Are people inherently good, or inherently evil?

I find the question difficult to answer because it presupposes a dualistic world view -- good vs. evil. Good and evil are contextual -- highly dependent on cultural norms, and even on the specifics of a situation. For example, "People steal hard-earned money from theirs that worked years to acquire it."

Is that "evil"? What if the person is stealing the money to feed themselves and their family? And if the person who has that money has far more than enough of it to spare, but wouldn't give the money to that "thief", even to save his life?

Many wealthy people might not deny a starving person food to their face, but they let money sit idle in the bank or the stock market while millions die of starvation and malnutrition around the world. Where is the evil? My point is that good and evil are human social constructs.

If an animal steals food from another, we don't consider it evil. If it kills, whether to eat or in self-defense, it's not evil. Heck, even when animals kill purely for sport or fun, we don't consider it evil (when was the last time your dog ate a bug, or your cat played with a lizard, with no intention of eating it?).

Humans, by nature, are driven by a couple of things: individual survival and the perpetuation of the species. In a social setting, we very quickly learn that certain behaviors support that, and others don't. If you steal from someone else who found food, they (or others) may steal from you.

It's far more efficient to cooperate to kill/gather the food and then share it. Survival of the species. If you look at our moral codes throughout history, particularly if you look at the fundamentals - theft, murder, honoring your elders, etc. -- it can all ultimately be tied to that, either directly or indirectly, i.e.

, the preservation of an orderly society increases the life expectancy of the individuals within it, whether against outside threats or by having less stress, better nutrition and healthcare, etc.That said, humans are complex creatures, and there's no one single survival strategy that will be the best for every individual, regardless of their circumstances. For example, let's say you cross the line of socially acceptable behavior one time, not because you're "evil" (what's that? ), but simply in the pursuit of pleasure -- stealing a candy bar, let's say.

If you get away with it, you become a little more willing to cross those social norms in the future. Or you get caught and go to jail. One person has a bad time, but not completely awful, and it scares them straight.

Another gets abused and resorts to violence or other survival skills to stay alive. They come out hardened -- not afraid of jail and more willing than ever before to do whatever is necessary for their own survival, without any consideration for society's boundaries. Certainly there are some genetic tendencies and chemical imbalances that may influence someone's reactions to these outside stimuli, but ultimately I think the concepts of good and evil are human creations, which could better be defined as "adhering to socio-cultural norms" and "violating socio-cultural norms".

And why people choose one path or another is a complex mix of circumstances and influences, with a little bit of genetics thrown in.

I believe that people are born inherently selfish, but they are trained within a culture to use their selfishness in culturally acceptable ways. Those who are successful at this are called "good" and those who are not, are "bad. " When one's selfishness infringes on the rights of others, then it is called "bad."

Sometimes one is in a situation where all of the choices seem to be wrong and one has to be chosen as a course of action. It can be a choice for economic survival when you don't know of any other way to get there without stepping on someone's toes or breaking the law. In the later case, it may be because of upbringing, choice of peers or cultural pressures that make it appear as if these choices need to be made.

Take were all of the German's evil, or were they just blind and culturally bound to follow the path that It was within their selfish need for survival and fear of death that propelled them to perpetrate so many heinous acts. Did most of them have an inherently good nature? I believe that people want to please other people, and that is within the boundaries of selfish action as well, but it can be a means of guiding the orientation towards acts that overall benefit not only themselves, but society in a general sense as well.

Take the book, "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, which features the struggle of business men towards selfish effort to create free-market capitalism in a judgmental society where that is not acceptable. The book exhaustively (and sometimes boringly in my estimation) extols the virtues of individualism and the value of pursuing entrepreneurial efforts to the whole benefit of society. It is therefore the context in which selfish acts are done that make them either good or bad.In the context of helping society, I believe that most people are going in the right direction because it is in their own self-interest to benefit not only themselves, but their families and society.

