Simple question: Are humans naturally good or bad?
>>1403997
humans are naturally good humans. which is bad
>>1403997
Humans are naturally very clever simians.
We're all born with Original Sin
>Good
>Bad
what
>>1404019
Fuck off stem fag
human beings aren't naturally anything. we need to be taught what we are or what we should be.
>>1404027
So who was the first one to teach humans? Other humans? But that would mean humans come up with shit themselves, so your theory is wrong.
We are naturally selfish and self preserving, which can mean we are less caring towards others, or bad.
>>1404027
>human beings aren't naturally anything
t. freshman
>>1404041
But humans require companionship to be happy
And the only way to get companionship is to be nice to fellow humans
>>1404041
>naturally selfish and self preserving
Then explain warfare, nationalism and any form of protest.
>>1403997
Humans are naturally born survives. Nothing more, nothing less. We have evolved for self preservation.
It's up to us, however, how we decide to survive, through selfish means or through cooperation. What you believe is good or bad is up to you but we are born neither.
you have to value worth as wealth and self respect and for others
>>1404060
>evolved for self preservation
that's not how evolution works you dumbass
>>1404071
>Are humans shitty creatures that are naturally violent sociopathic liars? Yes.
You only have this opinion because you have no friends. You can call it a bad argument, but deep down, you realize it's the truth.
>>1404059
You are more likely to survive and prosper if you cooperate with others.
>>1404077
>No
Uhmm, yes? This is scientific fact.
>>1404071
sure, i don't deny that humans come with genetics and instinct, but i thought that the OP was concerned with the natural philosophical tendency of humans, not anything related to genetics or instinct.
>>1404076
Look at human history you dumbfuck.
The only reason half the world isn't genociding the other half again is because we have nuclear weapons.
>>1404079
>this is a scientific fact
>>1404082
Your world view is fucked up retarded and sad, above all sad
>>1404089
Have you seen murder rates in the 1700's?
Imagine back when we didn't even have guns, laws, or societies.
>>1404077
>Social constructs
Everyfucking thing involving human communication is a social construct you retard thats why its called "social"
and being "social" is a human trait so how do you not believe self sacrifice is a non human trait.
>>1404073
Evolution works because of natural selection and that favors organisms that excel at self preservation.
Nature had no intention of doing so but considering we exist because our ancestors were the best at self preservation. I think it's logical to say that we evolved for self preservation, even if no one had the intention of doing so.
>>1404059
kin-selection
>>1404103
Why is the murder rate in modern western societies so low, even though according to your theory all humans are murderous psychopaths?
>nuclear weapons
Killing someone on the street doesn't trigger a nuclear war
>>1404107
>Evolution works because of natural selection and that favors organisms that excel at self preservation.
>Nature had no intention of doing so but considering we exist because our ancestors were the best at self preservation. I think it's logical to say that we evolved for self preservation, even if no one had the intention of doing so.
Dude if self preservation was so good everyone would be jellyfish it isn't self preservation its reproduction, learn the basics of evolution
According to Confucius, humans are naturally good. It's only when confronted with the restrictions of modern life that people commit evil. Someone wants to give to the poor, but he gets stiffed by grifters and no longer gives to the poor. Someone wants to perform charity in Syria but she gets raped by ISIS.
Most of us, even the most pessimistic, probably were good people early in life. Even you.
>>1404114
>Why is the murder rate in modern western societies so low, even though according to your theory all humans are murderous psychopaths?
Technology.
>Killing someone on the street doesn't trigger a nuclear war
Killing someone on the street doesn't make "people are violent, sociopathic liars".
Stop attempting to make analogies when they don't fucking work. The things that send murder rates skyrocketing are wars and the economic collapses caused by those wars.
In that sense, MAD has ensured the relative safety of society.
>>1404118
reproduction is a type of self-preservation.
>>1404089
>Your worldview is harsh and scary, so I'm going to call it names.
