Do you think people are...

[*K10*]

innately good or innately evil?

[Winter Storm]

I say innately both. I believe there is good and evil in all of us, it just takes a certain situation to bring it out in us.

[Luna456m]

I believe people are born good... then as life goes on things happen both good and bad....different people react in different way... they may experience something horrible and choose to learn from it move on and help others...or they may choose to retaliate hate everyone and become destructive ...

[biodork]

Yeah I don't feel I can vote. I tend to believe in the both theory. Maybe more of a blank slate, and what happens to you through your life shapes what you become.

[shimmer728]

Both, just at different times, as WS said.

[and1grad]

Evil. We're born selfish by necessity. I believe being selfish tends to lead more to evil acts than good. Evil acts in this world FAR outnumber those of the good.

[Kitty]

I don't think you're born with a blank slate, but I also don't think its one or the other. I don't think you can generalize all people. I believe people are born with a certain disposition (some may have a natural tendency to be more good, while others may tend to be more evil) however, it also depends on the situation (the nurture side of things).

It kind of reminds me of that Flannery O'Connor short story, "A Good Man is Hard to Find." Basically, extreme situations can force good or evil out of you.

[heatherf]

I believe people are born innately good. I also wonder if women as a whole think this more than men as a whole do?

[kimmer23]

i think most people INTEND to be good and do good things, but a lot of times it just doesnt turn out that way for one reason or another.

[*K10*]

I'm not really talking about how you are born... I'm talking about as ADULTS is our unconscious, underlying motive and internal mental state - good or evil.

I happen to think it's EVIL - MOST people suck! And those that don't STILL have that innate evil they are just SUPER good at being KIND and good! But put them in the right situation and that evil rears it's ugly head in ALL of us!

[mnkytrix]

Has anyone seen the movie Donnie Darko? This question reminds me of the part when Donnie is called up to put an 'X' on board that corresponds to the appropriate answer -- good or bad. He says it's not so simple when you take into account human emotion. That's my answer -- neither. There are so many experiences that make a person who they are that's it's an impossible question to answer. How can one be "good" or "bad" when they are born when they don't have any experience with either of them -- other than being in the womb? I think we just "are" and that life guides us to different outcomes/experiences.

[heatherf]

K10- I'm curious. Do you consider yourself an optomist or pessimist? And do you assume bad things will just happen to you, or that you won't be given "breaks" in life? When you go to an interview say- do you think that you'll be offered the job before you even go, or do you think that you don't have a chance in hell?

[tartytwenty]

Has anyone seen the movie Donnie Darko?

Yes, what a strange movie. We watched around Easter time, lol.

I agree with And1 on the selfish issue. However, because of it, people can be good or evil. If someone feels personal sastifaction with being good, then they are good. However if you feel that any selfishness is evil, then we are all evil. And for that, I voted Evil.

[*K10*]

Heather - I really believe I am both - it depends on the issue (and my mood :D ) but overall probably a pessimist. I've already been through alot in my 28 years and while I am thankful to still be standing and have alittle pride :p I think life is HARD and those that can take it with a grain of salt are LUCKY - I can't - I am a very deep and emotional person - I LIKE ME - but alot of people don't and I'm cool with that.

But... lately... the past year or so I feel like I am seeing humans through new glasses... they just seem so caught up in minutia - just like the Terri Schiavo case... who is she to me? Sure it sucks that she's dead now - but in my opinion the SADDEST part of the whole thing happened 15 years ago... and instead of worrying about Congress and the government intervening in our lives and getting all up in arms over it - I'd rather sit back and look at my own life and how Terri was 2 years younger than I am right now when she it all happened to her - it makes me want to live the best life I can - the last concern on my mind was protesting or getting mad at our government that can't seem to EVER win - and I sure as heck didn't cry when I heard she died. And this is just ONE situation that is prominent right now that I decided to use - I am not focused solely on that - just seemed like a good one to use for my example.

