Are People Basically Bad?
Marine0I
Join Date: 2002-11-14 Member: 8639Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-14 Member: 8639Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Related to socialism</div> I recently got into an arguement with several members of "The Socialist Alternate" movement at my Uni. During the course of the arguement, they mentioned their would be no need for police in a socialist state. I asked what would be done with the criminal element of society. They replied that crime/selfishness/people doing the wrong thing was a result of being raised in a capitalist society, and that everyone was actually basically good.
Seeing as in the course of the arguement we returned to this point several times, I'm quite convinced its the "critical point" upon which my rejection and their accepting of Marxist ideals hinged upon. I did a quick forum search and this hasnt been discussed for ages, so I thought I'd ask the question again.
Humans: Do you think they are basically bad, basically evil, or a blank slate that depends upon imput. Nature vs nurture really. Personally, being a crazed religious zealot, I think that people are basically evil, but recognise evil for what it is and have to actually make an effort to prevent evil from manifesting itself in their actions.
Thoughts of forum community go here ||
v
Seeing as in the course of the arguement we returned to this point several times, I'm quite convinced its the "critical point" upon which my rejection and their accepting of Marxist ideals hinged upon. I did a quick forum search and this hasnt been discussed for ages, so I thought I'd ask the question again.
Humans: Do you think they are basically bad, basically evil, or a blank slate that depends upon imput. Nature vs nurture really. Personally, being a crazed religious zealot, I think that people are basically evil, but recognise evil for what it is and have to actually make an effort to prevent evil from manifesting itself in their actions.
Thoughts of forum community go here ||
v
Comments
On to the topic at hand: I don't really agree with the Cartesian ideal of the blank slate. Inherently, I believe that humans are self-centered and have a sense of self-preservation - I can't think of a single culture that hasn't developed at least a rudimentary idea or sense of ownership. While there are cultures that do not consider some things to be subject to ownership, there's not a single culture on the planet that doesn't have marriage in some form or other, and not to be demeaning in any sense, but marriage is, at its base, ownership. The wife has an exclusive claim to the husband, and the husband to the wife (or wives, as the case may be).
However, this still doesn't answer the question of whether humanity in and of itself is inherently evil; one could argue that the concept of ownership developed out of necessity. However, I think that our sense of self-preservation is based on instinct, and that denying the possibility of it being forcibly removed - if such a thing were even possible - by some extremely large-scale genetic or social engineering (reminiscent of GATTACA), there will always be selfishness attached to the human being, and the socialist ideal cannot be achieved.
*edit* grammar D:
I may be a leftist, but I'm not a socialist <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I agree. But why you support this but not free markets doesn't make sense.
Capitalism works <b>because</b> people are greedy. It is their insatiable desire for money that causes them to provide their fellow man with badly needed goods in exchange for his money. Furthermore the person buying the goods will do everything he can to give up as little money as possible. It's a massive greed struggle. It sounds like it ought to be cataclysmic but in reality it works better than the alternatives.
Then there are those who would argue that government needs to 'correct' for inefficiencies in the market. It's of course true capitalism is by no means perfect. But the problem is determing when to get involved and when to stay out. When do we help, and how much do we help with? Governments have a horrible track record for accomplishing this.
But to get back on topic: Innate human greed is why socialism doesn't work. Not to mention that it's almost impossible for an elite group of 'planners' to understand every nuance in every market.
You have people who dedicate their lives to helping the sick, the depressed, the needy... places like samaritans, most charities and the like.
Then at the other end of the spectrum you have those who'd take someone for all they're worth no matter how nice the person.
Science constantly seems to switch this way and that between nature and nurture too. What kind of reaction did you give when you heard the things on TV and radio stating scientists had found genetic traits? Do you really believe that all men are born adulterous? All women are born Sociable? That some are born to be killers?
Is the 'game' at the end of a night where you and friends try to vie to be the one who pays the bill genetic or social? Where's the greed in it? Where's the greed in buying things for the enjoyment of other people? Is it some sort of belief in possessions bringing social standing? Or is it a strange kind of selfishness in where the individual derives pleasure from other people enjoying themselves?
