Are people basically good?

[norwegen]

As I guessed, we're going to argue now for days about what is "good."

Is that not good?

 

[ding]

As I guessed, we're going to argue now for days about what is "good."

The what doesn’t matter as much as the reality that everyone believes in being good.

We just can’t seem to shake it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No, we aren't.

 

[ninja007]

Romans 3:10-12 King James Version (KJV)
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I think so. It's this world that turns good men into bad men. Same world that turns killers and tyrants into heroes.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The system in this world is what's all fudged up. You can thank the heroes I mentioned in the previous posting for that.

 

[norwegen]

Romans 3:10-12 King James Version (KJV)
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Paul was quoting David. He was referring to the age that David lived in and that was passing away in Paul's time. In the new age that followed, believers were justified.

“As one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” (Rm 5:18)​

Christ defeated death and condemnation. Now people are basically good. At least in the kingdom of God they are.

 

[Taz]

People are basically bad, that's why we have laws to force people to be good.

But everyone believes they are good.

No, some people know they’re bad.

 

[ninja007]

Romans 3:10-12 King James Version (KJV)
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Paul was quoting David. He was referring to the age that David lived in and that was passing away in Paul's time. In the new age that followed, believers were justified.

“As one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” (Rm 5:18)​

Christ defeated death and condemnation. Now people are basically good. At least in the kingdom of God they are.

umm, no.

 

[emilynghiem]

I was reading a book by Dennis Prager, "Genesis" in which he asserts why having the world view that men are inherently good is dangerous.

These are the reasons why he asserts it is dangerous

1. Children are not taught to be good. Parents and teachers who believe people are basically good do not feel the need to teach children how to be good. Why teach what comes naturally? Only when people realize how difficult it is to be a good person do they realize how important it is to teach goodness. In our time, there is virtually no character education in schools, and parents are more likely to be concerned with their children's self-esteem than with their self-control, and more concerned with their children's grades than their goodness.

2. God and religion become morally unnecessary.
If we are basically good, who needs a transcendent source of morality--a good God or a Bible? In the West and elsewhere, the more people have come to believe people are basically good, the less religious and less Bible centered they have become. And the less religious and less Bible-centered they have become, the more they have to come to believe that people are basically good.

3. Society, not the individual, is blamed for evil.
Another dangerous conclusion drawn by people who believe people are basically good is outside forces rather than the individual are to blame for human evil. If people are basically good, the reasoning goes, the evil that people do must be caused by something outside them. Why else would a basically good creature commit evil? This is why the most widespread explanation for violent crime has been poverty. "Poverty causes crime," the argument goes.

But this is just not so. For one thing, the great majority of poor people do not commit violent crimes. They don't because they have a moral value system that tells them criminal violence is wrong. And what could possibly link poverty to, let us say, rape? If one argues poor people steal because of poverty, at least there is a plausible link between the two. But what has poverty to do with rape?

The Carter Center, named for its founder, former US President Jimmy Carter, issued a statement, one of whose subjects was "Poverty and Terrorism". Under the heading, it wrote: "Effectively addressing poverty can make an important contribution to avoiding conflict and combating terror." Likewise, when he was the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, also a one time Presidential candidate, said, "We have a huge common interest in dealing with the issue of poverty, which in many cases is the root cause of terrorism."
Those who link terrorism to poverty might consider, for example, the economic backgrounds of the Islamic terrorists who killed 2,977 people on September 11, 2001 in the US. The terrorists came from middle and upper-class families. And the architect of the attack, Osama Bin Laden, was a multi-millionaire.
Since people who believe in evil ideologies are as likely to be wealthy as poor, ending poverty does virtually nothing to end ideological evil. It also does nothing to end non-ideological crime. If escaping poverty made people better, the rich would be the kindest and most honest people in the world.
Another outside force frequently blamed for violent Criminality - when the criminal is a member of a minority race or ethnicity-is racism. Yet the same arguments against attributing violent crime to poverty apply to attributing violent crime to racism. The great majority of individuals who are members of a racial minority-such as blacks in America-do not commit violent crimes-and did not do so even when they were subjected to systemic racially based persecution. And this reason is clear: their moral values did not permit them to do so.
Values and moral self-control matter far more than outside forces. Nearly all people who commit violent crimes do so because they possess a malfunctioning conscience, a morally defective value system, and/or lack of impulse control. The best way to make good people is through the combination of good values, good laws, and a God who commands goodness-such as that of the Bible. If people lived by the 10 Commandments alone, the world would be a beautiful place.
The Biblical view of human nature was perfectly described in secular terms by Professor James Q. Wilson, a Harvard political scientist: "The forces that may easily drive people to break the law, a desire for food, sex, wealth, and self-preservation, seem to be instinctive, not learned, while those that restrain our appetites, self-control, sympathy, and a sense of fairness, seem to be learned and not instinctive."
Those who blame evil on outside forces-i.e., "society"-rather than on the individual will encourage people to battle society rather than battle their own nature. Indeed, the need to change society rather than have people control their nature has become the dominant outlook in the Western world.
The Torah teaches that, especially in free society, the battle for a good world is not between the individual and society but between the individual and his or her nature. There are times, of course, when the battle for a better world must concentrate on evil emanating from outside the individual. This is always true in a tyranny and is sometimes true in democracies. But even then, in a free societies, the battle for a moral world is waged primarily through the inner battle that each of us must wage against our nature: against weakness, addiction, selfishness, ingratitude, laziness, and evil.
The most important question a society that wishes to survive can ask is this: "How do we make good people?" But societies that believe people are basically good will never ask that question.