As an aside, If we rely on news sources (most of them) that emphasis murders, rapes, and other types of violence, we may be conditioned to believe that society overall has a malevolent bent. When you look at these type of behaviors objectively as a percentage of society you get something that looks like this for the U. S in 1994 and 2007: 1994 Emergency room visits due to violence: 1.4 million; total U.S. population 262 million; percent of pop.

0.53% of the total U.S. population assuming it was each visit was for a different person. 2007 Number of crimes, personal and property in the U.S.: roughly 22 million, total population 302 million; works out to 7.3% of the population affected. Some of the crimes may have been committed by one person more than once.

This data objectively shows that less than 10% of the people are "criminally bad" as judged by society. If you take it that another 10% are "morally bad," which may be an underestimation depending on your personal or cultural viewpoint, then you are left with 80% of the population that is "so-so or good." Conclusion, more people are good than bad.

However, all people are selfish. Related quotes: "Being selfish is not a bad thing." - Herbie Mann.

Society conditions its members (so-called socialization) to behave in ways that are acceptable to it. What acceptable means changes from one culture to the next, and even within a culture, evolves over time. This socialization process teaches the inherently selfish, fearful creature that a young human being is, that behaving in ways that infringe the rights of others, and hurts society, will result in bad things happening to the miscreant.

These could be e.g. One or more of the following (non exhaustive list): - ostracizing - exile - loss of freedom (e.g. Jail) - loss of privileges (e.g. Time-out, kicked off team, banned from website, etc. ) - loss of friendship or other relationship (e.g. Being disowned by parents, divorce, etc.) - monetary loss (e.g. Fines, loss of job, etc. ) Since the impact of being punished by society can often be much worse than the impact of having to curb your selfishness, most people are educated to behave in socially acceptable ways. Thus, my bottom line is as follows. A.

Inherently, people are neither good nor bad, but are born selfish and fearful. This is the result of the evolutionary advantages of having children make sure they get the sustenance they need, and avoid exposing themselves to the unknown, which in many cases could kill a baby. B.

Through good parenting and peer pressure, most people are taught to behave in ways that are not destructive to society. This is achieved by both positive and negative reinforcements. We call this education or socialization.

C. Most people care about "looking good" and the above socialization "takes", making them what we term "good". However, this is not being "good" in any absolute sense, just compliant with societal norms to a minimally acceptable extent.

This can also be termed as enlightened self-interest.D. A minority of people are inherently good. These are people who through whatever quirk of nature and/or nurture have learned to take pleasure from helping others.

In extreme cases these are canonized either officially (becoming saints) or unofficially.E. Another minority, through some different quirk of nature and/or nurture, take pleasure from inflicting pain and suffering on others. These are termed anti-social, or sociopaths.

Such people are what we'd term inherently bad. These are the people who torture animals, and/or become serial rapists, serial murderers, etc. So the answer to your question is - neither. Most people will do whatever it takes to survive, and through socialization we teach them that they will best survive and even thrive by getting along with others.

I cannot generalize and speak for "people" as to do so would be prejudicial and alarmingly inaccurate as not one person can speak for the inherent "good" or "evil" of all "people". I can say I personally and individually am inherently good as my first instincts are to be helpful and kind. I feel sadness and loss when I see evil in the actions of others and their effects on those stricken by the unfortunate circumstance to be in the path of these evil thoughts or actions they bring about feelings of compassion, sympathy, and empathy.

All I can say is I am inherently good. I believe we all have the potential to be either one, good or evil, environment and the choices made as a result of our environments will help us in swaying individually one way of the other. I do not believe people can be so broadly generalized as to be inherently "good" or inherently "evil" and to think they could be is again alarmingly shallow and disturbingly prejudicial.

While I do agree it changes as young children are taught the laws of society, as a father of 4, I can honestly tell you all human beings are naturally murderous, destructive little monsters. This isn't isolated to just my children but others I've known growing up. The first thing young children (just walking to age 4) do when they first see an animal they don't recognize (first experience with a frog, cat, whatever) is immediately have one of two reactions.

