Before I joined social media, and before the advent of comment threads attached to online news articles, I was much more a believer in the inherent goodness of most people.
I am much more cynical now. People write things online they would never say in real life.
Some criminals do go straight and become productive citizens. Although this is only a small percentage (recidivism rates are quite high, but lower than 100%), it does indicate that such change is possible.
I don’t think the vast, vast majority of criminals are evil. Cold blooded killers? Rapists? Sure, but they make up a small minority of inmate populations.
Recidivism rates have almost zero to do with the individual being “good” or “bad” and much more to do with our system which continues to punish people long after their prison time.
I believe people’s instinct is self preservation. When chips are down, people look after themselves first, and if it means others may get hurt, so be it. People are generous and nice when they can afford to. They can be mean when they feel they are not getting what they are entitled to.
@anomander, the studies conducted (i.e. 6-10 month olds watching “morality play” videos and judged to be displaying a preference for characters who help rather than hinder based on attention span) don’t, to me, suggest that babies are “good.” There could be many reasons why the babies preferred to watch one character over another (more movement, more sound, more color). The conclusion made, that babies instinctively recognize cooperation, also does not mean they are “good,” The Smithsonian article opened with an anecdote from a researcher’s life; he was beaten up randomly as part of a probable gang initiation, which fostered his fascination with questions of inherent good and evil. Yet the gang initiation itself is a form of “cooperation.” Cooperation, the desire to get along and be accepted, is not synonymous with moral goodness, which sometimes requires the opposite (at great personal cost).
No one has really defined what it means to be a good person.
I agree with @oldfort. When your life has been easy and you’ve been well-treated most of the time within your society, of course you are going to say that people are basically good. It’s kind of a luxury to be able to think that way. It’s what I believed as a child. I don’t regret having a trustful childhood, though. High-trust societies are better to live in than low-trust ones.
I feel most are moral relativists - they cheat when they think nobody gets hurt by it, or it is common enough to most likely be overlooked. We tend to generous when times are good and selfish when times are tough. I am one, though, who will call you on it if you try to get in the 12 item line with 25 things. Most won’t and will quietly fume.
The hard part is being good when there is something to lose, Superman good but without the invincibility. I feel we have done a fair job modeling that and see results with S1 and D; S2, I hope, is just going through a phase.
^^I think the getting in line thing is more about being selfish than being evil. And I think there are a LOT of selfish people in the world (it’s one of my pet peeves). I think being selfish harkens back to the primitive part of us as mammals, and I think working collaboratively is one of the reasons we as a species have advanced so far. If we could just dig out the dang selfish behavior that’s so destructive, I think we’d be a lot more civilized.
I was watching a show about dolphins a few nights ago (it’s on Netflix, I can’t remember the name of it but they used these hilarious animatronic sea creatures to film alongside the dolphins), and I was struck by how when one dolphin would catch a big fish, none of the other dolphins would rush in and try to snatch it from him (or her) when they were eating it. They’d also work together to make a ring of sediment in the water to scare the fish up into the air so they could all eat them. But mostly it was the fact that, unlike hyenas who will squabble viciously over food, the dolphins were very considerate (if that’s not anthropomorphising too much) with regards to letting their podmates eat in peace.
There have been some interesting behavioral economics books about selfishness vs. enlightened self-interest vs. selflessness. It’s a fascinating topic.
MOD, my feeling is that selfishness is its own form of bad. I was using the grocery line as an example of the least objectionable things that people do, small personal benefit for one but a penalty for many. Some recent examples with more risk: S1 and I pushed a stalled car off of the 520 floating bridge; W ran into traffic when a blind woman got disoriented during a wind storm and all the other drivers were just driving around her; I have stopped guys hitting kids and women (and I’m kinda small myself).
At each of these, at least a hundred other people could have done the kind and good thing but chose not to. Given a choice between doing a bad thing or a good thing, I think most will choose the good one. Given the choice between bad, good, or nothing, people overwhelmingly choose to do nothing, and I think that in itself is a bad thing.
I think in the everyday life of most CC posters it could be defined in a couple of very basic and perhaps even simplistic ways.
