Are humans innately good or evil?

[Bloodshadow]

No flaming and trolling in this thread, please. Don't go off-topic. If this is in the wrong board, please move it to the right one, thanks.

I believe that evil is solely caused by two factors: greed and selfishness. They make you want things (get more resources), and only care for yourself (self-preservation). On the most fundamental level, these two factors are biologically programmed into the instinctual parts of your brain. Where as for goodness, conscience and sympathy are only taught to you by the others around you. I'm not exactly sure about the nature of love, but with the most cynical view love is biologically programmed into your brain to make you reproduce and protect your children so that your species don't die out.

A couple of weeks ago I came to this conclusion that humans are innately evil, and I permanently lost hope in our species as a whole. Humans are imperfect and utterly beyond redemption. I'm being too cynical? Well, I'm depressed ever since that day, due to a number of factors such as my parents not wanting me to pursue a career in physics, my friend refusing to speak to me for no reason, and escalating psychological problems that started in my childhood. But let's not get into that, since that's not what this thread is about.

What do you think? Are humans innately good or evil?

EDIT:

No, this thread is not for debating the definitions of good and evil. When you post in this thread, assume that evil is selfishness plus greed. Ultimately, the question is whether altruism exists or not.

[DrunkDestroyer]

I think that everyone has an instinct to be greedy, or back in the animal kingdom, self preservation. It's part of the survival of the fittest. However, in a more modern scociety, even though we think it is no longer like that, it is. The fittest people are the most attractve, and are proven to live "better" lives (more friends, higher paid jobs). So if survival of the fittest still exists, greed must too.

However, I have seen humans do good things for others. Not huge things. Little things, like giving the change for an ice cream to a homeless man, or giving him the sandwich that was otherwise destined for the bin. And it's not just the same people. It's all sorts of people, from senior citizens to small children urged by their mothers to depressed looking teenagers.
You might choose to ignore these deeds, or regard them as insignificant, but really it's the thought of giving. And not just giving to a friend or relative, but to the people excluded from scociety.

Things coming from all parts of sciciety, not just the ones who can afford it and regard it as a 'good look', thats what gives you hope.

[Demagog]

Neither. Good and evil don't exist. What exists is people's judgements. If someone does something they don't like, that action is viewed as evil. The thing is, most people have very similar ideas as to what is good and evil. So it could be said that we are born good. But it may just be an effect of society.

[Bloodshadow]

However, I have seen humans do good things for others. Not huge things. Little things, like giving the change for an ice cream to a homeless man, or giving him the sandwich that was otherwise destined for the bin. And it's not just the same people. It's all sorts of people, from senior citizens to small children urged by their mothers to depressed looking teenagers.
You might choose to ignore these deeds, or regard them as insignificant, but really it's the thought of giving. And not just giving to a friend or relative, but to the people excluded from scociety.

Why would someone give money to help a homeless man? That act does not benefit the person in any way. The person only did it because he was taught to help others by his parents.

The thing is, most people have very similar ideas as to what is good and evil. So it could be said that we are born good. But it may just be an effect of society.

My original post stated that humans are born to be what most of us interpret as "evil". If a human was raised by wild beasts instead of other humans, then would that person do something to help others when that act of kindness does not benefit the person himself in any way?

[Memorystick]

Personally, I believe that humans are both innately good and evil (read: good=selfless/altruistic, evil=selfish/self obsessed), with varying degrees of balance.

[Daytripper]

Interesting issue. Now, what is good and evil entirely depends on the circumstances. Or we can say it does not exist. Easier is to say: It is considered ''good'' if it is good for the community. 

Most animals have no innate desire to help each other. There are hunting packs, but every member of the pack is usually assured some loot. There may be a few exceptions in dolphins and elephants too. Elephants usually support each other to a mass grave for no apparent reason at all.

But, even a monkey does not understand ''helping.'' A monkey will not lift a finger for another monkey if there is no food in it. It can't even understand it you are pointing to something the monkey is looking for.

No, humans are somewhat unique that way. If you think we are ''evil'' then consider we are the lesser of all evils in the animal kingdom!