The first reaction is mostly for the overprotected child. They will run to Mommy. The second reaction is for the average child and that is to hurt and/or kill the new creature.

This violent behavior has nothing to do with whether that child has been raised to respect all life, was abused, or anything else. It's just human nature. The first thing all 4 of my children did when they saw a cat for the first time was to smack it in the head with something.

I live in an area full of kids and I've witnessed horrifying (by society's standards) acts by these children. I've seen 2 year old girls running around squeezing frogs just to watch them die, little boys nailing terrified animals with rocks, sticks, toys, whatever. If I see this I ask them to stop and explain my reasons but in reality, I remember being a kid and I singlehandedly led to the absence of crows in our area for years.

What I'm saying is it wasn't that long ago on an evolutionary scale that almost all people in the world were lawless, vile beings. I'm sorry but you can't simply pretend we are civilized when we simply aren't. It's all an illusion.As for the question of good vs evil, that pretty much goes hand in hand with religion.

Since I'm not religious, I don't put any stock in those two particular terms. I prefer "bad" and "nice". A bad person steals, hurts for fun, etc.. A nice person helps people with no thoughts of a reward, tries to keep kids in line when they see them doing stupid crap etc.. If you really need to know what interests most people, turn on the news.

Do you see high ratings for the happy kid who just set up a lawn mowing business that's free for the handicapped? Nope. You see high ratings for the insane mom who killed her kids with a machete, ate them, then blew up a city block using household cleaners.

People LOVE bad news and I think that feeds our inner monster that we sure as hell haven't evolved away from and won't anytime soon. People are generally savage who thrive on destruction and misery. Those who tell you otherwise are lying to themselves and others.

Even if abhorred by what they see, they still will go out of their way to see it. Sorry for bad language in picture, couldn't find the source photo.

I believe it depends on upbringing, local culture, and community. If it is a small close knit community, there is no reason to be evil or cause harm to others. If it is a huge population, where there is discrimination and different levels of monetary status well, all bets are off.

Someone who has status and power would be more apt to steal from those who don't. Also those that don't have anything, will often want what others have, and would be motivated to obtain material things, whatever means necessary. I truly think that we as human beings are born inherently good, pure and innocent.It is the blemishes and diffrences of society and culture that cause us to become subjective and discriminate.

" I think this idea of "natural" tendencies was developed from people like Darwin and Freud, with the idea that we have basic, primal impulses which we cannot avoid. However, if we impose the idea of natural instinct on the human being, we have to realize the consequences which follow. The idea of having a natural inclination contadicts the power of free will.

But since humans have free will, reason and a conscience, it is hard to argue that we also have been pre-programmed to act in a good or evil way. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Meaning, we can't be creatures of a predefined nature and also have the ability to willfully choose to act against that nature, it would negate the predefinition.

So I would say that we aren't good or evil by nature, but through our intellectual, emotional and cultural development, we develop tendencies and behavior which act for or against the improvement of mankind.

This is a question that can be debated from now until the end of time. First I would think that to determine good vs evil a person would need to know the difference between right and wrong as well as the ability to understand, or have the ability to show remorse for doing something wrong or evil. We could probably make an endless list of serial killers that I would have to sway to an opinion of inherently evil.

I believe that there may be a predisposition to one or the other genetically yes. How many times have we heard " I cant believe that he did that " . Environment also plays a factor as to the way a person may turn out.

If a child is raised not to respect life or others then is he inherently evil NO , factors outside of his genetics have helped determine what type of person he is. In the end I think we have a predisposition to evil and that characteristics of antisocial behaviour is usually exhibited in childhood.

I think people are born as somewhat of a blank slate. They do not know what good or evil is at first. I think if left alone, they would probably do bad things not to be evil, but just because they don't know any better.

