Are people basically good?

[Votto]

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We've had blue laws, too, and countless others that have been repealed.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

I disagree. I view laws as 100% a moral issue.

And history bears this out. Before slavery was outlawed the general consensus was that it was "OK" but not ideal. However, centuries after being outlawed it now seem morally repugnant.

Likewise, before Roe vs. Wade the general consensus was that abortion was immoral, but decades after Roe vs Wade people now tend to say that it is "OK' but not ideal.

We are moral lemmings. It shows how our morality is formed based upon perceived authority figures. For example, if the state says abortion is "OK" and your priest says it's murder, you will probably side with the one that you respect the most. Is it what God says or the state that dictates your moral views? I think most side with the state, at least, according to historical records seem to imply.

 

[G.T.]

Most people are inherently good, in my opinion. Bad intentions dont always come with bad acts, and sometimes its ignorance and not "bad intent" that accompanies a bad behavior...which means good people do bad things. Vice versa, too Im sure bad people do good things.

If you've raised kids, you probably typically see innately (un-taught) good deeds coming out of them quite a bit. Its not the rule but it seems most common.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Dear norwegen and Votto
The process of making, enforcing and understanding Laws are
a correlated not causal relationship with human nature having both selfish and selfless motivations.
Internal and external components. Individual interests connected to collective good and protections for all interests.

The reason both good and bad laws get passed, reformed or repealed
is the process is SUPPOSED to be based on CONSENT. where the people
AFFECTED by laws ideally AGREE to them in the making. That's why when
people form CONTRACTS you try to iron out all the discrepancies and conflicts
in advance. You want the contract to REFLECT the terms and agreements that
the parties consented to, to avoid disputes arising in the future, and you want to
spell out the process THAT ALL SIDES agree to follow should adverse or alternative conditions occur.

Our legal and legislative process is SUPPOSED to be a contract between
people that GOVT is based on and supposed to reflect, represent and protect.

Because people aren't perfect, and groups made of imperfect people get biased collectively
and start abusing the Democratic Process to IMPOSE imperfect laws, this political competition
for power ends up SKEWING the laws and rulings that come out of such an adversarial process.

It's like taking two parents who are still FURIOUS at each other over abuses or breaches of trust
that led to divorce, and asking them to form a mutual contract on how to take care of their kids.
If they are still fighting for control, that contract is not going to be worked out smoothly and will
be full of holes if both sides are afraid the other is out to force them to compromise.

Our laws are not perfect, they aren't supported or enforced consistently, and people are not equally
informed or educated/trained in either the democratic process or enforcement of laws.

We will see a much different dynamic and response to laws, democratic process and enforcement
the closer we get to setting up sustainable education and support for representing all people equally.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

I disagree. I view laws as 100% a moral issue.

And history bears this out. Before slavery was outlawed the general consensus was that it was "OK" but not ideal. However, centuries after being outlawed it now seem morally repugnant.

Likewise, before Roe vs. Wade the general consensus was that abortion was immoral, but decades after Roe vs Wade people now tend to say that it is "OK' but not ideal.

We are moral lemmings. It shows how our morality is formed based upon perceived authority figures. For example, if the state says abortion is "OK" and your priest says it's murder, you will probably side with the one that you respect the most. Is it what God says or the state that dictates your moral views? I think most side with the state, at least, according to historical records seem to imply.

Dear Votto

Are laws of science morally based?
Or just how we apply scientific principles and process?

If we prove scientifically that crime and violence are reduced by
implementing Restorative Justice measures and approaches,
then by "free will and reason" more people may support those programs.
(Especially if we show how much taxpayer resources would be saved for sustainable
health care and education, rather than paying triple for failed prison systems with that money.)

Isn't some of the "cause and effect" that decides what options are more effective
part of "laws of nature" we can establish by studying which models work better than others?

I get what you are saying and agree that moral influences and the human drive
toward "peace freedom and justice" in the conscience are what compels people in making laws
and seeking society reform. However, by the time we sort out the reasons people have,
the democratic process of making decisions representing everyone
can be mapped out more like a logic tree or diagram.

Sure we have a moral and ethical compelling drive toward better solutions.
But it's NOT merely based an "ambiguous" choice of morals or beliefs on
"what is good or what is bad relatively."
There are ABSOLUTE universal conditions that CAUSE pain and suffering
in people, and certain conditions that bring PEACE and SECURITY.

If we understand THOSE laws of human nature, whether you frame it based on morals or not,
these dynamics are what allow people to master the democratic process of representation
from individuals to larger groups in order to better manage collective society.

People may have their own relative BELIEFS and LIMITS on what they can approve or not,
but if we map out the points, there are ways to form legal agreements based on what
works "scientifically" by reaching a consensus. That includes people's moral bases,
but there is also a universal "scientific process" similar to the "scientific method"
that works almost "mathematically" like binary logic, and isn't arbitrary, but predicts
where people will agree on laws in order for them to be sustainable and enforceable universally.

Those universal principles driving this democratic process are BOTH a moral choice in people,
as well as a scientific process of following the dynamics of human nature and design to reach a stable consensus.

 

[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.

Umm, yes.[/QUOT


Jeremiah 17:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

 

[ding]

People prefer good over evil and when they do evil they rationalize they are doing good.

This ought to tell us something.