Human Nature

[Amethyst]

This is a subject that came up this weekend when I was out, and though I didn't have the will to pursue it at the time, regardless of whom it came up with, but it's been weighing on my mind heavily since...

But I mean this as a serious, mature discussion. We don't have many of these here, but if you want to put some real thought into this, I think it'll be interesting.

As a whole, at their core, are humans naturally good, or bad? Or neither?

Forgive the overly cliche phrasing of the question, but the issue remains the same. I'll throw in my two cents when I'm not in class, though.

[nyu]

No guarantee that this will make sense, but some thoughts:

Good and bad are just labels which are rather subjective and determined a lot by social constructs. There was a lecture somewhere that mentioned something similar to the following:

[quote]Scenario 1: Say you were the conductor of a train that happened to go out of control. You see a group of 5 people on the tracks ahead, but you are unable to stop. You also notice that there is a turn-out which you are able to take, but on there is a single person on that track. So you can either take the side track and kill 1 person, or remain on your current course and kill 5. What do you do?

Scenario 2: Same out of control train on a track about to kill 5 people. However, this time you're not the conductor and there is no side track. You are standing on a bridge over the tracks witnessing the entire thing. There is a guy standing next to you. You have the opportunity to push the guy onto the tracks; killing him but saving the five on the track. What do you do now?[/quote]
(Ignoring the inprobability that pushing a guy in front of the train will stop anything; the idea is what counts)

I think a large number of people would choose to take the side track in scenario 1 ... that's considered the good/right thing to do. However, in scenario 2 it's not quite as clear. I think it's easily argued that pushing the guy onto the track is considered bad... I mean, he's just a helpless bystander like yourself. But in either case, the outcome is the same: kill 1 or kill 5.

So I don't really agree with saying that humans are either good or bad. I think actions are just what they are and that these actions can either be considered either good or bad depending on a number of different factors.

However, I think I'd agree with saying that humans are inherently selfish.


Also, said by a past roommate while playing Risk, as it's rather relevant:[quote]Don't you know that when you're being nice to other people, you're being mean to me? *sob*[/quote]Now every time we play Risk, somebody mentions that.

Yay found the lecture: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY[/url]

[Ikaru]

I can't really top what Nyu said, but...
He's right.

It's subjective, really. Considering the Black and White craze sweeping everywhere, I'll use N as an example.

[spoiler]
He was simply pursuing his ideals, the ideas that he was brought up with and lived with; He saw nothing wrong with what he was doing and was intent on making the future he saw a reality. Was he wrong? Maybe, who can say? Maybe he was right. Liberating Pokemon from their captivity under trainers... Is that so bad? And was he wrong in doing what he wanted? I sure don't think so. And in the end, with the city with the 8th gym, after Ghetsis' rally, people started to question: "Is he really a hero?" "Is this really what's for the best?" etc etc [s]sue me, I've already forgotten[/s]
[/spoiler]

So sure, there could be a such thing a "good" and "evil", no doubt.
But who draws the line?

That's my view on it.

[Mika-Chan!]

Good and evil are things that can only be defined by people, and as we all know people are stupid (im getting all controversial!)

so no i dont think any one is good or evil (unless were talking about video games >.> *looks over at Sephiroth and Adachi, and (unfortunatly) Ryoji*)

[Maelstrom]

People are inherently neutral. Because there's no such thing as good or evil. *tries to remember all the past good/evil topics he's ever posted in... which is a lot*

They are social constructs based upon one's relative point of view. However these labels are relatively useful in defining the social contracts that hold societies together with a minimum of interpersonal friction.

Of course, some constructs or defining lines for these distinctions are better than others.

"Natural" is a terrible argument, btw. Rape is a legitimate reproductive strategy that is seen a great deal in nature. Rape is 'natural.' Sure as hell doesn't mean it's right. Why do you suppose we consider it wrong though?

Because in the end, humans and other beings are inherently a bit selfish- we protect our own interests as much as we can, even if we're forced to compromise. To protect oneself one must protect all, it is said.

I could go on into the whole idea of justice then, and how it is a useful tool, but inherently imperfect. But I'm keeping this concise.


