Are humans inherently good? (ethical, wisdom, March, crime)

[zman0]

I was having a debate recently with a friend about human morality. The question is, are humans inherently good, or do they have to be taught to be good?

His position was that humans are inherently good, and any teaching we receive that runs counter to our inherent morality is inappropriate and immoral. Basically it comes down to the "natural = right" position.

My position was that humans are inherently self-serving and immoral. As products of evolution, our instincts are guided towards self-preservation rather than what is best for our society (society being of various sizes: family, neighborhood, state, country).

By way of example, the Jewish bible (Tanakh or Old Testament) ennumerates certain behaviors it labels as "moral" which run counter to human instinct. But these "moral" behaviors have intrinsic benefits beyond the moral idea, examples include:
prohibitions against promiscuity - reduce STD incidence
prohibition against eating pork - reduce a known risk of disease
honor your father and mother - encourage familial harmony and recognizes the benefits of age and wisdom
prohibition against eating blood - a known carrier of many pathogens
ritual cleansing after using the bathroom - again, reduce disease
prohibition against homosexuality - encourage reproduction

While there are a good number of rules and laws that serve little benefit outside the context of religion, the existence of the beneficial rules evidences a human predaliction against these ideas.

Therefore, because morality teaches at least some behavior which is beneficial to survival of society (non-inherent) and not the individual (inherent), human morality must be something that is taught.

Thoughts?

[Tricky D]

I think that only personal experience can teach people the difference between right (good) and wrong (evil).
But I agree with Einstein who said:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices, but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfils the duty to express the results of his thought in clear form.
Albert Einstein, quoted in New York Times, March 19, 1940

Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience.
Albert Einstein

Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.
Albert Einstein

We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
Albert Einstein

and last but not least:

Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value.
Albert Einstein

[Rathagos]

I would say based on the most basic level of emotion is that man is basically evil/bad/immoral.

Even beyond the basic premise of survival, our emotions are geared as such that we act out in violence before friendship. We are suspicious of others outside of our comfort zones (be it a house, a town, a country, etc.). Jealousy, greed, and rage become more prevalent in an environment of less. When you face the basic emotions, far fewer are pleasant than unpleasant. Someone comes near you or your territory, the thoughts are not of welcome but of protection. I'm not arguing the philisophical right or wrong of them, simply what "is." Someone messes with your woman or child, thoughts of violence are first and foremost. Confrontation before compromise.

You can see it almost more readily in these forums. If someone disagrees with the thoughts, logic, or response of another (whether substantiated or not), the most common response is one of personal attack. It's easier to do that than admit to oneself that they may be wrong or that two sides, equally justifiable, exist.

When new concepts or tools are made, the first arguments are towards how they can be used destructively versus constructively. Knives, guns, artificial intelligence, stem cell research.

Additionally, we don't have to impliment laws on how to be bad to each other. We normally implement laws on how to be good to each other. Being "bad" to each other comes naturally to most, and therefore laws must be enacted on discouraging such behavior.

No... man is basically bad, and must be taught how to behave nicely. Kids are adults without biased emotions. By watching children in a natural environment before they are taught right from wrong, more often than not interactions evolve into fights than friendships. It's the intervention and social learning that changes them into desired (or more desired) behaviors.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by Rathagos

Being "bad" to each other comes naturally to most, and therefore laws must be enacted on discouraging such behavior.

True, being 'bad' comes naturally, but smart individuals might notice that being 'bad' is only short-term thinking.
In the end mankind preferred living in a society over a solitary life.
The thing is that our strength, our human society (read: our population) might become a global problem if we can’t contain it.
My point being: what once was good could become bad in the future.

[allah truth]

Is not a child innocent. The evolution of our intelect gave us the ability to learn the ways of rightousness but also the ways of wickedness. We are neither inheritally good nor bad but innocent. We have both primal and civilized instincts

[subsound]

"Bad" and "Good" are relative I believe. Anything that is a benefit to themselves people will try to do as long as the injury to others or risk is minimal. Those who really are raised well and do the right thing will be second fiddle to those who know how to play the game, even if what they are doing is in moral quandary.

What was once risky and could cause injury, say pork/shellfish and trichinosis or sex with making more little people then you can support, generally became good moral behavior. Now that it has changed, are the moral prerogatives still valid as well? Some are always valid (thou shall not kill), but are moral laws that were written 1,500 years ago all still valid (when people still thought of witches, the Earth at the center of the universe, and cliffs at the edge of the world)?

[jtur88]

I have come to the conclusion that some are and some are not, just as some are right-handed and some are left-handed. I think probably most people are. There are many people who are not inherently good, and need to be constantly reminded of what is good and what is bad, and they need a consant threat of reprisals if they do not obey the moral code that has been spoon-fed to them. They are called Christians. Of course, there are many Christians who are also inherently good, and they just go along with the crowd for social reasons of their own, and nod their heads when lessons of morality arise, recognizing how obvious and self-evident the morality part of it is..

Curiosity is like that, too. Some people are naturally curious, and some are not. No amount of formal education can turn an incurious person into a curious one, and the curious will remain curious even in the complete absence of schools. People are born that way. Moral people who embrace the church anyway are probably, mostly, simply incurious. Meaningful questions just never occur to them, and they wonder about nothing.

We have created churches to force non-moral people to behave morally, and we have created schools to force incurious people to learn the three Rs.. But the non-moral and the incurious still do not naturally exercise morality and curiosity unless a situation arises in which they need to refer back to what has been taught them.

[Padgett2]

There are people that seem to enjoy making others happy. There are also those who want only to make themselves happy regardless of what it does to others.

I don't see this as a learned behavior. Making the world a better place for others, is something that seems to be born in some. Others are born selfish, and unless there is something tangible in the way of material reward, that's the way they stay.

I don't think that true unselfishness can be taught. You can teach a child to share, but that doesn't mean that he WANTS to share.

To decide if something is moral or immoral, first you have to define just what morality is. NEVER would I consider something like eating a certain way a moral thing.

[texdav]

I don't thnlk so really. They bare born to do what gets themj what they want. That is the difference between being civilized and not being civiliaized IMO. It is a taught behavior and just like the homocide detectives have siad for century there are basically one of five movitive behind evry crime includung murder. Revenge;jealousy;greed and off the top of my head I can think of the other two just now. They are human traits that have to be controlled. Otherwise ;we would need no laws at all.Tyhe old criminal saying is that evry man has his price. All based o the fact that man is not good by nature and even what is accepted chnages with time.

[coldwynn]

Premise: Anything you do, you do because it is good FOR YOU.

It doesn't matter if it is -from a societal perspective- the most vile act, or the most altruistic, it is done because the person, having taken everything knowable into account, has judged a course of action that acrues the most good onto himself/herself. This applies to even the most seemingly selfless act - it is done because the person gains some good out of it and that gain outweighs the negatives of the sacrifice.

Conclusion: The good that we produce (for others) is only a by-product of the good that we seek for ourselves.

Corollary conclusion: We are neither moral or immoral - rather we are amoral.