Grow up faggot, human history is just a continuation of life's history, and life is a no-holds-barred battlefield for survival. What we call morality is a collective survival strategy. It is in no way transcendent or inherently "good." You can and should still enjoy friendship, love, community etc- but realize the positive emotions you feel are simply carrots your consciousness uses to get you to conform to a certain pattern of existence. The meaning is an illusion, albeit a powerful one.
>>1404131
>Technology.
That's not an answer to my question in any way shape or form.
History has shown that Hobbes is correct.
Roussea is not.
Case closed
>>1404132
>reproduction is a type of self-preservation
not really you used to have a really high chance of dying from childbirth, so it really isn't preserving your health letting one of those fuckers leave your vagina
>>1404141
>Technology stopped people from being murderous psychopaths
I am sorry I don't get it, did everyone get some chip implanted at birth that changed us into good people or something?
>>1403997
Good = denial of self in favor of collective
Bad = elevation of self over collective
Man has evolved to be good because having a bunch of homies to hunt Wooly Mammoths is a pretty competitive strategy. Man has retained some bad because the self is, even when being moral, in it for the self. If one can retain the benefits of being good while getting the benefits of acting bad (stealing w/o being caught, for example) they will often do so.
>>1404136
If you're going to be purposefully obtuse, then what is your answer?
>>1404144
Why do you ladies always make it about you? More importantly, why do so many women now see childbirth as the ultimate unfairness? Have you been indoctrinated to be a good prole that hard, or do women naturally resent their role as baby-factories
>>1404146
Do you actually think you have to change human instinct to change human behavior?
>>1404149
>Good = denial of self in favor of collective
>Bad = elevation of self over collective
t. Communist
>>1404141
>>1404144
I don't mean "self-preservation" of your physical self. I mean self-preservation of your genes. Our genes are what's being preserved, were just the product and carriers of those genes. From that perspective, reproducing is a type of preservation. Reading through my posts, I didn't make that clear.
Good and evil are subjective qualifiers relative to societal and moral norms.
There is no objective state of good or evil to be born into. Humans for the most part are selfish and self preserving but also tempered by empathy and want for companionship. We're naturally social creatures.
But what you consider good or evil will change depending on context. You really don't need to look further than the saying one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
First we need to define good and evil before anything else.
>>1404155
>baby factories
your the one indoctrinated. Women used to work as well as have children, it was changes in the way the economy functioned which changed them to becoming housemothers as capitalism collapses when you have a surplus in the workforce.
>>1404162
Humans don't necessarily think like that. We simply are socially encouraged to mimic what our parents did and older generations did.
No one in 8,000BC thought, "hey I need to preserve my genes so I'm gonna fuck 100 women".
>>1404175
>No one in 8,000BC thought, "hey I need to preserve my genes so I'm gonna fuck 100 women".
Speak for yourself m8
>>1404175
It's called instinct
>>1404167
Women have always worked, but their primary role was reproduction. Work was extremely important, but secondary to keeping the species alive. Now many women don't reproduce, those who do have fewer children, and women are now essentially subpar men.
On a similar note, many women I know are offended by the idea of childbirth. I am curious whether it is because women are now told to be men. Thoughts?
>>1404175
True but looking at it from the genes perspective, it explain some subtle behaviors that pure selfishness couldn't otherwise explain. Like a mother who will kill themselves to save their children or someone who will go out of their way to help their siblings and caring for their children, even though they themselves aren't getting any. That wouldn't make sense from a purely selfish standpoint but for gen preservation it's logical. By helping children and family you're still preserving your genes.
We don't directly think that way, but the influence is there.
Could you please define "good" and "bad?"
I think it is truly a test of intelligence and self control. Intelligent individuals have it in them to manipulate other to get what they want, however self control is knowing that, that is fucking wrong and you cannot give into every desire
>>1404201
>but their primary role was reproduction.
Mens primary goal was reproduction. How is this an argument exclusive to women?
