Poll: So... are we essentially good or evil?

[NorthernStar]

This is just something that's been on my mind for a while lately.

What do you think, fellow escapists? Are people essentially good or essentially bad / evil?

What's confusing to me is the goodness you may find in human beings for no apparent reason. Just a smile or encouraging word at the right time may turn someone's life around. In addition, there are numerous people who can put their own wishes aside and truly sacrifice themselves to help out people they love. I know it sounds terribly corny, but love is a very powerful force.

Then again, well... just look at the internet. Ever glanced at the comments on a Youtube video or random meme? It's downright depressing. As soon as the virtual walls are up, people can turn into animals. Not once thinking about the repercussions of their actions. They seem to forget that they're talking to real people. And it's not just on the internet, in real life too people can be terribly selfish, greedy and evil.

So... what is it? Are we humans essentially good? Evil? Or just a plain mixture of both? I'm curious to hear your opinions.

EDIT: Added the extra option 'Neither' to the poll

 

[Aurgelmir]

We are neither.

I think we are driven by our Ego, and to feel good.

Good and Evil is generally only in the eye of the beholder, not the person doing it.

 

[Soviet Steve]

Our instincts drive us to evil, our ability to reason compels us to good. We live in an age where the ability to reason is more recognized and pronounced than it has ever been, so I'd say we are both, but that we are leaning ever more towards good.

 

[NorthernStar]

Our instincts drive us to evil, our ability to reason compels us to good. We live in an age where the ability to reason is more recognized and pronounced than it has ever been, so I'd say we are both, but that we are leaning ever more towards good.

Ooh I like your description.

I think you may have a point here. Our instincts cause us to be selfish. After all, by being selfish; we can survive. This would mean that it's the old nature vs nurture debate when it comes to good or evil, then. But if you're saying that we are now learning more towards good, does that mean that you think that this has always been the case? Or only recently?

 

[Soviet Steve]

Ooh I like your description.

I think you may have a point here. Our instincts cause us to be selfish. After all, by being selfish; we can survive. This would mean that it's the old nature vs nurture debate when it comes to good or evil, then. But if you're saying that we are now learning more towards good, does that mean that you think that this has always been the case? Or only recently?

Consider the concepts of the divine right of kings and the social order that was accepted because of it with forced servitude and all that belonged with it. Consider the frequency of warfare, and the motivations behind it. (Near-constantly for honour, prestige)

These things were the norm up to the French revolution, and it wasn't something that anybody questioned, except for a few nuts sitting on the sidelines. I'd say that leading up to the French revolution there wasn't much good in humanity. We had strong communities and families, but their ability to advance themselves and our species in general was next to none. Thinking was against God, acting was against God, our only right was to obey the mighty.

Nowadays its taken for granted that all humans are free and equal, that we have a right to education, healthcare and a dignified existence. We also regard it as wholly unjustifiable for allowing non-sentient creatures to suffer where it can be avoided.

Compare this mindset to that of a lion, or of a pre-industrial peasant or king. Humanity has leaned heavily towards evil, and the shift that occurred in the late 1700s was mind-boggling.

 

[SpaceBat]

We are neither.
I think we are driven by our Ego, and to feel good.
Good and Evil is generally only in the eye of the beholder, not the person doing it.

I'm going to have to go with this.

 

[Nudu]

Good and evil are not objective concepts. It's probably more appropriate to talk about selfishness and altruism. I don't think I'm shattering anyones mind if I claim that all our actions are essentially selfish. When we act altruistically we do so either because we get something in return or because it makes us feel good inside. Our capacity for seemingly altruistic actions are attributable to a couple of things. "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins actually explains pretty well how empathy could have evolved.

 

[JesterRaiin]

Oh, it's that thread again...
I'll go with "neither". "Good" and "bad" are traits none-existing outside of human society.

 

[Fishyash]

Until evil and good can be objetively defined, the only thing I can say is.

To do good is to make people happy. (There are affable people with selfish intentions.)
To do evil is to make people unhappy. (The road to hell is paved with good intentions.)

That's the simplest way I can boil it down to (and that is merely my perception of it). Our perceptions of good and evil are different to each person, what one could consider an act of kindness, someone else could consider a monstrosity.

I think humans are driven to be happy. The way we think nowdays put much more factors into what makes us, and other people, happy than simply instincts.

