Is human nature inherently good or evil?

Is human nature inherently good or evil?

  • Good

  • Evil


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
From a general perspective, I basically agree with @Hatsune Candy's points so far.

I also consider humans good by my personal standards as well—though my standards are so narrow that it's difficult to imagine a person who could break them. To see an explanation of what I personally consider an evil person, click on the following spoili. [spoili] Note that this definition is 100% subjective, and not up for debate. Yes, I realize how absurd it is.

For me to consider a person inherently evil, they must meet these criteria:
  • They must possess a moral code deeply embedded within themselves.
    • Note that an ethical code—one imposed by society that they have willingly adopted—does not suffice. It must be unshakeable, inherent to their nature. It can change, but at any given moment it must be inflexible.
    • This automatically discounts individuals that lack moral codes due to psychological conditions.
  • They must commit an act that breaks this moral code of their own volition.
    • Note that moral codes have exceptions built in—for example, murdering might be against my moral code, but it wouldn't be breaking it if I did it in self-defence, or if someone forced me to do it. These codes have ingrained layers of complexity.
    • Breaking it on a technicality doesn't count. It must be against the spirit of the code.
  • They must take full responsibility for this breach on an internal level.
    • Basically they have to be aware they broke their code, and aware that it was of their own volition.
    • People can think they broke their code without actually breaking it. See the note on ethics above.
  • They must not feel any guilt for breaking their moral code.
That's why I have difficulty imagining evil people. If they do not feel guilty for an action, is it even fair to say that such an action breached their moral code? So basically, I created a system in which humans are automatically un-evil, though not necessarily good. And this system is a core aspect of how I view the world.

Ever the idealist, I guess.[/spoili]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hatsune Candy
But literally all life is driven by self interest, so I fail to see how that's inherently bad. It can be bad, sure, but anything can be bad given the right situation.
this topic is not the place to challenge views

You're presenting a contrasting PoV which is a way of challenging the post you're quoting. You make a fair point, don't get me wrong, but in interest of not making this a debate thread, I can't discriminate.
 
You're presenting a contrasting PoV which is a way of challenging the post you're quoting. You make a fair point, don't get me wrong, but in interest of not making this a debate thread, I can't discriminate.
I must admit I may have been a bit too forward, but I wasn't trying to challenge anything; I was merely making a statement. Perhaps it would have done better to turn it into a question, but I thought that would of made it seem like I was challenging their viewpoint. Expect now you're telling me that by making a statement I was challenging them, so I honestly don't know. How in the hell am I supposed to have a discussion without presenting alternative viewpoints anyways? Isn't that the whole point of a discussion?
 
I must admit I may have been a bit too forward, but I wasn't trying to challenge anything; I was merely making a statement. Perhaps it would have done better to turn it into a question, but I thought that would of made it seem like I was challenging their viewpoint. Expect now you're telling that by making a statement I was challenging them, so I honestly don't know. How in the hell am I supposed to have a discussion without presenting opposing viewpoints anyways? Isn't that the whole point of a discussion?
It's more a poll than a discussion. As for how to phrase something, in the form of a question would be fine. Just keep in mind we're here to learn, rather than to convince. You don't need present an opposing view to try and understand someone else their viewpoint.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: Hatsune Candy
It's more a poll than a discussion. As for how to phrase something, in the form of a question would be fine. Just keep in mind we're here to learn, rather than to convince. You don't need present an opposing view to try and understand someone else their viewpoint.
I see... I completely misunderstood the point of this thread then, my sincerest apologies. Carry on.
 
In my opinion, inherently evil. It's hard to be good and easy to be evil, unless you've been conditioned to be good and feel guilty afterwards, but it's still as easy to do small evils, even on accident.

I'd go a bit in depth since my perception is a bit different, but some of the posts pretty much sum it up.
 
I'm going to say evil

Even children have their own self interest at heart.
They have to be taught to share, to be kind, not to fight or throw tantrums.
but no one teaches us how to lie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Artemis
JleNyaEl.jpg
 
It shouldn't surprise me that 'fight club' is your go to for determining man kinds morality.


tumblr_m9i0ofUrvz1qdql2ao1_500.gif


That being said, I prefer the book to the film. In which Tyler Durden isn't some nihilistic ubermensch but a complete fucking lunatic whose ideas the Narrator ultimately abandons in favour of that quote I originally quotated.

Which is to say: people aren't inherently anything. They just fucking are.

