Is Mankind Basically Good or Bad?

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:24 am

At the most basic level, is mankind basically good or bad? Are we doomed to war on ourselves to destruction, or can we overcome that nature? Which is stronger, our overall will to be good or to be bad?

You find a wallet with $800 dollars in it. Would you keep it? turn it in? Keep the money but not the rest?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:29 am

It's a jaded question, the way you pose it. Remove the value element of good/bad (if your capable of that) and re-ask.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:39 am

Hmmm...not sure what you mean, but OK. This is what I am basically wondering: All things equal, would people rather try to do good or do bad? Or maybe it's: Are humans basically selfish or selfless?

I see lots of examples of both, from people donating kidneys to save a stranger's life to people watching a crime and not even calling the police. I guess I'm wondering if mankind will mature and become great or dissolve into barbarism and destruction. The upward surge of civilization seems to imply that we will eventually be all right.

Health care is better, World Wars are a thing of the past, and we haven't used nuclear weapons on ourselves lately.

But then there's the fact that slavery still exists, we are polluting our world at a fantastic rate, and racism is rampant.

Which way will win out in the end?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:50 am

Can't do it, can you.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 11:03 am

Saint_;1338524 wrote: At the most basic level, is mankind basically good or bad? Are we doomed to war on ourselves to destruction, or can we overcome that nature? Which is stronger, our overall will to be good or to be bad?

You find a wallet with $800 dollars in it. Would you keep it? turn it in? Keep the money but not the rest?

I don't believe that we are born with a predisposition to be good or bad despite the "Bad Seed" myth. Mankind acquires goodness or badness due to many extrinsic factors.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:46 pm

I would think that we would evaluate an action as "good' and "bad" in virtue of how it affects us. So, whether people are good or bad really depends on what you expect out of them. But that evaluation of another human is centered on oneself ultimately, rather than others. So then the notion of selfishness requires a bit of selfishness to make the judgement.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:28 am

I'd say that most individuals are basically good. Given unfavourable circumstances survival instincts kick in and moral values fly out of the window - we are all capable of being bad but, within the safety net of their own society most people behave well according to the values of their society.

I'd say that most human institutions are bad - put a group of people together and give them a sniff of power and mostly they will gradually devolve however good their intentions were to start with. Dangle power as the carrot for joining the institution and it is a rare individual who can keep their integrity (politicians spring to mind here).

The above describes tendencies and not hard and fast rules.

Large groups acting in concert are invariably bad - mob rule erupts and the individuals run with the pack. Moral values have no place in a mob - thinking has no place in a mob, the mob reacts as a gestalt to whatever stimulus pulls its trigger.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:00 pm

Another related question is if lizards are basically good or bad. Or, are they just lizards doing what lizards do?

We do have a lizard brain, at bottom, of course.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:11 pm

yaaarrrgg;1338915 wrote: Another related question is if lizards are basically good or bad. Or, are they just lizards doing what lizards do?

We do have a lizard brain, at bottom, of course. :)I think we're all doing what we do But given the ability for some of us to accuratly predict consequences, we as humans can decide on other choices. Other species cannot do that, but then they don't have to because we eat them anyway.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:28 pm

Ahso!;1338919 wrote: I think we're all doing what we do But given the ability for some of us to accuratly predict consequences, we as humans can decide on other choices. Other species cannot do that, but then they don't have to because we eat them anyway.

I agee... it costs an animal energy to go out of it's way to cause trouble or attack another animal. Unless there's some immediate and huge payoff in the attack, such as a meal, it's not in the animal's survival interest to ever cause trouble. It wastes energy or resources. As long as we aren't on the menu, or threatening an animal, the animal won't bother us, and we won't bother them. Unless of course, they look like food.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:38 pm

I think we would bother them anyway due to this oversized brain of ours. They're not food because they look like food, they're food because we're the arogant super-species.

Cow's? pffft - we eat cows

Pigs? Pfft - we eat them too.

Whales? Lions? Horses? We'll eat them to if we want.

We not only dominate - we eat everything - now thats a species.

See my drift?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:41 pm

Ahso!;1338921 wrote: I think we would bother them anyway due to this oversized brain of ours. They're not food because they look like food, they're food because we're the arogant super-species.

Cow's? pffft - we eat cows

Pigs? Pfft - we eat them too.

Whales? Lions? Horses? We'll eat them to if we want.

We not only dominate - we eat everything - now thats a species.

See my drift?

Ah, yes I see your point. That is uniquely human.