Poll: So... are we essentially good or evil?

[BathorysGraveland]

I chose "A mixture of both" because every human being has good and bad traits and personalities. You also have to keep in mind that opinions change from person to person - a low-life waste of a man is just that to some person, and a close friend to another.

 

[ThreeWords]

We are as we are trained, until we become aware enough to alter said programming. But no one ever gets far enough to actually change it entirely.

There is no such thing as a 'pure, untrained human being', because we are formed by our social interactions, and to deny those interactions is to deny vital parts of development and create something not entirely human.

 

[JesterRaiin]

With that being said, I qualify my statement with this. Any action that causes harm to an in-group by a person in that ingroup, is typically considered an evil action. This is because it weakens the overall power and influence of that group, disrupting the status quo that humans enjoy. Two examples of this are murder- the slaying of someone in your ingroup- and raping someone from within your ingroup.

What if group is "evil" and by killing everyone else from said group murderer prevents, let's say, war ? Moreover - what if his actions were "evil" (greed, jealousy), but overal outcome - "good" (lack of war) ?
Is he good or evil by your book ?

Evil is decided by the opinions of the ingroup, so he is evil from the view of the murdered, but could be considered a hero in the view of the group that they were about to go to war with. It is neither good, nor evil, those are terms that we make to try to justify our actions against another group of people. We all are part of the ingroup of humanity after all.

Humanity as the judge ?

Not so fast Spider-man.

If you're aware about concepts of in- and outgroup then you know that every single human forms a ingroup consisting of only a single unit - him/herself. Depending on circumstances and personal traits of character the equality and importance of groups varies.

So, the horror presents itself in his true form : not only there is no universal judgment of single action. Not only "good" and "evil" become meaningless. It's that there's no proper "group" to form a judgement. No judgement is better than another.

There goes every law, ethical system, morality and religions. Straight to hell, so to speak.

Since good and evil are defibed solely by us, we can be whatever we want, we just have to define it as what we do.

Why ?

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

Given that I don't believe anyone/anything can be inherently/universally/objectively held up as either good or evil (Nihilist here) I would opt that we are neither. Morality is subjective, what is considered right and wrong fluctuates between cultures and acts which most would consider abhorrent can be given a pass if they feel the ends justify the means. Likewise what/who is considered good or evil will depend entirely upon who you're talking to; Jack Kevorkian [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian] for example can be seen as an altruistic, humanitarian by some and a repugnant, serial murdering, anti-christ incarnate to others. The results of this thread should illustrate that no one person will have the same perspective on this matter.

 

[Hip Priest]

Poser misanthropy aside: if by 'good' one means that we are, at a base level, compassionate and empathetic creatures, predisposed to seek cooperation and reconciliation over petty selfishness and vindictiveness, then I do believe that most of us are fundamentally 'good'. In spite of my usual cynicism, I find myself convinced by Rousseau's argument in the Discourse on Inequality, that the degraded state of humanity today is less an indication of any inherent quality of our species, than it is a consequence of the restrictive social and economic order, founded upon private property and its accumulation, that we long ago established.

 

[NorthernStar]

Poser misanthropy aside: if by 'good' one means that we are, at a base level, compassionate and empathetic creatures, predisposed to seek cooperation and reconciliation over petty selfishness and vindictiveness, then I do believe that most of us are fundamentally 'good'.

This was basically the definition I was looking for. Thank you.

I think that as for the influence of society on humanity's state; that too will change in time. Society is always in motion, the values of our cultures and worlds ever changing due to, for example, the ruling religion, mindset, or lack thereof.

There is no such thing as a 'pure, untrained human being', because we are formed by our social interactions, and to deny those interactions is to deny vital parts of development and create something not entirely human.

Maybe I should reformulate, but I'm not saying that we are all 'pure and untrained throughout our lives'. Perhaps when we are born, yet a single second in this world may change that disposition. I was simply referring to some sort of 'inner core' that we all possess. A quality that might be inherent to our existence, if you will, apart from the whole nature vs nurture debate.

 

[lRookiel]

Our instincts drive us to evil, our ability to reason compels us to good. We live in an age where the ability to reason is more recognized and pronounced than it has ever been, so I'd say we are both, but that we are leaning ever more towards good.

Listen to this guy, he has jesus as his avatar...

 

[Thaluikhain]

Nowadays its taken for granted that all humans are free and equal, that we have a right to education, healthcare and a dignified existence. We also regard it as wholly unjustifiable for allowing non-sentient creatures to suffer where it can be avoided.

Er...we are all supposed to say we believe that, but we don't particularly have to act like it if we don't want to. All sorts of socially acceptable exceptions to that.

 

[NorthernStar]

Nowadays its taken for granted that all humans are free and equal, that we have a right to education, healthcare and a dignified existence. We also regard it as wholly unjustifiable for allowing non-sentient creatures to suffer where it can be avoided.

