Are people basically good?

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:31 am

Well are they?

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:17 am

I take it by "basically good", you mean "intrinsicly good".

If this is this case, I say that the concept of a value judgement, ie "this is good and that is bad" is a social construction of humanity, and thus can not be intrinsic to our beings. It is something we have developed.

Aaron Hong · Post by **Aaron Hong** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:50 am

There's a Chinese script called the 'Three-Words Chant' which says just that in the first six words. It's one of those things we'd be expected to memorise by the time we're 6, if we lived a century ago...

It's not known to be a religious text but I have a feeling it has Buddhist origins.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:12 am

Its an interesting area of sociology this.

Some basic ideas come from they theroy that from a young age u learn very quickly, what hurts and what doesnt hurt, u fall over, that hurts, not good! so u dont push other ppl over.
But it all falls apart I suppose depending on your up-bringing, if u are shown that pushing ppl over can get u a leg up in life then maybe u will consider this a 'good' thing for yourself...

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:35 am

It depends on your definition of good - most people have a concept of "good" as defined by the cultural values that they have grown up with, but I wouldn't say that there's a universal standard of goodness. Some notions (do not murder, do not steal) are pretty common across the board, but often become confused when applied to those from outside a particular culture - it was okay for the Jews to slaughter the Canaanites and the Midianites, even right and noble, because the commandments obviously didn't apply to them. And can you be good if you are passive? If you live in a country where the government is responsible for evil acts (such as murder, torture, genocide - the things we can generally agree on as being "bad") yet do nothing to prevent these things, even when they are done in your name, can you be good?

Personally I think most people are a bit selfish and stupid, then tell themselves that they are good to make themselves feel better about it. Myself included.

The Last Autobot · Post by **The Last Autobot** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:41 pm

I dont think people are good or evil (with a few exceptions). People do usually what is convenient to them, thats all. Sometimes are "good" things, sometimes are "evil" in the eyes of the rest.

Predabot · Post by **Predabot** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:47 pm

Yes and no, I believe that all people have equal capacity for both "good" and "evil", and mostly I think we keep it at a pretty even balance.

Alas, the point is ultimately moot, since "good" and "evil" are highly subjective abstract concepts, an evil act may in the end actually lead to something good for something else, it's all cause and effect.

Some of our alien neighbours have no doubt wildly differing abstract concepts for these things.

Metal Vendetta wrote: Personally I think most people are a bit selfish and stupid, then tell themselves that they are good to make themselves feel better about it. Myself included.

Except not me. I KNOW I am evil, I behave in a rather bad way towards some people on a daily basis. Sometimes I feel terribly ashamed and remorsefull, other times I simply wallow in it and share the "pain-wealth" with the world.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:46 pm

I'm awesome. This is an incontravertable fact.

I've most likely spelt incontravertable wrong, but the Firefox spellcheck is telling me I've spelt "spelt" wrong too, so I'm not really bothered.

Post by **Denyer** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:05 pm

Socialisation tends to promote survival and comfort, so yeah, to a degree.

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:08 pm

Why do you Brits always gotta be hating on zs? Z is a cool letter.

Anyway, yeah, there can be utiliterian argument of equating physical pain or harm with bad, and the rest is history, but of course still, this is an educational experince of socialization, not a preconcieved state.

And I think if you're truly awesome, you'll make that Firefox spellcheck your bitch.

Post by **Denyer** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:52 am

Shanti418 wrote:Why do you Brits always gotta be hating on zs?

Unlike American, English isn't self-conscious about the fact a large chunk of itself is bastardised French... and doesn't try to do ill-omened things such as make pronunciation follow spelling. Letters are letters, syllables are syllables, words are words, and never shall their pronunciations meet in about 20% of vocab, including a lot of the most commonly used words...

http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/cyc/e/pronounc.htm

...so, basically, because we're educated/sharp enough to tell the difference between uses of 's' by context.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:39 am

Aye, English spelling follows etymology more than pronounciation. Which apparently I've also spelt wrong.

There's a reason "Z" is worth lots of points in Scrabble. It's not becauze itz uzed in every word where there'z a hard sibilant.

Post by **Denyer** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:04 pm

Z is also something marketing/advertising executives get gooey over... dictionary spellings can't be registered for exclusive use in many situations, but slap a 'z' on the end to make your pluralz rather than an 's' and that passes.

Which is also wherefore names such as Krispy Kreme. Companies ****ting on grammar and spelling because it can get them a snappier protected title.

Post by **Best First** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:29 pm

Krispy Kreme's are basically good.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:17 pm

The socialisation argument works up to a point, but I think it's still extremely subjective. Issues such as polygamy vary from culture to culture - just look at the mess it got Clinton into (not to mention that blue dress) while Arabian princes have wives coming out of their ears...

And how many people here would class Georgie W. as a good man?

Post by **Denyer** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:31 pm

He believes what's coming out of his mouth. Which is to say he isn't as evil as some of those steering him; more likely to be taken in by over-simplification and emotive presentation than to wield those over-simplifications with understanding.

Really proficient evil requires both amorality and understanding of people.

I could be underestimating.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:32 pm

Brendocon wrote:Aye, English spelling follows etymology more than pronounciation. Which apparently I've also spelt wrong.

This time, however, your spelling was incorrect.

What is the correct spelling of manoeuvres, out of interest?

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:38 pm

Metal Vendetta wrote:The socialisation argument works up to a point, but I think it's still extremely subjective. Issues such as polygamy vary from culture to culture - just look at the mess it got Clinton into (not to mention that blue dress) while Arabian princes have wives coming out of their ears...