Do we do the “right” thing when no one will know the difference? If a cashier hands you back an extra $20 with your change, do you give it back or let his register be short at the end of the night and jeopardize his job? If you find someone’s wallet outside a restaurant, do you take it back inside and give it to the hostess? If you smash into someone’s car in a parking lot doing damage, do you leave a note with your contact info or just walk away?
I also think you can define a “good” person by observing how they treat others that they have power over or that they employ. Do they treat those people with respect or do they capitalize on that power to the detriment of the other person? I have a very hard time trusting people that abuse servers in restaurants, are harsh with people they employ in their households/companies or that “lord” their position of power publicly in a display of dominance. Sounds trite, but I think inherently “good” people are comfortable with power and use it to help others along rather than to dominate.
And then of course we all have our own biases and that probably customizes our own definition. For instance, I personally think you can tell a lot about someone by observing how they treat animals, the elderly or any other vulnerable person.
I know the difference. I’m not saying I always do the right thing (because I don’t, although I never TRY to do the wrong thing, occasionally it all goes to hell in a handbasket anyway), but it’s never a case of “no one will know”. Someone will know, even if it’s only you.
What’s a bummer is that that’s not enough for some people-only external moralities and the threat of being caught keeps them from practicing evil/being bad…
I think most people have a set of values, of instincts and other learned and non learned behavior, that I think they generally want to be good/do good. That said, people also do things that we may not consider good but they themselves are doing so out of good motives. The parent who truly believes that corporal punishment and being tough on a kid makes a better person may be doing so out of love, but it can screw the kid up, same with the parent who tries to encase their kid in foam, it is done out of love, but is it the right thing? I think a lot of people try to do the right thing, and try to live their lives in a way that reflects that, but often things get in the way of that, or they simply are human and at times, lose it. The thing to remember is no one is either all good or all bad, even the most evil person might have things about them that are commendable, while that person people hold up as a saint might have some things about them that aren’t too keen. I refuse, though, to subscribe to what was promoted by certain branches of religion over the years, that people are inherently low, that they therefore are beholden to some deity and/or church because they are so low, I don’t buy that. I think people have the capability of saints and devils within themselves, but inherently low/ I don’t think so. I am never amazed how low people can go, but on the other hand, as compared to that one person, are millions or maybe even billions going about their lives not being like that:) The same humanity that could produce Bach or Handel, also could produce Muzak lol
“What’s a bummer is that that’s not enough for some people-only external moralities and the threat of being caught keeps them from practicing evil/being bad…”
Right. That’s why I never got “religion as the base of morality.” I don’t go stealing things that aren’t mine or killing other people or whatever because I’m afraid there’s some afterlife with a deity where I’ll be punished for it. I don’t do so because those aren’t the right things to do, period.
I think yes. And I do so hate to be disappointed.
A principle of UUism is “the inherent worth and dignity of every human being.” Doesn’t say anything re “good” or “bad.” I think that whether one comes down on the good, innately constructive side of life or on the bad, destructive side is a matter of ongoing personal choice, amongst other things. It’s complicated.
The downside to that is that bad, destructive choices often have collateral blowback that hurt other people. Like drunk driving.
Givers, makers, takers, and destroyers. That’s what the human world is made of.
Yes.
I wrote a long thoughtful answer to this and just before I sent it I realized I’d offered a mish mash of well-known philosophical and psychological theories. So I deleted that crap.
There are really good answers out there.
People are inherintly selfish. I believe in original sin and believe we overcome our selfish desires to live in a civilized society. We wouldn’t need laws if people were basically good.
“Good laws derive from evil habits,” @eyemamom!
This is really an old philosophical argument. I also believe in the fallen nature of humanity. That’s not to say that I don’t think people are capable of heroic self-sacrifice and great good. But they don’t come naturally.
On a non-religious note, Freud argued that repression (laws, internalized behavior mores) is the price of civilization.
@MotherOfDragons, your second paragraph is exactly what I meant. I was not suggesting the the choice between being on the positive or the negative side was ethically neutral: only that it is a CHOICE that we can and must make over and over again.