Dear Votto
Thank you for posting this which I found very thought provoking.

In general I find it BETTER to remind people that
human nature is basically good. We are more
motivated by love in the longrun than by fear
which only skews our reactions for short term, but is NOT sustainable.
Not like love is.
Ignorance also cannot withstand in the presence of
truth alone which is consistent. Similarly Justice wins out over
Injustice which the human conscience cannot tolerate forever.

It is more effective to teach people how to overcome
selfish conflicts, wrongs, and injuries to RESTORE
good will and healthy relationships which are the DEFAULT.

I agree it's not about blaming society.

It's about having faith that people have a NATURAL
sense of justice, things get skewed by our experiences
and perceptions, and we get off track. However, as we
learn to ALIGN our sense of truth and justice, we
can establish this among ourselves and redeem
what was damaged or lost. That process of Restorative
Justice is more compelling than all the damage done
by retribution which again is not sustainable. Eventually
when we cannot tolerate any more of the vicious cycle
of abuse, oppression and destruction repeating, we agree
to make changes and reconnect with the desire for
peace, justice and truth that comes naturally by conscience.

 

[ding]

People are basically bad, that's why we have laws to force people to be good.

But everyone believes they are good.

No, some people know they’re bad.

Nope. They don’t do bad for bad’s sake.

In fact all of these people who treat others like shit for no other than they have different beliefs than them, have rationalized they deserved it. That treating them with disrespect is the moral thing to do because they are fighting evil.

You prove God exists with your behaviors.

 

[Taz]

People are basically bad, that's why we have laws to force people to be good.

But everyone believes they are good.

No, some people know they’re bad.

Nope. They don’t do bad for bad’s sake.

In fact all of these people who treat others like shit for no other than they have different beliefs than them, have rationalized they deserved it. That treating them with disrespect is the moral thing to do because they are fighting evil.

You prove God exists with your behaviors.

Some people are bad and know they are bad. Cartel hitmen... Heroin dealers... Bullies...

 

[norwegen]

Romans 3:10-12 King James Version (KJV)
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Paul was quoting David. He was referring to the age that David lived in and that was passing away in Paul's time. In the new age that followed, believers were justified.

“As one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” (Rm 5:18)​

Christ defeated death and condemnation. Now people are basically good. At least in the kingdom of God they are.

umm, no.

Umm, yes.

 

[Blues Man]

People are basically bad, that's why we have laws to force people to be good.

But everyone believes they are good.

I don't but I don't believe I'm "bad" either

I am not black or white. I am beige

 

[Votto]

People are basically bad, that's why we have laws to force people to be good.

How do you know it's not the laws that are bad? They're drafted by people, you know.

Ex: we have a law that says don't murder or we'll lock you up for a really long time because if we didn't have such a law, it would be mayhem.

We've had blue laws, too, and countless others that have been repealed.

Cuz laws are bad, see.

The US government passes some 40,000 new laws and regulations every year.

How bad must we all be?

 

[Votto]

I was reading a book by Dennis Prager, "Genesis" in which he asserts why having the world view that men are inherently good is dangerous.

