Are people basically good?

[mudwhistle]

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

What say you?

I remember how things were when I grew up. Most kids are pretty rotten. They have to be taught to be good most of the time.

Good = Doing things that don't harm others
Bad = Doing things that are intended to do harm

 

[Votto]

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

What say you?

I remember how things were when I grew up. Most kids are pretty rotten. They have to be taught to be good most of the time.

Good = Doing things that don't harm others
Bad = Doing things that are intended to do harm

Teaching the Golden Rule to children in school would bring out the ACLU and their lawyers.

 

[Votto]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

So people are basically good?

Except for Trump, right?

Seriously though, look at the wars, the genocide, the fact that most men who have walked their earth were either a slave or sent to die in a war for some horrible dictator., etc.
IF people are inherently good, then why is this?

Your first two sentences make no sense....

Basically = non specific
Trump = specific

Wars are typically started by Governing bodies, not "basic" people. Also, we are (still) evolving away from slavery, and so that comment was already addressed by my stating that we are good due to biological and sociological evolution.

In other wordsw, if you didn't fail to read for comprehension, you'd have realized that the inquiries in your response were already addressed.

So these evil political figures are space aliens, or are they simply a reflection of the society from which they came?

Additionally, who threw the Jews in the ovens? Hitler?

Why did the Catholic church remain so silent during the Holocaust?

Why did FDR not let more Jews flee to America?

People are basically good, eh?

I don't buy it!

No, your first sentence is a non-sequitur. I didnt say all people are good, or that people are good all of the time. Do you know your question included the word, "basically." YOURE THE ONE that framed things this way, and you're taking my answer based on the basic, and challenging it in terms of the specific.

Your inability to critically think may be why you're so easily brain-washed by Religions.

So if people are basically good, then we really should allow people to arm themselves instead of ban guns.

Additionally, the never ending number of laws and regulations passed by government are unnecessary, correct?

 

[G.T.]

Invoking the Holocaust was not a good idea, either. It's pretty much the go-to example that the vast majority of people alive point to as EVIL, so obviously they're not in accord with that.

 

[G.T.]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

So people are basically good?

Except for Trump, right?

Seriously though, look at the wars, the genocide, the fact that most men who have walked their earth were either a slave or sent to die in a war for some horrible dictator., etc.
IF people are inherently good, then why is this?

Your first two sentences make no sense....

Basically = non specific
Trump = specific

Wars are typically started by Governing bodies, not "basic" people. Also, we are (still) evolving away from slavery, and so that comment was already addressed by my stating that we are good due to biological and sociological evolution.

In other wordsw, if you didn't fail to read for comprehension, you'd have realized that the inquiries in your response were already addressed.

So these evil political figures are space aliens, or are they simply a reflection of the society from which they came?

Additionally, who threw the Jews in the ovens? Hitler?

Why did the Catholic church remain so silent during the Holocaust?

Why did FDR not let more Jews flee to America?

People are basically good, eh?

I don't buy it!

No, your first sentence is a non-sequitur. I didnt say all people are good, or that people are good all of the time. Do you know your question included the word, "basically." YOURE THE ONE that framed things this way, and you're taking my answer based on the basic, and challenging it in terms of the specific.

Your inability to critically think may be why you're so easily brain-washed by Religions.

So if people are basically good, then we really should allow people to arm themselves instead of ban guns.

Additionally, the never ending number of laws and regulations passed by government are unnecessary, correct?

1st off, this is another non-sequitur.

I'm pro-liberty where it doesn't infringe on anyone else's.

That includes for gun rights, so....moot point.

To the question regarding Laws, that's also a non-sequitur. You CONTINUE to not understand that "basically" does not mean "everyone," so I'm not sure I understand what the fuck the problem is.

The Laws are there to prevent folks from doing harm to society, not everyone is a good guy.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

What say you?

Dear Votto
I find that people tend toward Good or "Good will" or whatever is the greatest good for all people.

This natural inclination gets "skewed" by fear, also unforgiven conflicts that bias our judgment and preferences toward one person or group and against others.
So that is what makes selfishness worse.

Just because people are self-willed and self-interested does NOT have to negate
choosing what is best for all people who are equally looking out for their best interests as well.

The ideal solutions will satisfy all these interests equally.
No matter how "selfish" people are. We will still ultimately
choose what is going to work to "get us what we want"
so this cannot be in conflict with others or it isn't sustainable.
Eventually we figure out that cooperative collaboration on mutual
solutions is the ideal so everyone agrees and gets what they want out of the deal.

I find the ideal solutions are the most appealing to people,
who naturally gravitate toward what will maximize the greatest good, happiness, security peace and freedom/Justice for all
and what will MINIMIZE or solve problems that otherwise generate stress, fear, suffering, ill will and other social problems.

