complex and highly indirect way we interact with each other globally; surely our morality is driven by empathy and personal interaction more than by dry facts and intellectual abstraction. But charitable organizations do everything they can to personalize the deprivation in distant countries, right in our own living rooms, and most of us see homeless people in our cities on a semi-regular basis. How many of us are compelled by these experiences to get serious about living more frugally and devoting more of our resources towards helping others?


For my part, I occasionally worry that my existence on this planet may or may not even scrape by as a net positive influence for everyone else; so if the word "good" is to have any real meaning, I'm reasonably confident that I'm not it. Gandhi, for sure, Malala Yousafzai, probably... but Mithrae, probably not. And I'm really not sure how many other folk behave and hold themselves even to a similar meagre standard as I do - I'd be very surprised if it was a majority (particularly in countries similar to mine)! I doubt and don't want to think that humans are evil or even bad, generally speaking, but I can't really persuade myself that we're good either.

[Bust Nak]

Being wired to be social needn't have much overlap with being benevolent or altruistic.

By social I did not mean something like being the popular kid or life of the party, but being able to work with others and that does involve benevolence and being altruistic, within the "in-group" or tribe.

Perhaps it's telling that in our efforts to delegate labour and distribute resources within a society, the 'best' (or certainly most prevalent and successful) model we have so far arrived at is one which is explicitly oriented around the pursuit of self-interest in competition with others.

You are thinking of capitalism here? The socialist country in Northern Europe is arguably more successful.

We all know that there are a billion or more people in this world going without even enough food or shelter - no-one can pretend they're unaware of that! To my mind a good person who recognizes the severe deprivation of others and has the means to help them, at zero detriment to her own needs, will do so. But how many people are 'good' by that measure? Sure we toss a few dollars to a charity each month, maybe, and then spend dozens of times more than that on cars, bigger houses, new phones, better appliances, juicy steaks, overseas flights... luxuries which are not only unnecessary, but often actively contribute to resource scarcity and degradation of the planetary environment on which we all depend (to the disproportionate harm of the poorest and least adaptable societies).

I see that as bad mixed in with good rather than not good. Luxuries are creature comfort are a very reasonable desire.

I'd like to tell myself that this is a systemic failure and a consequence of the complex and highly indirect way we interact with each other globally; surely our morality is driven by empathy and personal interaction more than by dry facts and intellectual abstraction.

Right, it's hard to see people on the other side of the Earth as part of our tribe.

But charitable organizations do everything they can to personalize the deprivation in distant countries, right in our own living rooms, and most of us see homeless people in our cities on a semi-regular basis. How many of us are compelled by these experiences to get serious about living more frugally and devoting more of our resources towards helping others?

Sure, we can always do more.

For my part, I occasionally worry that my existence on this planet may or may not even scrape by as a net positive influence for everyone else; so if the word "good" is to have any real meaning, I'm reasonably confident that I'm not it. Gandhi, for sure, Malala Yousafzai, probably... but Mithrae, probably not. And I'm really not sure how many other folk behave and hold themselves to a similar standard as I do - I'd be very surprised if it was a majority (particularly in countries similar to mine)! I doubt and don't want to think that humans are evil or even 'bad,' generally speaking, but I really can't persuade myself that we're good either.

Don't be so hard on yourself, try harder, give more to charity, vote for positive change and not greed.

[Mithrae]

Being wired to be social needn't have much overlap with being benevolent or altruistic.

By social I did not mean something like being the popular kid or life of the party, but being able to work with others and that does involve benevolence and being altruistic, within the "in-group" or tribe.

No, not necessarily; slavery, despotism, feudalism and so on have been organizing structures for probably the overwhelming majority of societies which have existed, and within those broad systems specific attainment of positions of power (eg. kingship) has very often been accomplished by violent conspiracy rather than benevolent co-operation. That said, reciprocal altruism is at least a common human trait due to social dynamics... but would we really describe giving in the expectation of getting something back as a yardstick for what is "good"?

Perhaps it's telling that in our efforts to delegate labour and distribute resources within a society, the 'best' (or certainly most prevalent and successful) model we have so far arrived at is one which is explicitly oriented around the pursuit of self-interest in competition with others.

You are thinking of capitalism here? The socialist country in Northern Europe is arguably more successful.

They are not socialist. All (or certainly most) developed countries have mixed economies rather than laissez-faire markets or command economies, and in Scandinavian countries (like most if not all prosperous countries, even including China from what I gather) most businesses are "controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state"; the very definition of capitalism and, as I said, oriented around the pursuit of self-interest in competition with others.

