Is man inherently good?

[Psyquis52]

Is there an inherent brand of goodness inside each one of us that we must repel in order to practice those "evil" desires?
Or are we inherently evil and must fend off those urges to succumb to our dark side?

I know there was a dozen different ways that I could phrase those questions in order to make them less controversial but I can see so much more conversation sparking from what I just wrote. ;D

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I think we have a bit of both, we are made of the flesh, however we still have some compassion within all of us I believe. The way we were raised and our environment are key factors too.

[Dja Majista]

Oooo, I like this thread. I'm gonna start with the "I don't know" and come back when I have some time to think about it.

[Psyquis52]

Alright so say a person was raised in a neutral environment, with very neutral settings.
Never encountering good or evil in his entire life.
Which would that person be more prone to lean towards?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Depends on what they feel they have to gain I guess. Without things like money around, there would be a lot less evil.

[Psyquis52]

Is it money or selfishness?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Well the measure of "success" could be eliminated, so we wouldn't strive to be "over" the other.

[Psyquis52]

Someone hasn't been reading Genesis lately. Tsk-tsk.

Why did Cain kill Abel? Was it for money? I don't think so.
People don't just succumb to evil for financial reasons alone.

[Dja Majista]

There are so many more measures of success than money it's not even funny. I mean what about in a barter system? But really, I think psyquis is right, it's not money it's selfishness.
In Leviathan, Hobbes says that the natural condition of man is war because:
-Everyone wants everything
-Not everyone can have everything
-Everyone will compete for these things, and competition creates...
-War

Selfishness is one of the passions we all share. In fact, many will argue that every action starts with self interest to some extent. This is what Capitalism feeds off of to become so powerful. Selfishness is the key ingredient to a good capitalist economy.

Another thing is that supposedly everyone does everything for some good (concerning voluntary actions anyway). And I mean good in the completely relative sense. It could be for the good of anything, but mostly the good of the self.

So assuming that, everyone is capable of pursuing some good. But obviously that's not what it means to be good. Does being good mean to have good intentions, do good things, both, or something else entirely? Naturally I'm inclined to say it has to do with the intentions, because the actions could vary regardless of intentions. There are people who can appear to be doing things for good all their lives but really it's all for selfish intention. People often give to charity so that they don't feel like they're being stingy and they won't feel bad. Strangely enough, that counts as a selfish motive.

So what does it mean to be good? Perhaps it means being capable of pursuing the good of others regardless of yourself? But there's no grounds for that. We don't even know if there is an absolute good yet, much less what it is.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

May 15, 2008 14:28:48 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

There are so many more measures of success than money it's not even funny. I mean what about in a barter system? But really, I think psyquis is right, it's not money it's selfishness.
In Leviathan, Hobbes says that the natural condition of man is war because:
-Everyone wants everything
-Not everyone can have everything
-Everyone will compete for these things, and competition creates...
-War

Selfishness is one of the passions we all share. In fact, many will argue that every action starts with self interest to some extent. This is what Capitalism feeds off of to become so powerful. Selfishness is the key ingredient to a good capitalist economy.

Another thing is that supposedly everyone does everything for some good (concerning voluntary actions anyway). And I mean good in the completely relative sense. It could be for the good of anything, but mostly the good of the self.

So assuming that, everyone is capable of pursuing some good. But obviously that's not what it means to be good. Does being good mean to have good intentions, do good things, both, or something else entirely? Naturally I'm inclined to say it has to do with the intentions, because the actions could vary regardless of intentions. There are people who can appear to be doing things for good all their lives but really it's all for selfish intention. People often give to charity so that they don't feel like they're being stingy and they won't feel bad. Strangely enough, that counts as a selfish motive.

So what does it mean to be good? Perhaps it means being capable of pursuing the good of others regardless of yourself? But there's no grounds for that. We don't even know if there is an absolute good yet, much less what it is.

We're built to be selfish, because we have to keep ourselves alive, therefore we our the most important person to ourselves. We may love other people and "put them first", but it's because we feel right by doing so. There are other small parts people will argue, but that's the gist of it.

Money is one of the main means people feel advanced. Hence why communism took most of it away and we're afraid of it. That's the thing people do many evil acts because of, hence "The love of money is the root of evil."

