Are People Basically Good?

[ST88]

This is suggested by Corvus' Good Deeds topic.

Do humans have a generally decent nature and are sometimes corrupted by circumstance? Or are we influenced by instincts of self-preservation and do good only because it benefits ourselves?

[Lotan]

Do dogs have a generally decent nature and are sometimes corrupted by circumstance? Or are they influenced by instincts of self-preservation and do good only because it benefits themselves?

It works just as well with practically any animal!
Seriously though, I believe that the answer is both. We rely on others in our society for survival and so long as our needs are met we will behave socially. When our needs are not met (or we perceive that they are not) instincts surface to compensate.

[dangerdan]

Yeah, this is hardly a new topic. Intellectuals have been going over this since the church and religion got substantially weakened with Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, etc, etc. They thought “oh man, now we get the sneaking suspicion that religion is intellectually bankrupt, what will keep men ‘virtuous’ ?“. Curious argument.

We have instincts to look after ourselves, and instincts to look after “the tribe”. Simple. These exist independent of religious creed.

[bernee51]

People are basically people...good and bad are the value judgements of othe people.

Like an 'experience' is just that whether iit is good or bad depends on the experiencer.

[Corvus]

I think others, and I, often think too logically about ethics and make the mistake of not considering the entire effects of the psychology of individuals when they act or judge. For that reason, some people believe that as soon as the world is convinced life is meaningless, it will be thrown into chaos. I think that's balderdash, and no such thing will happen.

As for you question; I think it is important to define good or bad first. We all have different notions on some particulars, but often come to agreement on certain points, and my own observations of what most people believe to be right or wrong lead me to believe that they are a matter of social or anti-social. One has only to look at the realm of politics to see how varied are people's perspectives on what is socially beneficial or not. Not varied enough to retire from a political debate forum when it got repetitive, however.

To directly answer your question now that good and bad have been defined, I will agree with the first two posts.

[ST88]

People are basically people...good and bad are the value judgements of othe people.

Value judgments that we make every day. We do see good and bad wherever we look, so our judgments, whether instinctive or learned, are nevertheless definitive for ourselves. We know when we're being good and when we're being bad, how's that for a standard? We have our own value judgments for our own behaviors, but where do they come from? And how do they get applied to other people?

Like an 'experience' is just that whether iit is good or bad depends on the experiencer.

True, but notions of "good" and "bad" are caught up not just in our own personal set of ethics, but also how society is benefitted. We can claim to do good while still comitting acts against society, and judge ourselves for it. And even if we did not have the capacity to judge ourselves, what if there is some idea of ideal good and ideal bad that we can ascribe our actions to?

We may not even know what "ideal good" means anymore, but does that mean we shouldn't try to find out? Some novelists' whole careers are motivated by the need to discover whether or not an experience is "good". So what is it about our need to understand the difference between good and bad that defines us?

[ST88]

As for you question; I think it is important to define good or bad first. We all have different notions on some particulars, but often come to agreement on certain points, and my own observations of what most people believe to be right or wrong lead me to believe that they are a matter of social or anti-social. One has only to look at the realm of politics to see how varied are people's perspectives on what is socially beneficial or not. Not varied enough to retire from a political debate forum when it got repetitive, however.

I agree that there are different political ideas about what is "good for the nation", etc. but surely we can tell whether or not there is good in the actions of our officials and not just the platforms. Should we define "good" as being the adherence to such platforms? Should we even define it at all?

I am of the opinion that people will do whatever they think they can get away with, whether they are judged by other people or by their own consciences. I'm not sure where the conscience comes from, but I suspect it has something to do with societal shame and/or our ideas of self-interest through the acceptance of others into society. Though I admit a certain amount of ambivalence in myself towards being "accepted", I nevertheless try to at least appear social, no matter how anti-social I feel. I have to ask myself why this is. Is it really because I have a psychological need to be accepted but don't have the skills, or is there some other post-modernist explanation about relative "good" that I adhere to? I honestly don't know.

And is this true of others? Are we all just pretending not to be anti-social in order to validate our assumptions about what a society should be? If so, how did these ideas of good vs. instinct percolate up from our upringing into our adult lives (assuming we are adults, and that it is even possible to be an "adult")?