We all know that there are a billion or more people in this world going without even enough food or shelter - no-one can pretend they're unaware of that! To my mind a good person who recognizes the severe deprivation of others and has the means to help them, at zero detriment to her own needs, will do so. But how many people are 'good' by that measure? Sure we toss a few dollars to a charity each month, maybe, and then spend dozens of times more than that on cars, bigger houses, new phones, better appliances, juicy steaks, overseas flights... luxuries which are not only unnecessary, but often actively contribute to resource scarcity and degradation of the planetary environment on which we all depend (to the disproportionate harm of the poorest and least adaptable societies).

I see that as bad mixed in with good rather than not good. Luxuries are creature comfort are a very reasonable desire.

What are you meaning by "good" here? Personal desires aren't bad, but how are they "good"? That makes the term simply meaningless, as far as I can tell, changing it from a word for our higher aspirations of morality into nothing more than just 'how people mostly behave.'

I'd like to tell myself that this is a systemic failure and a consequence of the complex and highly indirect way we interact with each other globally; surely our morality is driven by empathy and personal interaction more than by dry facts and intellectual abstraction.

Right, it's hard to see people on the other side of the Earth as part of our tribe.

Inasmuch as tribalism is at best an extension of our own self-interest (and in many cases historically and currently a cause or vehicle for atrocities), that doesn't really help the argument that humans generally have much "good" to mitigate the obvious bad. I would say that it's good to help someone who explicitly is from the other tribe, or to help someone from your own tribe at some real cost to yourself: But deciding to help others a little after you manage to perceive them as part of your in-group... again, that's just how people normally behave, some nice feelings and a bit of social cred gained at a very reasonable price. We've got plenty of words for how people normally behave - why debase the word which should refer to our higher moral aspirations?

But charitable organizations do everything they can to personalize the deprivation in distant countries, right in our own living rooms, and most of us see homeless people in our cities on a semi-regular basis. How many of us are compelled by these experiences to get serious about living more frugally and devoting more of our resources towards helping others?

Sure, we can always do more.

No doubt even Gandhi could have done more, but the point is that I see precious little evidence that the majority of people do anything consistently enough and noteworthy enough to say that humans are generally "good." However pragmatic it may be, I don't see anything morally praiseworthy in a person who simply pursues their own self-interest (including some feelgood token donations to charity and generally nice treatment of their own immediate tribe&family groups).

For something to be "good" it has to be decidedly more than just self-interest, as far as I'm concerned. I'm surprised that this seems to be a point of contention...?

[otseng]

What if you had to choose between losing a lot of money and hurting someone or losing a little money and killing someone? In China, people intentionally have killed people after they accidentally hit them in their car because it is cheaper to kill.

Exhibit #3

In China the compensation for killing a victim in a traffic accident is relatively small, ”amounts typically range from $30,000 to $50,000” and once payment is made, the matter is over. By contrast, paying for lifetime care for a disabled survivor can run into the millions. The Chinese press recently described how one disabled man received about $400,000 for the first 23 years of his care. Drivers who decide to hit-and-kill do so because killing is far more economical. Indeed, Zhao Xiao Cheng, the man caught on a security camera video driving over a grandmother five times, ”ended up paying only about $70,000 in compensation.

This 2008 television report features security camera footage of a dusty white Passat reversing at high speed and smashing into a 64-year-old grandmother. The Passat's back wheels bounce up over her head and body. The driver, Zhao Xiao Cheng, stops the car for a moment then hits the gas, causing his front wheels to roll over the woman. Then Zhao shifts into drive, wheels grinding the woman into the pavement. Zhao is not done. Twice more he shifts back and forth between drive and reverse, each time thudding over the grandmother's body. He then speeds away from her corpse.

Incredibly, Zhao was found not guilty of intentional homicide. Accepting Zhao's claim that he thought he was driving over a trash bag, the court of Taizhou in Zhejiang province sentenced him to just three years in prison for "negligence". Zhao's case was unusual only in that it was caught on video. As the television anchor noted, "You can see online an endless stream of stories talking about cases similar to this one."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... menon.html

[Zzyzx]

.

What if you had to choose between losing a lot of money and hurting someone or losing a little money and killing someone?

I choose to not harm or kill for money (or any reason other than self-defense).

This is not based on theistic position but upon being raised and taught to make sound decisions that include consideration for others and society.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 34 by otseng]

This says more perhaps about the Chinese justice system or the ethic of that individual (and individuals who have done similar horrific things) than it does about human nature. Generalizations regarding the depravity of humankind should not be drawn from such extreme examples.

The individual in question is clearly not living up to the Confucian or Taoist ideals or humanist or Christian ideals for that matter..

