Are people basically good?

[Votto]

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 use, 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.

Hitler thought he was defending his inner community and world civilization from inferior races of people.

Hitler was heavily influenced by Western science that was heavily into eugenics and racism

Here is what Charles Darwin wrote:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”

Darwin is all over the map here. First he says that we breed animals for strength, implying that science could do the same for human beings by selectively breeding them as well, but then stands down and says we must help the helpless and let them reproduce if need be, because it is a "noble" thing to protect the helpless. He even talks of "evil". However, he then goes on to say that it is a good thing that some who are genetically inferior are stopped from reproducing. I guess at that time some were.

So what does science have to do with human nobility and evil? Obviously, Hitler looked at Darwin as too sentimental and just stuck to science as he cleared out hospitals who were sick and people of assumed racially inferior stature, like blacks that Darwin thought were inferior.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You can't legislate morality?

Government is force. Force is anti-moral.

They do it, though. Every chance they get.

 

[Votto]

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.

Self justification?

Now we are getting somewhere. It is the ability of human beings to rationalize doing "evil".

For example, in the mob they say, "It's just business" before they shoot you dead.

Or it is the Islamic jihadist crashing a plane full of infidels who deserve to die.

Or it is the woman getting an abortion from her "fetus", and not unborn baby.

Looking at the history of genocide world wide, it seems that human beings rationalize doing evil for their perceived benefit with frightening regularity.

 

[Votto]

You can't legislate morality?

Government is force. Force is anti-moral.

They do it, though. Every chance they get.

Was it anti-moral to fight Hitler and hang the Nazi elite for their war crimes?

 

[Votto]

It's been my experience that atheists tend to think that humanity is basically good.

Has anyone come to the same conclusion?

 

[harmonica]

great question/thread
well, kids need to be taught to be ''good''
...they are definitely selfish and if another kid grabs their toys-you have biting/meanness/hitting/scratching/etc
...if the kid does not get proper training/discipline/attention/love/taught to be good/etc they usually end up to be ''not good''
...maybe not killers/thieves/etc--but impolite/uncaring/rude/selfish [ in many aspects ]/out of control-impulsive/abusive mentally and physically/etc
especially males
.

 

[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.

Self justification?

Now we are getting somewhere. It is the ability of human beings to rationalize doing "evil".

For example, in the mob they say, "It's just business" before they shoot you dead.

Or it is the Islamic jihadist crashing a plane full of infidels who deserve to die.

Or it is the woman getting an abortion from her "fetus", and not unborn baby.

Looking at the history of genocide world wide, it seems that human beings rationalize doing evil for their perceived benefit with frightening regularity.

People want to be identified by others as unique individuals, yet want to belong to and please the group they are a member of--sometimes at any cost. One of the most dangerous behaviors we humans can exhibit, is allowing our actions to be handed-off as group actions, or more precisely, feeling the need to no longer justify or be responsible for our own actions, because the group leader said it was a "right" action to shoot the partisans in the back of their heads.

The need to identify with, please and serve faithfully a group, and the motivation to do anything in order to receive a "pat on the head" from the group leader can and historically has been a very dangerous human tendency.

But yes, I believe self-justification is one primordial root of human "evil". And as we all know, we humans can justify just about anything and later neutralize any guilt by finding a sympathizing ear or a bottle of hooch.

 

[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.

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

Hitler chose to be evil. Why did you bring him into it? What are you trying to say?

 

[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?

Hitler chose to be evil. Why did you bring him into it? What are you trying to say?

Hitler is used because he is seen as universally evil. Really no other figure compares.

However, Jesus is seen as universally good, yet he said not to call himself good which I find thoroughly fascinating.

That is why I brought these two up in conversation.

As for Hitler, as I pointed out, he thought that he was doing "good", did he not?

 

[night_son]

It's been my experience that atheists tend to think that humanity is basically good.

Has anyone come to the same conclusion?

Yes, I have encountered this as well. The serious problem with that is atheists cannot describe in logical or rational detail why good is good or bad is bad, or name the fundamental/primal source from which they derive their moral systems. Just "because" is a cop-out to the heavy intellectual lifting required to effectively dodge belief in the Logos.

 

[harmonica]

humans are basically animals
...most things we do--even charitable things/for our family/etc we do to make ourselves feel good
...I kind of change my answer to not good, not bad
...serial killers kill for the thrill/high/to feel good--they ''need'' that high
..others murder out of passion-- very human --they get MAD
..''bad'' people steal for many reasons--some because they did not have parents that raised them ''correctly''....they are products of their socioeconomic life
...most murders in my city are in the black/poor areas
why not equally distributed throughout the city????!!! --

 

[Votto]

It's been my experience that atheists tend to think that humanity is basically good.

Has anyone come to the same conclusion?

Yes, I have encountered this as well. The serious problem with that is atheists cannot describe in logical or rational detail why good is good or bad is bad, or name the fundamental/primal source from which they derive their moral systems. Just "because" is a cop-out to the heavy intellectual lifting required to effectively dodge belief in the Logos.

It is interesting because there is eternal evidence as to people not being "good" throughout history, yet they persist in believing people are naturally good.. However, they don't believe in God when there is a great deal of evidence that he exists.