It's all good and well to sit back on the high throne of philosophical thoughts where generalisation and assumption can run riot, but take a look at the people you know and the murmuring masses of humanity who you walk through on the street and consider the question again.
Is life really so pure cut as good and evil, black and white?
Maybe it's easier to see the world as a collection of absolutes and extremes, but isn't it more likely people are merely shades of grey rather than the oh so typical tones of heartless dark and puritan light?
I don't think people are born good, but neither do I think they're born evil. Blank Slate? I'm not sure... maybe there's a balance of both sides in there waiting for the scales to be aligned ~shrug~
Who says I don't support free markets, or for that manner capitalism? Both are just fine in my opinion. I think that the US has a poor track record when it comes to free trade (the recent "free trade bill" between Australia and the US being a prime example of this) but this doesn't mean that I believe the concept is flawed.
On a related note, it's interesting to observe that as China becomes more capitalist, women are losing out. The social security network is being eroded and equal opportunity in the workplace is vanishing as well without the government controlling everything. But is this the fault of capitalism or ancient sexist beliefs? Whilst capitalism isn't directly responable, it has been the catalyst that has allowed such practicies to re-appear.
I, like most of the people on this forum, do not fit into the boundaries of traditional "left" and "right". Indeed, most people today in the west at least don't either.
However , I believe children are intrinsically good and , given a proper education and a happy childhood , will become nice and productive people. Look at the Summerhill case , it proved that a school only needs a few caring adults to work , and its pupils can vote reasonable rules for themselves. Once they were emptied of their frustrations , their violent tendencies vanished. It showed how the goodthinking victorian education mutilated the children's psyche , and was the only cause of perversion , violence and cruelty , not the "original sin"...
Decent education is a prerequisite to a socialist state. It's not like Stalin and Mao had an ideal education and childhood... imho the major reason socialist states imploded was due to the obsolete mentality of their rulers. The corruption of our democracy has the same origin , being raised in prison-like structures doesn't prepare people to freedom very well. Though there is much progress in modern education , the current generation of pupils is still being force fed with ideas from the medieval times.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Mar 19 2004, 03:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Mar 19 2004, 03:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Personally, being a crazed religious zealot, I think that people are basically evil, but recognise evil for what it is and have to actually make an effort to prevent evil from manifesting itself in their actions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's your choice. It doesn't fit my opinions of the matter.
My opinion is that all people are intrinsically selfish. It is just that we recognise that by co-operating that we can acheive more with less effort if we work together and by caring for others in our group we hope that our own survival is more likely.
This opinion on humans means that capitalism seems the best type of economic system as it rewards those who choose to work hard with more material wealth, which allows a more comfortable lifestyle. Concequently, any other economic system must reward hard work for it to allow the society to become better.
This doesn't mean capitalisim is perfect, however. Its just the best system avalible right now.
:\
I agree. But why you support this but not free markets doesn't make sense.
Capitalism works <b>because</b> people are greedy. It is their insatiable desire for money that causes them to provide their fellow man with badly needed goods in exchange for his money. Furthermore the person buying the goods will do everything he can to give up as little money as possible. It's a massive greed struggle. It sounds like it ought to be cataclysmic but in reality it works better than the alternatives. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's close. Capitalism works for <i>some people</i> <b>because</b> people are greedy. It is naturally a survival of the fittest. The idea behind a socialistic <i>economic system</i> is that everyone is entitled to a basic quality of life (and indeed, the US is slightly socialistic economically, and has a quite socialistic constitution (inherant rights, etc.)). Once everyone is up at the basic quality of life (continuum from nothing at full-on capitalism to infinitely high in communism), then you're free to let that greed get you even nicer things.
Saying that a nation with a socialistic economy and mentality would not need police is rediculous. The only way it would be true is if all crimes were motivated by a desire to achieve said basic quality of life, and theft is a choice way to achieve it. Instead, crime runs the gamut of basic survival, extreme greed (embezzling millions of dollars), boredom (shoplifting for kicks and thrills), spite (I take or destroy because I hate), and mental illness (if you can think of it, illness can probably cause it).
Socialism only fixes one of those.