[Dja Majista]

May 15, 2008 21:22:25 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

May 15, 2008 14:28:48 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

There are so many more measures of success than money it's not even funny. I mean what about in a barter system? But really, I think psyquis is right, it's not money it's selfishness.
In Leviathan, Hobbes says that the natural condition of man is war because:
-Everyone wants everything
-Not everyone can have everything
-Everyone will compete for these things, and competition creates...
-War

Selfishness is one of the passions we all share. In fact, many will argue that every action starts with self interest to some extent. This is what Capitalism feeds off of to become so powerful. Selfishness is the key ingredient to a good capitalist economy.

Another thing is that supposedly everyone does everything for some good (concerning voluntary actions anyway). And I mean good in the completely relative sense. It could be for the good of anything, but mostly the good of the self.

So assuming that, everyone is capable of pursuing some good. But obviously that's not what it means to be good. Does being good mean to have good intentions, do good things, both, or something else entirely? Naturally I'm inclined to say it has to do with the intentions, because the actions could vary regardless of intentions. There are people who can appear to be doing things for good all their lives but really it's all for selfish intention. People often give to charity so that they don't feel like they're being stingy and they won't feel bad. Strangely enough, that counts as a selfish motive.

So what does it mean to be good? Perhaps it means being capable of pursuing the good of others regardless of yourself? But there's no grounds for that. We don't even know if there is an absolute good yet, much less what it is.

We're built to be selfish, because we have to keep ourselves alive, therefore we our the most important person to ourselves. We may love other people and "put them first", but it's because we feel right by doing so. There are other small parts people will argue, but that's the gist of it.

agreed. Now the question is, is that always the case? Can a selfish motive really be found in every single action? Is that a bad thing? All of these are key questions I think we should focus on.

therefore we our the most important person to ourselves

arguable, but ok. I would think maybe when you're about to die, you'd think of a youth as more important than yourself, because they have their whole life ahead of them.

Money is one of the main means people feel advanced. Hence why communism took most of it away and we're afraid of it. That's the thing people do many evil acts because of, hence "The love of money is the root of evil."

Right, but I'm just saying money is too specific. I mean, you have the same problems with the barter system, and in that case, money isn't even in the equation. I'm thinking the terms "wealth" or "luxurious living" would be better.

Here's a question though. Is man capable of giving an anonymous gift to a person he doesn't know, knowing that overall it will make himself unhappy and the other person happy?
This actually ties back into the question of whether man is capable of making a voluntary action without some form of reason.

[Psyquis52]

For crying out loud. I step away from here for one day and I'm completely lost.

That sucks.

[Dja Majista]

We should just figure out what it means to be good (as opposed to evil) for now. That way we have some sort of bare bones criteria to work with.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

You don't have to quote everything you agree with me on and echo it... unless you just want to.

agreed. Now the question is, is that always the case? Can a selfish motive really be found in every single action? Is that a bad thing? All of these are key questions I think we should focus on.

To a degree, we are self fufilling. Selfishness is marketed as a bad thing but we have to be 'self'-ish to a degree, it's how we survive. That's not to say it's bad gain, like feeling good about helping others, but the bottom line is it still made you feel good.

arguable, but ok. I would think maybe when you're about to die, you'd think of a youth as more important than yourself, because they have their whole life ahead of them.

Doesn't matter, that's you weighing stuff in and being reasonable in the situation. I could jump in front of a bullet to save anyone in front of me, but it takes a lot of courage and feeling that it is right on my behalf, and not much time to think (usually), I could do it for someone old or young, a criminal or a saint.

Bottom line is we don't have to think about protecting ourselves, it's instinct. If I swing at you, you'll likely flinch. If something hurts you'll do something to prevent it. You don't have to learn to protect yourself, and you don't have to learn to keep yourself safe. I could see my life more important than a youth's because I have more experience and I could contribute more immediately, or because they haven't lived very long and it won't take long to produce something that lived such a short time. Like a newborn for instance, it just depends on the situation. How can we love someone else if we don't love ourselves, or take care of someone when we can't take care of ourselves? We are to help others, but we have to start with ourselves first, or else it gets nowhere.

Right, but I'm just saying money is too specific. I mean, you have the same problems with the barter system, and in that case, money isn't even in the equation. I'm thinking the terms "wealth" or "luxurious living" would be better.

It's the means for advancement, like I said you agree anyways, so no need to resay it.

