Are people GOOD IN NATURE or Bad???

[FiLtH]

   Im 70% good, 20% lazy, 10% perv

[Curval]

Ahh...the age old Nature of Man question.

Being a conservative I hold the view that the nature of man is inherantly BAD.  I enjoy arguing with those who feel the opposite is true and love watching them struggle to come up with examples.

[oneway]

Your question is subjective on its face because of it's predicate assumption that "Good" and "Bad" are clearly defined...

"Good" and "Bad" are not defined....and impossible to define...

Take for example a dirty night smock Jihadist...to him...flying civilian air transport into sky scrapers is "Good"...

I would surmise that to most people, the opposite of "Good" is "Bad"...

What is "Good" to one, is often "Bad" to another...

Thus "Good" and "Bad" can only be 'characterized' by the respondent...a "Human"...as he prepares to respond to the question...

Therefore, any response is flawed, because it filtered through the inherent bias of the respondent...

Thus the question is circular in it's assumptive reasoning...

The scary thing is that in the end... "Good" == "Bad" resolves to true...thus the never ending conflicts of Man...

Oneway

[oneway]

Ahh...the age old Nature of Man question.

Being a conservative I hold the view that the nature of man is inherantly BAD.  I enjoy arguing with those who feel the opposite is true and love watching them struggle to come up with examples.

I concur...being a conservative...

[Mar]

In all seriousness, who gives a %@$^ what the nature of man is? The nature of man is what you make it to be. The real question is, "Who are you, and what do you want?" You've got options, you pick the one you like best. I did.

[mensa180]

Ahh...the age old Nature of Man question.

Being a conservative I hold the view that the nature of man is inherantly BAD.  I enjoy arguing with those who feel the opposite is true and love watching them struggle to come up with examples.

Good.

Or more accurately neither, because morals are defined by individual cultures not all of humanity.

[Lusche]

Many bad deeds have been done by people actually believeing they are doing the right (good) thing...

[oneway]

Good.

Or more accurately neither, because morals are defined by individual cultures not all of humanity.

Your 180 is showing...

Touche'

I would add that the granularity of 'definition' as it applies to defining 'morals' doesn't stop at the cultural level...and has many waypoints before it finally finds its definition within the individual...

[Curval]

It is not a question of culture...the question is the nature of man generally.

Is man inherantly good or bad?

If the answer is good please give me examples of why you think man is inherantly good.

[oneway]

It is not a question of culture...the question is the nature of man generally.

Is man inherantly good or bad?

If the answer is good please give me examples of why you think man is inherantly good.

That question cannot be answered nakedly because of the subjective nature of defining "Good" and "Bad"...

It is impossible to answer, even if suffixed with qualifiers...because the qualifiers are offered by the the inquisitor...and are subject to the same problems and bias that the respondent produce in finally attempting to answer the question...

Mensa nailed it with...."Neither"...in fact he hit it out of the park...

[Curval]

He hit a sqibbler down the first base if anything with his "Good...no wait...neither" answer.

Ask me a question...any question and I will give you back your answer and request you define every adjective in your question.  Makes for a lame argument.

[oneway]

He hit a sqibbler down the first base if anything with his "Good...no wait...neither" answer.

Ask me a question...any question and I will give you back your answer and request you define every adjective in your question.  Makes for a lame argument.

I will give you two to work on...

What do you define as "Good" ?...and is your definition of "Good" definitive for all of mankind?

[mensa180]

OK I amended my response within seconds.  It isn't a no wait, it's an or.  By your definitions I think good, but if analyzed further I don't think there is an inherently good or bad. 

I wasn't trying to throw a catch all in, Curval.

I said good because evolution has made it necessary for us to love each other.  A good counter example would be when placed in competition; men, like all animals, will become ruthless.  However I am interpreting inherently to mean by themselves and not in a stage of conflict.  I think that all people, with the exception of those with genetic defects, will be good to others given the choice.  Sharing [and caring] was an important evolutionary development.

[oneway]

OK I amended my response within seconds.  It isn't a no wait, it's an or.  By your definitions I think good, but if analyzed further I don't think there is an inherently good or bad.  

I wasn't trying to throw a catch all in, Curval.

I said good because evolution has made it necessary for us to love each other.  A good counter example would be when placed in competition; men, like all animals, will become ruthless.  However I am interpreting inherently to mean by themselves and not in a stage of conflict.  I think that all people, with the exception of those with genetic defects, will be good to others given the choice.  Sharing [and caring] was an important evolutionary development.

Really?

Then evolution, if one accepts the principal at large, has some 'splaining to do then...

Take for instance a male Lion on the plains of Africa...who after taking over a another male's harem kills (but does not eat) his predecessors offspring...

What choice...?

[Curval]

You are being pedantic, but okay...

We are not talking about individuals or their personal traits and biases.  It is a philospohical question.  The "man" in this question is not John Smith or Li Long Chow or Henje Cronje.  It is the Platonic representation of man, the essence, the core if you will.

Think of it this way, if all mankind (including women..thank you brother..or sister) could be somehow liquified and distilled, from a massive ocean, to a huge lake, to a small pond and eventually down to a glass-full and then down to a single drop...that drop would represent the "man" I am referring to.  Similarly think of good and bad being distilled (philosophically) to the drop of its respective nature.  Which would mix better with man?  The good drop or the bad one?

If you choose good then explain why.

lol mensa...just joshing.  But good answer.  I'll buy into that when I sit down and strum "cum bay yah" with all my hippie buddies.  Love is not necessary for procreation however...just sex.