 

[Votto]

humans are basically animals
...most things we do--even charitable things/for our family/etc we do to make ourselves feel good
...I kind of change my answer to not good, not bad
...serial killers kill for the thrill/high/to feel good--they ''need'' that high
..others murder out of passion-- very human --they get MAD
..''bad'' people steal for many reasons--some because they did not have parents that raised them ''correctly''....they are products of their socioeconomic life
...most murders in my city are in the black/poor areas
why not equally distributed throughout the city????!!! --

Speaking of animals, is it OK to lock them up and kill and eat them?

Is that considered good or bad or neither?

 

[Votto]

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

You raise a good point. For those who have not murdered someone, you would look at someone who has murdered as being bad.

However, in jail this would not be the case since most are probably murderers. Don't get me wrong, murderers are snooty as well when it comes to selectively condemning bad behavior, like when a pedophile is put behind bars and becomes a target but those same murderers, as if, they are better than that.

But that is just our nature. We tend to condemn what we don't do and make light of what we do, do.

For example, everyone lies, so most think it's no big deal to lie. Just know that this comes from a relativistic view point based upon our own bias and desperate desire to justify ourselves.

 

[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.

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

Hitler chose to be evil. Why did you bring him into it? What are you trying to say?

Hitler is used because he is seen as universally evil. Really no other figure compares.

However, Jesus is seen as universally good, yet he said not to call himself good which I find thoroughly fascinating.

That is why I brought these two up in conversation.

As for Hitler, as I pointed out, he thought that he was doing "good", did he not?

Surely he knew putting people in ovens was wrong.

Jesus was not a real person as far as I know.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Was it anti-moral to fight Hitler and hang the Nazi elite for their war crimes?

Saving the Jews was none of our business.

Hitler never would have been appointed had Wilson's war to bring democracy into the rest of the world never happened.

All of the so-caled 'humanitarian' war efforts is what brought the Holocaust.

Nobody bombed the railroad tracks leading to the camps, if we recall correctly.

 

[Votto]

Was it anti-moral to fight Hitler and hang the Nazi elite for their war crimes?

Saving the Jews was none of our business.

Hitler never would have been appointed had Wilson's war to bring democracy into the rest of the world never happened.

All of the so-caled 'humanitarian' war efforts is what brought the Holocaust.

Nobody bombed the railroad tracks leading to the camps, if we recall correctly.

Ok then, let's put it another way.

Are the police evil for arresting or shooting murderers?

 

[night_son]

It's been my experience that atheists tend to think that humanity is basically good.

Has anyone come to the same conclusion?

Yes, I have encountered this as well. The serious problem with that is atheists cannot describe in logical or rational detail why good is good or bad is bad, or name the fundamental/primal source from which they derive their moral systems. Just "because" is a cop-out to the heavy intellectual lifting required to effectively dodge belief in the Logos.

It is interesting because there is eternal evidence as to people not being "good" throughout history, yet they persist in believing people are naturally good.. However, they don't believe in God when there is a great deal of evidence that he exists.

That is because, I think, the atheist has difficulty accepting authority without blaming said authority for the bad things which have happened, both in his own life and the world around him. Lack of personal responsibility for accepting consequence of bad behavior. Atheists claim to not believe in God, and yet they continue to blame God for all the terrible evils of the world.

In believing people are naturally good, they (atheists) can fall back on moral relativism to redefine good and bad "on-the-fly" as needed. Accepting that people need a higher power from which to draw guidance and base foundational moral facts on means accepting they cannot use moral relativism as a tool to make good and bad situational or redefinable. They represent the ultimate rebellion against the Father, in thinking--with an astonishing lack of maturity and surplus of foolish arrogance, that they know better--than perhaps millions of years of historical living experience experienced before their birth, and that they know better than God.

 

[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?

Hitler chose to be evil. Why did you bring him into it? What are you trying to say?

Hitler is used because he is seen as universally evil. Really no other figure compares.

However, Jesus is seen as universally good, yet he said not to call himself good which I find thoroughly fascinating.

That is why I brought these two up in conversation.

As for Hitler, as I pointed out, he thought that he was doing "good", did he not?

Surely he knew putting people in ovens was wrong.

Jesus was not a real person as far as I know.

No, not if you dehumanize your victim.

For example, in the 1800's they dehumanized blacks as glorified animals so that they could treat them the way we do animals, which is lock them up, use them as beasts of burden, or kill them (and hopefully not eat them)

The Jew was put in the same light. It was mental gymnastics that was needed to bypass our inner moral voice.

But yea, I think deep down people do know right from wrong despite the rationalizations, which I think is the cause of many mental problems down the road.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ok then, let's put it another way.

Are the police evil for arresting or shooting murderers?

We should favor equality in Legal justice. Due process is the constitutional solution. Though, if a murderer opts for going out in a blaze of glory, he should expect to be killed.

Good advice is to never call the police unless absolutely necessary. They've been known to show up and execute mentally needy people, and in some cases toss grenades into childrens beds. Sometimes they show up and execute you gang style if you're selling cigs on the street corner and whatnot.