Here's a question though. Is man capable of giving an anonymous gift to a person he doesn't know, knowing that overall it will make himself unhappy and the other person happy?
This actually ties back into the question of whether man is capable of making a voluntary action without some form of reason.

I can give someone my favorite blower and make them very happy, but I wouldn't do it unless I felt it was the right thing to do. Even if I didn't really want to do it.

That's just like me finding a million dollars in a bag somewhere and trying to find the owner and give it to them, no difference at all really.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

May 17, 2008 11:23:01 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

We should just figure out what it means to be good (as opposed to evil) for now. That way we have some sort of bare bones criteria to work with.

All discussions like this are really about the different views in the simplest meanings, you find that out after drilling your head in them so much. Actually even things like Wolverine vs. Spiderman come down to stuff like that.

[Dja Majista]

May 17, 2008 23:52:59 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

You don't have to quote everything you agree with me on and echo it... unless you just want to.

I do want to. So go play in traffic.
It's just a habit. Deal with it.

To a degree, we are self fufilling. Selfishness is marketed as a bad thing but we have to be 'self'-ish to a degree, it's how we survive. That's not to say it's bad gain, like feeling good about helping others, but the bottom line is it still made you feel good.

I see your point, but I'd say selfishness is not the word you're describing. Selfishness is viewed so pejoratively because it not only means "to take care of oneself" but to do so "without regard for others." I think your term "self fulfilling" is a much better fit.

Doesn't matter, that's you weighing stuff in and being reasonable in the situation. I could jump in front of a bullet to save anyone in front of me, but it takes a lot of courage and feeling that it is right on my behalf, and not much time to think (usually), I could do it for someone old or young, a criminal or a saint.

The human brain is extremely programmable. Things like reflexes and brain responses of sorts can be programmed over the course of one's life. That's all to say that, if you were to jump in front of a bullet you don't necessarily need time to think about why you want to save this person at that moment. You've probably already done the thinking. And assuming you care very deeply about this person, you might have opted earlier to tell yourself that you will protect this person even at the cost of your life. So that's what happens. And it's also possible for you to value everyone's life as greater than your own, in such a way that you would do anything to protect anyone. In which case, in the case of the old, the young, the criminal, and the saint, you'd probably just save whoever is closest. After all, you probably wouldn't have time to gauge which of them is most fit for saving on such short notice.

You don't have to learn to protect yourself, and you don't have to learn to keep yourself safe.

True. We do learn how to protect ourselves, but everything else is preprogrammed.

I can give someone my favorite blower and make them very happy, but I wouldn't do it unless I felt it was the right thing to do. Even if I didn't really want to do it.

That's just like me finding a million dollars in a bag somewhere and trying to find the owner and give it to them, no difference at all really.

"Right thing to do." So say you did feel it was the right thing to do. Would you do it because it's the right thing? Or would you do it because it will make you feel good, despite the assumption that nothing physical will come to you in return (Meaning not even God will repay you for this act of charity)?
I know that's a tough question. I don't know the answer myself. So say if you did the right thing, you know you will have no physical or emotional reward whatsoever for this act of charity, only a blower that some one besides you has. Furthermore, can we truly be happy for someone?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I think you just like to extend on the posts as much as possible, many people who get really into online debating have that phase.

We can program ourselves to defend ourselves *better*, but we are always built to take care of ourselves, we can't reproduce if we don't.

Like I said, if I was giving something I really liked to someone else, the only satisfaction I'd likely get is that they were happy (even if I didn't really have to, so that negates it being the "right thing" but if they don't want it, what's the point? If I gave you my genesis or something, and you didn't want it, what would be the point?

[Dja Majista]

May 21, 2008 22:25:57 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

I think you just like to extend on the posts as much as possible, many people who get really into online debating have that phase.

Or maybe I'm just trying to help people understand by explaining the logic succinctly, Mr. Deep-One-Liners. I don't know, for some reason, when I type my posts, I have this conceited mind set that people actually want to try and learn something from some of the things I say. I'm very conceited you know.

We can program ourselves to defend ourselves *better*, but we are always built to take care of ourselves, we can't reproduce if we don't.

Yeah I wasn't disagreeing with that. Just making sure we're clear.