>>1404159
I'm not a gommunist, this is just my take on traditional morality. Do not murder, steal, rape, lie etc all lead to better collectives at the cost of individual freedom to pursue short term self-interest.
>>1404165
Depends on your measuring stick, i guess. The good and evil on the universal scale is probably meaningless to define, but we can know it on human scale. As in, what's good and evil by humans, for humans, and against humans. I would propose that our laws evolved from our sense of good and evil, and can be used as a starting point. For example murder is evil, because it impairs the survival of the species as a whole. Here is a whole lot grey area, as there is everywhere, so I'll wait upon you guys to add in on my framework.
>>1404201
women are offended by you placing categories on them such as mother or "baby makers" so they think that having children is going to harm there individuality. It really isn't an issue its just a sign that the differences between women and man are going to diminish as gender roles are becoming non-existent.
>>1404212
Men's goal was reproduction, but their role was resource acquisition and protection. Women's goal was reproduction, and their role was actually making babies- like literally building up babies from a money shot and an ovum. Crazy.
That's why I used role and not goal- my bad, should have made that more clear. I forget women are incredibly disingenuous when discussing anything that relates to themselves.
>>1404222
But will the differences between men and women really subside if we simply change expectations? I certainly won't be able to dunk even if everyone suddenly believes white guys can jump. Do you think there is any way in which treating women like men is like trying to fit a circle peg into a square hole?
>>1404225
>Women's goal was reproduction, and their role was actually making babies- like literally building up babies from a money shot and an ovum.
Right but women weren't just pregnant literally all the time. There weren't just sitting around, eating and sleeping while constantly poping out babies. Women were still doing work and can still do straining tasks while pregnant. It's less than men yes, but women have still been a significant workforce in any society.
>>1404234
Well there are differences but i'm talking about workplace differences, household differences and activity differences which are standards propagated by traditional.
desu I think that giving women power is a good idea solely on the basis of allowing criticism as currently the only people in charge of changing women's behaviour without force are women themselves.
I also don't think women are less qualified than men so I don't get the idea they will be misfit for different roles they still have thumbs and a high IQ to perform those manly roles
>>1404239
I already agreed with you that women worked, but we're getting off topic, so I'll ask again. Do you feel, from your perspective, like society makes childbirth and motherhood seem like a bad thing- exploitative, painful, sexist etc.
>>1404253
Oh so you agreed? My bad I misunderstood.
I think the whole hate for motherhood thing is more a consequence of female roles in modern society. Today, there's a lot less need to do menial tasks in the home so the traditional idea of the house wife is kinda diminished as most just have less to do in that role. They've got time to get new hobbies, pursue bigger careers etc. Not to say the same didn't happen to men but I think this development has impacted women more. Now we have a society that allows women to do more things but this clashes with more traditional values, creating a bit of rebellion amongst many women.
i think it's less about hate of motherhood and more a pride thing like "I don't have to be a house wife, i can do whatever the fuck I want". Not wanting to be a mother is just a logical side effect. That's my theory anyway.
>>1403997
equally good and bad just depends how they use it and whos seeing it
>>1404282
Pretty sure most of us agree that murder is bad so it's not really ''equal''
prager u is bad
>>1403997
We're naturally "good' in that we have the mammalian social instinct of empathy, causing us to form societies with hierarchies and obedience, in which we, to some degree, care for one another, either directly or indirectly.
We're naturally "bad", as once such a tribe is formed, it tends to regard all competing tribes and obstacles as non-human, often to be exterminated with extreme prejudice. ...and if things become too difficult, our survival instinct tends to quickly overwhelm our social instinct.
>>1403997
>natural
top lel
>>1404293
Under certain circumstances, the bulk of us still consider murder to be good. We generally just stop calling it murder.
>>1404155
> or do women naturally resent their role as baby-factories
Wouldn't you?
>this thread
>>1403997
i haven't seen something this spooky since halloween anon
>>1404019
This.
Niggas make up words with no real definition and and no solid basis in reality then spend hours arguing with one another about the grey area that they themselves fabricated.
