Are people GOOD IN NATURE or Bad???

[bagrat]

What do you mean good or bad in nature?

By who's or what standard?

there it is! moral relativism.

[nrshida]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3bfO1rE7Yg

[A8TOOL]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3bfO1rE7Yg

Cool vid.

At first I seen a juice man creeping up the alley and a man running from a broken..whatever they planned to do. Next i seen a man running from the cops MAYBE and into another man who feared for his safety in the second he had to react. Last I see the man who was on his toes and helped another avert possible death and or certain bodily harm at best successfully.

The film has no bearing on the actual question as he represents a small few of the population. Not many would have the reflex to do what he did. The majority of people would not risk their own hide to protect the innocent and probably take a stronger stance on keeping smokers out of public places than try to give attention to abolishing true evil in the world to give one shabby but effective example.

If you were to use the example of the AH general board, you might find many go without help when poised on a moral stance. ONCE ONE BEGINS TO POUNCE, the rest of the pack tears away at whats left as the side liners watch. They don't have enough courage to get involved even if they see wrong is being done. It's the fault of the poster and entertainment for the rest.

[Melvin]

We've been surrounded by strangers that would do us harm.

We've been surrounded by strangers that would shelter us.

Keep your blood clean, your body lean, and your mind sharp.

And don't trust anyone.

[nrshida]

The video was intended to illustrate the subjectivity that is ever present in human interactions. Individuals even have inconsistencies and conflicts in their own values and beliefs, that's even before before we discuss interactions.

Regarding acts of heroism, I personally feel torn over the issue. On some core level of my character I find it noble and admirable, on another more rational or perhaps a 'colder' level, I think it's foolish and irrational.

Interesting discussion.

P.S. What's  juice man?

[Simaril]

Well, we've heard from Rosseau (man in nature is basically good), from Hume (life is nasty brutish and short, competition and dominance determining all), from the Yin and Yang of eastern philosophy, and maybe a hint of Judeo-Chrisitian tradition of original sin. (Note to Skuzzy - talking about the philosophical tradition, not the religion - staying clear of rules!)

There is a very long tradition originally called "Natural Law" but now morphed into many related ideas - like for example "human rights." The basic idea is that inside each of s there is a sense of right and wrong that is separate from the bare instinct that makes the lion behave the way he does. This sense of right and wrong is universal, understandable, and intrinsic.

Those who disagree have to address some problems with the alternatives

1. If there is no intrinsic sense of right and wrong, if everything is relative:
a. What exactly is missing in true psychopaths, who do not seem to have the ability to tell right from wrong
b. If morality is cultural convention, how can we have grounds to criticize cultures that we would like to think are immoral? "Immoral" behavior that is agreed on by an entire culture would have to be by definition moral for them, and thus every bit as valid as our current system.

2. If humanity is basically good, well, please explain the world in general!
a. People on their own do not behave in moral fashion. Cue "Lord of the Flies" and "Heart of Darkness". Ignoring literature, look at Somalia and other failed states. Without cultural restraints, well, it's not pretty.  If you disagree, lets see some counterexamples.
b. Man in nature is not idyllic - Margaret Meade's studies in the early part of last century are now understood to have been distorted by expectations. Deeper, repeated studies of "unspoiled" cultures show all the greed, selfishnes, and incest that was supposed to be the result of horrible modernity

[Penguin]

Well, we've heard from Rosseau (man in nature is basically good), from Hume (life is nasty brutish and short, competition and dominance determining all), from the Yin and Yang of eastern philosophy, and maybe a hint of Judeo-Chrisitian tradition of original sin. (Note to Skuzzy - talking about the philosophical tradition, not the religion - staying clear of rules!)

There is a very long tradition originally called "Natural Law" but now morphed into many related ideas - like for example "human rights." The basic idea is that inside each of s there is a sense of right and wrong that is separate from the bare instinct that makes the lion behave the way he does. This sense of right and wrong is universal, understandable, and intrinsic.

Those who disagree have to address some problems with the alternatives

1. If there is no intrinsic sense of right and wrong, if everything is relative:
a. What exactly is missing in true psychopaths, who do not seem to have the ability to tell right from wrongb. If morality is cultural convention, how can we have grounds to criticize cultures that we would like to think are immoral? "Immoral" behavior that is agreed on by an entire culture would have to be by definition moral for them, and thus every bit as valid as our current system.
2. If humanity is basically good, well, please explain the world in general!
a. People on their own do not behave in moral fashion. Cue "Lord of the Flies" and "Heart of Darkness". Ignoring literature, look at Somalia and other failed states. Without cultural restraints, well, it's not pretty.  If you disagree, lets see some counterexamples.
b. Man in nature is not idyllic - Margaret Meade's studies in the early part of last century are now understood to have been distorted by expectations. Deeper, repeated studies of "unspoiled" cultures show all the greed, selfishnes, and incest that was supposed to be the result of horrible modernity

True, but what if we are the psychopaths, and they are the rational ones?
Yes, but you aren't very clear about what you want to say.  Is this an example to further your point?  Or are you making an observation?
Wait a minute, you just said that all morality is relative.   Someone's worldview will match what the other person does, but others' will not.  This is a truism, and it is a non-sequitur.
Truism, restatement of previous point, and a non-sequitur.