Like I said, if I was giving something I really liked to someone else, the only satisfaction I'd likely get is that they were happy (even if I didn't really have to, so that negates it being the "right thing" but if they don't want it, what's the point? If I gave you my genesis or something, and you didn't want it, what would be the point?

That's different. Go ahead and assume it's the right thing and say, uh, they don't want it but it turns out you know they are going to need it for some reason. That would make it the right thing (also they're not gonna turn it down either). Again, no emotional or physical gain will come from it and assume you know this. Do you do it? Ok, yeah this is an extremely hypothetical situation, but have you ever experienced something similar to it? Question is open to anyone btw.
Anyone other than C equals psyquis, yeah I know.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Then it would be the right thing to do, making it the right thing to do. A person who was too prideful to take money but needed it would fall into that category.

[Dja Majista]

Nobody said the person was too prideful. But seriously, under the circumstances would you do it or not? Or can you say for certain?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

It doesn't matter if the person was too prideful or not, the point is they dont' want to take the money but they need it. A person would still get satisfaction from doing the right thing.

[Dja Majista]

...you're still not answering the question. The question is, given the circumstances, would you do it.

Let me phrase it this way: Do we do things ultimately because it's the right thing to do or ultimately because doing the right thing gives us satisfaction?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I already answered that, the satisfaction would come from doing it. We get that little satisfaction from at least knowing we did the right thing, even if the deed was not what we wanted or a "necessary evil." I answered your question, maybe not how you would have like it presented, but I did answer it.

[Dja Majista]

Jun 10, 2008 22:10:37 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

I already answered that, the satisfaction would come from doing it. We get that little satisfaction from at least knowing we did the right thing, even if the deed was not what we wanted or a "necessary evil." I answered your question, maybe not how you would have like it presented, but I did answer it.

alright, so you're telling me you'd get satisfaction from the deed. fine. Is that why you do it? Or do you do it at all? Most importantly, would you have to weigh the satisfaction of doing the right thing versus the inconvenience of losing your blower in order to decide?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Your going from "people" to me, are we asking if people do or do I?

[Dja Majista]

you, sir.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Stupid question, but could you verify the situation again. I'm asking because I need my blower lol.

Say I was going to get a new comp, but not right now. Someone needed a comp... no wait. Let's say I have some weights you wanted but felt wrong about just getting from me and keeping. I also wanted to keep them, but I knew you would get more use out of them then me, I would know it was the right thing and would feel better about the loss later on.

[Dja Majista]

Jun 16, 2008 22:25:44 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Stupid question, but could you verify the situation again. I'm asking because I need my blower lol.

Say I was going to get a new comp, but not right now. Someone needed a comp... no wait. Let's say I have some weights you wanted but felt wrong about just getting from me and keeping. I also wanted to keep them, but I knew you would get more use out of them then me, I would know it was the right thing and would feel better about the loss later on.

Sure so lets say you give me the weights. The question is did you do it so that I'd be happy or did you do it because you knew you'd be happy about doing the right thing? Now, like I said, it's a really hard question to answer so you might have to isolate some things. Say, you don't anticipate ever knowing if what you did was right in the long run, but you are certain that it would be a big help to me. In other words, you wouldn't really anticipate getting a good feeling out of it since you don't anticipate ever knowing if what your about to do is right. Would you do it anyway?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I couldn't say that honestly since I can't act like I know it's the right thing or not. Obviously getting something you want is going to make you happy and I'm going to feel good about the deed that I made you happy. If you hated what I did deep down then it wouldn't be something that would make me happy. That's the basic equation but people may act on different levels.

What do you feel *you* would do?

[Dja Majista]

It's hard for me to say too. But I think it's interesting to try and look at it this way. There are many animals that share mutual, commensalistic (sp), and parasitic relationships. In the case of comensalism, alligators allow a certain species of bird to come and pick their teeth (seems like a mutual relationship I know, but I remember my old textbook classifying it under commensalism), apparently the gators could care less either way. When it's not a problem at all for us to give someone food, we do it. But that's because it's the right thing to do. I believe we as humans are actually literally capable of being happy for one another, but that and the satisfaction of doing the right thing are also necessary prereqs for us to do good things for one another. In other words, we are essentially selfish. However there is nothing selfish about our capacity to be happy for one another as there is nothing selfish about feeling good for doing the right thing, so that still accounts for the idea that man is still good, at least to an extent...