CWAG, what on earth are you talking about? I can just about guarantee that you live in a country with socialistic economic practices, and you're quite deviant. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
edit: Just some thoughts on politicizing: Some people associate certain things with socialism in the same way that the USSR and People's Republic of China are associated with communism, and for some reason the KKK and Neonazis have taken to calling themselves a socialist party in the US (HA!). It's just like how the two main US political parties are "Republican" and "Democrat," where neither has anything to do with the systems they are named after. The Dems aren't more democratic than the Republicans, and the Republicans aren't more... republic-y than the Dems.
<span style='color:white'>If it's a fact, supply prove in the form of links or arguments. I'm not going to tolerate unfounded one-liners.</span>
I hope you didn't actually fall for this rethoric crap, I mean, come on, blaming all of societies problems on AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM?
Can we get a big LOL here, please this was hilarious...
Other than that, I think it's all genitics and that if someone is bad there's no cure for them, most 'bad' people in this world should just be jailed for life or executed.
I agree. But why you support this but not free markets doesn't make sense.
Capitalism works <b>because</b> people are greedy. It is their insatiable desire for money that causes them to provide their fellow man with badly needed goods in exchange for his money. Furthermore the person buying the goods will do everything he can to give up as little money as possible. It's a massive greed struggle. It sounds like it ought to be cataclysmic but in reality it works better than the alternatives.
Then there are those who would argue that government needs to 'correct' for inefficiencies in the market. It's of course true capitalism is by no means perfect. But the problem is determing when to get involved and when to stay out. When do we help, and how much do we help with? Governments have a horrible track record for accomplishing this.
But to get back on topic: Innate human greed is why socialism doesn't work. Not to mention that it's almost impossible for an elite group of 'planners' to understand every nuance in every market. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My thoughts exactly. The reason capitalism works is because all parties are greedy.
Supposing a kid goes into a convenient store and wants to buy a candy bar. This is a transaction that he wants to have taken place.
There are several scenarios:
The boy is trusting and the store owner is trusting, and the transaction is made with no harm done.
The boy is trusting and the store owner is greedy, and perhaps the store owner takes this to his advantage and overcharges for the candybar.
The boy is greedy and the store owner is trusting, with which case the boy takes this to his advantage and pockets several candybars in his pocket and pays for one.
The boy is greedy and the store owner is greedy, in which case both parties are equally wary of each other's motives to get something. They are both careful with the transaction, the owner watching for him stealing anything, the boy watching to see if he overcharges, and both get exactly what they want.
Two of these situations are ideal. If they are both trusting, the transaction goes smoothly likewise if both are greedy. The only time a problem comes up is if one is trusting and the other is not.
This is a detail specific, but it can be applied to any general situation. The only times when both parties get what they want is if they trust each other or if they take into consideration each other's wants/needs. While we could try to build a society around people always trusting each other, there will always be those who will take advantage of this trust and ruin the balance. So the only other solution is naturally for both parties to be distrustful and greedy.
This system is only best described as capitalism. Whether you believe it or not, the world would be a better place if everyone were greedy and distrustful. The reason you may not think so is simply because you have been the victim of a trust vs greedy transaction, but if you ask yourself if you had been distrustful if the same thing would have happened, you might find I'm right.
On a related note, it's interesting to observe that as China becomes more capitalist, women are losing out. The social security network is being eroded and equal opportunity in the workplace is vanishing as well without the government controlling everything. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, sorry for putting words in your mouth. Second, what deterimental effects is free trade having between Australia and the US, and more importantly, what are the benefits?
On China I'm not sure what you mean by "women are losing out", with specific example I mean. As for the social 'security' network, I didn't think China even had one to begin with. There was indeed a time when Doctors provided healthcare for free, but they became so overburdened and overworked, and waitlists just kept piling up. Sitting on a waitlist is hardly anyone's definition of 'security', especially for those with increasingly malignant tumors.
Hmm maybe I'm getting off-topic. Oh well. Nem will fix it if he chooses <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
There are several scenarios:
The boy is trusting and the store owner is trusting, and the transaction is made with no harm done.
The boy is trusting and the store owner is greedy, and perhaps the store owner takes this to his advantage and overcharges for the candybar.