Try again 

-Penguin

[MORAY37]

Are people in general .....  GOOD IN NATURE or Bad  

There is no "Good" or "bad".  It is all perspective.  

There is a benefit/cost to every behavior.  Humans assign moral values to behaviors (almost exclusively their own) which are not intrinsically valued at any other level.

[CAP1]

What do you mean good or bad in nature?

By who's or what standard?

It can only be totaled at the end of a life and would presuppose a supernatural entity capable of such a feat, and reason for doing so.

If it was left for just humans to decide and we just die then it doesn't matter.

This is something that is filtered through a persons world view.

Because of some of the hidden claims in the question it results in a logical fallacy.   It presupposes a supernatural enity to be able to make the judgement based on absolutes. Most answers that are "good" will be based on some kind of evolutionary world view.  Most "bad" answers will be based on some kind of  ID or supernatural entity world view.
It's called a meta question. The answers have nothing to do with good or bad. It only will show what filter or world view a person uses.

read the following storie.....then answer the 2 questions.

 so first...how many really would have done that?
 second....how many think that'll be remembered in a year?

http://www.bangordailynews.com/story/Statewide/NJ-man-returns-Maine-womans-missing-backpack-and-23000,157982

[MORAY37]

in general, people are good.

This statement, "in general people are good" cannot be balanced logically with empirical data.  Moral relativism, and all.  There is no "good" or "bad".  There is only a cost/benefit analysis of every action.  Sometimes our higher brain overrules our primitive one, sometimes it does not.  There is no correlation of positive or negative in that.  

Running into a burning building to help someone is touted as being "a good, selfless action".  But, it is only "good" for the people or things that are "rescued".  The individual that enters the building has absolutely nothing to gain.  This is why you see people walking by others having heart attacks on the sidewalk (a very famous psychology experiment showed this).  They processed the situation and saw nothing to gain on a primitive level, and continued on their way.

 Some people are more selfless, others more selfish, and the rest of us are in between.  But, there are no "good" or "bad".

[CAP1]

This statement, "in general people are good" cannot be balanced logically with empirical data.  Moral relativism, and all.  There is no "good" or "bad".  There is only a cost/benefit analysis of every action.  Sometimes our higher brain overrules our primitive one, sometimes it does not.  There is no correlation of positive or negative in that.  

Running into a burning to help someone is touted as being "a good, selfless action".  But, it is only "good" for the people or things that are "rescued".  The individual that enters the building has absolutely nothing to gain.  This is why you see people walking by others having heart attacks on the sidewalk (a very famous psychology experiment showed this).  They processed the situation and saw nothing to gain on a primitive level, and continued on their way.

 Some people are more selfless, others more selfish, and the rest of us are in between.  But, there are no "good" or "bad".

bolded....i rest my case. "nothing to gain" is what makes this a "good" act. the problem, is that in 6 months, everyone will forget about it.

[MORAY37]

bolded....i rest my case. "nothing to gain" is what makes this a "good" act. the problem, is that in 6 months, everyone will forget about it.

But, define good, then.  

You can't.  

If he runs in "being good" and is killed, the act becomes "bad" for his family and friends, and his genetic line.  This is why we are a mix of selfless and selfish, not good and bad.  And it changes every second of every day.  

One day you might help an old lady across the street.  Two hours later, you drive by a guy broken down on the side of the highway without thinking.  You processed the information, and acted in what can be construed as "good" or "bad" by anyone... but there is no such measure.  

And it doesn't matter if any particular action is remembered.  You seem to be stuck on that.  I've personally saved 7 people's lives directly, over the course of my life (heart attacks, chokings and two near drownings).   If I hadn't been at at least 5 of the incidents, they would have surely died. I've  been thanked once.  Is that good or bad?  It can't be determined.  I wasn't looking for recognition, I was honestly challenged by the incidents.  That's why I got involved, not because I was "good".  

[grizz441]

in 6 months, everyone will forget about it.

So what's your point?

[CAP1]

So what's your point?

my point is the second part of my original post......good in nature, but don't remember good things as well or vividly as they remember bad.....

[Simaril]

True, but what if we are the psychopaths, and they are the rational ones?
Yes, but you aren't very clear about what you want to say.  Is this an example to further your point?  Or are you making an observation?
Wait a minute, you just said that all morality is relative.   Someone's worldview will match what the other person does, but others' will not.  This is a truism, and it is a non-sequitur.
Truism, restatement of previous point, and a non-sequitur.

Try again 

-Penguin

"What if we're the psychopaths" - Puh-lease. Read a little about what being a psychopath really means - Scientific American Mind had a really good article last month, should be available on line.

"Wait a minute...you just said" - Suggest you read a little more carefully. My statement was structured as an "if, then" proposition. Personally, I very much believe there is a Natural Law built into humanity. Those who believe in moral relativity, to be honest, haven't thought things through very well. In general, moral relativity sounds very open minded and good  - up to the point that someone whose moral system does not condemn thievery takes all your stuff!

"truism- restatement" - yeah, didn't go strictly with a tightly organized outline. But saying that I said it twice doesn't address the question...in fact it rather nicely dodges it!


So I'd also suggest "try again"!