Many ancients including Confucious and Lao Tzu took opposing views about this subject and their arguments are fascinating to read.  Their arguments are nearly 2,500 years old.  The Greeks also lively debated this question.

Of course, as dubs (and in fact, in most Christian faiths) we were taught that man was born inherently evil, and the quest is to overcome that and work towards the good.  In otherwords, we were born with Cancer and have to spend our lives finding the "cure."  Or else.

But does the evidence support that claim?  I have my own arguments and will present them as the thread develops, if indeed it develops.

I'm interested in at least fairly sound arguments, not just people pulling opinions out of where they defacate.  If you know what I mean here.

Remember, the discussion in this thread should hopefully be about whether ALL people are born with the tendency to be "not good" or whether ALL people are born with the tendency to be "good."  It's the "tendency" to be either good or not good from birth that I'm interested in debating.  As a child emerges from it's mother's body, what is it's "tendency", yet unnurtured as yet to be?

I would hope this would elicit some lively disucssion, since the ancient Chinese Masters were debating this very issue four hundred years before Christ was born, and since today this issue defines most religions of this world and determines the philosophies they put forward on their members.

Of course, this is an incomplete test.  Besides genetic variables, there are also environmental variables that enter into the soup.  That being so, I will further narrow down the sample.  Suppose we have three groups that are large enough to be tested and statiscally evaluated:  Group 1 consists of the (mainly Christian) variety that firmly believes that people are born inherently "bad" or even "wicked."  They teach their children this and influence them from the earliest age.  Group 2 consists of another variety that firmly believes that people are born inherently good and that there are other reasons not related to "original sin", genes or whatever that cause them to become bad.  They, too teach their children this philosopy.  Group 3 consists of, let's say atheists who are ambivalent about this issue and teach their children that they should do what they feel they have to do, without regards to consequences after this life.

Now we have a good sampling, and now we can discuss this issue.  I would enjoy hearing peoples responses in the narrow framework I've define.

Hint:  I assert people are born with more "good" tendencies than "bad" tendencies on the whole.  I have some very good arguments for my position and will present them when necessary.

What say ye?  Are we born inclined more towards "bad" or inclined more towards "good?"

Farkel 

Neither.

I dont believe in good and evil. I do believe in mental illness.

Is a lion evil because it kills?

I think we begin at a base/earthly level. Each time we are reincarnated we learn that lifes lesson and we move on to a more enlightened state until we become wholely spiritual.

Thank you for sharing, Gumby.

The plain truth is there are children born and raised in the most abusive and even evil of familes who turn out not to be evil or abusive people.  The reverse is also true:  children born in the most loving and nurturing of families turn out to evil.

This is a complex subject, and that is why I brought it up.  I read a piece written by so-called "experts" on the subject that concluded that if Hitler had been born in this generation, with the medications and treatments we have today, he would have never been the "Hitler" that we all know and despise.  Of course, this is conjecture, but these so-called "experts" assert that his particular form of mental illness is not difficult to treat.

Of course, there are many (off topic) variants to this:  if man is born with bad inclinations and God is theistic, then it must logically follow that God made it so.  Thus, a theistic God is evil by making it nearly hopeless for man, or cynical because he made it harder than it should be to please such a "loving Creator(tm)."   If man is born with bad inclinations and God is deistic, then one must wonder why this type of God (who doesn't give a rat) would make that way in the first place.  This type of a good is even more cynical than a theistic God.

God aside, though, what do the FACTS show about whether people are born good or evil.

If people are born good and they have evil parents who turn them into evil people, and those evil parents were also of the set that was born good, then what happened to their parents?  Or their grandparents?  Ad infinitum.  If all people were born good, then how could people have evil parents?

If true, what caused their parents to become evil, if they lived among the rest of the people who were also born good.

The reverse is true, too.  What causes the majority of people to be good, if they (and their parents and everyone else) were born with an inclination to be bad?

My head hurts.....

Farkel

 

This is a hard question to answer if you are not allowing genetics or environment into the equation. Even so, I would say that most, not all people are inherently good. I can not say all, because I believe that some people are, in essence, born evil. Why inherently good? Take two children and raise them in separate families. Place child one in a nurturing, supportive environment; child two in a hostile, neglectful one. I do not have the statistics to support this, but I believe due to the inherent good in all of us it is more likely for child two to be a positive influence on society than child one being a negative one.

Also, because most people don't go out doing harmful things to each other regularly and deliberately, this also shows humanity's inherent good.

Or I could be devil's advocate and give an equally weak argument for society's inherent evilness. . .

stinky,

: Also, because most people don't go out doing harmful things to each other regularly and deliberately, this also shows humanity's inherent good.

You have just formed the foundation of my argument that people are inherently good.  If true, such news is an anathema to religions who survive on the notion that we all tend towards evil naturally and we need their help (and also to give them lots of money) to get it right!

Farkel

Deep subject Farkel and an excellent way of presenting it!

As biology student I tend to look at this problem from a biological perspective.

First of all it really depends on how you define 'good' and 'evil'. Usually 'good' is defined as conforming to the group or society one is born in. 'Evil' is then defined as subverting from this conformation. The good one works with the system in a give and take manner, the evil one works the system more like a parasite. Since the urge to conform is very strong in the human tendencies (we are a flock- or herd like species) this would answer your question that humans are born 'good'.

In nature we see that in populations both 'conformers' (the majority) and the 'cheaters' (a minority) survive. Both strategies work. However, the cheaters can only exist because of this majority that conforms. Calling one of them 'bad' seems nonsense because one group creates the possibilities for the other. In the struggle to survive their are no rules. What matters is reproductive success. The strategy to reach such success is neither good nor bad. Just different roads to the same destination.

Just as in nature their are also 'cheaters' in the human population. But I think comparing the two is meaningless because we as humans are self-aware which makes a huge difference. What works best in our society is to conform to rules that equals the chances of survival for each individual. We see this as 'good'. Example: love, sharing. Intentionally harming another's chances is then seen as 'bad'. Example: stealing, murder.

Just my two cents,

Greven

I agree with Greven. Behavior and our reactions to it have been shaped by evolutionary pressures. And in different situations different survival stategies have been more successful. An interesting new theory about truly psychotic people proposes that while society will always (and rightly so)deem them as abberant, they do appear to be an actual viable genetic variety rather than a genetic defect. They display a whole range of common characteristics seemingly unrelated to the actual antisocial personality.

I believe in reincarnation and karma, altho not strictly in the eastern sense. I believe that the question of being born good or evil is one of karma now, but originally the first humans were neither, but had the potential for both. I do not believe in Original Sin. however I do believe that humans, as we are, were not intended to be created on this planet, but were a response to the material entrapment of spirits, and our humanness furnished a vehicle for salvation from this self-imposed condition. Sin being ignorance and Redemption being enlightenment. Enlightenment being the only thing that can free us from the matter so we can return to the spirit where we truly belong.

In which case Good and Evil would be the process. Verbs not Nouns.

Ravyn

We have inherited both good and bad traits. We are more naturally "good". Otherwise, people in general would be "wicked" and "evil" and that would show itself in the condition of humankind. I think generally, people are not "bad". They are "good"......I like to think of how people come together instinctively during a crisis. Look at 9-11. People showed their spirit of self-sacrifice, their "goodness".

excuse my ignorance but what does BTTT stand for?