Do you believe humans are inherintly good or bad?

[spinner981]

Do you believe that humans are inherently good or bad? Moral or immoral? Righteous or evil?

[Zoaric]

We are both, and neither. And shades of grey. All at once!

[sandollor]

Have you met humans? They're the worst.

[Dellis0991]

We are everything, we choose it to be who we are.

[Kraenen]

how about both good and evil

dun dun dunnnnn

[spinner981]

how about both good and evil

dun dun dunnnnn

Just like a light being both on and off. Can't have both. Can't have neither.

[mmokri]

Good/bad are relative terms, worthless. Righteus/evil are relative terms, worthless. Moral moves with humans, so humans in general are always moral.

[Kraenen]

Just like a light being both on and off. Can't have both. Can't have neither.

Can't not have not not light that isn't dark

[TEHPALLYTANK]

Bad, I use the evidence of your inability to spell inherently as proof of that. Did I do it right? This thread is deliberately obtuse so I decided to play along!

[Sunseeker]

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.

[Torgent]

Do you believe that humans are inherently good or bad? Moral or immoral? Righteous or evil?

Here we see the results of first year college students.

Humans are inherently nothing. We are not good or evil by nature. Go look up the Tabula Rasa. That is more commonly accepted, because it actually accounts for both sides easily. If we're inherently good, the people that do bad are going against nature. If we're inherently evil, being good goes against our nature. We are neither, and instead shaped by our surroundings and experiences.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

We are both, and neither. And shades of grey. All at once!

We are legion.

[spinner981]

Morality isn't binary.

Sure, there are things that you can do that aren't moral, and there are things that you can do that aren't immoral. But they are mutually exclusive still. If something isn't morally acceptable, then it is immoral. Something can not be both moral and immoral, that would be a paradox. Likewise, a human can not be both moral and immoral, good and bad, as that too would be a paradox; since it is impossible for something 'good' to also be 'bad' and for something 'bad' to also be 'good'. So then I guess the question becomes:

If a person does both morally acceptable things and immoral things, does that make them good or bad?

[Garnier Fructis]

Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa.

Translation: Poll is missing a third option.

[Torgent]

Sure, there are things that you can do that aren't moral, and there are things that you can do that aren't immoral. But they are mutually exclusive still. If something isn't morally acceptable, then it is immoral. Something can not be both moral and immoral, that would be a paradox. Likewise, a human can not be both moral and immoral, good and bad, as that too would be a paradox; since it is impossible for something 'good' to also be 'bad' and for something 'bad' to also be 'good'. So then I guess the question becomes:

If a person does both morally acceptable things and immoral things, does that make them good or bad?

Basic misunderstanding of those words. Every evil thing is good to those who agree with it, but bad to those who don't. Good and evil are based solely on where you stand.

- - - Updated - - -

Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa. Tabula rasa.

Translation: Poll is missing a third option.

But but but, my soc 101 class didn't cover that today, it can't be real!

[spinner981]

Here we see the results of first year college students.

Humans are inherently nothing. We are not good or evil by nature. Go look up the Tabula Rasa. That is more commonly accepted, because it actually accounts for both sides easily. If we're inherently good, the people that do bad are going against nature. If we're inherently evil, being good goes against our nature. We are neither, and instead shaped by our surroundings and experiences.

The question is not if people can do only good things or only bad things, and the question is not whether or not humans can become better or worse as time goes on. If the two sides are either being moral or immoral, then it stands to reason that a lack of immorality translates to morality, or a lack of morality translates to immorality. A lack of both implies that you are both in nature, but a lack of neither implies that you are neither in nature. Like I said, a paradox.

- - - Updated - - -

Basic misunderstanding of those words. Every evil thing is good to those who agree with it, but bad to those who don't. Good and evil are based solely on where you stand.

Why does that matter? It shouldn't matter that people answer the question differently. A subjective view on morality doesn't really refute the subject if you can just apply your own subjective morality to it. You can use that view to look at the question from a different perspective, but it is still wholly answerable.

[Torgent]

The question is not if people can do only good things or only bad things, and the question is not whether or not humans can become better or worse as time goes on. If the two sides are either being moral or immoral, then it stands to reason that a lack of immorality translates to morality, or a lack of morality translates to immorality. A lack of both implies that you are both in nature, but a lack of neither implies that you are neither in nature.

- - - Updated - - -



Why does that matter? It shouldn't matter that people answer the question differently. A subjective view on morality doesn't really refute the subject if you can just apply your own subjective morality to it. You can use that view to look at the question from a different perspective, but it is still wholly answerable.

So you missed the entire point of my posts. Good job. Seriously, go look up Tabula Rasa. You will then instantly request this thread deleted. Or at least I hope you would.

[Zoaric]

We are legion.

And we have t-shirts! Get your 'Legion of Humanity' shirts here! Get your t-shirts, only
$100 US!

Seriously, though, that's all we are: grey. There are those of us who are evil, and those
who are good. but either of these subsets are capable of the other.

[Garnier Fructis]

Since the poll is incomplete, I'll just pick the answer I like slightly more and say that humans are inherently evil. This choice is motivated by the existence of people who don't flush their turds in public restrooms and people who drive 60 in the fast lane. These people must come from the deepest pits of hell: sent by Satan himself back to Earth to plague decent folks.

[jordonus]

It depends how you define good and evil but ultimately it is not black and white, is a spectrum; on which the human race would most likely fall either on neutral or towards to the good end because a social species that does not cooperate with each other destroys itself and goes extinct.