That's the cool thing about free will. Nature/nature may predispose you to certain attitudes and outlooks, but you ultimately have the choice to act the way you do. Blaming your own shitty behavior on humans being inherently evil is a fucking crutch. And attributing the good things you do to your species' natural altruism is doing yourself a disservice. You made those choices. No-one else did it for you.

Hell, if anything I'd suggest this poll could do with a third option: 'Neither'.
 
Holy fuck page 2 already.

I think good and evil are subjective to points of view. I think we ascribe values based to actions and things based on what we feel makes us comfortable or safe. Morals are rules we set for ourselves to accentuate that comfort and safety.
 
SIIITHHHHS. We are best suited as siiithssss

Red lighsabers and all
 
SIIITHHHHS. We are best suited as siiithssss
Grey Jedi Master Race.
Use the emotions without the random tantrums and trying to go all Goth & Emo. :P
 
I suppose I'll chalk in my opinion to this stew of opinions!

Right off the get-go, I voted evil. Human's try to do good, but the core motivation for many things that we do are at the expense of others. Whether it be intentional or unintentional. Of course, there are individual exceptions. I'm speaking from my point of view only, and by no way is it exhaustive.

A case example if you will: suppose there's one spot left for a venue that you've been dying to go to since you were young. However, as with all great things, there are thousands of others that are trying to get the same spot. Will you simply concede and give up this venue you've been keen to go to? No. You'll keep fighting for that spot and hope you'll get it instead of everyone else.

What I was trying to get at is every action that furthers our wants, ambitions, and goals can potentially come at someone else's expense. Furthermore, how is evil defined? There are many definitions of evil whether it's killing, mentally harming, stealing, etc. It really does vary from person to person.

Thus, I don't think human nature can be swayed to either good or bad. We're all caught in the middle of the spectrum between good and evil. Some are more extreme than others, but within that middle spectrum nevertheless.
 
Aside from what @Hatsune Candy said about there being no objective morality, I'll take it from the basis of my own morality, which is what I think you're going for, Kestrel.

My answer might surprise some, but in spite of my overall pessimism, I'd say people are naturally inclined to being inherently good. Most people don't like suffering and don't like inflicting suffering upon others, even animals to a certain extent. Empathy is a core part of being human, and when you lack it (either entirely or even just partially), we have labelled that an outright mental disorder. There are multiple kinds of disorders that feature "lack of empathy" as one of their central points. Our most heinous villains in stories are those who lack compassion or empathy--not those who are weak and disenfranchised. Whenever terrorist attacks occur, you have maybe a couple dozen perpetrators, and thousands if not millions who stand up and do everything they can to help. We have entire multimillion dollar organizations which survive off of charity alone that go worldwide to provide medical aid, food, and other relief supplies to people hit with disasters, such as tsunamis.

Heck, even the social justice fucktard brigades are generally trying to push for a better world. They want people to avoid situations that make them uncomfortable or upset, even if the actions for creating such a utopia become completely insane, they pursue it anyway.

We are constantly finding new ways to improve ourselves so as to limit and even entirely remove the old cruelties we once endured to survive. We invented medicine to save loved ones, and the medical industry is one of the most expensive worldwide. We created GMO's so as to feed more people at a cheaper cost, so nobody would have to starve anymore. There's been a bigger and bigger push for equality for LGBT, women, blacks, and so on, and there has been more progress in that regard over the past one hundred years than there has been in the previous five thousand. Animal Rights organizations grow and fight every day, and we have laws even to protect animals like dogs and cats--which have very minimal real value to society, but which we care about so much we don't want to see them abused.

Is humanity perfect? Hell naw. We're a whole rainbow roller-coaster'o'fucked up. Africa still has wandering warlords, we still have rich oligarchic dipshits trying to ignore how much shit they're dumping into the environment, there are people preaching diversity who want to achieve it by stripping away human rights from entire races and genders of people, the middle east is... Well... Yeah. However, let me tell you something.

It took a few assholes to blow up two towers and murder three thousand people.

Tens of thousands then flooded that scene, risking life and limb, to do everything they could to try and save people from a disaster that should have most certainly slaughtered everyone in those buildings. They managed to save thirty-something people.