Society has to teach them what is right at what is wrong. Those that adopt these teaching of how to be good become good, and those that ignore the teachings become bad. So overall I think people are born with natural habits that might be considered evil and it is up to society to teach them how to be good.

Then it is ultimately up to the individual to decide if they will be good or bad.

I would answer this question with a question. "Do you teach your toddler to say no? " "Do you teach your toddler to say "mine" when they grab a toy from another child?" "Do you teach your child to lie or steal?

" "In your own heart, do you feel more prone to be selfish, jealous, angry or malicious? " Our hearts are sick and desperately wicked. People are definitely, inherently evil.

This question has been treated by Hollywood's 1956 film "The Bad Seed". It addressed whether the evil nature (as opposed to impulse), was as viable as the good in the human psyche. This may be a bit more than a religious or psychological question alone since it requires deep insight into what defines "Good" and what defines "Evil".

One must agree that anything that begins, preserves, promotes, and elevates Life/ Being (what we as constituents of this 'state' are impelled to value) Hence, IS GOOD. May I also add, the benefit of Meaning attached to Being. The opposite of these things would constitute "Evil".

Meaning implies environs, a place or world so to speak and all the little complexities that may arise from the process of greater things becoming lesser, and the Simple becoming the complicated. The hazzard of evil probably arise from this natural (and probably supernatural) trend. In the grand scheme of things, good is probably the original sate of things and there is degeneration possible from that point if one is not mindful or aware.

I disagree with some ndu theologies that state beings of evil are created originally so, or that say...children, can be evil from birth. Part of the answer to such phenomena may lie hidden in the definition of states of existence not part of material life as we know it.... since we see so little of one style of existing, and because of the limited nature of the way we "run our world" evil and good are elusive principles. There are likely also definitions of good and evil beyond our ability to experience due to our physical state.

This question was framed as flame bait, I could go into a huge thought out and 'researched' debate on the moral and philosophical points on either side of the argument which date back before Socrates, but instead i'll just list my personal opinions. I believe people are inherently good, and seek to do good things, but in the process of life, in the natural occurrence of things, people are also above all self serving. Self serving in and of itself is not evil but self preserving.

The sideeffects of a selfish outlook in life is all the evil's we see committed. To continue along the good vs evil line, noone ever does something because they believe it was evil. They were all justified in their own minds.

We are both good and evil. We are spirits that are inherently good, living in a mortal, inherently imperfect bodies. The test of life is to see whether we will use our spirit to master the appetites of our bodies, or whether we will give into our impulses and allow the flesh to control us.

Today, many people are sacrifice the "greater good" because they are unwilling to put off immediate desires. In the 1960s, a professor at Stanford University performed an interesting study, testing the willpower of four-year-old children. He placed before them a large marshmallow and then told them they could eat it right away or, if they waited for 15 minutes, they could have two marshmallows.

He then left the children alone and watched what happened behind a two-way mirror. Some of the children ate the marshmallow immediately; some could wait only a few minutes before giving in to temptation. Only 30 percent were able to wait.It was a mildly interesting experiment, and the professor moved on to other areas of research, for, in his own words, “there are only so many things you can do with kids trying not to eat marshmallows.

€? But as time went on, he kept track of the children and began to notice an interesting correlation: the children who could not wait struggled later in life and had more behavioral problems, while those who waited tended to be more positive and better motivated, have higher grades and incomes, and have healthier relationships. What started as a simple experiment with children and marshmallows became a landmark study suggesting that the ability to wait—to be patient—was a key character trait that might predict later success in life.(See Jonah Lehrer, “Don’t!

The Secret of Self-Control,� New Yorker, May 18, 2009, 26–27) This illustrates the idea that we have competing desires within us, and that as we learn to control those desires, we are strengthened. In other words, as we make good choices, the good within us becomes stronger.

As we make poor choices, the evil within us becomes stronger (and seems less evil to us).

I don't think a person is inherently good or evil. I think that using that term is pretty mean. People arent born the way they are.

