Are People Basically Good?

[ST88]

This is suggested by Corvus' Good Deeds topic.

Do humans have a generally decent nature and are sometimes corrupted by circumstance? Or are we influenced by instincts of self-preservation and do good only because it benefits ourselves?

[mrmufin]

Do humans have a generally decent nature and are sometimes corrupted by circumstance? Or are we influenced by instincts of self-preservation and do good only because it benefits ourselves?

I think that --for the most part-- people are good, while respecting the notion that good can get pretty darn subjective. One of the best examples to support my assessment is the response to others in tragic circumstances: when fires, floods, hurricanes, etc. impose their havocs, a great many will freely and immediately offer support. We grab a few sandbags, bring jugs of fresh water, gather up canned goods, open up our checkbooks, etc. to help those impacted. Our own petty issues are quickly put into perspective. Regardless of what one may consider good, I doubt many would regard these acts of compassion as bad.

When circumstances are not as tragic, our virtues may indeed be tainted by circumstance. We look out for number one, baby. The ethical playing field takes on fuzzy boundaries, and we tend to play the game of life toward our own win, not our neighbor's. I don't think that we do good only because it may ultimately benefit ourselves, though that is often one side effect. I'd say our personal motivations for any specific good deed probably vary quite a bit, as do the motivations for non-good deeds. At any rate, I think it's safe to say that while self-preservation may well be a single component, there are numerous other components which impact our actions: compassion, selfishness, team spirit, etc. Often, what's good for me is good for the other guy, too; thus, looking out for my own interests may be perfectly consistent with helping another...

Regards,
mrmufin

[Cathar1950]

I tend to think of good and evil as values not attributes.
I think we project them (values judgements) on others.
I read this book,don't recall the name or author, but he was coming from a materialist position. He looked at the words for good as sensible,
made sense, fit in, and it worked. Evil as nonsense, didn't work ,and didn't fit in. Those might be good starting values.
Some where I read that perfect as in "be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect" meant mature or whole. The growth of a human should be from self centered(needed for our survival of course some one has to take care of us) to expanding in a sympathetic understanding and action.
Let's say I see some one and I am eating ice cream. Do I want to share.
Sure but why. Maybe because my mom told me to. But as I matured I see them as in need. Or i enjoy their joy.

[Icarus]

If people are basically good then why do we have laws?

[ST88]

If people are basically good then why do we have laws?

Some people might say that we are are susceptible to demonic influence from time to time. So our inclination to do the kinds of bad things that are recognized by secular governments directly corresponds to the levels of demonic activity. So, if people are bascially good, we would have to say that the only thing driving the badness in the world is the reach of a sea of badness extending into an unaware populace.

On the other hand, if secular law does not reflect religious law, then we would be able to say that even if people break secular law, their "goodness" in a religious sense was not affected. For example, is it a sin to exceed the speed limit? Jaywalk? You could argue that they were virtues because they are counter to sloth, and yet there are laws against them.

[Icarus]

ST88,
I am not sure you are arguing anything here. Maybe some clarity for me. thanks.

[Cathar1950]

Sometimes we are good sometimes we are bad.
Good girls go to heaven bad girls go everywhere?
We got all kinds of reason for laws that have nothing to do with goodness or badness. Unless it is defined by law as well as social mores.
Money could have a lot to do with laws and which ones are enforced.
First you need to know what you mean about good and that has many meanings I am not sure which one your using and if it fits.
There seems to be good and bad in everyone at leasts it's potential but that is only some normative word for good that I use around other people.
If you ask me is that person good. If I knew them I would say yes unless they are people I don't want to be around. Not to many of them I know personally, and I only got so much time.
It seems to be an experience and some value judgement that is relative to the situation and not a generalization I can make.
What is truth is like what is good. It Depends.
What do we really mean when we say God is good?
Or Spirit, what could that really mean? Defining one abstratction for another. I don't devalue or dismiss religious experience or spirituality.
I just some times wonder what they mean because they don't always seem the same things in discussion or analysis. It seems that any attempt would end in falling short due to it's rich, deep, personal and creative nature. They seem to be personal, communicated, felt, and even shared, but are shaped by our prejudices, experiences and culture
Yet we talk about it as if we knew what we were talking about even in political and social discourse. I think that is why civil, human rights are our only guard against tyranny when the debate get's heated.
So what is Good? It should be a bumper sticker.

