Do you believe humans are inherintly good or bad?

[Zoaric]

At some point in the human development we are neither moral or immoral unless you want to call a fetus moral or immoral. At some point a switch is turned on where we go from neither to moral or immoral. Question is when that switch is turned on.

I think this is sort of correct, though the switch is not static. It flips back and forth.
For example, even the worst human beings of all time have done nice things, and
even the best of us do bad things. Sure, I think that eventually in life one leans more
toward one extreme than the other, but I think that we start out in the middle, the
grey of neutrality. This, of course, is baring some kind of mental disorder inhibiting
certain actions or reactions.

[Senka]

I read this question wrong, so my answer is: No. Every person is born with core attributes that aren't inherently all good or all bad. That's not say that I think they're completely neutral. I believe that some of these qualities have greater negative tendencies than others. For example, aggressiveness and greed aren't bad on their own even if it seems like they always are. It's good to have the will and desire to get things done. However, having too much of either one or both is when a person turns bad. Almost no one would agree that a rampaging lunatic or a callous Wall Street banker is a good person.

If there is a meaning to life, it is probably to spend your days working to take control of your cores. The people we see as insane or otherwise rotten are those that have totally and utterly lost themselves to their core. Like a stomach eating itself out of hunger and desperation.

Also, I don't really agree that we can't be both even though I understand that was being said in the same sense that only one object of mass can occupy one given space at any one time. Overall though, it's all about a balance. While it would be nice to be all good, you can't really 100% quell negative emotions and motivations even if you're born with qualities that more easily lean towards positivity.

[Ghul]

Humans are inherently a-moral. We are taught what is good and bad through our parents and society. We then become good or bad on the basis of conformity or non-conformity with those established moral systems.

Without society, we are inherently animals and will do what we must to survive, nothing more, nothing less.

yes pretty much this one right here.

depending on where you live, other things are seen as good or bad, because of the different culture.

[Dhrizzle]

Are humans inherently good or bad?

[ ] Yes
[X] No

Fixed your poll for you.

[GennGreymane]

Inherently neutral, capable of both the most righteous action and most devilish pursuits.

[Fullmetal89]

People are capable of anything, there's no such thing as someone completely good/bad it's all shades of grey.

[Garnier Fructis]

This thread is bananas.

[spinner981]

Inherently neutral, capable of both the most righteous action and most devilish pursuits.

Lots of people are taking this option, but nobody (NOBODY) has explained how it is possible. So far it seems to just be wishful thinking and many, many repeated "Obviously!" statements.

- - - Updated - - -

So your answer is to just assume they're morally capable and not actually answer the question. Alright, cool.

They are morally capable because we have observed them making a moral decision. As for a rock, we can't say because we have never observed it making a moral decision.

[Garnier Fructis]

Lots of people are taking this option, but nobody (NOBODY) has explained how it is possible. So far it seems to just be wishful thinking and many, many repeated "Obviously!" statements.

I've explained it numerous times, but whatever I'll try one more time before I go do something else: the only reason you are finding it impossible is because you are assuming that only two options exist from the get go.

Proof by contradiction requires that you assume the truth of the thing you're trying to disprove. You have not once assumed the existence of a third option in order to refute it. That is the problem. It's as simple as that.

On an unrelated tangent: why is infinite regress a problem? (Your sig)

[Marfrilau]

They are morally capable because we have observed them making a moral decision. As for a rock, we can't say because we have never observed it making a moral decision.

So a fetus is morally capable?. We can observe them making moral decisions?

[s_bushido]

This thread is bananas.

The real question is: how ripe do you like your bananas?

Personally, I like bananas with a little green on them. They lose their appeal for me once they start getting too mushy.

[Endus]

No, spell it out for me, and this time don't use unrelated analogies.

Viewed from afar a series of choices may seem gray, but each individual choice is either black or white, right or wrong. It can't be both right and wrong, and it can't be neither right nor wrong; that would be a paradox as someone who is wrong is therefore not right, and vice versa where someone who is right is therefore not wrong.

Important section in bold.

Apples and oranges aren't mutually exclusive. A better example would be "Should I eat an apple for lunch, or should I not?" as you can't choose one option without denying the other, and denying one option means choosing the other. This decision must be black or white because that is just how it works. One is merely the lack of the other; they aren't two separate entities that you can choose both of at the same time or neither of. They are opposites. It is not "Choose door number 1, door number 2, or neither!" it is "Choose door number 1, or don't choose door number 1!"

