Human Nature

[Espeon 338]

Here we discuss the nature of people. Do you believe humans are inherently good or bad, and why? Or do you think something entirely different? Is everything circumstantial? Are you an optimist, pessimist, or realist?

 

To start the discussion, I think part of what separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability to empathize. We use this to "put ourselves in others' shoes," and this acts as a deterrent to what we consider "morally wrong" actions. People who lack the ability to do this (effectively or at all) wind up being sociopaths of varying degrees. Basically, we are all selfish to a point, but the location of that point depends on who you are. I consider myself to be a loose realist.

 

Discuss

[Zacharius The Prosecutor 46]

My opinion? Muffins.

 

(haha! 1st (or 2nd) post beeyatcheez! )

[Anachronous 682]

I'm kind of legalist, I'd imagine.

 

I like to hope for the best in people, sure, but oftentimes the human race hangs itself when you give it enough rope to do so; people often have only their own interests at heart at the core of things and most of one's decision making process is aligned towards attaining a certain goal. I'm considerably Aristotelean in my beliefs and I draw a lot from teleology and legalism when trying to back up my views in an ethical discussion.

 

But, if we're to label it, I suppose I'm a loose realist as well. People are elastic but inclined towards self indulging.

[Champion RD92 8,658]

I would consider myself a realist, and I agree that people are all selfish to a point, and depending on the person, he/she may be more or less selfish than others. I think a lot of what has to do with whether humans are good or bad is the environment they are raised in. Also some people just seem to have more of a conscience than others

[Moosefullaeggs 543]

I think man, by definition, is inheirently evil; much like Hawthorne thought.

 

And humans have a depth of reasoning and intellect far beyond (other) animals.

[Zacharius The Prosecutor 46]

And...my comment is the only one that isnt depressing...Brilliant...

[Anachronous 682]

I think man, by definition, is inheirently evil; much like Hawthorne thought.

 

And humans have a depth of reasoning and intellect far beyond (other) animals.

 

I think inherently evil is a bit of a stretch; self fulfilling feels a bit more accurate. Being evil tends to follow, sure, but it's different than just straight up being malevolent.

[Gray 14]

I mostly look at things from a pessimistic point of view, because it seems more rational than being all sunshine and rainbows about everything, but wouldn't looking at something from a viewpoint that desires rationality make me a realist? At the same time, I'm rarely saddened by anything, even if I look at it from a pessimistic perspective and recognize it as bad, so does that mean I'm an optimist? I just don't know man.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Gray

[Moosefullaeggs 543]

I think inherently evil is a bit of a stretch; self fulfilling feels a bit more accurate. Being evil tends to follow, sure, but it's different than just straight up being malevolent.

 

Evil is breaking a moral code; we all have and will do that.

 

evil isn't always malevolent.

[Anachronous 682]

Evil is breaking a moral code; we all have and will do that.

 

evil isn't always malevolent.

 

evil |ˈēvəl|adjectiveprofoundly immoral and malevolent : his evil deeds | no man is so evil as to be beyond redemption.

 

 

My snark aside, I think immoral might be better suited? You can't be evil without being immoral but can be immoral without being evil, you see?

[I used to be a stranger 7,993]

This post has been redacted by the author.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Blue

[Ninja Derpy 343]

Well I took this: Quiz - Pessimist, optimist or realist? - YouThink.com test, and I am a

 

Realist.

[Espeon 338]

sunshine and rainbows

 

You, my friend, need to read Fallout: Equestria.

 

And reality is pretty bleak looking most of the time, but things can always be thought of in a positive light as well. Take the Holocaust and WWII for example: The Axis powers came pretty close to taking over the world (and killed tens of millions of people in the process), but in the end they didn't. You could look at that from either viewpoint or both: the first is pretty pessimistic, the second is more optimistic, the last is realistic.

[Gray 14]

You, my friend, need to read Fallout: Equestria.

 

You tell me this everyday in school. I'll get to it eventually, I have forty thousand other things I need to read first.

[Fizz. 1,078]

I think people are crazy and they want people to accept their crazy.

 

 

Evidence: Everyone.

 

 

I rest my case.

 

 

EDIT: And no, I don't mean THEY'RE crazy, I mean THEIR crazy. So leave my grammar alone.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Fizzydog

[Krall 263]

Good and evil are artificial, abstract concepts that are based off of conformity to subjective values that cannot be objectively measured. Therefore humanity is not inherently good or evil.