[Bust Nak]

No, not necessarily; slavery, despotism, feudalism and so on have been organizing structures for probably the overwhelming majority of societies which have existed, and within those broad systems specific attainment of positions of power (eg. kingship) has very often been accomplished by violent conspiracy rather than benevolent co-operation.

That fits in well with our tribal mentality.

That said, reciprocal altruism is at least a common human trait due to social dynamics... but would we really describe giving in the expectation of getting something back as a yardstick for what is "good"?

That's the explanation for why we are altruistic, we don't do it with an expectation.

They are not socialist.

Don't really care what term is use, the point was, there are systems that aren't all about greed and they work great.

What are you meaning by "good" here? Personal desires aren't bad, but how are they "good"? That makes the term simply meaningless, as far as I can tell, changing it from a word for our higher aspirations of morality into nothing more than just 'how people mostly behave.'

Law abiding, doing your part for society, being on par with expectation.

Inasmuch as tribalism is at best an extension of our own self-interest (and in many cases historically and currently a cause or vehicle for atrocities), that doesn't really help the argument that humans generally have much "good" to mitigate the obvious bad. I would say that it's good to help someone who explicitly is from the other tribe, or to help someone from your own tribe at some real cost to yourself: But deciding to help others a little after you manage to perceive them as part of your in-group... again, that's just how people normally behave, some nice feelings and a bit of social cred gained at a very reasonable price. We've got plenty of words for how people normally behave - why debase the word which should refer to our higher moral aspirations?

Having a lower base line doesn't mean you shouldn't or wouldn't try to be better.

No doubt even Gandhi could have done more, but the point is that I see precious little evidence that the majority of people do anything consistently enough and noteworthy enough to say that humans are generally "good." However pragmatic it may be, I don't see anything morally praiseworthy in a person who simply pursues their own self-interest (including some feelgood token donations to charity and generally nice treatment of their own immediate tribe&family groups).

For something to be "good" it has to be decidedly more than just self-interest, as far as I'm concerned. I'm surprised that this seems to be a point of contention...?

Putting a few coins in a beggars hat is decidedly more than just self-interest though. Sure, you get a feel good factor, but it also helps the beggar.

[sleepyhead]

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?

Hello,
I will be approaching the question from a belief in reincarnation. As such we are learning to be good.
The way I interpret the garden of Eden story, is when Adam ate the apple, (this is symbolic for something we all did), we were given an awareness that there was such a thing as right and wrong. We needed to have experiences where we would be required to make tough choices. The memory of these choices caries with us from life to life in what we would refer to as a conscience.
I would say that we are inherently good.
The instruction manual would be the law of Karma. If a person does good he will have good Karma while doing bad things will produce bad karma.

[mitty]

Divine Insight wrote:

If there are no righteous (i.e. good) people as Paul likes to claim, then why did Jesus say that the righteous will go into eternal life?

Jesus Christ was the only righteous man to live and the reason he was righteous was because he was not only man, he was God.

When people accept Christ's gift of salvation in faith, he gives them HIS righteousness in exchange for their sins. Because he has atoned for their sins, they are no longer culpable in the eyes of God. He sees them as righteous. This is why Jesus could rightly say that the righteous will spend eternal life with God.

It really isn't about whether people do good or bad deeds. It's about being born with a sin nature that we cannot change no matter how many good deeds we do. When someone accepts Jesus, the Holy Spirit brings that person's spirit, dead in sin, alive. As Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias put it, Jesus didn't come to make bad people good. He came to make dead people alive.

But Jesus didn't claim to be a god (Mark 10:18) and only claimed to be a prophet, even though his own family (including his mother and her husband) didn't believe him (Matt 13:55-58).

And why do you need to accept Jesus, and is that why Noah & Abraham etc never went to heaven (John 3:13) and given that they didn't repent, even though the ten commandments etc didn't apply to them since biblical morality is just man-made?

[William]

[Replying to post 1]

otseng: Are people good or bad?

William: I m not convinced it is either/or as the question appears to imply.

otseng: Are we inherently good or morally depraved?

William: We begin this experience as neither. We develop from that state and are often judged according to the rules of the society we are living in.
Are those rules good or morally depraved?
By what comparison are we to measure from in order to come to an answer, and will that answer therefore be true and correct?

otseng: Do we need an instruction manual to tell us how to be good people?

William: Most if not all of us do appear to need something along those lines, but whether the need has been artificially created or is naturally necessary, we cannot say with any certainty.
Until we know for sure that humans are born naturally 'good' it is best not to trust in the instruction manuals which derive from a nature we are unsure and even dubious about as being trustworthy in relation to what 'being good' means.