Human compassion is more powerful and more prevalent than hatred and vain self-interest. It's only when people are afraid that they put their own lives above others. The sheer, monumental amount of money and time we throw into charity organizations of our own volition tells me that we're not inclined to be terrible and violent. The sheer number of people who preach love, and tolerance, and forgiveness, as central values... The sheer amount of stories we have that repeat the same message of "don't be the egocentric villain who cares naught for anyone but himself"... That tells me we generally want to be good people. Not unless there's something genuinely wrong with us in the head.

Society wouldn't even function if we were truly as cruel and capricious as some think we are. Society is dependent on the vast majority wanting to get along and work in peace. If even a sizable minority wanted to fuck up everything, you'd get ISIL in every country on Earth. So... By that virtue alone, the majority don't want war, they don't want to be cruel, and they want to be good people. Inherently. At some level.

The greatest threat to humanity in the modern world is fundamentalism, not some sort of inherent evil. It takes a special kind of evil to convince someone that perpetrating evil acts in the name of a good idea creates a Utopian society. Look at ISIL. They don't think they're evil, they don't think they're the villains. They've adopted a world that doesn't exist and will use any means necessary to create that world by destroying the one they currently live in. They've adopted a delusional world view. They no longer care nor are connected to the world around them. They refuse to listen to anyone else because they have put their own values above that of the actual, physical world they live in. Their faith is more important to them than reality itself.

When you've gone so far off the deep end that you reject reality in favour of ideology, you will find it easy to dismiss the arguments of others as heresy, and will find that dehumanization becomes the only logical course thereafter. At which point, attempting to strip away their human rights, or stoning them to death with rocks, becomes that much easier.

Yet, even that speaks volumes: We first have to mentally work up the mental state to dehumanize others before we can even try to kill them. It's easier with animals, but even then, the first time someone kills an animal, it's generally not a joyous experience, unless they've been mentally preparing for it.

tl;dr: In our base state, we are not inclined to violence and hatred, and generally deplore it on every level, save where there is no other choice.
 
Last edited:
Lemme get my man David Hume up in here to throw down some wisdom, too, cos he wrote entire fucking books on this issue.

Humey-Babes said:
"Heaven and hell suppose two distinct species of men, the good and the bad.

But the greatest part of mankind float betwixt vice and virtue."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brovo
One trait all life has in common is the desire to self-perpetuate. Life would not exist if we didn't have any overriding desire to exist. Therefore, at the core, all living things are self-interested. However, some life developed instincts/neurological attachments (through genetic trial and error) that allow for the formation of the herd/pack/whatever, based on the concept "working together increases our collective chances of survival". As humans evolved, we started developing that idea further, crafting the concept of society ("you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"), which is a more in-depth and developed version of 'the pack/herd/whatever'. Good and evil are constructs of society; actions beneficial to keeping everyone alive and well are considered 'good', actions detrimental to the functioning of society are 'evil'. With good and evil come rules, meant to dissuade others from 'evil' actions and therefore promote the amount of 'good' done. Some will ignore rules, if they desire/require more than what society has allotted them, and not all rules can be enforced.

I dunno exactly where I was going with this, but the point is: In the absence of society, there is no good or evil. People simply are. However, when society is present, good can be taught.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Hatsune Candy
Neither.

I'll be straight with everyone here and outright say that I believe human beings are inherently motivated by hedonism. We simply don't do unpleasant things without there being some sort of goal or end reward in mind.

As children, we're even presented the concept of morality as a series of consequences and rewards. We're taught how to balance risks and from there, we struggle most of our lives in balancing them and seeking rewards.

Therefore, in my opinion, what morality governs is exactly how human beings pursue hedonism and how it affects the overall collective. The actual laws of morality itself varies from person to person ... and very few actually believe they're the bad guy in their own stories. It's all interpretation from there.
 
In a less black and white poll I would choose something more grey but still leaning evil, because like others in this thread I prefer a spectrum rather than two points when talking morality. However, given just the two choices, evil is the one that fits best. I chose this, and I view humanity as more evil than good, for a few simple reasons.

First, humans are selfish by nature (yeah, I know, beating the dead horse, pretty much everyone has mentioned this one). Most good deeds are done in the hope of reward, be it in the form of money or goods or social recognition for the good deed or future reciprocation or so on. True altruism is almost unheard of, and many of those help up as examples of altruists were actually just people who had great PR campaigns (Mother Teresa, for example). Most people won't help someone out with even minor problems even if the only cost to them is a bit of time: see for example any time someone trips or drops their things when walking out in public and all the people who walk on by without lending a hand. There's an argument to be made that self-interest is just a biological constant, that all living things have evolved to look out for themselves, but there are two factors at play that make me dismiss that: we have proven to be able to rise above our base instincts if we so choose, and we have largely said fuck that when it comes to selfishness and have made a habit of harming and killing others of our own species for all sorts of stupid reasons, which you don't really find in other animals. The basic mindset of "me before others, unless there's something in it for me" seems to be default for humanity and if you're gonna place that on a morality scale it's definitely on the darker end.