To conclude: Innately, humans are not anything. Deprive an organism of any education, and it will still want food and water. This is a must. So we cannot say ''greed'' or being '''selfish'' is evil. Humans are taught to live in a community with the behaviour associated with a community. Live up to it, and we call it good. We have also raised our cats (solitary animals = evil??)  to live in human communities and our behaviour rubbed off on them. (Cats can befriend any organism if exposed to it from a young age, forming an alternative pack.) So eh, did we make them ''less evil?'' I don't think so.

[SeddyRocky]

Neither. Good and evil don't exist. What exists is people's judgements. If someone does something they don't like, that action is viewed as evil. The thing is, most people have very similar ideas as to what is good and evil. So it could be said that we are born good. But it may just be an effect of society.

This is almost exactly what I answer to this question.

[Bloodshadow]

I think pretty much every human has a general idea of what "evil" is. My question is, are humans innately evil by our own standards? Note that any time I say "evil" or "goodness", I mean the evil and goodness by our current standards, instead of "absolute" good or evil which don't exist.

Evil is instinctual, and goodness is only imposed upon us by society. When society crumbles, humans will regress to evil and savagery. Read Lord of the Flies by William Golding, and you'll see what I mean. Will humans still unconditionally care for each other when our society is destroyed by an apocalyptic event?

Another way to determine this is to give a human absolute power (omnipotence). I'm sure that I would become very evil indeed if I'm given the power. Power does not corrupt, because the corruption is already inside us; it's the lack of power that restrains our evil within.

I believe that greed and selfishness will eventually make humans destroy themselves. For example, most humans right now are too obsessed with their own benefits to work together and try to halt global warming.

[DrunkDestroyer]

Evil is instinctual, and goodness is only imposed upon us by society. When society crumbles, humans will regress to evil and savagery. Read Lord of the Flies by William Golding, and you'll see what I mean. Will humans still unconditionally care for each other when our society is destroyed by an apocalyptic event?

Lord of the Flies is the first thing I thought of when I read this question. But if 'evil' is instinctual, like in Lord of the Flies (and IMO they are not representations of evil, they are representations of chaos and anarchy), then is it 'evil' when a shark eats a fish? No, that's simply nature.
But humans, we have concious thought. And we see things in further depth than other animals. So if a lion kills a deer, it's not evil and long as it benefits from it's death. But when that comes into humans, suddenly it is much worse. But yes, humans will always care for someone other than themselves. If someone is completely friendless for too long, they will become mad, and really the deeds they do are no longer evil, as they no longer can think any better. If a (cheesy example) Zombie apocalypse came, would you really want to live if you were the only survivor? No, you would want someone else. Anyone else, even if you didn't particularly like them. Self preservation only goes so far. At a certain point, you would be willing to give up everything to be with someone else (assuming there are Zero alternatives), even saving their life before yours (unless of course you have gon crazy, which again isn't really evil)

Why would someone give money to help a homeless man? That act does not benefit the person in any way. The person only did it because he was taught to help others by his parents.

Because humans care for each other. They want so see each other rise. Whle a human might want to be slightly better than everyone else, most would not wan't to live in a giant mansion with excess money at the expense of the poverty of everyone else.
And people do many things not taught to them by their parents. OLr else religion would be in 100% of all humans, and noone would be aethiest. People have free will, and understand the consequences of their actions.

[harry959]

Actually, I don't think I would become evil. I will sometimes be rude, insult people, bully them and start arguments just for the heck of it, but I don't think I would go mad with power. I would probably impose a free market, then just sit back and settle any arguments that would arise. More on topic, humans are inherently evil, I've already realized that, it's just by our standards. A wolf would think that humans would be perfectly reasonable when we go insane. Humans have repressed our natrual urges in order to create "esprit de corps". For people that do not know what it means, it can be basicly interpreted as "giving up the individual in order to benefit the group". So yes, humans are inherently evil, but so? Even then, evil by one person could be interpreted as good by another. Honestly, cheer up. Man is imperfect but we can still get pretty damn close to it.

[onetwothree]

In Lord of the Flies, I feel it is important to note that one of the reasons order and peace degraded so quickly was the fact that they were school children, and were not yet mature enough to grasp abstract concepts like government and rules. It's also important to remember that the school children banded into tribes quickly, and didn't degrade into savagery within the first two hours of them landing on the island.

I would also like to know your definition of "innately evil". There are cases of frontal lobe disinhibition, where the person afflicted has little or no restraint over what he says or does. If this person degrades into insulting others, is he considered to be "innately evil"? What if the person was perfect before the accident, and was courteous and kind, and according to the general sense of "good" he was the perfect example of, would he still be considered "innately evil". I guess the question is does our actions define this evil, or our thoughts.

Another point I'd like to bring up is the fact that you stated that goodness is only an effect of our upbringing, and if society crumbles we revert to our evil ways. In our current society, we are held to be good to others, and to repress the evil side of us. You are correct in the fact that if those rules that prohibit evil behaviors were removed, then we would quickly swing to express those evil behaviors. But what about the reverse? What if we were constantly held to lie, cheat, and steal by our society. Altruism would be heavily frowned upon, and we would be taught to unconditionally hate and kill every one to help our own survival. If those restriction imposed by that society were to vanish, would not a select few exhibit altruism, if not by human nature, but by simply for the reason of going against society? Would that be an example of innate goodness?

Because I'm rather new to these forums, the quote button is a complete mystery to me >.< Bloodshadow, you raised a question of why would any of us help a homeless man, if it does not benefit us in any way. You said that the only reason was because he was taught by his parents or his upbringing to help others. Then are emotions such as pity, empathy, the ability to connect to others, exist only because society keeps on teaching them? I think no; that those emotions are there TO promote the idea of self-preservation. Which brings me to my next point.

Why does the idea of self-preservation must mean "evil"? What if the reason I helped that homeless person was because I wanted to have the assurance that if I were the homeless person, another would show kindness on me. Is that not self-preservation? Maximizing my own chances of survival by promoting the idea that others will help me if I am in need of that help? Would you consider that to be an "evil" concept or a "good" concept.

Been lurking for quite a while, but this topic piqued my interest... sorry if my ideas aren't coherently organized, it's been a hectic day.

[Bloodshadow]

All right, I didn't make a clear definition of what I consider "evil". Greed and selfishness by themselves are not evil; they're only evil when they inflict harm and misery upon other people.

I guess the question is does our actions define this evil, or our thoughts.

I would say that our intentions define us. If you are forced to kill a person to preserve yourself, then you will feel emotions such as remorse, regret, and disgust; the "evil" deed does not necessarily make you evil. However, I believe that this remorse you feel when you're forced to do an evil deed is imposed upon you by society. If you're not taught sympathy, then you will probably harm and kill another person without hesitation and regret if the deed has some sort of positive effect on yourself.

What if we were constantly held to lie, cheat, and steal by our society. Altruism would be heavily frowned upon, and we would be taught to unconditionally hate and kill every one to help our own survival.

There would be no society if the above is true. If we are taught to lie, cheat, and steal, then our society would quickly descend into complete chaos and anarchy. Even dystopian societies don't do that; they teach their people to unconditionally obey their leaders. This is what might happen in the future: a terrible war or apocalyptic event obliterates our society, and the world descends into complete chaos as people succumb to their own evil.

Then are emotions such as pity, empathy, the ability to connect to others, exist only because society keeps on teaching them? I think no; that those emotions are there TO promote the idea of self-preservation.

I do not understand where these emotions come from, biologically. Will a male lion/tiger attempt to "connect" with another male lion/tiger? The point of self-preservation is to preserve yourself, at the expense of others if necessary. Even if a male organism and a female organism are compelled to mate in order to preserve their species, they will have no more use of each other after the mating is done. The female mantis devours the male mantis after mating, correct?

What if the reason I helped that homeless person was because I wanted to have the assurance that if I were the homeless person, another would show kindness on me. Is that not self-preservation? Maximizing my own chances of survival by promoting the idea that others will help me if I am in need of that help?

You give money to a homeless man because you hope that if you become homeless in the future, others will give money to save you? I consider such thoughts of "faith" to be naive, which is why I refuse to believe in any form of religion whatsoever. I'm a melancholic person, and a few childhood incidents made me often expect the worst from people I interact with. If I give money to a homeless man, will he thank me? No, he'll probably just go buy some more drugs to sate his addiction. In China, you cannot even afford to help an old lady walk across the street; she might suddenly fall down and accuse you for physically assaulting her, and demand that you pay her money to compensate for physical and emotional damages. The world is a vile, twisted place, and being naive will only make other less naive people take advantage of you.