If we were, I think that we would be live in a much horrible world than the one that we already live in. The past is what makes the present. Everything that we go through in life is what makes us.

Our experiences, the good and the bad is what creates the us today. It would all depend on who we grew up around. If a kid is raised by parents that just didn't give a sh*t about anything and didn't tell the kid wrong from right, then the kid will most likely turn out to be one without what we call manners.

Will probably steal without caring. But can we judge them? I mean they weren't told what was right and what was wrong so it really isnt their fault Or there could be a person that was taught wrong from right but stole something because he really needed it because...say his family was starving so he stole money from that corner store.

Yes its bad for the company and they probably scarred the cashier for life, but to him, it was the only solution to his problem even tho he knows its a bad thing to do but hes doing it for a gd reason. Same thing goes for a person who ends up being a good person. Theyve only grown up to be like that because they were maybe shelterred all their life or theyve been through so much in their life that they now understand how life is.

For example, a person teases; makes jokes about a person committing suicide because they think it's st*p*d and that the person only wants attention. But then at some point in their life they become suicidal because they think no one loves them or they have money problems. Then that person attempts to commit suicide but fails.

Gets teased and realizes that its a serious problem that people have and looks at suicidal people different (hope that makes sense) NO ONE is born good or evil. It all depends on what they were brought up around and who they have crossed paths with. Our past makes us who we are.

I don’t think people are inherently good or evil. However, I think there are 2 "types" of personalities where one may consider the other as evil. For the sake of discussion I will label the types as 1) Master and 2) Slave.

Everyone has some mix of these. The "Master" type of personality tries to control his environment. "Masters" tend to pay attention to details, time, and they tend to think ahead to consequences.

Masters try to fix problems because they feel responsible for them happening. The "Slave" type of personality is dependent and reactive. They are at the mercy of whatever goes on around them.

They are late because they never have time. Slaves always blame others for problems because they are always the victims of something that is out of their control. When taken to extremes each are thought by the other to be evil.

For example, the master will criticize the slave as not being self reliant, while the slave will criticize the master as being too controlling. Now imagine this perception growing from childhood to adulthood. You can easily see that some children feel like victims (slave) and some feel that the world is their playground (masters).

If one personality does not learn to understand the other, the person will grow to be too extreme in whatever they are. As I stated above, every person has some mix of Master and Slave personality and a mature person will learn that some things need to be controlled while other things must be let go.

I do not believe people are inheartly good or evil. We learn the behaviors or traits of those around us. Parents, grandparents, friends..etc.

I actually believe that instead of being born selfish and trained otherwise, we are born inherently good and learn to be selfish. I wish I could quote the exact study, but I read an article on a German study a couple of years ago that tested this theory with small children. A carpenter was working on the outside of a building in a German city and, when people would walk by, he would purposely drop his tool to see who would help him.

The majority of the time, adults passed him by while small children and even toddlers immediately picked it up and handed it back. Society teaches us to be selfish, especially in recent times. The "me" generation that I was raised in (90s-00s) is all about personal liberation, but I think that most youth are misguided in their interpretation of this.

Instead of simply learning to take care of themselves and be sufficient and independent, many trample over others in order to reach their goals. The point is not a total disregard for others, but unfortunately this extreme is more common than its counterpart. I am a server at a popular restaurant chain to work my way through school, and I see a varied population segment on a daily basis.

There are a couple of key things that I have noticed in observing young people: first, parents seem to be worn out and certainly allow their children to behave much differently than I was taught to behave, and second, teenagers are much more polite and well-mannered alone than in groups. The fact that adults are struggling and often have a hard time controlling their children makes the prospect of that child growing into a selfish teenager quite probable and a bit scary, especially because it is not "cool" to be nice. I think, as a rule, people have a pretty good sense of what's right and wrong.It's not that society doesn't teach us this concept (if our parents don't), it's that it's simply acceptable to do morally wrong.