 

I believe that people are capable of both great good and evil (here measured by my own, subjective standards), and that they ought to be judged independently of one another, by their own actions, intentions and character, rather than some pan-human belief in inhernet evil or inherent good.

[HanPolo 150]

I like to think myself as an optimist, even if i never stop seeing the bad side of people regularly...

 

I think deep down every human being wants to care for others. Afterall, a perfect world would be everybody living in harmony and happiness. It can just be hard for people to get through to that, and so many people are corrupted by this world and thrown off that perfect goal. Yhea, the world can be pretty grim at the best of times, but can anyone honestly say they dont want to change that? I think it's that thought that keeps my faith in humanity...

[Yellow Diamond 7,565]

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optimist sees the glass as half full. An engineer sees the glass as twice as large as it needs to be.

 

Being a Christian, by nature I hope and have faith for the best, but prepare myself according to what is most logical (which obviously varies situationally if I should predict negatively or positively). If the best occurs, then my hopes are realized. If the worst occurs, it is well with my soul since instead of asking "Why, God?" it is better to ask "What are you doing/going to be doing/teaching, God?".

 

"[Christ] comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive." -2nd Corinthians 1:4, NIV

 

-

 

Humans, like all aspects of creation, were made good. However, they have been corrupted and God insists (and insists very loudly) on our putting that right again.

 

Wonderfully stated. I happen to be in this camp, being a Christian myself. Human nature is distorted by the fall (i.e., original sin), but it is made whole in the person of Jesus Christ, who was not an apparition but took on true flesh (Rom 1:3-4; cf. Phil 2:7-8, NRSV), and therefore secures in the his resurrection the hope that we may be made whole through him. This is, without a doubt, one of the most difficult mysteries to understand, and it confounds even the most dedicated of Christians. And that is when we need to ground ourselves in St. Paul's words on hope (Rom 8:24), and that if we forfeit that hope we lose what is essential to Christian witness.

 

Now, this is not to say that this is an excuse for naiveté; certainly not, because then you're putting on blinders and hoping things will work themselves out in the end. There exists evil in the world, and that evil must be identified and confronted. But it is a fool's errand to assume that evil can be vanquished apart from a component which belongs to the triumph of the resurrection. Christians are often the first to forget this, and we have to relearn what has already been taught. Unfortunately, this process is painful.

 

I don't mean to sound as though I am excluding non-Christians from the discussion of the good and evil of humanity. I believe to a great degree that a non-Christian can identify what is just and unjust, as per natural law. As Blue alluded to---whether intentionally or unintentionally---there are secular parables for witness, to borrow from Karl Barth. But to state that the human being is intrinsically evil or intrinsically good is a selective argument, from my point of view. It is always a mixed bag, in a manner of speaking, which cannot, at least for the Christian, be separated from the economy of salvation.

 

In short, I believe myself an optimist who recognizes, as best I can, the cause for discord and pessimism in the human person.

[Anachronous 682]

Good and evil are artificial, abstract concepts that are based off of conformity to subjective values that cannot be objectively measured. Therefore humanity is not inherently good or evil.

 

I believe that people are capable of both great good and evil (here measured by my own, subjective standards), and that they ought to be judged independently of one another, by their own actions, intentions and character, rather than some pan-human belief in inhernet evil or inherent good.

 

I don't mean to shoot you down but you didn't really state too much other than that the concept of ethics and morality is subjective.

 

While I'm sure we can all admit that this is quite the subjective... subject seeing as it's fashioned from the minds of men and cannot be tested empirically, it's safe to say that the average mind is capable of enough moral agency to realize what is rudimentarily wrong and what is right. The concept of a good and evil, moral or immoral action exists in the general scope of things as well as in ethics as a study.

[Zero000 435]

I'm a realist. I see the good and bad in people, but I can honestly say that humans are made good and only become corrupt.

[Starshine 16,333]

We as a race was born and raised in a cruel world, where every fangs and teeth that hides in the darkness can rend our limbs, where resources can be extremely scarce easily and more untold horrors lurk in the darkness. Of course by our nature we were hardwired to be capable of heartless acts and tons of cruelty, or else we might be as good as a midnight snack to any predator.