I don't quite get what you're saying here. The whole point of my socialization argument was to say that good and evil are so COMPLETLY subjective and vary from person to person all the way to culture to culture, and that there is NO universal morality, that people can NOT be intrinsically good or evil.

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:18 pm

my shrink doesn't know the answer either.

If Webster'd had his way, American English would be completely phonetic.

I guess I asked the question because we have so many atheisty and agnosty types around here... do you guys have faith in humanity in general?

Post by **Best First** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:46 am

i... don't know.

really, i have been pondering this for a few days now.

i know lots of people i like, and trust and regard as 'good people' but if you look across the globe and history - en masse we are pretty selfish and stupid as a race.

But then there are also exceptions to that, and would being 'good' be considered as such if it were easy?

Conversely though is there any difference between this question and say, "are dogs basically good?"

Does everyone here want to be good?

[/random stream of consciousness]

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:24 am

I do like to be seen as a "good man" - Mrs. V called me that the other week and it made me feel really, uh, good about myself, almost like I was feeling "Wow, she noticed!" But then I know that I do a lot of things that are bad, or through omission, I allow lots of bad things to happen. I know I can be stupid and selfish - would a "good" man spend so much money on plastic toys and comics, for example? Why don't I volunteer my time to help those less fortunate? Would society even "work" if everyone was actively trying to help those around them?

Besty wrote:i know lots of people i like, and trust and regard as 'good people' but if you look across the globe and history - en masse we are pretty selfish and stupid as a race.

I agree with this.

Shanti wrote:I don't quite get what you're saying here. The whole point of my socialization argument was to say that good and evil are so COMPLETLY subjective and vary from person to person all the way to culture to culture, and that there is NO universal morality, that people can NOT be intrinsically good or evil.

I'm not sure I'd go to those extremes. People have a "nature" just as dogs, horses and other animals can have a "nature". You hear people say "oh, he's such a good dog, he's ever so gentle" or "that dog's a bastard, I wouldn't go near him if I were you". I think that within the relativistic framework of a society, people can be intrinsically good (i.e. it's in their nature to follow the rules and help others) while other people will be intrinsically bad and kill hundreds of people just to see the pretty colours their entrails make...but then again we're heading into nature/nurture territory and I'm not sure that's entirely productive...

sprunk wrote:I guess I asked the question because we have so many atheisty and agnosty types around here... do you guys have faith in humanity in general?

Haha, when I was discussing this with my friend he asked me the very same question. I think it's a lot easier to have faith in people when you don't really need it. We all have people in our lives that we rely on and that we help out when the going gets tough but we're all in relatively privileged positions. The question would probably mean a lot more to me if I was homeless and alcoholic on the streets of Camden, putting it to the test every day.

Post by **Denyer** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:20 pm

sprunkner wrote:do you guys have faith in humanity in general?

To do what profits (often coinciding with what could be considered "best") for them and theirs, and to not collectively poke things with needles and burning sticks just to find out what happens, or be creatively malicious rather than inadvertently? Yes.

Do I think we're selfless by genetic imperative and behaviour? Not much, and there's always a reward in mind even if it's satisfaction with one's conduct and actions.

Just realism rather than being depressed by it.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:44 pm

Rebis wrote:
Brendocon wrote:Aye, English spelling follows etymology more than pronounciation. Which apparently I've also spelt wrong.
This time, however, your spelling was incorrect.

Thought as much. But when half the words I write get flagged in red anyway, I stop checking...

What is the correct spelling of manoeuvres, out of interest?

Manoeuvres. American "English" however has it as maneuvers.

Those wacky colonialz.

[EDIT] I'm intrigued by this notion that Arabian women come out of their ears.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:22 pm

I would say all people are good and bad, with varying quantities of each in every individual.

Also, it depends on how "good" and "bad" are defined.

For a Muslim, or Christian, or other creed followers, these are defined for them. For others, I guess it's self determined.

Regardless of how it's defined, there is no human being that is all good or all bad.

Post by **Best First** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:30 pm

Best non answer ever!

well, this week.

well, today...

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:42 pm

That post, at any rate...

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:34 pm

Yaya wrote:For a Muslim, or Christian, or other creed followers, these are defined for them. For others, I guess it's self determined.

I'd disagree with that 100%.

Post by **Best First** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:40 pm

i wouldn't - lots of people who 'follow' a faith bring their own values and interpitations into it.

If it was a purely external moral drive everyone of every denomination woudl agree on everything, and they don't.

The Last Autobot · Post by **The Last Autobot** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:49 pm

Good and Bad are Dc Golden Age characters. (And thats also the reason I love Marvel)

Life is usually gray. As we are.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:28 pm

Best First wrote:i... don't know.

really, i have been pondering this for a few days now.

i know lots of people i like, and trust and regard as 'good people' but if you look across the globe and history - en masse we are pretty selfish and stupid as a race.

But then there are also exceptions to that, and would being 'good' be considered as such if it were easy?

Conversely though is there any difference between this question and say, "are dogs basically good?"

Does everyone here want to be good?

[/random stream of consciousness]

Indifference beyond personal promotion is the default setting for most, I would've thought, with interpersonal promotion being derived from learned social skills and an increased geographical/political/social awareness.

It's how the individual mindset perceives their personal and interpersonal statuses, and how they believe they can best promote them that determines whether they act in a way in which others would perceive them as being 'good' or 'bad'.

And dogs are always 'good', just their own personal interpretations of 'good'.