*wonders if this topic heralds the return of the Soap Box... and the old Mael*

[Amethyst]

Of course not inherently. But I'm asking from your own perspectives. Regardless of what the absolute or relativistic definitions are, just, in terms of what the words mean to you personally, are they good or bad?
Another, less ethically blurred way, to ask is... Are people trustworthy? Not certain people, but the population as a whole. There are other ways to approach it, but I think you get what I'm getting at?

[Tinkeryit]

Humans are born evil. They are selfish and violent, and do not care for the feelings of others. Ive worked in a nursery before, and this was at a church too mind you. Inheritantly Humans are evil. It takes an outside force for said human to change one's behavior to become "good"

Truly its the media, parentals, friends, and role models that cause a person to behave the way they do. If one is never taught to not take what they want, they shall take what they want. If someone is presented with the option of stealing for self gain, and another is telling them to, human nature dictates to take.

Humans are animals, and as all animals, you want. So you take. By whatever means necessary. Wether it is brutal actions, theivary, lying, or blackmailing, humans take.
Self gain, instant gratification, humans are evil.

[N8theGr8]

Humans are not evil in any sense of the word. No one is 'born' evil. They can be raised to be selfish, or to be selfless. They can be raised to take, or to give. If you believe in the story of Adam and Eve, then yes, humans were created imperfectly and they can and will do what they can for their own gain. But...you can't help but think that there [i]are[/i] good people out there. Humanity is way too broad to be able to label as good or bad, because there will always be a gigantic number of exceptions no matter where you stand. To combat what Myles said, does anyone actually know how a human would act if they were left alone, by themselves, in a completely empty climate void from anything to guide them? No, of course not, because they would die. Humans are much more dependent than other animals; we don't have instinct. But what we lack in instinct we make up in intelligence which is what shapes us to be the 'good' or 'evil' we represent. Another factor about humanity is that we shaped entirely by the world around us. Guardians, society, media, etc. I really doubt that humanity is born with 'free will' at all; I've always thought that a conscience is something created by what [i]you[/i] know to be right and wrong; what is accepted by society. If someone sees that killing others is how you get what you want, will they flinch at all when they're holding a gun against an innocent person to get what [i]they[/i] want? No. But if someone is told that killing is the most immoral thing to ever possibly be done, will they become a murderer when they have a weapon? More than likely, no. Humanity is not naturally evil, it is shaped by whatever is around it. We are the chameleon of habit and emotion.

[Bullet]

Humans are only what they make themselves to be. It is my belief that a person has absolute control over themselves, no one else can force them to become or do anything, if they do indeed do something, it is of their own free will. All humans have willpower, which is manipulated by their conception of "good" and "evil". As some others have stated, these do not truly exist except by our own definitions, their is no innate good or evil, we simply are who we are. Killing a person should not be any more evil than any other action, because evil does not truly exist except in our own minds. Society inevitably labels actions such as killing to be "morally wrong", and thus evil. But, those morals are once again the creation of humanity. So can you really justify that anything is truly good or evil? No, because such things simply do not exist. Anything simply is what it is, there is nothing good or evil about it. Life goes on. Humans live on. The universe continues to exist. In conclusion, and as a tl;dr or sorts, good and evil do not exist, humans define them. Any actions considered "good" or "evil" is simply that, an action. Humans have complete control of their actions, and they are not good or evil regardless of them.

[Amethyst]

It's interesting that the concept of free will is dragged in from opposite perspectives.
N8's idea that people have no free will is actually psychologically based, but extremely difficult to explain if only because the entire principle wraps itself in the tautology that it's based on.

There are two doors. One leads further into the maze, the other emits a shock as you touch its handle.
Try the left one. Shock. Try the right. Next room:
There are two doors. One leads further into the maze, the other emits a shock as you touch its handle.
Try the left one. Shock. Try the right. Next room:
There are two doors. One leads further into the maze, the other emits a shock as you touch its handle.
Try the left one. Shock. Try the right. Next room:
There are two doors. One leads further into the maze, the other emits a shock as you touch its handle.
...You're probably not going to want to touch that left handle.