Second, individual humans become morally worse in groups, so a group judgement must hew toward evil. @dragonesper already mentioned this point, but it's an important one. For a simple example of what I mean, read up on the bystander effect and the murder of Kitty Genovese. When lots of people are around, our natural selfish inclinations get even worse because we figure "eh, fuck it, not my problem, someone else will deal with it." It gets a lot worse than that though: we also use groups to dehumanize others in order to justify horrible acts against them. Instead of seeing the other human individuals, we can very easily (and do very frequently) view other groups as non-human, as a mass of identifying labels rather than a collection of people. This leads to everything from simple dickheadedness up to killing people of that other group because they're not part of your group. As if that wasn't bad enough, our group shit also leads us to justifying or forgiving the evils of other groups so long as they aren't committed against our own group. For a recent example of this in action, take a look at the story that popped up in September of 2015 about how US military people were told to ignore our Afghan allies sexually abusing children. Why? Because that's just their culture of course, so just ignore it, it would cause too many problems to try to civilize the brutes, just leave it alone, it's fine. The victims aren't important, they're just another part of that cultural group that isn't our own, so they'll just have to deal with it without our help. It's not our problem to deal with, it's all that other group's issue. This is how dehumanized views of other groups can lead to justifying evil they do: our selfishness makes us not want to bother to stop the bad shit, so we dehumanize the group and come up with a reason to explain why it's actually okay and there really isn't a need for us to intervene. The one good bit of our tribalism, that we'll be nicer and more helpful to a few select people who are part of our group(s) of contact, is massively overshadowed by all the bad it does, thus this pushes humanity further down the spectrum toward evil.

Third and finally, I'm a pessimistic asshole, in case you couldn't tell from reading the above. The basic state of human nature is selfish tribalism, and I just can't help but see more bad than good in that. We harm others to get what we want, and we stand back and let bad shit happen because it's too much of a bother to intervene (unless of course there's something in it for us, such as "let's go take out that shitty tyrant who is doing horrible things to his people and also take over his country's oil, teehee), so it's a pretty obvious choice.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Gwazi Magnum
I'm inclined to think that while humans can do incredibly shitty things either as individuals or collectively as a group, the good people does is more prevailant and a hell of a lot more understated. I would like to think that it was the goodwill of mankind that got us this far and trading with each other instead of fighting each other was partially due to our innate needs and abilities to cooperate. We do great things when we work together, and it's taken a long time, bit generally most of the world's gotten to the point where we realize it's better to work together than to fight each other. We have things like human rights and freedoms and functional democracies. We share information and goods, and we send aid when our neighbours need it. Overall, I'd say we're more on the positive than negative side.

I mean, it says a lot that the few dictatorships and absolute monarchies are hellholes with gross human rights violations and strained relations with the rest of the world. It's almost as if we as a species decided that even our lowest members of society deserve rights and dignity.

We don't always get it right, and we have tens of thousands of years of atrocities to support that, but we always kept moving forward and striving to do better. Sure, you can argue that it's entirely out of self interest, but I don't know about that. A lot of people do some pretty selfless things to help and inspire others, and it says a lot about us that they tend to be regarded as heroes. Hell, in Canada, one of our most famous heroes was Terry Fox, a young man who lost a leg to cancer and made it his goal to run across Canada to collect a dollar from every citizen to raise money to fight cancer and raise awareness. He ultimately died when the cancer spread, but decades later we still hold huge races to carry on his legacy.

I guess what I'm trying to say is don't always look at the bad, or it might be all you see. We live in a wonderful and peaceful time, the best in history, and we got here because generations before wanted to make the world a better place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brovo
Still not opening the doors to any kind of debate.

I just felt the need to comment, having seen everyone else's position.

I'm surprised (want to say pleasantly... But, there's nothing pleasant about people being selfish) to see so many people are actually on the same position as me in this situation...
Maybe it's just a more popular mindset online than IRL?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.