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?

[Cathar1950]

Icarus wrote:

I think we tend toward selfishness because that guidepost is not there for us to see that life is not about our individual selves.

i think we are selfish because it is needed for our survival as a species and as individual. But we have to grow beyond it as we become aware of others and the world. The goal post keep changing which is only necessary for our growth and change in circumstance. There are guide posts it is called reality and the world. We run into them all the time.
I was pointing out that we survive because some one cared for us being parent what ever when we needed love changed and feed.
We are not hatched like some creatures.

[ST88]

ST88,
I think we are inherently free. Our intellect being groomed through experience and choice. I think we are neither basically good or bad, we are (temporarily) removed from the guidepost in which we can judge our knowlege/choice of situations.

I think we tend toward selfishness because that guidepost is not there for us to see that life is not about our individual selves.

Thank you for that response. Is it your contention, then, that people can't be good without this "guidepost"? I ask because my question had to do with the impulse to do good. Do you believe that altruism for such un-guideposted individuals is impossible?

[Curious]

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?

I did post a previous response to this question where I suggested that the desire to do good could be just as instinctive as obvious self-service but was geared more towards the group-service (ourselves included). I don't think though that it is purely instinctive or that social etiquette or particular religious guidelines are the only factors contributing to it. As humans, we have the ability to empathise with others. I dislike quoting scripture but I will make reference here because it is relevant to my point. Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Now this is a very worthy message but it would be foolish to believe that up until this point, no human had realised that it was a good rule of thumb. You will find that the more empathetic the person, the more likely they are to attempt to alleviate the suffering of others. This itself is in no way self-serving in any physical way but could be thought of as self-service from a psychological perspective. The act of good can either bring the person some feeling of comfort or accomplishment or it could reduce the psychological discomfort that such a situation, if left untended, might cause them. Whether or not these motives could be construed as being entirely selfish would not really concern me if I was lying in the gutter and required some assistance.

[Cathar1950]

I belive the golden rule was implied by others before Jesus.
that doesn't make it invalid, just a good human guide line.
Even by some Jewish rabbis.

[QED]

Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Actually this was not too smart a thing for Jesus to say: I don't want some masochist chasing me down the street with a bullwhip

Now, if he had said "Do not do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you" I might find it easier to swallow that he was the big guy everyone claims he was.

Before I get it in the neck, is this an actual quote of his or did Curious make it up?

[Curious]

Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Actually this was not too smart a thing for Jesus to say: I don't want some masochist chasing me down the street with a bullwhip

Now, if he had said "Do not do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you" I might find it easier to swallow that he was the big guy everyone claims he was.

Before I get it in the neck, is this an actual quote of his or did Curious make it up?

Yes this is an actual quote and thanks for your suggestion that I might actually invent scripture to make a point.
The thing is QED, not everyone does claim that Jesus was God, the son of God or anything else. If you were to actually read the words of Jesus (which by your own admission you could not have done), you might be able to form a valid judgement of what he actually was.
Your example of a masochist chasing you down the street with a bullwhip, while amusing, does miss the point. A masochist enjoys pain or humiliation and undergoes this by their own choice. If it becomes unpleasant to them they stop or they tell their sadistic counterpart to stop. To continue to chase you despite your obvious distress would not be doing to you that which they would have done to them would it?

[ST88]

This itself is in no way self-serving in any physical way but could be thought of as self-service from a psychological perspective. The act of good can either bring the person some feeling of comfort or accomplishment or it could reduce the psychological discomfort that such a situation, if left untended, might cause them. Whether or not these motives could be construed as being entirely selfish would not really concern me if I was lying in the gutter and required some assistance.

Though it wouldn't concern you, it would concern the person who stopped to help you. In this example, I could argue that this is physical self-service because stopping to help is the alternative to leaving you there in the gutter, which would cause guilt. Therefore, this "good" is pain-avoidance and not quite a good in itself. Is this an instinct? I couldn't say, but it seems like some kind of higher reasoning is going on in order to get to the conclusion.

[Cathar1950]

I would first like to say I belive QED did not mean masochist as in Masochism I think he meant Jesus was showing machismo.
He wasn't being a wimp. He was the man. He wasn't beating anyone because he was a pervert. It is easy to get the words mixed up.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Matthew 7:12).
This is called the Golden rule.
Jesus is reported to have done it in what is called the sermon on the mount.
Now what is interesting is he wasn't the only one to say it and there are many variants. the even got a website devoted to The Golden Rule and Christian Apologetics.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/golden.html
The point Christians make is that Jesus was positive presenting this rule.
It required doing for where many others talk about not doing harm.
One place called it the ethics of reciprocity or something like that.
But here are some comparisons:

Christianity All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1
Confucianism Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Analects 12:2
Buddhism Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1
Hinduism This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517
Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah
Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3id
Taoism Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien
Zoroastrianism That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

Adapted from "The Christopher Newsletter"

[Curious]

I would first like to say I belive QED did not mean masochist as in Masochism I think he meant Jesus was showing machismo.
He wasn't being a wimp. He was the man. He wasn't beating anyone because he was a pervert. It is easy to get the words mixed up.

I think I interpreted QED's response correctly. A masochist might well wish to be beaten with a bullwhip and in this way it could be said that they would be doing to you what they would like you to do to them. I have mentioned one fundamental difference in my previous post though.

[Icarus]

Actually (depending on which english translation) Jesus said "you have heard it said do unto others..." then He goes on to state to do even more than just a tit for tat way of living. His empasis was for believers to go the extra mile.

I agree with QED with the humor point. Jesus had to have meant more than what is often misquoted. Otherwise I'd like to give someone a million dollars and then get it back...



ST88,
It is not my contention that people cannot do good, but that they cannot be fully good. Even the most evil of people can do good acts to others while still being evil. The Bible's main thrust is not perfection/goodness but obedience.

Un-guidposted people can do good.


Cathar1950,
The need for survival as a species would mean a collective consience.

If the goal posts keep moving then what indicates with certainty that we must "grow beyond it". The statement is making a moral clarity to which there is no foundation.