 

We aren't too different from any other mammals. They can be capable of love, empathy, sadness, even cannibalism, and they can do that simply just because they feels like it. Just like humans! We are different because we got a bigger and juicier brain, and thumbs, not because we are capable of love. Heck, even my cat can cry when her kitten dies of cold

 

We are just animals that know how to make fancier toys :/

 

I guess I'm a pessimist

[Aureity 3,055]

Lol, I actually wrote an essay on this at school a week ago...this wasn't the specific topic I was writing about, so I apologize if it misses the point just a little:

 

 

 

I believe that Hobbes had the right idea when he said that all people are naturally greedy, and the only way to achieve a peace of sorts is to brutally oppress absolutely everyone that agrees with you. Because that is not actually possible, thus a utopia is exactly what it means-no place. Humans will always be greedy and want more, as history has shown us constantly and repetitively. There's no way to satisfy a human's growing greed, except by forcing them to live in conditions so miserable as to break their spirit and will. As no power on Earth is string enough to repress the millions (a totalitarian despotism), and violent revolutions will occur in protest of any such power that tries, it is thus not possible to ever achieve the sort of natural harmony that is what all peoples of the world strive to achieve-the perfect society.

One must only look at the way countries treat each other. Wars are a result of greed when one country desires another's resources. Then that country enlists its soldiers, who are greedy for the loot and glory that they could gain from fighting the war. In the end, nobody benefits from greed. Two divided countries fought each other, due to greed. A single absolute ruler over both countries, who had the power to enforce his authority, could have been able to stop the disaster.

However, it's not just war that illustrates the depths of human greed. One only needs to look at a recent bill that failed to pass Congress, the infamous SOPA. Congress was backed by Hollywood and attempted to act in Hollywood's greed (no pirated movies) by passing the law. The internet companies, powered by their own greed, decided to stop Congress. And eventually, the members of the Senate, fearing for their jobs and votes (greed) decided to back down and the bill failed. All the while insults flew, grief was caused, and anger boiled, all due to greed on the part of everybody involved in the process.

I believe that humans will always be greedy, and that Hobbes is thusly correct. However, his statement that the only government possible is a despotism is incorrect. It is not a despostism that will crush the greed of the people. After all, if it is human nature to be greedy, then ruling them in a despotic way makes no difference. In fact, because the ruler himself would be greedy, and would come into conflict with other rulers, there really is no form of government that can solve this problem. Indeed, the only thing that could possibly solve the humans' greed are the weapons they built themselves in order to further their own purposes, WMD.

 

I know it's bad, I'm sorry. I never ever actually spend time on essays. I just rush them in half an hour. But still, don't be TOO mean

Edited February 4, 2012 by Aureity

[DashingRainbow36 263]

We are solipsistic in nature. But we are not violent in nature. Esspecially in the begining.

 

Our first groups of humans, (and this extentds to, out earlier ancestors), in the egalitarin society we were living, had to be nice to eachother so we could live, have sex, and extend the population. Much like Maslows hierarchy of needs, we have to have the basics like food, water, and air, so we can have creativity, sensations, experiences, and lulz. Corrupt -isms (comunisim, compitalism, facism, any relegion -isms, etc.) are what can make the basic needs scarce and sometimes completely unavailable,therefore some societies will have no creativity, and lulz, therin causing a wave of violence, crime, and suffering.

 

So no, we are not violent, and racist, and mean spirited in nature. We can't afford to be.

[I used to be a stranger 7,993]

In short, I believe myself an optimist who recognizes, as best I can, the cause for discord and pessimism in the human person.

 

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

[Evilshy 5,090]

One thing I've never understood about many Christian ideas: if humans are inherently good, why are the seven deadly sins, formexample, all natural feelings to us?

I'm not trying to shoot you down, I'm genuinely curious.

 

Anyway, I believe that humans are naturally "evil". I don't mean that everybody would grow up to be a murderer if they weren't taught otherwise, but if you lock a bunch of people up in a room and leave them there, somebody's going to get hurt.

 

Anyway, my reasoning is fairly simple: evil is defined by what the majority of society thinks is bad, and most things generally seen as bad are natural feelings. Therefore, we mist be naturally evil, according to society. Greed is looked down upon, yet it is a natural feeling. We are taught to supress sexual desires, yet they comes from the most basic instinct of any creature, that of reproduction and the survival of the species. I am a believer in natural selection and Darwinism, and humanity continues to strive for ways to increase people's longevity, so "survival of the fittest" is now "survival of everybody possible", another contradiction with nature.

 

Now, I'm not saying that this a bad thing, just that, based on what society defines as evil, human nature is evil. And since we are all subject to social norms (whether we like it or not), and the norms aren't going to change any time soon, we must accept this.