[dangerdan]

Oh you guys do like to go on. I love it!

Like an 'experience' is just that whether iit is good or bad depends on the experiencer

Bernee, lover of moral relativism.

And is this true of others? Are we all just pretending not to be anti-social in order to validate our assumptions about what a society should be? If so, how did these ideas of good vs. instinct percolate up from our upringing into our adult lives (assuming we are adults, and that it is even possible to be an "adult")?

Nah, we are a mix of social and selfish. Compassion, and couldn’t-care-less. Altruism, and…ah…I can’t think of something that starts with “A”…um…apathy! Yeah, that will do. You meet some people that are at the extreme of each end, but most of us are sitting in the middle. I reckon.

[Corvus]

As for you question; I think it is important to define good or bad first. We all have different notions on some particulars, but often come to agreement on certain points, and my own observations of what most people believe to be right or wrong lead me to believe that they are a matter of social or anti-social. One has only to look at the realm of politics to see how varied are people's perspectives on what is socially beneficial or not. Not varied enough to retire from a political debate forum when it got repetitive, however.

I agree that there are different political ideas about what is "good for the nation", etc. but surely we can tell whether or not there is good in the actions of our officials and not just the platforms.

No, we can tell whether something is good (social) in their actions. Though most may not, I am quite prepared to accept a politician who keeps various mistresses if he is honest to them about it, hoping this would also mean honesty towards the nation. But then, if I trusted him absolutely - though I am incapable of such heights of trust towards a person who is not me - I would even be prepared to allow a politician to lie to me for my own good. I believe it was Plato who said, "The only people justified in lying are our leaders."

I think I am also prepared to accept, to a lesser extent, a man who keeps a mistress surreptituously, and I believe so are you, since you listed elsewhere that Clinton is your favourite president.

Should we define "good" as being the adherence to such platforms?

No. Partly because of my answer to the following question, and partly because people always have contradictory natures.

Should we even define it at all?

No, though we can try to understand what causes us to imagine things as right and wrong, since thee meanings will be inevitably applied to other people's actions.

I am of the opinion that people will do whatever they think they can get away with, whether they are judged by other people or by their own consciences. I'm not sure where the conscience comes from, but I suspect it has something to do with societal shame and/or our ideas of self-interest through the acceptance of others into society. Though I admit a certain amount of ambivalence in myself towards being "accepted", I nevertheless try to at least appear social, no matter how anti-social I feel. I have to ask myself why this is. Is it really because I have a psychological need to be accepted but don't have the skills, or is there some other post-modernist explanation about relative "good" that I adhere to? I honestly don't know.

You wrote that people will do whatever they think they can get away with, and I feel that quite explains it. Whether we are actively aware of it or not, treating people sociably makes things run very smoothly. Perhaps you also have a certain reliance upon the good intentions extended to you by people, just as I do? I sometimes imagine that if I were very rich, I will have no need to treat most people who enter into my life with deference and respect. There is a woman who attached herself to me by acting charitably towards me. Since I accepted her kindness, I had to accept her friendship. If I had no need to accept her kindness, then I would have no need to accept her friendship, because she is a boor.

And is this true of others? Are we all just pretending not to be anti-social in order to validate our assumptions about what a society should be?

I do not believe "what a society should be" is ever in our minds unless we are dealing with politics. When dealing with others, I think we are more aware of what society is and and what it accepts, and the need for acceptance is something that most of us crave and have craved since we were apes. I am a recluse, which means I never actively seek that acceptance, but once I encounter someone, you can rest assured that I will act kindly towards them, although I may feel indifferent to them.

If so, how did these ideas of good vs. instinct percolate up from our upringing into our adult lives (assuming we are adults, and that it is even possible to be an "adult")?

I really am not at my most lucid, so I will not answer the question. Imagine a child who grows up in the wild to be entirely self-sufficient. If he somehow can speak a language and enters into a city, how do you think he would behave?

[bernee51]

Bernee, lover of moral relativism.

in terms of the absolute I would have to agree with you. From my personal viewpoint - not.
My belief is that my worldview at any given time is influenced not by absolute values but by where I am personally at that given time in relation to my subjective self, my objective self , the intersubjective and the interobjective.

'Good' or 'bad' can change dependent on changes in any of those four influences.