Honestly when going to an interview I don't think one way or the other - there are some jobs I *hope* the interview goes well cause I'm hoping to land the job - and some (like one I'm going on tomorrow) that I think "well it'll be a good time to brush up on my interviewing skills" but not crazy about the job. I guess I don't have a feeling one way or the other.

Sorry if pessimism scares any of you - it's not as NEGATIVE as you all might think - but it's definitely not a rosed color look at the world! :p

[heatherf]

Nah, you are who you are. I've just found that the people I know who are pessimists, see people as being inherently evil/bad. Like the whole world is against them or out to get them.

I'm just the complete opposite. I consider myself an opptomist and whaddya know- great things just seem to happen to me. Yeah, I've gone through some serious shit, but I refuse to let it consume me.

[Luna456m]

I agree with the fact that life itself changes people..I used to trust people ...give them the benefit of the doubt but now......NO WAY

I've been through too much to be that Naive... The problem i have is actually going with my gut...i always question myself..only to find that i was right in the first place......

[abby]

I think it depends on who you're talking about!
btw, LOVED donnie darko. has anyone rented the dvd w/the #1 fan video?

[coll214]

While I think most people have the possibility of both, more just seem to be evil, sadly. I'd like to think everyone could be good, but then why is there so much evil in the world? I like to think i'm an optimistic pessimist... while I WANT things to be good, I know many times it'll just go to hell.

[abby]

The problem is that many people are just looking out for themselves, so they find a way to justify screwing over other people in the process of getting what they want. Good people know their limits.

but i agree that good vs. evil is like black and white, there's much in between and outside those lines.

[pisces2473]

Oh Abby, I love your posts ;)

I'm a realist. Things can go good, and I hope they do, but there's always the chance that they'll go bad. What can you do?

[Desiderata]

how are we born selfish? I think I need some clarification on this one... are you suggesting just humans are born selfish? Cause the only thing I can think of is the fact the infant needs parents for sustinence and survival, but so do most animals, our kiddies just take longer. So, any newborn life is selfish??

[and1grad]

However, because of it, people can be good or evil. If someone feels personal sastifaction with being good, then they are good.
I think this is an excellent point. I just think most people tend to evil because of that selfishness.

So, any newborn life is selfish??
Absolutely. Like you said, babies cant fend for themselves so they are forced to be selfish.

[wordsmith]

I still believe that most people tend toward good than bad, but any number of things can corrupt that.

HOWEVER, I am learning that most people are far more selfish and self-focused than I would like to believe. I have spent most of my life surrounding myself with people who are by nature compassionate, giving, put others first, and and make every effort not to hurt other people. That's great, but because of that, I expect that of people now...which leads to a lot of hurt, because the most people just don't give a shit. I've had to learn and come to terms with the fact that most people just aren't that noble, and will put themselves first every time. Thankfully, I gravitate to more people who don't, but not always.

[Desiderata]

Absolutely. Like you said, babies cant fend for themselves so they are forced to be selfish.

That's not selfish, it's nature. If we were born capable, there wouldn't be that need there... besides, its the parents who CHOOSE to have the kid, knowing what it entails (aside from the psycho teen-moms on certain boards) and thus give themselves to that kid. Hell, if parents didn't want to do it, they could give the kid away.

[Lumburg]

Remember that psychological experiment where the tester told the participants to shock other participants when they got an answer wrong, and then started screaming at them to continue shocking them until the person was dead? And most people actually followed the order to kill the person? Yea...that's some evil right there... :eek:

[Kitty]

Remember that psychological experiment where the tester told the participants to shock other participants when they got an answer wrong, and then started screaming at them to continue shocking them until the person was dead? And most people actually followed the order to kill the person? Yea...that's some evil right there... :eek:

I think that experiment was to prove what people will follow orders even when there gut instincts may be telling them to do something different. It actually proves the opposite - most people didn't want to keep shocking the person, but they felt they had to. It's not evil.

[shinyleaf]

I think that experiment was to prove what people will follow orders even when there gut instincts may be telling them to do something different. It actually proves the opposite - most people didn't want to keep shocking the person, but they felt they had to. It's not evil.