>>1403997
2wo spook 4our me
>>1403997
Given an equal choice, a Human would always do the good thing instead of the bad one.
Evil deeds only happen out of necessitiy.
>>1405384
Good and bad are spooks
>>1405384
>human creations are not real
Huh?
Humans are naturally anything. Humans are supernatural beings.
>>1403997
People are born innocent. For people to be good or evil they first need to have a concept of morality. Babies don't have this, which means they can be neither good nor evil. Same is true for animals.
Some are good, other are bad. If you have a gene of evil than you would be born evil, I heard,
>>1405654
This is true
They are naturally self-interested, which can be either good or bad depending on how that self-interest is directed.
>>1404076
I know people who believe this, and they have friends who believe this, and they often have casual sex with each other and go to bars and play video games with each other
People are born selfish. Naturally, this takes the form as evil the most often.
>>1403997
bad people trying to do good
some want to do bad because it appeals to them, and comes more naturally than doing good
none of this is bad, necessarily, but it makes life a lot more complex than it has to be
>>1405555
/thread
It comes down to what the person values and whether they are willing to make compromises that some would deem as 'immoral' or not. It is based on this logic, we see how people are capable of being good, but are more often than not, easily made prone to what is deemed as bad.
>>1405468
who decides what is a necessity?
>>1404077
>no
you do realise that people can go insane if they are isolated from social interactions for extended periods of time right? that's why solitary confinement was considered as a punishment for prisoners, and why it's been outlawed in most places
>>1403997
Tabula rasa nigga
>>1406722
Can you proof that this is due to their biology and not because of socialization though?
>people can go insane
Most mental illnesses were made up to describe people who do not function in society and have no biological basis.
ITT
>>1404027
No.
Kill yourself please.
>>1403997
Humans are as good as their environment, and circumstances allow them to be.
>>1403997
Its nature and nurture.
We have laws and "society" that affects how we think and interpret situations.
Depending on how we are raised, we can either be absolutely horrible, or a law abiding citizen.
We are a sum of our experiences.
Biologically, there are bestial elements to our psyche. Laws are made by other humans so we don't prevent eachother from killing/ raping one another.
However, if there are laws which permit said killing and raping for certain circumstances (because one particular person/ group of people are inferior to you), we'd go on and do it.
>>1403997
define good or bad
There are two types of possible moralities, good based off of an objective source (refereed to typically as God or a god(s)) in which WHATEVER that being says is good, is good.
Then there is morality based off of no objective source (that being there is no supernatural) in which """""good"""" is just whatever people think at the time ranging from genocide to charity.
This may seem like memes, but you cant just ask a question like that without definitions.
IMO due to the fact that man can not create himself we are all EXACTLY as we are intended to be, good or evil being arbitrary :^)
>>1403997
there's no such thing as good and evil, just ideas you disagree with
>>1403997
Neither. Humans are naturally programmable.
>>1403997
Courtesy of /tg/
>>1407098
/tg/ are perverts, who cares what bullshit theories they hold.
Good and bad don't actually exist
There are only cultures and taboos
>>1403997
Humans naturally strive to amass power for themselves. Whether that's good or bad depends on your outlook
>>1403997
Humans are naturally self-serving. Whether an individual is malevolent or benevolent is up to whatever satisfies them.
This isn't to say everyone's behavior is independent from one another. We're naturally collectivist and our overall behavior is adjusted in accordance to our surroundings.
>>1403997
People are neither inherently good or bad. People do good or bad, and people are defined by what they do.
Certainly some people are more inclined to do good or bad.
What does an evolutionary capacity for empathy do for us? or is it just a way for us to continue our self-serving natures by caring for people who care for us, or helping the group we belong to?
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_evolution_of_empathy
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111208142017.htm
>The emotions of rats and mice and the mental infrastructure behind them promise to illuminate the nature of human emotions, including empathy and nurturance, a neuroscientist says.
>>1405384
Spoken like a true autist