The part in bold, here, is false. The concept presented was that you choose one or the other fruit. "Both" and "Neither" were not valid options. By your first statement, even if those could be valid options, if we eliminate them there must still, be a black-and-white difference between the remaining options. One of them must be right, and the other must be wrong.

So which is it?

Your entire argument is not consistent or valid. It's an illogical mess that is self-contradictory.

[spinner981]

I've explained it numerous times, but whatever I'll try one more time before I go do something else: the only reason you are finding it impossible is because you are assuming that only two options exist from the get go.

Proof by contradiction requires that you assume the truth of the thing you're trying to disprove. You have not once assumed the existence of a third option in order to refute it. That is the problem. It's as simple as that.

You aren't explaining your stance on the topic, you are still just trying to refute mine. I am asking you to give your logic behind WHY there is a third choice (neither).

[minteK917]

Im glad i finished college a decade ago. The correct answer is not even in the poll, finish your classes and come back later.

[Coronius]

You aren't explaining your stance on the topic, you are still just trying to refute mine. I am asking you to give your logic behind WHY there is a third choice (neither).

I don't see what it is that you don't understand? If a person turns out good or bad is determined by his upbringing, environment and surroundings. Man is not born either "good" or "evil". That is all there is to it. A human is a blank slate at birth. Hence the third option; Neither.

This particular stance is called "empiricism" in the philosophical field if I'm not mistaken.

[Poper]

We are like a room with a lamp, sometimes the bulb go kaput and is all darkness, sometimes we change the bulb for one more powerfull to be able to see better.

Sorry for my english :P

[Thelxi]

Well it is human culture that determines what is good and what is bad.. so yeah

[Garnier Fructis]

You aren't explaining your stance on the topic, you are still just trying to refute mine. I am asking you to give your logic behind WHY there is a third choice (neither).

The motivation for adding a neutral option is, for me, primarily the observation that the actions of a newborn baby do not have any quality you could remotely attach "moral" or immoral" to. They simply do things. They exist.

From there, it's as simple as showing that the idea is not self-contradictory. Which it isn't. And all I'm refuting is your claim that my stance is contradictory.

[spinner981]

Important section in bold.


The part in bold, here, is false. The concept presented was that you choose one or the other fruit. "Both" and "Neither" were not valid options. By your first statement, even if those could be valid options, if we eliminate them there must still, be a black-and-white difference between the remaining options. One of them must be right, and the other must be wrong.

So which is it?

Your entire argument is not consistent or valid. It's an illogical mess that is self-contradictory.

I think you are making this about simple decision making and moving away from the actual topic: morality. This isn't just a fill in the blank question here. This deals with morality, not any given possible topic with the same premise.

Let's use another analogy, one that actually makes sense to the topic at hand. A light switch. Turn it on, turn it off. Can it be both on and off? No. If it is on, then it isn't off, but if it is off, then it isn't on. There is no possibility where it can be both on and off and there is no possibility where it can be neither on nor off.

- - - Updated - - -

The motivation for adding a neutral option is, for me, primarily the observation that the actions of a newborn baby do not have any quality you could remotely attach "moral" or immoral" to. They simply do things. They exist.

From there, it's as simple as showing that the idea is not self-contradictory. Which it isn't. And all I'm refuting is your claim that my stance is contradictory.

So, 'feelings'? Not logic?

[Coronius]

I think you are making this about simple decision making and moving away from the actual topic: morality. This isn't just a fill in the blank question here. This deals with morality, not any given possible topic with the same premise.

Let's use another analogy, one that actually makes sense to the topic at hand. A light switch. Turn it on, turn it off. Can it be both on and off? No. If it is on, then it isn't off, but if it is off, then it isn't on. There is no possibility where it can be both on and off and there is no possibility where it can be neither on nor off.

A light bulb being on or off can not logically represent "good vs. bad". A more appropriate comparison would be "morality vs. amorality", and a lot of us see humans as amoral (not immoral) at birth. When you're born, you know nothing about the world and has nothing to base your morality on. As you grow up, you go through various experiences in life and gain a certain perspective.