That's right. Milgram wanted to see if the kinds of atrocities witnessed in WWII were due to a) an inherent "evil", perhaps specific to German people, as some theorized, or b) whether that sort of evil propensity had more to do with automaticity and following authourity. That experiment, and history since, has shown that it's overwhelmingly due to the latter. The participants in that experiment had to undergo some serious debriefing. Soldiers experiencing post-traumatic stress after battle indicates too, that it's against our nature to kill b/c someone else said to do so. But for some reason, we are compelled to comply with people who appear to have authourity.

[Lumburg]

I think that experiment was to prove what people will follow orders even when there gut instincts may be telling them to do something different. It actually proves the opposite - most people didn't want to keep shocking the person, but they felt they had to. It's not evil.

Ummm...I guess you could argue it either way. It could also be said that the experiment showed that people are inherently evil because they are willing to kill under orders, even if they don't want to. In other words, if people were inherently good, they wouldn't have followed the order to kill.

[Kitty]

Ummm...I guess you could argue it either way. It could also be said that the experiment showed that people are inherently evil because they are willing to kill under orders, even if they don't want to. In other words, if people were inherently good, they wouldn't have followed the order to kill.

But if they were inherently evil they wouldn't have felt any internal pressure. Almost all of the people who participated in the experiment explained that they had not wanted to shock the person. Isn't your gut instinct more inherent than the actual act you commit? The act (in this case shocking the person) is an evil act, but the situation caused the person to be evil. It wasn't inherent in them.

[Jedi of Zen]

I'm with Kitty and mnkytrix on this one. There is faaarr more to the question than simply "are people good or bad?", imho. Donnie Darko rocks, btw. The "Cunning Visions" infomercial on the DVD is definitely worth watching for those who haven't seen it.

[Lumburg]

But if they were inherently evil they wouldn't have felt any internal pressure.

Why have you concluded that feeling internal pressure to not do something negates the possibility of being evil? What if I told you Hitler had some "internal pressure" about his decision to kill millions of Jews but decided to do it anyway? Or what if I told you that a serial killer felt sorta bad every time he killed his victims? Would you say that precludes them from being evil?

I think most people would say it doesn't really matter what doubt or internal conflict the person felt in those cases. All that matters is the ultimate decision to commit the evil act.

Almost all of the people who participated in the experiment explained that they had not wanted to shock the person. Isn't your gut instinct more inherent than the actual act you commit?

Not necessarily. Something led all those people to "kill" the test subject every time. I'm not sure what that thing is, but if it prompts people to kill an innocent person, then I see the "thing" that produces the decision to kill as being just as inherent as the "gut feelings" one feels while killing.

In other words, it sounds like you're trying to argue that feeling is a more accurate indicator of human nature than the decisions we make. I don't see any reason to say that. Most people don't feel good about geting up and going to work every day, but they make a conscious decision to do so. What does that say? That humans are inherently lazy because they feel like they don't want to go to work? Or does it say they're inherently industrious because they all decide to go to work despite their feelings?

The act (in this case shocking the person) is an evil act, but the situation caused the person to be evil. It wasn't inherent in them.

The situation wasn't inherent in the people, but the internal mechanism which caused them to respond to the situation in the way they did was.

What does that say about humans? In the test, the professor who told the subject to shock until the victim was dead wasn't armed. All he did was scream. So most humans would rather kill someone innocent than be yelled at by a guy in a lab coat? How does that say people are inherently good?

[Kitty]

Why have you concluded that feeling internal pressure to not do something negates the possibility of being evil? What if I told you Hitler had some "internal pressure" about his decision to kill millions of Jews but decided to do it anyway? Or what if I told you that a serial killer felt sorta bad every time he killed his victims? Would you say that precludes them from being evil?

