Poll: Are People Inherently Good?

[Rolling Thunder]

Objectivism would be a valid philosophy if there were some way of detaching oneself from the universe and obserbing without interfering. However, this is both physically impossible and, more to a point, boring. It would also require a being with no emotions. Objectivism's greatest contribution is to present an ideal, a pinnacle that can be aspired to if never achieved without the sacrifice of humanity.

But siggi, by attempting to define good and evil by objectivist terms, you are sadly contradicting your own rules: You are attempting to impose your own ideals, your own conceptions, upon events and concepts, and thus comprimising your objectivity.

Just because something dosen't have the same meaning to everyone dosen't make it invalid.

@Max: And herein lies the difference between us. My personal experiences have led me to conclude that all humans are equally capable of acts of good, and evil. Yours have led you to the conclusion that A) Good or altruistic deeds are unnatural, and B) Most people are evil.

I don't know the basis of your philosophy, but I shall mention several more acts of altruism.

Churchill. He could merrily have co-operated with Herr Hitler, laid down arms and enjoyed a peaceable retirement while the Nazi War Machine used Britain as a sort of more useful version of Vichy France- Replacement troops and cheap industry.

Mother Theresa.

Buddha

Several billion other people

Simply because people commit evil acts does not make them inherently evil, and neither does the commission of good acts. And the likelihood of the basis of your philosphy is that you simply remember the evil all the more vividly than the good. I know I do.

 

[ElephantGuts]

I believe that "good" or "bad" are made up and subjective. I think that naturally people will do whatever they decide to be most appropriate to accomplish their goals. Based on the sense of "morals", or "right" and "wrong" that the person develops, they will find different means of achieving their goals appropriate or not.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

People aren't intrinsically good any more than they are inherently evil. The concepts of good and evil are nothing more than relative words, meaningless without context. Generally speaking, there is a consistant pattern in human behavior that seems to indicate a mild preference for commiting acts that are often seen as wrong. Murder, very generally at least, is considered wrong. Yet every culture has numerous examples of things they are willing to kill over. Countless nobles lost their lives in duels, either with the sword or later with a gun, yet until recently such killings were not only seen as perfectly acceptable, to turn down a duel was often considered a crime. Criminals in many cultures kill or maim or torture to get what they want, but often the culture at large finds it totally acceptable to repay the criminals in kind for their actions. War, no matter how you spin it is nothing more than diplomatically sanctioned murder. Where a man in a civilized society faces prison or death if he kills his fellow man, if he manages to kill dozens of them in a conflict he's suddenly considered a hero.

This doesn't really seem to point towards people being evil however; it mostly highlights the oddities of our moral viewpoints.

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

I vote "no" because good is an idea made up by humans and not set in stone. Basically nothing is good (or evil) at least in my opinion.

 

[Erana]

People are born good. They are made cruel by the world itself.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

I personally follow a hybrid Hobbesian-Lockian philosophy about man and the "state of nature". If you place man on a basic level with no laws or moral teachings whatsoever, he will be self-serving only. That is why we have laws: so that the innate self-centeredness of man can be held in check.

Call me a nihilist, that's just my opinion.

This seems to make sense, especially Locke's theory of association. Too much today is made of the false labels of good and evil. Devoid of laws and morality we are left with survival instincts. A human of his own can do no wrong, it is only when there are other humans that he becomes selfish. Hell is other humans. The reliance of instincts does not always favour 'evil' actions for instance altruism has been a key factor in past human sexual selection and is fundamental to a functioning society.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I wouldn't say that people are inherently good. We are born to be social creatures, though... we do seek our own kind out and work within groups. How that social "instinct" expresses itself is very plastic; it's the root of bullying (an attempt to rise in pack hierarchy) and altruism (what helps the pack helps the members). We're intelligent and have the ability to process abstract concepts; that leads to weird ways of expressing those behaviours, but the behaviours themselves are products of very straight-forward basic drives akin to those of any other social animal.

We're primates, no matter how hard we try to forget that.

-- Steve

 

[Guvnorium]

Hehe. It seems we have a forum of pessamists.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Sort of. I beleive that if someone lived their life alone, they would have to be "good". You would have to hunt (and not overhunt) and take care of the place that you lived. If you were evil and took what you wanted all the time you would destroy your suroundings and starve.

 

[notyouraveragejoe]

I If you took away rules people would regress to animal instincts, humans are, at heart, self serving bastards.

This, in oh so many ways.

Nobody seems to realize how we as humans made it to where we are. Its not because we're smarter or stronger then other animals. It is purely because man is probably the meanest mother f*cker (Yes I know we can swear but I still hate saying this) in the animal kingdom.

 

[photog212]

I believe that people are inherently good, however they are also inherently stupid.

 

[Guvnorium]

This man speaks the truth.

 

[RhinoTuna]

People are not inherently good (see: sin).

 

[EXPLICITasian]

Our morals instantly prove that we are not inherantly good. Our insticts have us want to have sex, over-eat, fight (figurativly and literally). All of these in some way are considered bad by society (as a majority) and therefore bad. In a land without restrictions (of society and law) Rape, over-indulgence, murder and stealing are prevelant, making people inherantly bad. Society's restrictions make us "good" (most of the time... mostly)

 

[Guvnorium]

People are not inherently good (see: sin).

That is if you believe in original sin.... Personally, I don't.

 

[GunnerGraye]

Neutral, a person's actions show who they really are. they just have to decide...and most people I've met make poor decisions and are essentially, bad people. But you deal with them and if you're a good person, continue to help others and whatnot.

 

[somekindawizard]

Everyone, at some point, has been or will be an asshole to someone else. It may not be intentional, it may be out of revenge from when they were an ass to you but I think we generally have the best intentions.

 

[Guvnorium]

Finally. Someone who agrees with me.

 

[Jaythulhu]

People aren't good or evil, since both terms are incredibly subjective. People just are. Everyone has basic needs and desires, both positive and negative. All of us have the capability of being "good" just as we have the capacity for "evil".

Really, we're neither. It's our choices and our actions that can be judged as "good" or "evil", but what category each event falls in to is going to be different for each viewer/affected individual/other person who hears about it later.

 

[J-Man]

Define "good."