Er...we are all supposed to say we believe that, but we don't particularly have to act like it if we don't want to. All sorts of socially acceptable exceptions to that.

Agreed.

Heck, it's socially acceptable to say that we are all free and equal and that that is taken for granted. Unfortunately, this is not reality. I mean, in a lot of parts in the world you can still be murdered for your sexual preference, religious ideals, etc.

So I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you. Your description is of an ideal world, yet unfortunately not of the world we live in now. Like @thaluikhain said, people have a way of cheating and avoiding these ideals.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Neither. Read Grendel by John Gardener.

Evil men inspire others to develop and advance to defeat them. May not make them any less evil, but they're still doing good.

 

[ThreeWords]

Poser misanthropy aside: if by 'good' one means that we are, at a base level, compassionate and empathetic creatures, predisposed to seek cooperation and reconciliation over petty selfishness and vindictiveness, then I do believe that most of us are fundamentally 'good'.

This was basically the definition I was looking for. Thank you.

I think that as for the influence of society on humanity's state; that too will change in time. Society is always in motion, the values of our cultures and worlds ever changing due to, for example, the ruling religion, mindset, or lack thereof.

There is no such thing as a 'pure, untrained human being', because we are formed by our social interactions, and to deny those interactions is to deny vital parts of development and create something not entirely human.

Maybe I should reformulate, but I'm not saying that we are all 'pure and untrained throughout our lives'. Perhaps when we are born, yet a single second in this world may change that disposition. I was simply referring to some sort of 'inner core' that we all possess. A quality that might be inherent to our existence, if you will, apart from the whole nature vs nurture debate.

A core that exists separate of trained reaction and habit? Damned if I know; I reckon it's buried so deep as to be of no effect, and therefore, may as well not exist.

 

[doggy go 7]

there's no such thing as good or evil, those are just constucts placed upon society (which is why they vary society to society, less now the world's becoming more global) to prevent chaos and anarchy. While I by no means feel morals are bad (very much aware of the irony, thank you), they aren't inherent within the system.

 

[Jedoro]

"You?re not a ?good person,? you?ve just been lucky enough. You?ve never had to be otherwise. When it comes down to it, a man can do what a man will do. Believe what you want."

I like the way the Jackal put it. We live in a society that encourages "good" behavior, so we conform to that standard because it's a good idea. Essentially, we are survivialists, which can lead to "good" or "evil" behavior, depending on what the situation calls for in order for us to survive.

 

[naam]

There is nothing inherently evil or good, only perspective can make it seem so

 

[JonnyHG]

I wrote a 12 page essay on this last year.

My stance was essentially that what we define as good and evil depends on the in-groups that we are in, if 2 different groups come into conflict, we see the other group as evil, because otherwise we would be saying that what we are doing is wrong. This is true among all levels, whether if it's between hockey teams or between nations, we don't see the opponents as humans, instead we see them as entities of who we are in conflict with.

With that being said, I qualify my statement with this. Any action that causes harm to an in-group by a person in that ingroup, is typically considered an evil action. This is because it weakens the overall power and influence of that group, disrupting the status quo that humans enjoy. Two examples of this are murder- the slaying of someone in your ingroup- and raping someone from within your ingroup.

I think there's a difference between an action being beneficial to someone, and an action being good....although the terms are sometimes interchangeable. I'm reminded of Dr. Evil from Austin Powers. He knows the actions he wants to carry out are evil. If he had succeeded in carrying out his plans, he would still have considered them evil, even though the outcome would have been beneficial to him.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

We are essentially "good" all the time. "Evil" is just what society as a whole is not.

Good and evil will always change because nobody nobody believes what they are doing is evil.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I think we have the potential to be both, and are capable of doing both depending on what we personally want and what pleases us.

I like to believe that we start off as "neutral" and branch off to one main side, or even dip into the other side depending on what it is, as we grow older and learn from people around us.

 

[Blunderboy]

Good and evil really aren't the right terms. They can be twisted so much depending on personal points of view.
Put simply, 'evil' people never seem themselves as evil.

As a species, we are capable of being incredibly base and selfish, but we're also capable of bravery and sacrifice.
It really boils down to so many factors, which vary not just from person to person, but from scenario to scenario.
Anthropologically speaking, survival of the species comes first in most cases. This does not mean always making a personal sacrifice for someone else, especially not if that person has less to offer the species than you do.
We do what we need to not just to ensure the survival of the species, but more importantly the survival of our progeny. Our genetic material.

That's not to say that there aren't exceptions to this rule, but deep down, on a basic level, this is how we work.
This is a bit of a cop out answer I know, but it's true.
I voted neither btw.

 

[CODE-D]

We are what we want.