Our society is self-serving and unashamed, and it's sad considering the fact that we DO know better and that, I believe, it goes against human nature. Most people eventually feel guilty when they do something wrong; to me that's a sure sign that some kind of a conscience exists in the general public. Hopefully the next generation will realize the harm that we've done in being so inconsiderate and respect others as I was taught to do.

" My gut feeling is to say that people are inherently good, but acquire selfishness/evil over time by learning from society. We learn that it is "good" to have money, nice things, power, etc.And some people go to extreme measure to obtain this lifestyle, even if it means hurting others in the process. However, Lord of the Flies makes one wonder ... could we be inherently evil?

I'm reminded of pictures of people looting a Walmart in Louisiana after hurricane Katrina. Maybe there are both kinds of people.

People are born without any knowledge of good or bad. As they mature, the people around them and SOCIETY itself aids in their development. If you look at today's society, moral values are declining.

Government has made it a task to change laws to permit more leniency and to make legal, evils that since the beginning of time have been abhorred. Just through the changing of our laws, the meaning of life has been lessened. As children in the 50 and 60s kids were taught to not commit bad deeds.

Now it appears it is okay unless you get caught. Then if caught, with a lenient legal and judicial system, it is relatively easy to get a prole and be back on the streets to commit another crime. In Michigan, the Governor puts murderers back on the streets, so the state does not have to pay for their incarceration.

Anyway the botttom line is that parents are in a catch-22 situation. If they dicipline their children using corporal punishment they may be prosecuted by the state. The schools cannot teach faith , religion or right or wrong in the schools.

Government has made immorality no longer an evil but rsather has legalized it. Government has lessened the meaning of life. PEOPLE ARE NOT BORN INHERENTLY EVIL.

SOCIETY AND GEOVERNMENT IS MAKING IT THAT WAY BY CHANGING AMERICAN VALUES.

People are neither good nor evil. Good and evil are human concepts, and the minute you talk about one, you create the other. You can't have 'good' people unless you have some 'bad' people who make others look good by comparison, and you can't have 'bad' people unless other people are behaving more pleasantly (to YOU) and making those other people look bad.

People are people. We are what we are. Human beings consistently behave in a variety of ways, and each of us has the capacity for extreme behavior if faced with extreme conditions, unlimited opportunity, or unusual challenges.

If you knew you could make millions of dollars doing something that you knew was going to harm other people financially, and you knew that everyone else at your job was already doing this thing and that furthermore, your boss expected you to do it, would you do it? It's really hard to know what you would do until you are faced with that opportunity. It's easy to say, "No I would never do that," when you aren't looking at the real possibility of a million dollars at your real job.It's easy to say you'd never cheat on your wife if beautiful women aren't hurling themselves at you on a daily basis.

It's easy to say you'd never kill someone when no one is posing an immediate threat to your survival. A lot is made of the selfishness of human beings and the fact that every human being is first and foremost a self-interested creature. While there is obviously some truth in this, (survival is our first imperative), it's also true that we are social creatures and that we need to live in groups.

Social creatures who harm their fellows are behaving stupidly, not evilly. Harming members of your own group is dysfunctional behavior over the long haul. Sure it might get you something in the short term, but INFORMED self-interest tells you that every member of the group has something to offer and that alienating or attacking your own tribe is just stupid.

The guy you mug today might be your boss tomorrow. And so forth. That's why when people hurt other people they tend to first make them 'other'--they turn them into 'not us'.

It's more acceptable to harm people outside your group or people who are a perceived threat to your group. Human beings will always have the capacity for violence and treachery, but when we focus on our similarities instead of our differences we don't tap these capacities as often. Are we inherently good or inherently evil?

Neither! Is a monkey good or evil? How about a bird?

How about a bug? Even cockroaches do some 'good' by eating up garbage and decaying matter. Ted Bundy had excellent manners.

Mother Teresa was kind of rude. Life just isn't that simple. Wow, I sure wish it was though.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.