The boy is greedy and the store owner is trusting, with which case the boy takes this to his advantage and pockets several candybars in his pocket and pays for one.
The boy is greedy and the store owner is greedy, in which case both parties are equally wary of each other's motives to get something. They are both careful with the transaction, the owner watching for him stealing anything, the boy watching to see if he overcharges, and both get exactly what they want. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sadly this is entirely true.
However, you're forgetting about a third and sometimes even fourth party, as there often are, which are the boy's father in this example. The boy's father can be either good (watchful, law-abiding, etc), or bad (a thief, abbusive, etc)
For the first example, the boy's father [if he is bad, will scold the son for not taking advantage of the clerk's good nature, but will otherwise let it go].
For the second, if the father finds out that the store owner is greedy in either case the store owner will get the beat down. The lawful father may call the police on the greedy store owner, and if the father is a thief or a criminal, the store owner may be sitting in the prison with the son's father with a broken nose.
The third, if the father is lawful will punish his son for stealing. If the father is a thief he will probably reward the son if he gets away freely, but punish him if he got caught.
The fourth is a combination of the last two. The son will be punished if he was caught and rewarded if he stole the bar successfully, and the store owner will almost always get hurt if he over-charges.
I'm sure that this could be related to 'employee - employer - government' with the fourth party possibly being (in this similarity) a friend or another family member, possibly along the lines of 'employee - employer - government - resistance/secret police' To get back on-topic (if i even think i went off-topic... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) everyone's actions influence everyone else's actions and behaviours. From the get-go, if the people who influence us are bad, we'll probably turn out rotten, as well. Even if the people were good, those who they influence can still become rotten (the mother giving her brat son/daughter toys and candy galore because the mother doesn't know what to do - in this case a good action becomes bad through miss-use and over-use.)
Its a keenly debated topic, with no real right answer.
Pure Capitalism is too imperfect to work practically, hence it's borrowing of some of socialisms better graces (dole etc).
Then again, with the way things are going we may end up as a corporate republic sooner or later...
Pure Capitalism is too imperfect to work practically, hence it's borrowing of some of socialisms better graces (dole etc).
Then again, with the way things are going we may end up as a corporate republic sooner or later... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The united states is already an aristocracy, how many average joe middle-lower class do you see in the white house exactly
I don't know about the whole "perfect" thing, but I would certainly venture that a socialistic economy could safeguard itself against those who would detract from its efficiency enough for it to still be better than pure capitalism.
(perhaps you mean utopian? If you do, it's not accurate, as socialism is rather practical rather than so much idealistic. Ensuring the public's needs are met and then releasing them to do what they like is much more realisitic than hoping everyone doesn't starve (capitalism) or hoping that people bother to get some hard work done (communism)).
edit: CWAG, the reason that you don't see the middle class in politics is because it's really profitable. Despite (relatively) piddly salaries, and the millions that either they or their campaign contributors spend getting elected, most public officials <i>still</i> leave office richer than they entered.
With motivation, talent, and most importantly education, political power is achievable. There is enough money to get those who can get the job done (whether the job is good or bad) into power. Ironically, the "American Dream" applies to the men and women many of us resent. Of course, it is easier to accomplish anything when you have some money to throw around...
With that said, humans have come to realize that survival is mutually assured through cooperation. Through the centuries, that cooperation as been realized via multitudes of languages, philosophies, religions, and governments. But when it really comes down to it, thats all there is: Survival.
Is survival good or bad? Neither, it just is. And I honestly think that humans have just as much chance at going about it in a good way as they do a bad way. Good and bad are subjective terms anyway.
With that said, my opinion is that since humans tend to view cooperation as a foundation for survival, they typically lean toward the good. Cooperation is typically thought of as good since it fulfills all parties desire for survival; but that perception is subjective as well.
With enough resources to ensure the well being of everyone, nobody really needs to be sacrificed. Besides, what was #1 rich dude going to do with his many billions anyways? Probably pay bums to fight for his amusement. That's certainly pushing humanity in a good direction. *cough*
I consider selfishness and evil VERY closely linked. Name a crime that happens without selfishness. I tried to think of one for ages, but couldnt produce.