Now, this can be said to be a result of cognitive reasoning and conditioned behavior, yes. And that at each path, the person chooses of their own free will which door to pick.
But assuming the person is sane, and does not wish to receive a shock, the person would invariably continue to choose the right for as long as they found this pattern to be true.
Is that really their choice? Or is it the structure of their mind that has propelled them down that path and fooled them at once into thinking that it was their own decision.
If things had happened this way to the same person on multiple planes of existence, would the person always choose the right path every time?
And if so, how can we be sure that he is really choosing, and not just rationalizing to himself the subconscious conditioned behavior.

In that sense, if I have made my meaning adequately clear, then we have no free will.

On the other hand, if you believe that the cognitive process is propelling the decision rather than conditioned behavior, and that across multiple planes the subject may choose to try one or the other door at any given time, then there is no rationalization, and we do have free will.

The process and result is the same; it's just a matter of how you want to interpret the blank space between.
Being that we at this time in technology and psychology cannot measure the thoughts of a person, if we are looking at this scenario objectively, we can probably rationally say that the subject does not have free will- because to us, and from an epistemological perspective, their thoughts do not exist.
However, if you yourself as the person who is reading and thinking about this right now were to enter this "maze" you would have free will in it, because you are clearly in touch with your own cognitive process and -know- that it is not simply conditioned behavior.
But nobody else can ever know that.
So in short, you are the only person who has any free will.

...That's what I think anyway. Reality changes based on who's viewing it. In my world, I am the only one with free will- but I realize that you all believe you do too. I just can never truly know that.

...I digress.

It becomes a matter of the self. What one wants to believe.
So new question:
[b]Are you, yourself, "good" or "evil"?[/b]

[Bullet]

Since I already obviously said that good and evil inherently don't exist, I guess I'll just use the layman's perception of good and evil.

I'm kinda iffy about this one. The most accurate evaluation of myself I can come up with is that I'm virtually "on the fence", perhaps leaning a bit towards evil. I'm that "trickster" character you may see in literature and media, helps the hero perhaps, but only for his own ends. I don't do anything overly leaning towards one side, I do things for my own benefit or amusement, for the most part anyways....

....wow, that was incredibly short

[Ninpen]

Amethyst, it's quite literally impossible to call one's self evil. I'm of the opinion that people cannot quite conceive of themselves being inherently bad; rather, that there is some kind of obscure justification that people can come up with to always answer good, even though one might be evil. Case in point, the attempted bomber @ Times Square, who believed that he tried to bomb a major international center for the good of Allah. If you want a more recent one, try Gadhafi, who views the rebels as insidious parasites that need to be wiped out for the good of Libya, and thereby entered a bloody civil war of his own choosing that has caused other countries to enter in on the side that they think is right.

The question is fallacious from the start, I think. We can't admit we're evil: it's just not how we're wired.

So I'll pass on the question, because my opinion of myself is inherently moot.

[Maelstrom]

Cough*pollplz*Cough

Oh boy, I got a barking cough that could raise the dead. ~_~

[Maelstrom]

You could also do neither and pass them on the stairs as you go about your business, neither gaining nor losing anything. Except maybe another what-if almost-regret infinite possibilities scenario playing thru your mind. "what if I knocked 'em down without getting caught?" "What if i knocked 'em down and they ended up dying cuz of it?" etc.

Are you evil or bad if you choose to do neither? Cuz on the one hand you're just taking care of yourself by saving the energy of helping out someone who's never helped you and will probably never ever help you, and on the other you could have done something to help based on a foggy notion that you should (because you'd want the same help if you were in their shoes?).

So is that really doing good, or performing a service with the expectation that you'd get similar help if you needed it? It's the social contract's insurance- we all do good for others not because we like to, but so as to make sure we'd get help if we were to suffer unfortunate circumstances. It's literally like insurance- you pay in some ammount against the possible future need that you will require aid in the future. You don't get anything back from it if nothing happens to you, and you don't seek it out because not having misfortune fall upon you is better than having it and receiving recompense.

So I guess I have a problem still with good and evil and by extensive altruism and the concept of selfishness.