We all are designed by conscience to seek peace and avoid suffering.

The TRICK is how to formulate solutions, and how to COMMUNICATE them,
where the process of change itself does not invoke excess stress, fear and rejection/division.

It's not that people are selfish.
The problem I've run across in this equation
is people don't have the same degree of FAITH in solutions that will appease people across various groups.
And the reason for lack of faith is either FEAR or unforgiven conflicts that prevent people from having faith and seeing solutions
that could compel people to change to a better approach that will make them and others happy and willing to contribute.

We have this ability inherently.
I find it is blocked by fear and other social factors, but "good will" is the underyling force
that moves humanity by conscience toward change, justice and peace.

I find that good will trumps ill will.
Love trumps fear.
Truth trumps ignorance.
So that the Good eventually outweighs and outlasts the bad.

 

[G.T.]

Laws are there for folks who AREN'T like most people.

Most folks don't need the Law to advise their conscience, "hmm, I don't think it's a good idea to be stealing from anyone because I don't want it to be acceptable that everyone steal from me, or that folks with more resources steal from those weaker than they are."

That's called rational thought.

Not everyone is capable of what MOST people are, therefore we have & need: Laws.

 

[Votto]

So people are basically good?

Except for Trump, right?

Seriously though, look at the wars, the genocide, the fact that most men who have walked their earth were either a slave or sent to die in a war for some horrible dictator., etc.
IF people are inherently good, then why is this?

Your first two sentences make no sense....

Basically = non specific
Trump = specific

Wars are typically started by Governing bodies, not "basic" people. Also, we are (still) evolving away from slavery, and so that comment was already addressed by my stating that we are good due to biological and sociological evolution.

In other wordsw, if you didn't fail to read for comprehension, you'd have realized that the inquiries in your response were already addressed.

So these evil political figures are space aliens, or are they simply a reflection of the society from which they came?

Additionally, who threw the Jews in the ovens? Hitler?

Why did the Catholic church remain so silent during the Holocaust?

Why did FDR not let more Jews flee to America?

People are basically good, eh?

I don't buy it!

No, your first sentence is a non-sequitur. I didnt say all people are good, or that people are good all of the time. Do you know your question included the word, "basically." YOURE THE ONE that framed things this way, and you're taking my answer based on the basic, and challenging it in terms of the specific.

Your inability to critically think may be why you're so easily brain-washed by Religions.

So if people are basically good, then we really should allow people to arm themselves instead of ban guns.

Additionally, the never ending number of laws and regulations passed by government are unnecessary, correct?

1st off, this is another non-sequitur.

I'm pro-liberty where it doesn't infringe on anyone else's.

That includes for gun rights, so....moot point.

To the question regarding Laws, that's also a non-sequitur. You CONTINUE to not understand that "basically" does not mean "everyone," so I'm not sure I understand what the fuck the problem is.

The Laws are there to prevent folks from doing harm to society, not everyone is a good guy.

If people were basically good, then we would not need government.

If people were basically good, we would not need car insurance

If people were basically good, then we would not need to lock our doors at night.

If people were basically good, then we would not need lawyers, etc.

 

[OldLady]

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.

I agree the two--the ideas of good and evil and the laws on the books--are closely related, but I wonder if you've got it backwards which comes first. In our society the idea of what is moral comes before the law is changed. No one would vote for a law that is considered evil or immoral. The morality of the issue comes first, I think.

 

[OldLady]

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

What say you?

I remember how things were when I grew up. Most kids are pretty rotten. They have to be taught to be good most of the time.

Good = Doing things that don't harm others
Bad = Doing things that are intended to do harm

Teaching the Golden Rule to children in school would bring out the ACLU and their lawyers.

It starts in Pre-K. Daycare even. Don't be stupid.

 

[Votto]

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

What say you?

Dear Votto
I find that people tend toward Good or "Good will" or whatever is the greatest good for all people.

This natural inclination gets "skewed" by fear, also unforgiven conflicts that bias our judgment and preferences toward one person or group and against others.
So that is what makes selfishness worse.

Just because people are self-willed and self-interested does NOT have to negate
choosing what is best for all people who are equally looking out for their best interests as well.

The ideal solutions will satisfy all these interests equally.
No matter how "selfish" people are. We will still ultimately
choose what is going to work to "get us what we want"
so this cannot be in conflict with others or it isn't sustainable.
Eventually we figure out that cooperative collaboration on mutual
solutions is the ideal so everyone agrees and gets what they want out of the deal.

I find the ideal solutions are the most appealing to people,
who naturally gravitate toward what will maximize the greatest good, happiness, security peace and freedom/Justice for all
and what will MINIMIZE or solve problems that otherwise generate stress, fear, suffering, ill will and other social problems.

