Are people basically good?

[Votto]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Not yes or no. Humans are equally capable of being good and evil, often simultaneously.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Are people basically good?


Dogmaphobe looks around Usmessageboard, .........................takes a second glance in case he missed anything.............................................

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

People bad. Orcs good!

 

[deannalw]

Dogs are good.

Cats are not good.

People are not good.

 

[SweetSue92]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

By the standards of Complete Depravity, we are good. This is the standard by which we prefer to compare ourselves, because we come out "smelling like a rose". You will see even serial killers on death row doing this. We ALL do it.

However, sadly...

That is not the standard by which we will be accepted. Since God is perfect, He cannot accept anything less than perfection. That is called Holiness. It is the opposite of Complete Depravity. We hate to compare ourselves to His perfection because we know we fall far short.

But there is One who took on our lack of goodness and gives us imputed Righteousness. We did nothing to deserve this--we can DO nothing to deserve this. It is a free gift.

So that was the long answer. The short answer: are we good? Well, we're made in the image of God, so we're not depraved. But we don't have Holiness. We can attain imputed righteousness however: "And this not of ourselves, lest anyone should boast."--Ephesians 2:8-9

 

[Rambunctious]

I've seen good people do bad and bad people do good...

 

[night_son]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

Yes . . . "but . . . "

Fundamental good is any behavior which promotes or defends life, truth, honesty, compassion, personal responsibility, maturity to edit one's own behavior, fact, and peaceful coexistence with caveats among many others.

Good can shatter on the rocks of what is best for the individual over the stranger, and rapidly turn into survival. Thus instinct can overrule fundamental good. However, the best of us humans manage somehow to take good care ourselves and our families while when possible still living by a code of "right" behavior and helping others without harming ourselves. Somewhere in the act of living right while still surviving well courage is born.

Truth or telling the truth or being honest at all times in both word and action is pure righteous power and demonstration of courage. The truth comes with consequences every time. Not lying for fear of other peoples reaction to hearing the truth is good character on high. Tell the truth enough times to enough people over enough years and everyone in your life will recognize the power you wield and treat you accordingly with utmost respect.

Personal Responsibility is the foundation of the human soul. Where the armies of nations can oppress the people for the ruling class who can exist free of consequence of bad behavior until they meet their end, we individuals must act responsibly and understand the consequences if we do not. Freedom is only worth something if we can self-edit our behaviors to allow us to coexist in mutually beneficial relationships with each other. Individual freedom cannot override the freedom of another individual. When that happens we call it oppression.

Rectitude is righteousness as a consequence of being honest and honorable. We all strive for, demonstrate it often as possible but can never be the embodiment of it. Consequences for our behaviors can be both good and bad. One good person, as a leader, can change an entire community, city or even nation.

Now, the Bad . . .

People are complex beyond complex; their motivation for behaviors even more so, and what's worse: sometimes our subconscious sort of does things automatically without conscious intent which places these kinds of unintentional actions outside the constraints of morality or much forethought. Survival, instinct, lust, hunger, thirst, want--all pathways for the desire to do good to be left on the side of the road to hell. But we're all just human, right?

Most important life strategy I think is to not let ourselves get trapped in positions of desperation where our subconscious is bound to takeover and push us to act out in wrong or bad ways. Even if we can do that, however, as humans we'd still need to overcome emotion which either in the moment or long term can motivate us to do some pretty damned stupid stunts.

All in all being good or bad is a balancing act between right and wrong on the ballasts of free will and personal responsibility. Further, we humans are always seeking justification for doing even the slightest of what we perceive to be "bad" behaviors, from eating an extra bite of chocolate cake, to fishing close to the power plant when clearly legible signs tell us not to. Justification for bad behavior, or rather avoiding it, is one hell of a huge hurdle on the road to being a good person.

Overall, being bad or doing wrong is very easy, and sometimes we don't even know what we're doing until it's too late. Being good and doing right is much harder and takes serious personal effort and endless work. Humans often lean toward doing good naturally, but it's very easy for us to get sidetracked or tempted away off the path.