The question isn't whether or not the deed was evil. The deed is evil. What Hitler did was evil. The question is whether or not it was an inherent evil, or whether or not it was the situation/circumstance that made them evil. It's the nature vs. nurture arguement. Was Hitler born evil? or did the things that happened in his life cause him to be that way?

I wasn't saying that any internal pressure negates certain acts from being evil. However, I do thing it says something about the "nature" of the individual.


I think most people would say it doesn't really matter what doubt or internal conflict the person felt in those cases. All that matters is the ultimate decision to commit the evil act.

But don't you think there are a lot of factors that go into making a decision? Some of those factors depend on exteneral factors and situations. It's not just a matter of your innate good or evil.

Not necessarily. Something led all those people to "kill" the test subject every time. I'm not sure what that thing is, but if it prompts people to kill an innocent person, then I see the "thing" that produces the decision to kill as being just as inherent as the "gut feelings" one feels while killing.

Something did lead them to "kill" - and I think that thing was the situation. I guess it does make me think that there is something in people that is messed up that causes them to follow orders that lead to killing, but I just don't see that as being evil. We are all trained to listen to figures of authority. We are taught that from a very very young age. Therefore, when put in a situation where a figure of authority is commanding us to do something - most people have been trained to listen and follow rules/orders.

In other words, it sounds like you're trying to argue that feeling is a more accurate indicator of human nature than the decisions we make. I don't see any reason to say that. Most people don't feel good about geting up and going to work every day, but they make a conscious decision to do so. What does that say? That humans are inherently lazy because they feel like they don't want to go to work? Or does it say they're inherently industrious because they all decide to go to work despite their feelings?

Maybe that says that those people need to find jobs that they like :)

I think you misconstrued what I originally argued. I would respond to this statement the same way that I responded to the others. A decision does not say whether or not someone is innately good or evil, industrious or lazy.

What does that say about humans? In the test, the professor who told the subject to shock until the victim was dead wasn't armed. All he did was scream. So most humans would rather kill someone innocent than be yelled at by a guy in a lab coat? How does that say people are inherently good?

Again, I think this goes back to the fact that people have been taught their whole entire lives to trust figures of authority. The participants go through internal conflict during the experiment because they don't know what to do. They don't want to hurt someone, but they have also been taught to trust authority. So maybe that just says that the "nurture" factor is a lot stronger than the "nature" factor?

[and1grad]

That's not selfish, it's nature. If we were born capable, there wouldn't be that need there... besides, its the parents who CHOOSE to have the kid, knowing what it entails (aside from the psycho teen-moms on certain boards) and thus give themselves to that kid. Hell, if parents didn't want to do it, they could give the kid away.
It IS selfish. An infant cant help but be selfish b/c it is completely dependent. Whether or not its nature really doesnt matter.

I agree with you, kitty. Also other things that coulda influenced the act are fear and self-preservation.

[stonemonkey]

Hey, looks like the vote is split right down the middle. That's kinda cool. The battle of good vs. evil rages on....

[Lumburg]

Something did lead them to "kill" - and I think that thing was the situation. I guess it does make me think that there is something in people that is messed up that causes them to follow orders that lead to killing, but I just don't see that as being evil.

This is really at the heart of what you and I are arguing over. I do think that the thing in people that causes them to follow orders to kill is evil. You apparently don't.

To tell you the truth, I really don't think it's either. I don't believe in good/evil. I think they're unfalsifiable, nebulous concepts that are essentially meaningless, but I decided to argue that the experiment and what causes people to decide to kill is evidence of innate evil. There's no way you could prove they're evil or good. In fact, there's no way to prove anyone or anything is good or evil because they're unfalsifiable terms. I guess our little discussion has demonstrated that by leading into a grade A clusterfuck with no possible reslution other than to agree to disagree.

[Desiderata]

the experiment didn't prove inherent evilness, just a "current cultural" inherent bowing to authority. Like kitty said, we're told to follow authority figures, which is what these people did. Also, I'm not sure what the population of this study was, cause if this argument is being used to prove all mankind is evil, then there needs to be a good cross section, which I doubt was the case.