[Curious]

I originally posted this in another thread but I believe it is relevant here:

As an individual, it is necessary for survival to sometimes act selfishly, for example, when there is imminent danger, individual survival is more likely when all one has to think about is oneself. In the case of social animals though, survival can also be more likely when the group acts as a unit. For society to gain benefit from numbers, it must have some benefit to the individual which outweighs the disadvantages. Such a group would not gain any overall advantage unless the benefits of being within the group outweighed the danger posed by other members of the group. The most obvious example here would be the risk of being killed by forces external to the group measured against the risk of being killed by members of the group. Those individuals that killed within the group would be unlikely to be allowed to remain within the group and be either killed (due to self defence or preservation by other members) or banished from the group and therefore be less likely to survive individually, both of which occur in other primate as well as other animal groups.
It may therefore be reasonable to suggest that both selfishness and unselfishness might confer some advantage on both individual and group survival. Atrocities are, as a rule, perpetrated out of selfishness while acts of compassion emanate from unselfishness (which itself might ultimately be considered selfish in respect to survival). Perhaps the evil doer has a proclivity towards self service while those who do good have a greater leaning towards group service or morality.

As we live in such large social groups with diverse interactions it is , I believe, logical to assume that there must be a significant benefit to such a state. For this social structure to survive intact it is necessary for the society as a whole to have within it (and ergo the individuals within it) a moral code of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. As a whole I believe that this might be interpreted as humanity being basically good (at least to other humans) but this does not mean that a particular individual might not be wholly evil in nature.

[ST88]

ST88,
I am not sure you are arguing anything here. Maybe some clarity for me. thanks.

You suggested that laws are in place because people are not basically good. I suggested that many if not most laws are not in place to regulate the goodness vs. badness of character. Civic laws are exclusively in place to maintain order in the society -- goodness and badness are essentially irrelevant. It is possible to commit a "good" act and get cited or arrested for it, and it is possible to commit a "bad" act and not be subject to civic punishment. As Curious points out, society itself has cost/benefit ratios for members to remain within the group, and these may have little to do with good vs. bad.

This, of course, depends on your definition of good, which was, I believe, part of the question.

So the answer to your question, why do we have laws?, I believe has less to do with good vs. bad character and more to do with maintaining order in society.

[Icarus]

Cathar1950,
Relativism is fine, until relativism becomes relative itself. After all what does "bumper sticker" really mean?


ST88,
But if "civic laws are in place to maintain order in society..." then people are not basically good then are they. If people are basically good, then people would in majority not commit offenses. And people being basically good, would be able to deal with any offense individually to the offender, and vice versa. ie: you wouldn't have to make an external law because that person already knows.

I think everyone here is arguing the wrong point. The argument is not the word "good" but the argument is the word "basically". If we are basic in any nature, then the few contradictions to that nature would not require forced laws against the minority contradictions.

[Dilettante]

ST88 wrote:

It is possible to commit a "good" act and get cited or arrested for it, and it is possible to commit a "bad" act and not be subject to civic punishment.

I think here you may be also include those instances, not entirely uncommon, when there is a conflict between ethics and morality (when "ethics" is defined as the preservation of persons qua persons, and "morality" the preservation of the group we belong to). A typical example of such a conflict is illustrated by the case of a family of farmers who, during a war, discover a wounded enemy soldier in their field. The man shows signs of having fallen from a downed enemy plane and is in a sorry state. They nurse him back to health, but only to find themselves faced with a terrible dilemma: current law (and, in this case, morality also) dictates that they must turn the man in. But he is likely to be tortured or executed, ethics dictate that they let him go. What would be the "good" decision in this case may depend on whether you value ethics over morality or viceversa.
Icarus wrote:

And people being basically good, would be able to deal with any offense individually to the offender, and vice versa. ie: you wouldn't have to make an external law because that person already knows.

I doubt that people would instinctively know what the speed limit is, or how much to pay in taxes. If you are thinking of moral laws, no one has ever provided convincing evidence that "natural law" exists, either written in the hearts of men and women, or in the starry skies above.

Since we learn how to behave towards others by being raised in the society of other humans, maybe a complementary question that needs to be addressed is "is society basically good?"