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?

[William]

[Replying to post 3 ]

otseng: 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."

William: Would the judges reasoning be considered to be based in goodness?
Would it be reasonable and good of us to think that the judges statement comes from goodness?

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to think a good judge would reply to the accused (whom we have to assume here has either pleaded guilty or already been found guilty) along the lines of;?

"You're right, your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds, but this bad deed is bad because it breaks the law and the law requires that you be punished for that.
If you truly are the good person your general deeds show you to be, then you will accept the punishment of your bad deed and not allow it to turn you into a bad person.

As it stands, according to the law, you are currently being punished for the bad you did, even that you are mostly a good person. You are therefore not being punished for being a good person, you are being punished for doing something bad."

[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 Chinese are not the only ones who are willing to kill for financial reasons. We do it too here in the US.

The top reason cited for performing an abortion is financial (with many others that also have a financial impact).

Not financially prepared: 40 percent
Bad timing, not ready, or unplanned: 36 percent
Partner-related reasons (including the relationship is bad or new, she doesn't want to be a single mother, her partner is not supportive, does not want the baby, is abusive, or is the wrong guy): 31 percent
Need to focus on her other children: 29 percent
Not emotionally or mentally prepared: 19 percent
Interferes with educational or vocational plans: 20 percent
Health-related reasons (includes concern for her own health, the health of the fetus, use of prescription or non-prescription drugs, alcohol, or tobacco): 12 percent
Want a better life for a baby than she could provide: 12 percent
Not independent or mature enough for a baby: 7 percent
Influences from family or friends: 5 percent
Doesn't want a baby or to place the baby for adoption: 4 percent
Partner-related issues: 31 percent

https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons- ... ion-906589

It is certainly cheaper to have an abortion than to raise a child. So, though the Chinese might kill a child on the streets, Americans (as well as all other countries) are willing to kill a child in the womb because it's economically less costly that way.

[Zzyzx]

.

It is certainly cheaper to have an abortion than to raise a child. So, though the Chinese might kill a child on the streets, Americans (as well as all other countries) are willing to kill a child in the womb because it's economically less costly that way.

The law in US and other nations does not consider abortion to be killing a child. Fortunately we do not live in a theocracy.

That some religionists do consider it killing is only a matter of their personal opinions, contrary to national law.

Those who oppose abortion are advised to stop having them. However, a half million Christian women have abortions in the US annually. Evidently the churches can't even convince their own people it is wrong (but still attempt to inflict their preaching onto the non-religious).

[FWI]

Are we inherently good or morally depraved?

If, we define "inherently" as existing as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute. Then, yes; humans are inherently good. However, the same humans can also be inherently depraved or morally bad, corrupt and perverted! So, people can be good and bad at different times and different situations…The illustration presented in post 3 seems to support this premise. This also shows that humans have free-will or choice.

Where, the book of Genesis tells us that God's restoration of the planet earth and the creation of the human being was good. Yet, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God's instructions, they also exhibited an inherently bad moral judgement (disobeying the Creator). This action would not be classified as being corrupt or perverted, just a bad choice…So, we would also need to consider the "influences" that may be available as being a part of the equation. Thus, since it seems clear that humans are inherently good and can be morally depraved, then it is the "influences" that would seem to be the determining factor on many of the choices that are made. This can be from within or related to external sources. It's somewhat like the good angel on one shoulder and the bad one on the other, whispering into the ears…

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

That would depend on where the manual came from. We should expect that the Creator of humankind to give basic and in-depth instructions on how to live and interact with each other and Himself. But, many have rejected this idea and have come up with their own manual or have decided (on their own) what is good and what isn't. This approach has caused confusion and harm…So, the Creator has declare that a new way would be implemented! Thus, those who have shown that they trust only the "One True God" would have the basic and in-depth instructions written into their minds by the Creator God. Yet, this doesn't mean that certain resources, which are already available aren't useful, they are! It just means that they can't be taken as being inspired or without error. They also cannot take the place or supersede the new covenant blessing (writing the proper way to live into the mind) given by God…

Hence, it seems obvious that most past and modern societies have included many of God's instructions into their manuals. They also have excluded many "God given" instructions. This is where the problems begin. Yet, this doesn't mean that all of man's rules are harmful (quite the opposite). But, what is most important for the future of mankind is not just that we have a manual, we need to recognize the true source or authority that is associated to the right or good manual on how to live. Yet, mankind has proven over a long period of time that they are unable to provide a balanced and proper manual for the benefit of all…This reality can be considered indisputable. Therefore, the only hope for mankind would be to earnestly request the manual, which is written into the mind and devoid of man's influence (mostly).

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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?

