Poll: Are People Inherently Good?
- Thread starter Guvnorium
- Start date
Recommended Videos
hmm what age was it you realized this because since im 13 I dont honestly understand what you're getting at in us not having as much control over ourselves because I think we do people just try to prevent portions of it that would cause chaos in societyblindey said:
no people are always bad
I'm may be saying this out of the pure anger that family guy just rick rolled me but I dont know
I'm may be saying this out of the pure anger that family guy just rick rolled me but I dont know
Ghandi would disagree. And King. And Jesus. (Note how all three of these were murdered, and yet their ideas have far outlasted those of their murderers. Obama's President, India is a superpower and Christianity is the world's largest religion)MaxTheReaper said:
The notion of good and evil are inherently linked to the notions of lawful and chaotic. While what we term 'good' is does not have to be good our bad for the individual,but rather that it is good for society at large, wheras acts of 'evil' are usually linked to self-fulfilment that actually harm society (rapine, murder etc).
In essence, good represents the socialising instincts of man as a social animal- the instinct to create a society bigger than yourself and thus help yourself. Evil represents the instincts of man as a predator- the instinct to take what you want, do what you want and damn the others. Good has a much longer shelf-life, but evil is more fun. Too much good, and you're liable to kill yourself. Too much evil, and you'll wind up killing society, and then yourself.
There's more to it than that, but I'm by no means a sociologist, biologist or psychologist,
Actually, inherent traits connected to propagation and the survival of the species make people "inherently" good. Normalcy in human relationships makes things like murder and hate repulsive to us (note: hate is a bad thing universally connected to emotions that are disliked by people, the other side of the coin, love, is universally connected to positive emotions)
There are outliers, serial killers or people who have been improperly socialized, but they are the exception to the rule and due to the fact that this behavior is a result of abnormal physiology or because they were specifically trained to consider normal behavior contrary to survival it reinforces the idea that at the base, humans are good.
You people should read more books.
/thread for real this time.
There are outliers, serial killers or people who have been improperly socialized, but they are the exception to the rule and due to the fact that this behavior is a result of abnormal physiology or because they were specifically trained to consider normal behavior contrary to survival it reinforces the idea that at the base, humans are good.
You people should read more books.
/thread for real this time.
I'd say people make their own choices, for example I would be viewed by some as being evil and I revile in it, I enjoy hurting people and animals. I only care about myself and would happily kill any number of friends and family if it secured me my own life or power. Also the best part of this is that I function brilliantly in our society, and I shall continue to do so, especially when I enter into the political arena or failing that the business world.
So I believe "good" people are nothing more then the last stage of human evolution, weak creatures, who care only for emotional stimuli, and I'm an improved version.
So I believe "good" people are nothing more then the last stage of human evolution, weak creatures, who care only for emotional stimuli, and I'm an improved version.
Well I mean my teenage years just little bits that have shaped and eroded away the notion of free will. Take two issues from Psychology and Sociology. Issue A is the "little albert" experiment conducted by Watson. He basically put a rat next to a toddler and made a loud noise (I think it was an alarm but anyway). These pairings made an effect to make the kid cry whenever he saw a rat. Watson did this with multiple animals, and soon it expanded to just anything furry and whatnot.o0pwnman0o said:
tl;dr version of Watson: He MADE the child frightened and cry from something he wasn't afraid/scared of before. It's not as if the child was like: I'm scared of that for no reason, or: I'm gonna choose to be scared of it.
Sociological event: Kitty Genevere (probably a misspelling) and..it's late so I'm going to cheat and copy a link to wikipedia and not write it in my own words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese
And the Lucifer Effect - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
These people didn't consciously choose not to help them. They were guided by the hand of the societal.
People are just people, that's it. Good and evil are abstract concepts applied to human actions to make things simpler, or to justify or vilify one's actions. In the end it comes down to the pursuit and/or fulfillment of personal satisfaction, happiness, instinctual urges. At its core, that's basically what governs human actions.
Here's what I think:
People are animals and like any other animal they have instincts. The survival instinct its the most ruthless of them all and make people act in a way that could be considered "evil". But now here's the tricky part. As other animals have, teeth, claws, speed, brute strength, fur, size, etc. We humans have our brain, something that turned out to be the best tool available for any creature. As such we learned to control our survival instinct (since we are irrefutably on the top of the foodchain and because our greatest foe is our own kind) to act in a different manner, something more "civilized". "But with great power, comes great responsibility". And with those concepts of civilization comes the Good and Evil, one of them its in following those standards of the civilized world, the other is going against them.
So, being good or evil are just concepts created because of our intelligence and society, when we were beating animals with rocks and sticks there was no such thing. There was only "kill or be killed". My point is: in our current state of evolution, anyone who was left with only is instinct to survive would be labelled evil, anyone follows the standards of humanity is considered good, and again those who refuse them and live for their own pleasure are also marked as evil
Evil wins Good two to one. But its my believe that no child is born evil, because its not something that's born with us, its something that our race created.
People are animals and like any other animal they have instincts. The survival instinct its the most ruthless of them all and make people act in a way that could be considered "evil". But now here's the tricky part. As other animals have, teeth, claws, speed, brute strength, fur, size, etc. We humans have our brain, something that turned out to be the best tool available for any creature. As such we learned to control our survival instinct (since we are irrefutably on the top of the foodchain and because our greatest foe is our own kind) to act in a different manner, something more "civilized". "But with great power, comes great responsibility". And with those concepts of civilization comes the Good and Evil, one of them its in following those standards of the civilized world, the other is going against them.
So, being good or evil are just concepts created because of our intelligence and society, when we were beating animals with rocks and sticks there was no such thing. There was only "kill or be killed". My point is: in our current state of evolution, anyone who was left with only is instinct to survive would be labelled evil, anyone follows the standards of humanity is considered good, and again those who refuse them and live for their own pleasure are also marked as evil
Evil wins Good two to one. But its my believe that no child is born evil, because its not something that's born with us, its something that our race created.
your right there is no way a human being is born evil or good but over their life and what happens in that life define how a person is. the other option is that depending on how the person thinks and reacts to the world around them would define how the person would be. !!!THIS IS OPINION NOT FACT DONT TAKE TO HEART!!!Chips the Magic Dragon said:
