Most people are naturally good- debating human nature
Anglican Brat
Shipmate
in Purgatory
A few years ago, I was in a debate with someone over whether humans were naturally good, my interlocutor was insistent that human beings were naturally good, I brought up the issue of really, really bad people. She dismissed that and wrote that they were only the small minority of the human race. If 90% of the population were good, then that is evidence of good human nature, the other 10% were flawed.
I wonder if it is a good argument, majority of people = human nature. I am wondering what are other people's thoughts on this.
I wonder if it is a good argument, majority of people = human nature. I am wondering what are other people's thoughts on this.
Comments
'Good' only really means something if it means more good than average. Of course, you can argue about the distribution. How one can tell I don't know - psychology experiments to measure how many people are cooperative suffer from having to take place under experimental conditions and the experimenters' preconceptions about goodness.
On the whole I think human society functions on the assumption that serious dishonesty is a low-risk high impact event. That is one takes steps to protect oneself from it because the consequences are serious not because one expects the consequences are likely.
But I was 'taught' as a young Christian that we humans are inherently really bad -inherently sinful, probably from birth, and that the middle letter of 'sin' is 'I'. But I'm not so convinced of that now and I've read Humankind by Rutger Bregman and I was glad to see The Lord of the Flies debunked.
But yeah, we ARE messed up, as anybody knows who's ever tried in all seriousness to live for one perfect day. (Anybody who wants to try, read Jesus' explanation of the Ten Commandments in Matthew 5-7 and then have a go. Ouch.)
I don't think this means we are innately "bad" or "evil." If we were, we wouldn't be in conflict with ourselves. What we are, is messed up--infected--twisted--marred, to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the person. Some people it's really noticeable in, others maybe not at all, especially if we don't live with them. But it was one of the griefs of parenthood, watching my baby grow and seeing the familiar human infection manifest itself--not just in bad behavior, but in brokenness--the inability to truly trust or believe oneself beloved, that sort of thing. And nothing I did as a parent could head it off, though I tried, of course, who wouldn't?
It's why I'm so glad God came as Jesus. I can't fix this mess, but he can--and is doing so.
I offer you two thoughts from brilliant thinkers who suffered immensely due to evil done to them.
Thomas Buergenthal was a judge at the the International Court of Justice. Before that he was a human rights lawyer in the US and professor at George Washington University. And before that he was a holocaust survivor. His whole family was murdered and he survived. His book is called "A Lucky Child." When it came out, 15 years ago or so, he did the usual tour of radio interviews which is where I heard him speak about his life. He made one striking observation of fact that is deeply haunting. The Nazi leaders who are responsible for initiating the holocaust were of course, especially wicked people. However, Buergenthal noted that the majority of vile acts were done by nice, normal people. The capacity for evil when it becomes societally normalised is astounding and depressing - and a stark warning to us all. There's a famous picture of Auschwitz guards relaxing and having fun whilst on a lunch break. I don't know if it's apocryphal but it makes the point.
The other observation is a very famous quote:
It is particularly noteworthy that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said that after he'd been arrested and detained for a while by the organisation that would become the KGB. It would have been so easy for him to conclude that they were bad people.
I have no firm conclusions but these thoughts - especially given the lived experience behind them - hugely affect how I approach this question.
AFZ
😉
But yes. Good people can do bad things. Bad people can do good things.
Solzhenitsyn is on the money.
That's a good question. If we disagree about what it means to be good how can we agree on whether or not most people share that characteristic.
For example, this presumes that prosocial behavior is "good" and that people who engage in it either are good or are acting as if they are good at that moment.
This gets complicated. A lot of philosophical systems would hold that serving your country and eliminating (what your leaders have told you is) a dire threat is "good". Of course, if you describe anything at a high enough level of abstraction like that a lot of truly evil individual acts get airbrushed as being in the service of this greater, more abstract good.
Solzhenitsyn is powerful, but quite a lot of what he wrote about the gulags was factually wrong. In later life he tried to claim that it was a novel, a work of fiction, which certainly wasn't the impression given when I read it. He also seemed to be very wrong about Putin near his death.
He was clearly a very skilled writer, his phrases have power even when read in another language.
I don't believe that he was trying to shift or reduce the blame for the outrages he suffered at the gulags with his comment about the "line between good and evil", if anything he was reflecting on himself and how it took prison for good stuff to come from his own character. He clearly grouped people as bad (he uses particular words for different groups of people, including career criminals, which I forget now) so he wasn't totally against judging people. It's a long time since I read those sections in the book, I'll have to get it down from the shelf and have another read.
I'm less familiar with Hannah Arendt but it feels like people take the "banality of Evil" phrase to mean bad things were conducted by nice people under the Nazis. From what I understand, she was specifically talking about Eichmann and how being part of the machinery of the state meant leaving behind any kind of reflection or thought about what one was being asked to do, so that even the most ridiculous and evil decisions became banal.
Anyway, I just thought maybe that context was needed.
Why bee?
I like bees, but I doubt we deserve the compliment.
Amen.
Final words of the Film Seven spoken by Morgan Freeman
Or should I say 'both/and'?
I don't believe that it was "nice people that did "evil things" in Nazi Germany. Many individuals were horrifically corrupted by a fairly small number of evil people, millions then were bullied into going along with it. Which, I agree, is a form of evil in the sense that more should have resisted, but fascism is a mind virus which corrupts and bullies people into actions and inactions.
It's not an excuse, but I think it is understandable. When you have a murdering fascist state, it is very scary and very difficult to stand out.
There are more everyday evils that are harder to compartmentalise. On one level there's the murderer. Mostly, I suspect, murders happen because the offender thinks they can get away with it. Which is odd, in a way. Murder isn't socially acceptable and yet over and over again people do it.
On a whole other level is the everyday and unthought evils that almost everyone is a part of. The evils of capitalism which means people are caught in webs of poverty. The evils of corruption, greed, etc. Nationalism, war-mongering. Turning a blind eye to suffering.
Personally I can't see that failing to think about the slavery which is a part of many supply chains is the same as playing an active part of an atrosity. To the extent that "evil" seems to become a fairly redundant term.
I'm not sure how to think about the difference between a murderer and a really evil dictator or between the ordinary person operating within a "matrix" of evils and the murderer. But it feels like there's a difference to me.
No matter how it's dressed up, originating with Origen, it was and remains there in mass folk Christianity:
East and West, people believe that Jesus died for our sins, that he's our saviour, that he fixes us. Or damns us. Evangelicals are just honest about it.
Sorry, wrong thread.
Admins please delete if you wish.
If we were fucked up now, after creation (by what process?), it would be his fault. And how is he fixing it? Where? When? Not that we're 'good'. Just human.
After many efforts to point humanity to the best way God, according to Christian teaching, sent his own son who has and is 'fixing things' for each new generation which tries to follow the teachings of Jesus.
Our fallen nature,even with the many graces supplied by the sacraments,still reasserts itself.
I think that most people soon realise that we generally get on better if we cooperate with others,but there are still times when we think of ourselves and our own selfish needs before anything else. It is not too difficult to convince ourselves that our own needs are really more important than those of others.
What is Jesus doing, exactly? And when will he be finished?
Where, when, how did he do this according to the Bible?
This includes mankind created by God. Man has free will to choose good or evil and as we grow we learn about both good and evil ,though we do not have full knowledge.
The Book of Genesis is a story which tries to explain these ideas.
That freedom of will makes man responsible for his actions.
That freedom makes a man a moral subject and man's acts can be evaluated as either good or bad (or for those without knowledge or understanding neutral).
This was accomplished once and for all by His sacrifice on the cross.
The effects of that sacrifice are being felt still today and will continue till the end of time when all are gathered in.
Still today 2000 years after the sacrifice on the cross new people are coming to know and trust Jesus and to benefit directly from that sacrifice made so long ago.
You know, of course, what I'm going to say. Is there anything that honestly, you don't understand or know, and think I could tell you about?
I have to ask this, too--why would it be God's fault if we got fucked up--or more properly, fucked ourselves up--after creation?
I think in your argument you are being unfair to humanity, to be honest--you're taking horrible evils and classifying them as "just human." We are not so bad as that! Things are not so bad as that. We were made good, and because of Jesus, there is help and hope for the future, and for right now too. No need to get despondent.
I am moved by your utterly open sincerity. That stands, that speaks. Of the power of belief. If God created us, and there's only one way he did that if he did, by grounding eternal - from, for, since forever and ever - and infinite being, then that actually dilutes away any fault on his part, except that he doesn't show Love. If he creates he obliterates all traces. Unless he is the nature that abhors a total spaceless, quantum silent vacuum. Any trace would show Love. But let's say he did. That he is the intentional principle. We're not fucked up. At all. Despite our helplessly foul, perfectly natural evils. If he grounds being, that's good as it ends for all of us in paradise. Our evils are nothing to him. They won't happen there.
But if not. I hope to die bravely for my children. That's my hope. They will help.
I'm sorry.
You have nothing to be sorry for. And you can show me nothing I haven't seen and experienced. Even tho' I'd be perfectly pleasant about it. More than. Effusive. Endorsing. All it proves is our good intent. That as well as chokingly vile, we're pretty good. Like any animal.
This comes back to my earlier point, what do we mean by saying people are "good", and how do we evaluate this?
@Forthview suggests that this is done by evaluating human actions, falling into the category of deonteology or utilitarianism. Others suggest that humans should be judged by their intentions rather than their actions (virtue ethics). This came up in an unrelated thread about a month ago. My rather uninspired observation is that we prefer to have our own goodness evaluated according to our intentions but would rather judge others by their actions or results.
Right or wrong thread, everyone else is no less honest about it, Martin. Let’s not impugn the honesty of countless people, including fellow Shipmates, okay?
Are you asking me, or @Lamb Chopped to whose comment I said “Amen”?
(Though I think it’s been answered very well, regardless.)
What he has done part two: sent out his followers to pass on this good news, so that anyone who wants to avail themselves of it may do so, simply for the asking. This is the primary task of the church.
What he is doing at the moment: ruling the universe, and specifically, heading up the human race, for the precise purpose of giving everlasting life to anyone who will have it (see John 17:2); assisting his church, together with the rest of the Trinity-in-Unity (one God), to get their task done and survive in a world that they frankly don't fit into very well, and that often winds up in persecution (I mean real persecution, not bullshit complaints you hear on the internet); "preparing a place for" his people (and no, we don't know exactly what that means, but I'm looking forward to finding out!); and finally, awaiting the Last Day, when this whole long prologue to human history comes to an end, and we start the real thing, no longer messed up by the problems of evil.
What he will do: Return on the Last Day, as he promised, to put a complete end to all evil and to bring in the kingdom of God--not just locally, but cosmically, if that's a word.
After that? God (literally) knows. There are hints of fascinating and wonderful things in the offing, some sort of responsibilities and work, but no longer the sort that takes the heart out of you--rather the sort of thing people live to do (instead of doing to live). There is the promise of life without evil that is, frankly, happy. There are hints at some sort of enhanced community for human beings--something that our current versions of friendship, love, family, etc. are a rehearsal for. What there will NOT be is boredom.
I think this depends on whether you consider order to be inherently "good". To borrow a quote from scripture:
Never forget that the purpose of law is order, not justice or good. Equating order with good, without examining the nature of that order, is a very big mistake.
I was brought up in apartheid South Africa. My parents, rightly, broke the law all the time.
Too many politicians, of all stripes, put themselves above the law. They lack moral compass. I'm not sure how to give someone a moral compass who lacks it.
My earlier point stands. Babies are necessarily born selfish in order to survive. They learn to become unselfish by good parenting.
How to give that to someone who didn't have it?
I would agree about your last sentence – that order and good or not necessarily in harmony – but not that the purpose of law, at least metaphysically, is only order. According to St. Paul, those in authority are God’s servants to do us good. If a law is bad out those in authority are unjust (and in this fallen world, that happens a lot, as in the examples above), then that is a violation of that purpose, not the fulfillment of it.
https://biblehub.com/romans/13-4.htm
Personally, I doubt complicated human interactions could ever be perfect. There isn't any such thing as true justice, even conceptually, because there is always someone who loses out
Well, yes—certainly, ultimately, God’s law, but on an earthly level, our fallenness messes everything up.
Thank you!
I do believe we will ultimately have that, in the new Creation, with no one losing out at all. But again, our earthly laws can only do what we can do, as just and fair as we can make them, and we have to guard/struggle against the bad things people in authority who make and enforce the laws do as well.
Which opens up all kinds of other questions including how one knows what virtuous acts are. Aristotle's nebulous answer (really a non-answer in my opinion) is the so-called "golden mean" where the right action lies between two extremes.
Aristotle's answer really is that virtues contribute to eudaimonia. Now he thinks eudaimonia is virtuous, so that's partly circular, but he thinks other things contribute towards eudaimonia as well. So we can work out character traits that contribute towards those other things and build from there.
For example, humanity is a political animal. A polis needs to be defended from its enemies in war. Therefore a polis must have and honour people who are brave. Therefore, bravery is a virtue.
It's I think a feature not a bug of Aristotle's framework that the virtues depends in part on the political entity. Thus, the type of bravery needed to hold one's place in the battle-line of a phalanx is not exactly the mixture of resistance to fear and aggression needed to fight well in a Roman legion.
Absolute ethical judgements therefore depend on judgements about what society best promotes human eudaimonia.