I can never make up my mind on the question… are most people inherently good? i know some people are sociopaths and some people are just amazing by nature…but on a bell curve where do most people fall?
I ask because yesterday I saw the good side of humanity from a group of strangers and it made me very happy.
actually a bell curve is adjusted …so poor wording on first post… the average is always in the middle…so I should have said if you lay out a bell curve what does the top of the curve look like(good folks, bad or somewhere in between)? or where does the average person fall?
I think most people are neutral. They will help if it doesn’t put them out too much.
I think the vast majority of humans, on a personal interaction level, are kind and full of the best intentions. Everyone wants to feel helpful, feel meaningful, feel like they contributed. Whether or not they get that opportunity and seize it may vary. Whether it is publicized or not may vary. But our towns and cities are full of goodness. They are. Sometimes we don’t know what to do, or how to help, or if that help will be well-received, and that slows us down.
I believe that most people are inherently good, and I can count on one hand the number of times I have been wrong about someone. Perhaps my observations are skewed because I think I have very good instincts - I can spot a problem person after 3 minutes of just talking to them. So I probably dodge a lot of bullets.
H is totally the opposite - he believes human nature is basically self serving. People operate in a manner to position themselves advantageously - the hell with everyone else. He is very guarded with new people that we meet and is reluctant to open up about himself or our family. Tells me I should stop being so “friendly” and believes everyone has an “agenda.” Makes for interesting social situations!
I think a lot of this depends on location, upbringing, and local culture. Based on my own observations/experiences, people in smaller, family-values type of towns tend to be very good and trustworthy, whereas people in larger, urban areas tend to be more independent-minded and unpredictable.
I would summarize:
People in smaller, family values type towns = vast majority are good and trustworthy
People in large, urban areas = mixed bag
Yes, I realize these are generalizations, but the question is also general.
I believe sociopaths(one end of your curve) are born and not raised. Therefore, I believe the huge majority of us are born with a conscience.
I think most people are good . Then there are those that would jump on a grenade to save others they don’t know.That’s at the other end of your curve.
This was a cool experiment with babies.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130114-are-we-naturally-good-or-bad
“…Ingenious experiments carried out at Yale University in the US used these measures to look at babies’ minds. Their results suggest that even the youngest humans have a sense of right and wrong, and, furthermore, an instinct to prefer good over evil…”
This probably has less to do with being “inherently” good or not, but due to the deterrent effect (against evildoing) of not being as anonymous in a small town.
I absolutely believe that the vast majority of people are inherently good.
It’s why I always assume the best from everyone until they prove to me otherwise.
Also, my experience is the exact opposite of fractl’s. The small, “family values” (ie conservative) areas I’ve lived in have contained the nastiest, most gossipy people I’ve ever met. Sure, they were kind and sweet if you behaved and believed exactly as they believed you should, but otherwise…
Yes. We aren’t born sinful. Well, just a tiny few.
I make a conscious decision every day to believe most people are inherently good, because it is just a more pleasant way for me to live. I am grateful to have the luxury of life circumstances that make choosing that belief possible.
I believe your much of your personality is determined in the genetic lottery at the time of conception.
I do believe however that your environment can influence it. some people may live in dire straits for 100 years and never be unhappy or “bad” while others could have the “perfect” life and be miserable and mean starting as children…
but I am curious as to where any random person will most likely fall on the spectrum.
I would’ve said most inherently good until a few years ago. Then I learned that most people will go along with doing bad things if a person with authority over them is in favor of it.
I believe quite a few studies have shown that babies are inherently good (e.g. wanting to help accomplish tasks, friendly to others, etc). We all get warped by our parents and society as we get older though.
There’s a list somewhere-chaotic evil, lawful evil, chaotic neutral, lawful neutral, chaotic good, lawful good. There’s an entire spectrum from Lex Luthor (actually lawful evil) to Superman (lawful good). I’d put myself on the chaotic good spot. You never can be sure how I’ll get the good accomplished, but I try and get there.
I think most people are sheeple-lawful neutral, and capable of being pushed onto either side of the spectrum (as the Stanford Experiments proved decades ago).
@anomander , I’ve met some truly chaotic evil toddlers.
I don’t know what it means to be “inherently” good; morally disciplined individuals make a conscious decision to do the right thing, as they see it, even at personal cost, but it’s not “inherent.” Most people, I think, primarily respond to incentives and various forms of social discipline. If the incentives are to do good, you will get more of that behavior. You are more likely to be “good” when you are being watched or held accountable for your actions; hence the “friendly small town” vs. “anonymous city jerk” stereotypes. Sometimes you will do evil for the same reason; you are being watched and held accountable for acting (or not acting) in a certain way. Would you risk your life to help a persecuted person if you lived under a brutal dictatorship?
Mostly I think the capacity for both good and evil exists in every person. Humankind in a state of nature is selfish and competitive. Altruism is a product of civilization IMHO. I’m not a fan of Rousseau.
I don’t believe this. Small children are, by and large, quite selfish and need to be trained to consider the needs of others. I don’t believe babies can be “good” because they aren’t making a choice.
I think it depends what you mean by good or evil. I think many, maybe even most people, would rush in front of a car to save a child. The same person might cheat or steal or do something selfish for their own benefit. There are stories like this in the news all the time - someone who risks their life to save someone, then charged with embezzlement or something similar. Many people are a quandary, really, not absolutes in most cases.
@NJSue Here’s some reading on what I was talking about. The babies are indeed making choices between what we as adults would term “good” and “bad”.
These are actual babies; when you get to the “small child” phase all bets are off. Many young children certainly can be quite selfish.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?_r=0
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-babies-born-good-165443013/
I believe most people are born good. Some are born downright evil. Yes, I do believe we are born this way with a chance of change from good to evil in the right circumstances (war leader, violent childhood, etc). I do not think you can change from evil to good however.