Page 1 of 1 [ 9 posts ] 


Are people basically good or bad?
Poll ended at 27 Nov 2014, 12:40 pm
People are basically good. 29%  29%  [ 5 ]
People are basically bad 24%  24%  [ 4 ]
It is impossible to say if a person is good or bad 47%  47%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 17

Max1951
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 168
Location: Central Pa

15 Nov 2014, 12:40 pm

Isn't it all based on one's subjective feelings? Can we talk about the 'good' or 'bad' someone does? Maybe it's good for me and bad for you. Or maybe it's good for you now, but will be bad for you tomorrow.

Anyway, Isn't what everyone does based on what they inherit and what they experience in life? Can we say a thief is bad, if he uses his profit for a greater good? Are people basically good or bad, or is that a silly question? Take the survey.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

15 Nov 2014, 12:53 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk[/youtube]
This has been posted here before, but it's worth watching again...

I think this suggests that, at least, some forms of moral behavior are innate.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


anthropic_principle
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 23 Jul 2014
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 300

15 Nov 2014, 3:45 pm

the poll question is totally separate question to the thread title question lol.
the poll question assumes there is a good and bad but is asking whether humans are inherently one or the other.
i'd say there is, but not in the classical sense.
what's 'morally good', is generally what is beneficial to the survival and well-being of the species.
as to whether or not humans are naturally good, i'd say so or else we wouldn't be where we are today, it is why our species flourished.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

15 Nov 2014, 4:24 pm

There is moral relativism however the whole concept to morality as a concept, is related group behaviour. Proto-civilisation, needed a moral code to live under. It would be very different from what we consider "good" morals today.

Civilization on the whole thinks serial killer are bad these days. So this is a meme a biological device in top form a sort of consensus order to live in these complex groups.

However it is never total consensus in fact this is part of the overall change, as develop in our civilizations, our moral focus changes, it adapts.

Morality doesn't exist is isolation because in isolation it is just an idea, not a cultural meme. A meme is an idea that is taken up with a group of humans (or other animals), and become part of the culture.



khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

16 Nov 2014, 7:56 am

"The sky is blue, the tree is green. Salt is salty, sugar is sweet. The dog is barking "woof woof." Just like this, everything is truth. So you are also truth"

People do good things. People do bad things. The doing of good or bad does not define a life. Nothing is permanent. Without good, there cannot be bad. Yin/Yang.

http://books.google.com/books?id=qSTRAg ... 22&f=false



Max1951
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 168
Location: Central Pa

16 Nov 2014, 12:32 pm

"This has been posted here before, but it's worth watching again... "

Thank you for posting it. It was fascinating to watch. It makes on e wonder how tendencies for reciprocity and fairness are coded in the genes.

Some action in a neuron causes a chemical signal to enter the nucleus and transcribe a piece of DNA. The RNA is delivered to a ribosome which builds a molecule with it. One wonders how such activity could lead to a sense of fairness. It leads to questions like "What is fairness made of?" It seems impossible, yet...just look at the film.



izzeme
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,665

17 Nov 2014, 3:49 am

there are a subjective and an objective morality.
in objective morality, all herd animals are commonly "good", as in, they have the best intentions for the herd and their own families (although desicions might turn out wrong, it's the idea that i rate).

subjective moratily however is, by name and definition, subjective. each culture has its own rules, and as such, one should not apply morality from his/her own culture.
for example, it is considered 'bad' if you dump your kids with grandma every day so both parents can work, but in china, that is considered 'normal', being a stay-at-home parent is bad there, since you wont be able to afford a 'normal' childhood for your kids



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,540

17 Nov 2014, 12:52 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wgl3xwroPrQ[/youtube]

Here is another excellent video per the Bonobo that is much more peaceful than the Chimpanzee.

The Bonobo uses sex to resolve conflicts and does not do violence like chimpanzees.

The Bonobo also shares a similar empathy gene with human beings and empathy brain structures with humans that no other primates share.

So it appears that FREE sex may be a good thing, and perhaps freely accessible pornography is making the world over-all more peaceful too, for human beings.

And the good thing about it is it doesn't necessarily lead to more population or disease.

Put humans back in the wild, undomesticated and matriarchy leaning cultures will once again be the way as hunters and gatherers and free flowing sex with the child as the prize
to be raised by the village with much love and affectionate touching contact along with sharing and cooperating is the way of humans who are evolved to live with no more than
about 150 to 200 sets of connecting eyes.

It is large populations that humans are not evolved to live in that is an issue of what is 'bad' as culture moreover is the virus now, and not the innate nature of human beings.

Large societies means repression, oppression and subjugation of human nature, through fear for materialistic gains.

This is not what humans are evolved for overall, and the source of much so-called evil in the world in cultures.

But no, there's no fooling Mother Nature True. Go against her and pay the consequences is how it's always worked and continues to, as such.

It's predictable based on our inherent human nature, and Mother Nature True, overall.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Max1951
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2011
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 168
Location: Central Pa

17 Nov 2014, 1:16 pm

"there are a subjective and an objective morality."

Interesting distinction between types of morality. I wonder how moral these moralities are though. It seems to me that both types of morality place culpability on the person who breaks the moral code. People who break the code are "punished". People who are exemplary in upholding the code are "rewarded". I think that that is wrong and immoral.

It is immoral, because I believe our actions are attributable solely to our genetic heritage and to the events which we have faced in life. Why should a person be rewarded for a 'good' that he is able to do because he inherited the right kind of genes and had the right sort of experiences in his life? Why should a person be 'punished' because they were not lucky in the gene lottery, and faced an unfortunate life situation?

If a person is bad, I can not see how he can own the culpability for that. He is what genetics and society have made him. The society which raised him and his genealogical heritage bear all the responsibility for everything he is. Yes, if a person is dangerous, he may have to be kept away from people. But that should not be thought of as punishment, but as treatment. And we should not look down on him for HIS deeds, but we all, as society should share in the guilt for what he has done. And we as the quantum of society should analyze why the failure occurred and resolve to reform ourselves to keep such things from happening to people, by living justly and kindly.

Maybe I got my thoughts wrong again. What I think is unjust is the way everyone looks down on criminals, rather than trying to understand why they are the way they are. And so many are rewarded heaps for something upon which they expended no effort. I guess it insults my natural inclination to fairness. Maybe I am talking about 'free will', and categorically denying that such a thing exists.

Thanks for your interest.