Are humans fundamentally good or bad?

Fundamentally speaking, are humans good or bad? It's a question that has repeatedly been asked throughout humanity. For thousands of years, philosophers have debated whether we have a basically good nature that is corrupted by society, or a basically bad nature that is kept in check by society. Psychology has uncovered some evidence which might give the old debate a twist.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130114-are-we-naturally-good-or-bad?selectorSection=health

Very interesting read, and experiment conducted by Yale, the initiators of the Stanford and Milgram experiments.

This time it reveals something nice about human nature!! 🙂

-m.

Originally posted by mikelom

Fundamentally speaking, are humans good or bad? It's a question that has repeatedly been asked throughout humanity. For thousands of years, philosophers have debated whether we have a basically good nature that is corrupted by society, or a basically bad nature that is kept in check by society. Psychology has uncovered some evidence which might give th ...[text shortened]... ford and Milgram experiments.

This time it reveals something nice about human nature!! 🙂

-m.

A voice from Thailand:

http://www.gracebaptistthailand.org/gbcdephumanheart.html
.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]A voice from Thailand:

http://www.gracebaptistthailand.org/gbcdephumanheart.html
.[/b]

Sorry?

What does that reference have to do with humans being naturally good or bad?

It's an irrelevent God speak site, that you happened upon because there are a few VERY minor 'Western Gospel societies' here.

Baa humbug! ('Baa' in Thai = crazy lunatic - and that's for real!)

-m. 555

Originally posted by mikelom
Fundamentally speaking, are humans good or bad? It's a question that has repeatedly been asked throughout humanity. For thousands of years, philosophers have debated whether we have a basically good nature that is corrupted by society, or a basically bad nature that is kept in check by society. Psychology has uncovered some evidence which might give the old ...[text shortened]... and Milgram experiments.

This time it reveals something nice about human nature!! 🙂

-m.

As you say, it doesn't answer the question, but it's an interesting insight into the hard-wiring our brains are born with. It doesn't surprise me that babies can distinguish between "good" and "bad" things, or that they prefer the "good" if asked to choose. I firmly believe that humans are innately good, with a small number of exceptions. I also believe that certain religions teach that humans are "born bad" as a way of controlling humans who would not otherwise submit to such control.

Originally posted by Kewpie
As you say, it doesn't answer the question, but it's an interesting insight into the hard-wiring our brains are born with. It doesn't surprise me that babies can distinguish between "good" and "bad" things, or that they prefer the "good" if asked to choose. I firmly believe that humans are innately good, with a small number of exceptions. I also believe t n bad" as a way of controlling humans who would not otherwise submit to such control.

My feelings are likewise. If anybody here has read Shelley's "Frankenstein" then they would see that it is human to human demonstration, of emotion and feeling primarily, which teaches bad traits in youngsters. Children learn to lie by observation of elders. Children learn aggression from elders, again by observation.
Frankenstein's monster was effectively a baby. He couldn't speak, or understand language, but by appearance was rejected. Same way most of us 'shy away' from somebody we perceive as a threat, because we have to admit we know little about their experience; especially burned people, with scars. They, to us in general, are Frankenstein's monster - we fear them (read some of Simon Weston - the British armed services - badly burned in an Argentinian attack upon a Brit Naval ship).
The monster, in Shelley's book, only learned repeated brutal attacks, before learning and being able to communicate and talk.
It is man to man that children learn badness, in my perception, and on the whole we, as humans, are borne good! 🙂

-m. 😉

"Many people believe that there is a certain amount of good as well as evil within the heart of a man. However, God declares to us in the Bible that there is no goodness in the heart of man. God says “The heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked: who can know it”, (Jeremiah 17:9). This speaks to us of the utter depravity of man’s heart. The Lord Jesus said, “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murderer, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness; All these things come from within and defile the man.” (Mark 7:21-28). This speaks of the heart as the source of all evil in a man’s life."

Game is all about volitional choice, not at all unlike an honest (box-free) game of chess. Make correct decisions, you win;
otherwise you lose and badly. Dismiss the grid and the rules if you must. Stakes are higher than either of us can imagine.
.

Originally posted by Kewpie

As you say, it doesn't answer the question, but it's an interesting insight into the hard-wiring our brains are born with. It doesn't surprise me that babies can distinguish between "good" and "bad" things, or that they prefer the "good" if asked to choose. I firmly believe that humans are innately good, with a small number of exceptions. I also believe ...[text shortened]... n bad" as a way of controlling humans who would not otherwise submit to such control.