These are the reasons why he asserts it is dangerous

1. Children are not taught to be good. Parents and teachers who believe people are basically good do not feel the need to teach children how to be good. Why teach what comes naturally? Only when people realize how difficult it is to be a good person do they realize how important it is to teach goodness. In our time, there is virtually no character education in schools, and parents are more likely to be concerned with their children's self-esteem than with their self-control, and more concerned with their children's grades than their goodness.

2. God and religion become morally unnecessary.
If we are basically good, who needs a transcendent source of morality--a good God or a Bible? In the West and elsewhere, the more people have come to believe people are basically good, the less religious and less Bible centered they have become. And the less religious and less Bible-centered they have become, the more they have to come to believe that people are basically good.

3. Society, not the individual, is blamed for evil.
Another dangerous conclusion drawn by people who believe people are basically good is outside forces rather than the individual are to blame for human evil. If people are basically good, the reasoning goes, the evil that people do must be caused by something outside them. Why else would a basically good creature commit evil? This is why the most widespread explanation for violent crime has been poverty. "Poverty causes crime," the argument goes.

But this is just not so. For one thing, the great majority of poor people do not commit violent crimes. They don't because they have a moral value system that tells them criminal violence is wrong. And what could possibly link poverty to, let us say, rape? If one argues poor people steal because of poverty, at least there is a plausible link between the two. But what has poverty to do with rape?

The Carter Center, named for its founder, former US President Jimmy Carter, issued a statement, one of whose subjects was "Poverty and Terrorism". Under the heading, it wrote: "Effectively addressing poverty can make an important contribution to avoiding conflict and combating terror." Likewise, when he was the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, also a one time Presidential candidate, said, "We have a huge common interest in dealing with the issue of poverty, which in many cases is the root cause of terrorism."
Those who link terrorism to poverty might consider, for example, the economic backgrounds of the Islamic terrorists who killed 2,977 people on September 11, 2001 in the US. The terrorists came from middle and upper-class families. And the architect of the attack, Osama Bin Laden, was a multi-millionaire.
Since people who believe in evil ideologies are as likely to be wealthy as poor, ending poverty does virtually nothing to end ideological evil. It also does nothing to end non-ideological crime. If escaping poverty made people better, the rich would be the kindest and most honest people in the world.
Another outside force frequently blamed for violent Criminality - when the criminal is a member of a minority race or ethnicity-is racism. Yet the same arguments against attributing violent crime to poverty apply to attributing violent crime to racism. The great majority of individuals who are members of a racial minority-such as blacks in America-do not commit violent crimes-and did not do so even when they were subjected to systemic racially based persecution. And this reason is clear: their moral values did not permit them to do so.
Values and moral self-control matter far more than outside forces. Nearly all people who commit violent crimes do so because they possess a malfunctioning conscience, a morally defective value system, and/or lack of impulse control. The best way to make good people is through the combination of good values, good laws, and a God who commands goodness-such as that of the Bible. If people lived by the 10 Commandments alone, the world would be a beautiful place.
The Biblical view of human nature was perfectly described in secular terms by Professor James Q. Wilson, a Harvard political scientist: "The forces that may easily drive people to break the law, a desire for food, sex, wealth, and self-preservation, seem to be instinctive, not learned, while those that restrain our appetites, self-control, sympathy, and a sense of fairness, seem to be learned and not instinctive."
Those who blame evil on outside forces-i.e., "society"-rather than on the individual will encourage people to battle society rather than battle their own nature. Indeed, the need to change society rather than have people control their nature has become the dominant outlook in the Western world.
The Torah teaches that, especially in free society, the battle for a good world is not between the individual and society but between the individual and his or her nature. There are times, of course, when the battle for a better world must concentrate on evil emanating from outside the individual. This is always true in a tyranny and is sometimes true in democracies. But even then, in a free societies, the battle for a moral world is waged primarily through the inner battle that each of us must wage against our nature: against weakness, addiction, selfishness, ingratitude, laziness, and evil.
The most important question a society that wishes to survive can ask is this: "How do we make good people?" But societies that believe people are basically good will never ask that question.

Dear Votto
Thank you for posting this which I found very thought provoking.

In general I find it BETTER to remind people that
human nature is basically good. We are more
motivated by love in the longrun than by fear
which only skews our reactions for short term, but is NOT sustainable.
Not like love is.
Ignorance also cannot withstand in the presence of
truth alone which is consistent. Similarly Justice wins out over
Injustice which the human conscience cannot tolerate forever.