Let's examine the concept of good and bad by considering a hypothetical, but entirely realistic, example. A lioness stalks, and kills, a newborn antelope, which she then drags back to feed her cubs. From the perspective of cubs, this is a good thing. The lioness is simply being a good mother. From the perspective of the baby antelope and it's mother however, this is a bad thing. A catastrophe in fact. From the perspective of the universe on the other hand, what occurred was simply an event. Not having the ability for sentient thought (as far as I know) the universe is not judgmental. A sun going supernova, thereby destroying all of the planets associated with it, and any life that may occupy those planets, is neither a good thing or a bad thing from the perspective of the universe. It's simply an event. There is no moral judgement to be made. Because the universe is indifferent to concepts such as good and bad.

So the entire question of good and bad is an opinion, based on the perspective of the entity making the judgement. A human mother might feel empathy with the baby antelope and it's mother, and consider the lioness to be bad. A human hunter on the other hand, faced with the task of ensuring that his/her family does not starve to death, might view what the lion did as necessary and therefore good. The event was entirely the same. Perspective is the basis for the differences in opinion.

So in a sense there is no such thing as good or bad. There is only perspective and opinion. Both of these things involve the concept of justification.

The Bible indicates (Numbers 31:15-18, Joshua 6:20-21, Joshua 11:19-20, Ezekiel 9:4-7, Samuel 1 15:2-3) that God Himself demanded that the enemies of the Isrealites be eradicated down to the last babe in arms. Children, babies, and their mothers, were hacked to death with swords. The justification was that the God of the Isrealites gave the land the to the Isrealites, and the land needed to be purified. The slaughter of helpless people was necessary, and therefore justified in the opinion of the Israelites. Presumably the slaughtered people had a different opinion. Because they had a different perspective on what occurred.

What the Bible depicts is nothing short of genocide. Genocide is the attempt to destroy an entire ethnic group. The justification is generally based on a "necessary" ethnic cleansing by one group of another group, based on conflicts over land and/or differences in customs and practices.

But the root of perceived entrenched differences is almost always based on religious belief as the overriding underlying cause. Religious differences in which one or both groups consider the beliefs and practices of the other to be "bad" (wicked -- evil), and therefore making the opposing group less than righteous and therefore not to be tolerated.

Admittedly, being a human myself I have developed my own sets of opinions. I consider the cold blooded slaughter of children and babies to be "bad." Something which cannot be justified, EVER. I stand foursquare against genocide in any form, under any circumstance.

Because I can see that what can be justified in doing to others, can also be justified in doing to me and mine. So my opinion in that sense, my concept of morality, has a practical and self serving basis. I also have an empathetic sensibility however. I can feel end relate to the pain and suffering of others. Because I can transfer that pain into an appreciation of how I would feel if the roles were reversed.

And so my concept of good and bad revolves around what is generally known as the golden rule. The golden rule can be stated in various ways. According to Matthew 7:12, Jesus said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Luke 6:31 puts it this way. "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Others have echoed the same sentiment over the centuries.

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales (c. 624 BC – c. 546 BC)

"Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you." – Socrates (436–338 BC)

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Leviticus 19:18)

From Zoroastrianism: "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing to another whatsoever is not good for itself." (Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5) And: "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." (Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29)

So, attempting to live in peace and harmony with others of my species represents "good." In my opinion. That which fosters divisiveness and discord, and which therefore forms the basis for justifying hatred and, ultimately, justifying intolerance and violence towards others of my species, is, in my opinion, "bad."

Ultimately, religion must be placed into the "bad" column, for the justification for intolerance and violence that religion inevitably engenders. In a world of billions, and weapons of mass destruction, the deep feelings of righteous indignation towards groups that maintain different religious beliefs, and the moral certitude (not to mention end of the world death wishes) that religion so systematically generates is not desirable.

And I haven't even touched on the subject of the ignorance that religious conviction historically perpetuates.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 42 by otseng]

Abortion too is atrocious. But many good people oppose it here. So it's not really a good example to support the premise of universal human depravity. And in China, it is more systematic, isn't it? Sex selection to control the population. That is a tyrannical government imposing it's will on the people.

The average person in any society is not completely bad, or completely good. That is observable and just a fact. Yes, we Theists can argue that all good comes from God, even the good in good people. It's God who makes good people, whether the person in question recognizes it or not, or acknowledges God as the Source of good or not.

So one need not believe in human depravity in order to avoid self-righteousness. One can still consider oneself a good person and do so with humility, as long as we acknowledge God as the ultimate source of that good. And yes, good does not mean perfect except in Pauline theology or in Jesus' hyperbolic rhetoric.

[Purple Knight]

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).

If everyone did it, it wouldn't be noteworthy.

There may come a day when the crusades for rights, and the poor, and the downtrodden, are at a logical peak where the poor have everything, the downtrodden are undisputed masters of society, and everyone devotes 100% of their effort to keeping it that way.

Then, no matter what a person does, it won't be good.

I often feel like I'm living in that very world.