U'd B an * it.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Many people believe that there is a certain amount of good as well as evil within the heart of a man. However, God declares to us in the Bible that there is no goodness in the heart of man. God says “The heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked: who can know it”, (Jeremiah 17:9). This speaks to us of the utter depravity of man’ ...[text shortened]... ismiss the grid and the rules if you must. Stakes are higher than either of us can imagine.
.

Your decline of the psychodynamic approach which was the upbringing state of your childhood between the 1920s to 50s, opposing the current rise of the biological approaches today, are not simple to describe to you. In a clinical context, the development of new drugs, beginning with neuroleptics for treating schizophrenia or neuroticism, those have certainly altered treatment options for many disorders.
There has been a paradigm shift, but maybe one you neglected to engage with possibly, Bobby?
Did you have an fMRI scan yet?? 😉
One of those scans can study your cognitive tasks, and map your cortex, leading to an analysis of your social role!
You display such a duality role, in my humble opinion, which leads to your sensory input here at RHP as awkward, and uncontemporary.
Your dealing with your own subjective experience is still problemmatical to you, and is displayed in many easily recognisable forms of trait, especially in how you present yourself. Take a think about that, with your friend Mikey. (dis-illusional?)

You may argue your God to me, and continue to do so. I'd prefer if you keep your own argument with that to yourself. 😉

-m.

Originally posted by mikelom

Your decline of the psychodynamic approach which was the upbringing state of your childhood between the 1920s to 50s, opposing the current rise of the biological approaches today, are not simple to describe to you. In a clinical context, the development of new drugs, beginning with neuroleptics for treating schizophrenia or neuroticism, those have cert ...[text shortened]... e, and continue to do so. I'd prefer if you keep your own argument with that to yourself. 😉

-m.

"... upbringing state of your childhood between the 1920s to 50s." '

Off topic to reveal my children's dates of birth.

-b.

Originally posted by mikelom
Fundamentally speaking, are humans good or bad?

Yes.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
Yes.

I agree.

Originally posted by mikelom
Fundamentally speaking, are humans good or bad? It's a question that has repeatedly been asked throughout humanity. For thousands of years, philosophers have debated whether we have a basically good nature that is corrupted by society, or a basically bad nature that is kept in check by society. Psychology has uncovered some evidence which might give the old ...[text shortened]... and Milgram experiments.

This time it reveals something nice about human nature!! 🙂

-m.

From the link: "You can argue that this “mind reading”, even in infants, shows that it is part of our human nature to believe in other minds."

From the paper it cites:

" These findings constitute evidence that preverbal infants assess individuals on the basis of their behaviour towards others. This capacity may serve as the foundation for moral thought and action, and its early developmental emergence supports the view that social evaluation is a biological adaptation."

I see a distinction between the popularized and the peer-reviewed interpretation.

I also see little reason to go from either interpretation to a speculation about our fundamental moral standing.

If the puppet is climbing the hill to rob a bank, would the helper's helping, and the infant's approving behavior, be good?

I suppose the infant could be said to be supportive of goal achievement, but the hinderer can be seen as having a goal, too.

Maybe after watching a little football, the infant will appreciate that hindering (defense) can be a worthy goal. 😉

Edit: Sorry, I was assuming that robbing banks is not good.

Originally posted by Kewpie
I also believe that certain religions teach that humans are "born bad" as a way of controlling humans who would not otherwise submit to such control.

Or, possibly, it's a keen insight into what is factually correct. By being taught that humans are not born "good," I am not any more or less controlled by anyone. You suggested that but for a few exceptions, children will always do what is "good," given the choice. Everything I've been taught, everything I've read, and everything I've seen with my own 2 eyes suggests the opposite. Sure... very few kids would choose to directly harm another person if given the opportunity -- but "bad" isn't exclusive to such rash actions. Stealing from the cookie jar: bad. Lying when asked if you broke the vase: bad. Not sharing your toys with your siblings: bad. Crying at the grocery store because Mommy won't buy you that candybar: bad.

Being unselfish, telling the truth even when it hurts, not taking what isn't yours, not whining or crying to get your way... all these things have to be taught to children and usually reinforced over and over through punishment. Lying, cheating, stealing, and manipulating? These things on the other hand come completely natural to children.

"Many people believe that there is a certain amount of good as well as evil within the heart of a man. However, God declares to us in the Bible that there is no goodness in the heart of man. God says “The heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked: who can know it...” (Jeremiah 17:9)
.