We all are designed by conscience to seek peace and avoid suffering.

The TRICK is how to formulate solutions, and how to COMMUNICATE them,
where the process of change itself does not invoke excess stress, fear and rejection/division.

It's not that people are selfish.
The problem I've run across in this equation
is people don't have the same degree of FAITH in solutions that will appease people across various groups.
And the reason for lack of faith is either FEAR or unforgiven conflicts that prevent people from having faith and seeing solutions
that could compel people to change to a better approach that will make them and others happy and willing to contribute.

We have this ability inherently.
I find it is blocked by fear and other social factors, but "good will" is the underyling force
that moves humanity by conscience toward change, justice and peace.

I find that good will trumps ill will.
Love trumps fear.
Truth trumps ignorance.
So that the Good eventually outweighs and outlasts the bad.

The good out lasts the bad?

Is this just a feeling or are you going to back up such claims?

My guess is, you have a short list of what is considered bad. Murder, unless it is an abortion, theft, unless it is from government, and rape, unless it is in our jails where they really deserve such torture, are the only bad things we do.

 

[G.T.]

Your first two sentences make no sense....

Basically = non specific
Trump = specific

Wars are typically started by Governing bodies, not "basic" people. Also, we are (still) evolving away from slavery, and so that comment was already addressed by my stating that we are good due to biological and sociological evolution.

In other wordsw, if you didn't fail to read for comprehension, you'd have realized that the inquiries in your response were already addressed.

So these evil political figures are space aliens, or are they simply a reflection of the society from which they came?

Additionally, who threw the Jews in the ovens? Hitler?

Why did the Catholic church remain so silent during the Holocaust?

Why did FDR not let more Jews flee to America?

People are basically good, eh?

I don't buy it!

No, your first sentence is a non-sequitur. I didnt say all people are good, or that people are good all of the time. Do you know your question included the word, "basically." YOURE THE ONE that framed things this way, and you're taking my answer based on the basic, and challenging it in terms of the specific.

Your inability to critically think may be why you're so easily brain-washed by Religions.

So if people are basically good, then we really should allow people to arm themselves instead of ban guns.

Additionally, the never ending number of laws and regulations passed by government are unnecessary, correct?

1st off, this is another non-sequitur.

I'm pro-liberty where it doesn't infringe on anyone else's.

That includes for gun rights, so....moot point.

To the question regarding Laws, that's also a non-sequitur. You CONTINUE to not understand that "basically" does not mean "everyone," so I'm not sure I understand what the fuck the problem is.

The Laws are there to prevent folks from doing harm to society, not everyone is a good guy.

If people were basically good, then we would not need government.

If people were basically good, we would not need car insurance

If people were basically good, then we would not need to lock our doors at night.

If people were basically good, then we would not need lawyers, etc.

Incorrect on all accounts.

If people were basically good, then we would not need government.

The government is not just laws, even though I described to you how Laws are necessary in spite of a basically good society. Governments are also supposed to be beneficial to infrastructure, not just to prevent crime. Derpy non sequitur.

If people were basically good, we would not need car insurance.

Car insurance is for accidents we cannot afford the damages for, and irresponsibility happens. As a result, insurance is there to protect folks from someone who cannot pay for damages incurred.

If people were basically good, then we would not need to lock our doors at night.

Incorrect, because "basically" again, does not equal "all." Pretty simple concept, dude.

If people were basically good, then we would not need lawyers, et

Lawyers litigate the Law, Laws encompass disputes.....another non sequitur.


You need to go to school.

 

[Votto]

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

What say you?

I remember how things were when I grew up. Most kids are pretty rotten. They have to be taught to be good most of the time.

Good = Doing things that don't harm others
Bad = Doing things that are intended to do harm

Teaching the Golden Rule to children in school would bring out the ACLU and their lawyers.

It starts in Pre-K. Daycare even. Don't be stupid.

I'm reminded of a school in Ohio that had a student get raped during study hall. When the parent found out about it he came down to the school to talk to them. The very first words out of the mouth of the school officials was, "Let's not alert the press, we can handle this". Again, they were more focused on their own welfare than the child's welfare.

The teacher of that study hall said that it was not the job of the school to teach morality. Again, the teacher was only focused on defending herself, not the child.

Can you imagine?

 

[G.T.]

How many logical fallacies should one have to post before their ability to create new threads is taken away? The threshold is too large.

 

[G.T.]

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

What say you?

I remember how things were when I grew up. Most kids are pretty rotten. They have to be taught to be good most of the time.

Good = Doing things that don't harm others
Bad = Doing things that are intended to do harm

Teaching the Golden Rule to children in school would bring out the ACLU and their lawyers.

It starts in Pre-K. Daycare even. Don't be stupid.