 

[NorthernStar]

Good and evil are not objective concepts. It's probably more appropriate to talk about selfishness and altruism. I don't think I'm shattering anyones mind if I claim that all our actions are essentially selfish. When we act altruistically we do so either because we get something in return or because it makes us feel good inside. Our capacity for seemingly altruistic actions are attributable to a couple of things. "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins actually explains pretty well how empathy could have evolved.

Well, as I said; I believe that it makes sense for people to be selfish. Selfishness is what helps us survive. Empathy for others or animals is only going to get you killed. While giving away your food to a starving person might help that person and be considered 'good', in the end it will mean that you will starve as well as you were stupid enough to give away your food. To that sense, we might be programmed to be selfish as it is what makes us survive. I'll take a look at the book you suggested, thanks!

Oh, it's that thread again...
I'll go with "neither". "Good" and "bad" are traits none-existing outside of human society.

Heh, I guess we can't all be original all the time

What if we say that 'good' is essentially non-selfish, non-ego, while bad is 'selfish' and 'driven by ego'?

 

[Scarim Coral]

I say both since we are capable of good and evil. I mean just look at the past histories which serve as evidents of what we are capable off.

 

[JesterRaiin]

Oh, it's that thread again...
I'll go with "neither". "Good" and "bad" are traits none-existing outside of human society.

Heh, I guess we can't all be original all the time

What if we say that 'good' is essentially non-selfish, non-ego, while bad is 'selfish' and 'driven by ego'?

Then start the thread titled "are we essentially selfish or unselfish".

Also, i wouldn't start with "ego". Like most things depicting human psychology the description isn't that precise as one would think. :|

 

[Berenzen]

I wrote a 12 page essay on this last year.

My stance was essentially that what we define as good and evil depends on the in-groups that we are in, if 2 different groups come into conflict, we see the other group as evil, because otherwise we would be saying that what we are doing is wrong. This is true among all levels, whether if it's between hockey teams or between nations, we don't see the opponents as humans, instead we see them as entities of who we are in conflict with.

With that being said, I qualify my statement with this. Any action that causes harm to an in-group by a person in that ingroup, is typically considered an evil action. This is because it weakens the overall power and influence of that group, disrupting the status quo that humans enjoy. Two examples of this are murder- the slaying of someone in your ingroup- and raping someone from within your ingroup.

 

[JesterRaiin]

With that being said, I qualify my statement with this. Any action that causes harm to an in-group by a person in that ingroup, is typically considered an evil action. This is because it weakens the overall power and influence of that group, disrupting the status quo that humans enjoy. Two examples of this are murder- the slaying of someone in your ingroup- and raping someone from within your ingroup.

What if group is "evil" and by killing everyone else from said group murderer prevents, let's say, war ? Moreover - what if his actions were "evil" (greed, jealousy), but overal outcome - "good" (lack of war) ?
Is he good or evil by your book ?

 

[OncomingTraffic]

Good and Evil is a perspective, so there is no way to classify us as either.

 

[Berenzen]

With that being said, I qualify my statement with this. Any action that causes harm to an in-group by a person in that ingroup, is typically considered an evil action. This is because it weakens the overall power and influence of that group, disrupting the status quo that humans enjoy. Two examples of this are murder- the slaying of someone in your ingroup- and raping someone from within your ingroup.

What if group is "evil" and by killing everyone else from said group murderer prevents, let's say, war ? Moreover - what if his actions were "evil" (greed, jealousy), but overal outcome - "good" (lack of war) ?
Is he good or evil by your book ?

Evil is decided by the opinions of the ingroup, so he is evil from the view of the murdered, but could be considered a hero in the view of the group that they were about to go to war with. It is neither good, nor evil, those are terms that we make to try to justify our actions against another group of people. We all are part of the ingroup of humanity after all.

 

[Sonicron]

Remember Yahtzee's "Guantanamo Bay Approach"? I actually apply that to people when I first meet them. That doesn't mean I'm not courteous, of course, but I generally don't trust people until I've gotten at least a glimpse of the skeletons in their closet; you can dress humanity up as nice as you want, but the darkness is always there, somewhere under the surface.

I think Dr House summed it up best:
"We are selfish, base animals crawling along the face of the Earth, and because we have brains and if we try really hard we can occasionally aspire to something less than pure evil."

 

[GrandmaFunk]

"He was horny, so he dropped him. Man is evil!"

 

[Moriarty]

Since good and evil are defibed solely by us, we can be whatever we want, we just have to define it as what we do.