 

[flewism]

People in my little world, and in my life are good or you are eliminated from my life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

People are basically flawed. They WANT to be good, but they're inclined to be bad.

 

[Unification]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

By the standards of Complete Depravity, we are good. This is the standard by which we prefer to compare ourselves, because we come out "smelling like a rose". You will see even serial killers on death row doing this. We ALL do it.

However, sadly...

That is not the standard by which we will be accepted. Since God is perfect, He cannot accept anything less than perfection. That is called Holiness. It is the opposite of Complete Depravity. We hate to compare ourselves to His perfection because we know we fall far short.

But there is One who took on our lack of goodness and gives us imputed Righteousness. We did nothing to deserve this--we can DO nothing to deserve this. It is a free gift.

So that was the long answer. The short answer: are we good? Well, we're made in the image of God, so we're not depraved. But we don't have Holiness. We can attain imputed righteousness however: "And this not of ourselves, lest anyone should boast."--Ephesians 2:8-9

Basically yes, compared to God, one one is "good", since God represent perfect absolute principle - much like perfect circle, which exist in pure mathematical theory - but any attempt by mortal to draw perfect circle will always fall short of the idea.

Humans tend to be prideful and assume they "good" simply because others, such as murders are worse, but in actuality even "good" humans are imperfect beings

And all humans have potential to be murders or rapists, since these things are product of impulses, which is why atheists are misguided, since they encourage people to "be good" without higher principle to follow, but without higher principle, is no reason for human to be any different than savage or beast, with no restraint over primal impulses.

 

[night_son]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

The other side of the human "coin" -- true human darkness, derives I believe from self-justification, which is antithesis to personal responsibility. Good people often exhibit bad or dark behaviors when they allow someone they care about to commit wrong acts in order to maintain a good relationship with them or continue to receive some form of personal benefit which would be stripped away or lost if they either pointed out the other person's bad behavior or punished it.

Again, each and every one of us seeks lifelong for freedom from the authority of our God, our parents, our bosses, out society, etcetera. In accepting this freedom, or in justifying its claiming and expenditure, it is critical to remember to be responsible lest we face dire personal consequences or visit harm as consequence for our bad behavior on others--often the ones we care about most, or who love us most.

Good intentions perhaps do pave the road to hell, but reckless use of individual freedom built that road to begin with. Bad people perhaps see obstacles to ultimate freedom as limitations, while good people see the same as cautions or warnings of consequences we do not want to owe or pay for.

Any belief system which offers denial of obvious truth or sells unlimited freedom without consequence is inherently wrong, bad or even evil--depending on one's belief system.

A final source of human darkness to chew on is the act of one person, in arrogance, thinking he or she knows what is best for another adult human, and then acting on that belief, without regard to the real, permanent consequences for the other person. Of course our societal laws do this all of the time, and here is where Man's need for a higher power to act as judge or moderator enters the picture. In this social contract we sign at birth, governmental authority over the individual could be viewed as a necessary "evil" we all agree on to allow for the existence of civilization.

However, when the "free agent" individual or group independent of elected government decides what is best for another individual or group and enforces that decision against the other party's will, therein lies an act of wrongdoing.

I suppose we could top off the nod to bad behavior with the seeking of the easiest path through life in general, which often involves "running over" the freedoms of others, as opposed to the harder, more challenging path which involves hard work.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I've met some real assholes in my lifetime. And I've met some very polite, humble, people in my lifetime.

Something we see quite a bit of is government trying to legislate morality. Well, you can't do that. That won't work. Not only that, but government is the most biased, forceful, entity in existence.This is, itself, anti-moral.

Nope. The moral character of the people must dictate the laws. Not the other way around.

But look who is in office. I mean, really. If that doesn't demonstrate the erosion of virtue in society, I don't know what does. Here's a guy who likes to get spanked on his bottom by porn stars. Here's a guy who openly brags about using his power to grab poonanies whenever he feels like it. Sheesh. Here's a guy who says take guns first, and due process later.