It is more effective to teach people how to overcome
selfish conflicts, wrongs, and injuries to RESTORE
good will and healthy relationships which are the DEFAULT.

I agree it's not about blaming society.

It's about having faith that people have a NATURAL
sense of justice, things get skewed by our experiences
and perceptions, and we get off track. However, as we
learn to ALIGN our sense of truth and justice, we
can establish this among ourselves and redeem
what was damaged or lost. That process of Restorative
Justice is more compelling than all the damage done
by retribution which again is not sustainable. Eventually
when we cannot tolerate any more of the vicious cycle
of abuse, oppression and destruction repeating, we agree
to make changes and reconnect with the desire for
peace, justice and truth that comes naturally by conscience.

Thanks.

I would agree that in the end love will prevail, so long as the source of such love is more powerful than all else, which I believe it is.

As for this world, money and power rules, not love, even though we have an innate sense that love is really all that matters.

I also have faith, but not in humanity. Look at world history. Most men have either been a slave of the state or forced to fight for the state. And don't get me started on the history of genocide.

 

[norwegen]

People are basically bad, that's why we have laws to force people to be good.

How do you know it's not the laws that are bad? They're drafted by people, you know.

Ex: we have a law that says don't murder or we'll lock you up for a really long time because if we didn't have such a law, it would be mayhem.

We've had blue laws, too, and countless others that have been repealed.

Cuz laws are bad, see.

The US government passes some 40,000 new laws and regulations every year.

How bad must we all be?

My point was that laws are irrelevant to the topic. We can't say we're bad because we have laws (after all, can't laws be passed by bad people?), and we can't say we're good because we repeal laws (because we still have laws).

 

[Votto]

People are basically bad, that's why we have laws to force people to be good.

How do you know it's not the laws that are bad? They're drafted by people, you know.

Ex: we have a law that says don't murder or we'll lock you up for a really long time because if we didn't have such a law, it would be mayhem.

We've had blue laws, too, and countless others that have been repealed.

Cuz laws are bad, see.

The US government passes some 40,000 new laws and regulations every year.

How bad must we all be?

My point was that laws are irrelevant to the topic. We can't say we're bad because we have laws (after all, can't laws be passed by bad people?), and we can't say we're good because we repeal laws (because we still have laws).

Laws are a moral judgement. You say that one behavior is "good" and another is "bad".

And if we were inherently good, we would not need such laws, or at best, all we would need to do is inform people of the various laws once so they will abide by them. There is no getting around it.

But yes, bad people pass bad laws, just like Hitler which adds to my point. If they were inherently good, why did they?

 

[norwegen]

How do you know it's not the laws that are bad? They're drafted by people, you know.

Ex: we have a law that says don't murder or we'll lock you up for a really long time because if we didn't have such a law, it would be mayhem.

We've had blue laws, too, and countless others that have been repealed.

Cuz laws are bad, see.

The US government passes some 40,000 new laws and regulations every year.

How bad must we all be?

My point was that laws are irrelevant to the topic. We can't say we're bad because we have laws (after all, can't laws be passed by bad people?), and we can't say we're good because we repeal laws (because we still have laws).

Laws are a moral judgement. You say that one behavior is "good" and another is "bad".

And if we were inherently good, we would not need such laws, or at best, all we would need to do is inform people of the various laws once so they will abide by them. There is no getting around it.

But yes, bad people pass bad laws, just like Hitler which adds to my point. If they were inherently good, why did they?

When we pass laws to pass moral judgments - that's where the conflict begins.

Laws cannot take a moral side. Not even laws restricting murder, rape, and other violent crimes. In America, people have a right to life and liberty. These are the kinds of reasons for passing laws. If laws could successfully protect peoples' right to life, then no one would be murdered.

Morality is not an issue.

I think that when a society recognizes its social values, then it recognizes rights and then subsequently the morality of the individuals therein.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

No.
As in hell no.
Children are born as wholly selfish.
As they become toddlers and aware of other people etc. - they are still extremely selfish, bad tempered and show little care for others. (thus the term "terrible twos")
This natural selfish behavior must be taught out of them, compassion for others etc. - these are all learned behaviors. Some accept these behaviors better than others, but ALL children are born selfish brats.
We learn from our parents and surroundings that it is not acceptable to act that way.