I'm reminded of a school in Ohio that had a student get raped during study hall. When the parent found out about it he came down to the school to talk to them. The very first words out of the mouth of the school officials was, "Let's not alert the press, we can handle this". Again, they were more focused on their own welfare than the child's welfare.

The teacher of that study hall said that it was not the job of the school to teach morality. Again, the teacher was only focused on defending herself, not the child.

Can you imagine?

You continue to argue against the notion that "every single human, ever, has been good," because you simply cannot grasp what the word "basically" means. Folks like you should not be allowed to Vote.

 

[G.T.]

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

What say you?

I remember how things were when I grew up. Most kids are pretty rotten. They have to be taught to be good most of the time.

Good = Doing things that don't harm others
Bad = Doing things that are intended to do harm

Teaching the Golden Rule to children in school would bring out the ACLU and their lawyers.

It starts in Pre-K. Daycare even. Don't be stupid.

Exactly, there's plenty of innate good you see in children.

 

[G.T.]

​

 

[emilynghiem]

Your first two sentences make no sense....

Basically = non specific
Trump = specific

Wars are typically started by Governing bodies, not "basic" people. Also, we are (still) evolving away from slavery, and so that comment was already addressed by my stating that we are good due to biological and sociological evolution.

In other wordsw, if you didn't fail to read for comprehension, you'd have realized that the inquiries in your response were already addressed.

So these evil political figures are space aliens, or are they simply a reflection of the society from which they came?

Additionally, who threw the Jews in the ovens? Hitler?

Why did the Catholic church remain so silent during the Holocaust?

Why did FDR not let more Jews flee to America?

People are basically good, eh?

I don't buy it!

No, your first sentence is a non-sequitur. I didnt say all people are good, or that people are good all of the time. Do you know your question included the word, "basically." YOURE THE ONE that framed things this way, and you're taking my answer based on the basic, and challenging it in terms of the specific.

Your inability to critically think may be why you're so easily brain-washed by Religions.

So if people are basically good, then we really should allow people to arm themselves instead of ban guns.

Additionally, the never ending number of laws and regulations passed by government are unnecessary, correct?

1st off, this is another non-sequitur.

I'm pro-liberty where it doesn't infringe on anyone else's.

That includes for gun rights, so....moot point.

To the question regarding Laws, that's also a non-sequitur. You CONTINUE to not understand that "basically" does not mean "everyone," so I'm not sure I understand what the fuck the problem is.

The Laws are there to prevent folks from doing harm to society, not everyone is a good guy.

If people were basically good, then we would not need government.

If people were basically good, we would not need car insurance

If people were basically good, then we would not need to lock our doors at night.

If people were basically good, then we would not need lawyers, etc.

No Votto cc: G.T.
Being basically good is not the same as being perfectly good.

Even married people, even good friends who know each other well,
BENEFIT from "writing up agreements" so we communicate what we consent to
and what to do if something changes, what is the process we agree to?

So we still need laws and govt to manage "social contracts" or agreements
when "something goes wrong" or "conflicts arise"

Even good law abiding people don't run around conducting business without a contract!

 

[Votto]

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

What say you?

I remember how things were when I grew up. Most kids are pretty rotten. They have to be taught to be good most of the time.

Good = Doing things that don't harm others
Bad = Doing things that are intended to do harm

Teaching the Golden Rule to children in school would bring out the ACLU and their lawyers.

It starts in Pre-K. Daycare even. Don't be stupid.

Exactly, there's plenty of innate good you see in children.

The bottom line is, we are all born with an inner voice that tells us what is good or bad, unless they are a select few who are sociopaths who go onto a political career.

However, we all, at some point, violate this voice, do we not?

So to be "bad', how many times must we violate this inner voice or does it only come down to the severity of the infraction?

 

[G.T.]

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

What say you?

I remember how things were when I grew up. Most kids are pretty rotten. They have to be taught to be good most of the time.

Good = Doing things that don't harm others
Bad = Doing things that are intended to do harm

Teaching the Golden Rule to children in school would bring out the ACLU and their lawyers.

It starts in Pre-K. Daycare even. Don't be stupid.

Exactly, there's plenty of innate good you see in children.

The bottom line is, we are all born with an inner voice that tells us what is good or bad, unless they are a select few who are sociopaths who go onto a political career.

However, we all, at some point, violate this voice, do we not?

So to be "bad', how many times must we violate this inner voice or does it only come down to the severity of the infraction?

You spent your first two sentences here agreeing with my initial claim, which you proceeded to spend 15 non-sequitur posts attempting to debunk.

The last sentence is a question of subjective opinion, one which I've already answered: "people are BASICALLY" GOOD.

That means, that most of the time for most people, we go ahead and listen to the voice.