Stealing - you dont think/care about how this will affect the other person, so you take their stuff. Even if you steal to feed your starving kids, you are still selfishly putting yourself and your family above someone else.
Murder - self explanitory. Rape - again. etc etc the list goes on. I cant think of one crime that doesnt have selfishness as a prime motivator.
Saying things like that is using a position in life as an excuse for the
way your life is now. 'The Man' is not trying to get you down. He probably
doesn't even know you exist.
-calldown
Even non-religious people who are very charitable and generous get a sense of pleasure/pride from helping... do you think they'd help if it didn't make them feel good about themselves in some way or other?
Isn't it quite easy to make all acts selfish if you look hard enough? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Even non-religious people who are very charitable and generous get a sense of pleasure/pride from helping... do you think they'd help if it didn't make them feel good about themselves in some way or other?
Isn't it quite easy to make all acts selfish if you look hard enough? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By saying most religions I hope you are not including Christianity. Its one religion that takes the line "Good wont save you, it wont even help you a little".
Its hard to pick a good act that happens without selfishness maybe, but it is at least possible. Perhaps what you mean is that its hard to find an good act in which selfishness cannot be implied/suspected. Finding an act of evil without selfishness being involved is well nigh impossible.
Good acts can have selfishness as a motivator, it is possible. Does it have to be a factor to make it good? No. Compare that to: Evil acts always have selfishness as a motivator, and as such selfishness is part of the definition.
Marine01
<span style='color:red'>edit by es quatro: Marine01 is on my account at uni and forget to log out as I have it set to log on as me automatically.</span>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think evil is subjective. Saying I think murder is wrong makes about as much sense as saying brocolli is wrong. Sure, murder is pointless, stupid, disgusting but I do think you have to be somewhat religious to accept that good, evil, wrong or right(when there is no logical correct or erroneous answer.) have a meaning at all.
I see "murder is wrong" as "I dislike murder", this makes the statement subjective which makes the question wheter humans are basically good or bad subjective and awkward.
But no, I think humans have an urge to cooperate and do gain alot from cooperation, but when you stand to gain more from betrayal than cooperation and there is no threat of some kind of revenge then some individuals would choose betrayal.
Stealing - you dont think/care about how this will affect the other person, so you take their stuff. Even if you steal to feed your starving kids, you are still selfishly putting yourself and your family above someone else.
Murder - self explanitory. Rape - again. etc etc the list goes on. I cant think of one crime that doesnt have selfishness as a prime motivator. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So? I can't think of anything anyone has ever done, ever, that wasn't entirely selfish and self centered except that done involuntarilly or by the mentally ill.
You don't give to charity because you wish to save those which are ill or poor, you give to charity because it makes YOU feel good to help those who are ill or poor or makes you look better to others.
VALVe isn't making HL2 because they know millions of people will enjoy it, their making it because it will get them oodles of cash and it makes THEM feel good to know that millions of people are enjoying their game.
Even assuming some kind of god exists for some weird reason, I can't imagine it created mankind out of kindness, we are just playthings.
etc.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Good acts can have selfishness as a motivator, it is possible. Does it have to be a factor to make it good? No. Compare that to: Evil acts always have selfishness as a motivator, and as such selfishness is part of the definition.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's just as easy to find a crime without selfishness as a motivator as it is to find something "good"(a very subjective statement unless you assume a divine right and wrong, I may find assuault and brocoli to be good things(even though I might have to be insane to do so)) without a motivator, e.g. a mentally ill person commits homocide. A criminally negligent person causes a fatal accident involving dynamite, heavy machinery or something such.
As long as you obey your will you are per definition doing a selfish act.
Christians haven't agreed on the topic of good works for centuries.
Anyway, doing good things easily has the potential to make life easier for you. If you're a jerk, everyone around you will be cranky and give you a rough time. Conversely, if you do some simple, nice things for the people around you, the atmosphere is much more positive, and everyone benefits.
That doesn't even really matter, though. You can't justify something as "good" by its effects, but rather the merit of the action itself. Murder is wrong even if it makes lots of people happy.
edit: correctly attributed quote to Marine01