It reminds me of a great quote. Henry Mencken, it was. He was an old newspaper guy. What Henry had said, and correctly so if we're paying attention, was that ''...as democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people, On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.''

 

[Votto]

Here is how Wiki defines what is good.
.

In its most general context, the concept of good denotes that conduct which is to be or should be preferred when posed with a choice between a set of possible actions. Good is generally considered to be the opposite of evil. The concept is of interest in the study of morality, ethics, religion and philosophy, and the specific meaning and etiology of the term and its associated translations among ancient and contemporary languages has varied substantially in its inflected meaning depending on circumstances of place, history, religious context and philosophical context.

So here wiki seems to view "good" as the perceived desired choice, thereby making good relative. Problem is, Hitler thought he was doing the world a service by destroying the evil Jews.

Then wiki goes on to divulge the various cultural beliefs of "good" and "evil" that varied throughout history. Why so many views on what is good?. Saying that good is the opposite of evil is just as meaningless since evil would probably be described as the opposite of good.

Then we have the universal embodiment of good in Jesus Christ. All religions view him as "good", as do atheists who admit he existed, yet he took offense to being called good.

Mark 10:17 “As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. ‘Good teacher,’ he asked, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ ‘Why do you call me good?’ Jesus answered. ‘No one is good – except God alone. You know the commandments: Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’ ‘Teacher,’ he declared, ‘all these I have kept since I was a boy.’ Jesus looked at him and loved him. ‘One thing you lack,’ he said. ‘Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’ At this, the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.”

How does everyone see this conundrum? What was Jesus talking about here?

 

[Votto]

I've met some real assholes in my lifetime. And I've met some very polite, humble, people in my lifetime.

Something we see quite a bit of is government trying to legislate morality. Well, you can't do that. That won't work. Not only that, but government is the most biased, forceful, entity in existence.This is, itself, anti-moral.

Nope. The moral character of the people must dictate the laws. Not the other way around.

But look who is in office. I mean, really. If that doesn't demonstrate the erosion of virtue in society, I don't know what does. Here's a guy who likes to get spanked on his bottom by porn stars. Here's a guy who openly brags about using his power to grab poonanies whenever he feels like it. Sheesh. Here's a guy who says take guns first, and due process later.

It reminds me of a great quote. Henry Mencken, it was. He was an old newspaper guy. What Henry had said, and correctly so if we're paying attention, was that ''...as democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people, On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.''

You can't legislate morality? Every law in existence is based upon morality. Governments make laws based upon what is "good" for society or "bad" for society.

Does it change people's view of good and evil? It sure seems to. For example, when slavery was legal in the 1800's, many people said that it was OK even though it was not ideal. However, today, after slavery has been illegal for over a century, the idea of slavery seems repugnant and absurdly evil to everyone.

You can also see this with abortion. Before Roe vs. Wade, most said that abortion was immoral and evil, however, today people say that it is OK, even though it is not ideal.

Given these historical facts, I can only conclude that morality is heavily influenced by a perceived person in authority, whether it is your parents, the state, your pastor, or your religious book, etc.

 

[boedicca]

It depends upon the value system by which good is defined.

If good means that people naturally act to preserve their own lives and those of their inner circle (i.e. family, tribe), then yes, people are naturally good.

It gets complicated in larger communities where "tribes" co-mingle, i.e. in modern civilization. Without a high moral code, then what was good in a small tribe becomes quite violent and toxic when tribes collide.

 

[Crepitus]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

We have the chioce to be either, but we are not inherently good or bad.

 

[Weatherman2020]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

Name a child that never acted up.

You've got your answer.

 

[Votto]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

Name a child that never acted up.

You've got your answer.

Indeed. No child ever had to be taught how to act "bad", but they do need to be taught how to act good.

 

[Votto]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

We have the chioce to be either, but we are not inherently good or bad.

Would you say that the Holocaust was bad or good or are you arguing that Hitler had his good points?