Often? No, most of the time.

[Purple Knight]

Besides what good does it do to beat someone to a pulp and nail them to a pole to die? How do two wrongs make a right?

The very idea that beating the hell out of someone somehow justifies a crime is an idiotic idea as far as I'm concerned. Yet this is the very idea that all of Christianity is based upon.

A crime we're guilty of when we're born.

But let me be charitable... Maybe the whole mess is specifically to instill that horror in us. Maybe the ones who don't feel that - who don't comprehend the horror of that being done on our behalf - are the ones who don't get saved.

I can make Christianity make sense fairly easily, any number of ways (one of which being that the right choice is to say no, you don't accept a whipping boy for your sins) but I'm not a fan of justifying things based on the idea that they're lies.

Also, the God of the Bible should have never instructed humans to multiply.

Maybe he meant artificial insemination. Somebody really should join the Catholic Church, get artificially inseminated as a virgin, and claim their baby doesn't have original sin from Eve.

A person would have to be either crazy or seriously sadistic to have a baby while believing that there is a far greater chance that the baby will end up in hell than in heaven. A far greater chance according to Jesus. Because according to Jesus only few will make it into the kingdom of heaven. Therefore any babies we have are far more likely to end up in hell if Jesus words can be trusted to be truthful.

Why in the world would any believer ever dare have a baby? That would be ludicrous.

It makes sense if this is Hell.

[otseng]

The average person in any society is not completely bad, or completely good. That is observable and just a fact.

I used to believe this too, even just a few months ago. Now I'm not convinced of this.

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've presented three evidence of this so far - Rhythm 0, Milgram experiment, and Chinese drivers. Anyone can do good when things are going well, but the question is what would people do when tested? Is it possible for ordinary people to administer fatal electric shocks to others? As the Milgram experiment showed, yes, it is very possible. Given that regular people can easily commit such acts, what's the difference between a typical American and someone who worked at a Nazi concentration camp during WWII? The only difference is the luck of the draw on when and where one was born.

Another example of how we fail the test... What would men (and women) of power and money do if they can sexually exploit another and feel they can get away with it?

Exhibit 4: #MeToo

#MeToo Brought Down 201 Powerful Men.

They had often gotten away with it for years, and for those they harassed, it seemed as if the perpetrators would never pay any consequences. Then came the report that detailed Harvey Weinstein's sexual assaults and harassment, and his fall from Hollywood's heights.

A year later, even as the #MeToo movement meets a crackling backlash, it's possible to take some stock of how the Weinstein case has changed the corridors of power.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ments.html

100 powerful men accused of sexual misconduct:
https://www.glamour.com/gallery/post-we ... llegations

A case study of Jeffrey Epstein gives a glimpse of how evil someone can be.

"Epstein's case is an example of how wealthy and powerful men can get away with sexual abuse."

Epstein was a businessman with lots of money and political connections. Epstein was described as "one of the most pleasant philanthropists" by Alan Dershowitz. But, he also had a penchant for sexual activity with underage girls. He operated a "sex pyramid scheme" and sexually exploited dozens of underage girls between 2002 and 2005. In 2008, US attorney Acosta worked out a plea deal that no ordinary person could've ever received. Epstein pleaded guilty to two charges of soliciting a minor for prostitution and spent 13 months in "prison" while allowed to be released during the day to allow him to work in an office. Though he was a registered sex offender, he could freely travel to anywhere he wanted. The plea deal was kept secret from the victims. The Miami Herald described the plea deal as "one of the most lenient sentences for a serial sex offender in US history."

"The fact that Epstein avoided serious punishment for years is a reminder that the American justice system has long been all too willing to ignore the words of girls and women, especially when they accuse a wealthy and influential man."
https://www.vox.com/2018/12/3/18116351/ ... mp-clinton

Epstein was arrested on July 2019 and scheduled for trial in New York. But due to "a perfect storm of screw-ups", he died in his cell on Aug 2019 before the trial. Though the coroner reported his death by suicide, another report said the evidence is "much more consistent with homicidal strangulation than suicide."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jeffrey_Epstein

Whether his death was by suicide or homicide, involvement by outsiders was required for all the precautionary measures to be removed. And there will be no justice done for all his victims, except for God's judgment.

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.

[Overcomer]

I think you have only to look to Germany and the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party. Many of the people who followed him and did the ugly deeds were ordinary, everyday people, no different from the rest of us. As Christian Apologist Ravi Zacharias says, the doctrine of original sin has the most empirical evidence of any doctrine in the Bible. It has been lived out time and time again throughout history.

Yes, people can do good deeds, but that doesn't make them good people. I believe I said it earlier in this thread, but as Zacharias notes, Jesus didn't come to make bad people good; he came to make dead people alive -- people dead in sin who can only be brought alive by the Holy Spirit upon acceptance of Christ as Lord and Saviour.