Human beings: Intrinsically good, bad, or...

This may have been asked before, but, in my time here, I have not seen such a topic.

What I would like to know are your opinions, backed up by personal experience or observations, on what the intrinsic nature of human beings is, whether, by common definition, we tend towards doing 'good' deeds, whether we tend to act 'badly' - fulfilling egoistical ambitions at the expense of others - or whether we act 'neutral', depending on the situation, displaying both tendencies roughly in equal amounts.

I'll start of with a short experience/observation of mine: I tend to believe in the intrinsically good nature of human beings. It's hard for me to explain just why - it's just something I feel and thus believe. I've witnessed, as well as received, unexpected acts of kindness, great and small. Also, I've seen my own life turn around these past years from one of utter and complete asshole selfishness to just not giving a flying hoot about my egocentric part, anymore.

Of course, the asteriks to this questions is that we all know there are all kinds of people in this world. Some of them we downright question whether they have any soul, at all. I don't know how you want to approach this. You may take that into account in your equation, or not.

I suppose, in the end, this topic may be more suited to introspection and reflection, rather than actual debate. Feel free to voice your feelings, though.

[font=Verdana][color=green]This is the whole Nature/Nurture debate all over again. This is basically what this question is asking; do you believe humans grow up to be good, bad or neutral, or are they brought up as such.

Well, doing down the Nature route, I believe that humans are neutral; moreover they are selfish. Hence they are neutral. It's natural for creatures to want to live, therefore they'll do anything to do as such. This means that they can either do good things which have a benefit for themselves involved, or they can think only of themselves and act rashly to get a "quick win".

However, the Nurture route just comes to the very easy conclusion of; completely depends on how they were brought up. For example, I'd like to say I've been brought up pretty well. Therefore, it is in my being to be nice to other humans. However, let's take...the Kim Jong-un; son of Kim Jong-il. It would be foolish to say anything other than "He's just like he is due to his father, who's just like who is he thanks to his dad". Three generations of cruelty; that's no coincidence.

In whole, naturally we're selfish, but we can change with a good upbringing.

Lincoln once said "If you want to test a man's character, give him power." This quote basically answers your poll. So 'bad' to 'neutral' to be precise. You study history, you should know it.

Neutral, obviously. I had thought that it had already come to be accepted as a philosophical fact that nothing is intrinsically good or bad from the outset, and that circumstance shapes us to be what we are. I was actually surprised to see that anyone had voted for something else.

My opinion is that humans are intrinsically nothing. They are influenced by those around them and what they learn on their own. I liked a line from Harry Potter...I don't know what book it was. But he said something along the lines of: "If you want to know what a man is really like, see how he treats his inferiors, not his equals."

I don't even know how one would test this premise, though I can offer a somewhat similar example. Kids at a day-care who were around other kids of various nationalities grew up without knowing what racism was. Racism was a foreign concept to them--so much so that they couldn't even comprehend it.

Thank you for your thoughtful and thought-provoking input, Gentlemen. Your points are all valid. I don't think I have anything to add to my case, which I already stated. It probably in large part also comes down to one's religous/spiritual outlook. Mine, though it's a mixed-bag, does reserve, for each human being, a part which is wholly pure. This, however, may be buried so deep it may never come to light.

There is no such thing as good or bad, only thinking makes it so.

It all about potential. In a free for all world we can all do bad thing (as dictated by society) and we can all do good thing (as dictated by society). For example, murder is bad no matter where you go. I would like to clarify my definition of murder, by my def. it the killing of innocent. And we can do good like helping old lady crossing the street. We all capable of such actions, and we can choose what we want to do. Now if you say it depend on your nature, i would say this. Everybody can fight their nature, just as everyone can fight the urge to eat that last cupcake at midnight. It come down to willpower.

I think because Humans are social creatures by nature, they are more likely to be inherently good rather than neutral or bad to their fellow man because of this need.

Sums it up quite nicely.

Anyways, I think mankind as a general whole simply do whatever they deem to be in their best interests, and whatever the actions they end up taking can be perceived either as inherently good or evil depending upon which perspective you look at it.

Example: People need to eat, so farmers need to grow food- and thus- raze forests to make more farmland to grow more crops.

Good: Feeding themselves, their families, and other people.

Bad: Destroying an important ecosystem, which houses hundreds of thousands of different lifeforms, which other people may depend upon to thrive.

Good intentions with detrimental effects, I suppose.

In short- we think we're good.

Whether we actually are is- as displayed by the creation of this thread- very much up to debate.

You start off neutral, then life pounds who you are into you. It really could go either way.

And yeah, no-one will ever call themselves "evil." Villains always think they're doing the right thing. By that fact alone, no human is really "bad". Or maybe no human is ever "good"... eh... gotta thing about this real hard now.

This is a very interesting topic. I myself have thought about this and honestly can't decide either way. If you would really like some more information. I suggest you check out Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubnmer's book SuperFreakonomics. I talks a great deal about this and it is a pretty interesting read. It provides a lot of scientific research done on the subject and they are as objective as I've ever seen.

Humans are 'nothing'.

Without a type of society, environmental stimulation to artificial surroundings, and 'human' knowledge, humans are just the same type of beasts you see in the wild.

Nature never teaches you good or evil, all it does is make you survive.

Neutrality is just the third side of things, mainly choosing your interests over anything else.

My viewpoint is similar to that of many other members, namely that of neutral.

A lot of factors come into play when determining whether a person is "good" or "bad". The enviroment would be a good example. A rich child who is spoilt from young may be taught to take advantage of others in order to achieve his/her goals. Although s/he may not necessarily be committing any crime in the process of doing so, it can be seen as unethical. On the other hand, a child living in poverty might have to survive by pickpocketing or stealing from others. These actions break the law, but can we fault him/her for wanting to survive?

Of course, at the end of the day, we are given the choice to decide our own fate and alignment.

Everyone has pretty much been right. I'd go with the lincoln quote or Grover and Sam best though.
No one is intrinsically born Bad/Evil/Good, the environment they grow up in, the interactions they have in life, the very foundation of how their mind works all have an effect on the moral objectivity of a human being.

Currently, I would tell you that given the era we live in and the usual everyday bs we experience, Evil and Bad will be the general outcome of human decisions. Hell, I consider myself a relatively dark natured person, and im the guy that jumps into rivers to save the puppy or stays after class to teach classmates, help out the teacher, assist my family, and all around give of myself to others.

Love volunteering btw, have been to multiple countries in europe, Central America and Asia on volunteer work.

Man is intrinsically good.

Keep in mind that man is intrinsically a social animal -- humans that function completely alone are very, very rare exceptions. While being social does not make a person good, you cannot function in a society if you are a purely evil person. At worst, mankind as whole has enlightened self-interest (which marks humans a neutral), at best, mankind is genuinely altruistic. If the truth lies somewhere between those extremes, then mankind would still be firmly on the good camp.

Individually and taking effects on society out of the equation is another matter. Humans run the whole spectrum.

Keep in mind that what is considered to be 'Good' or 'Evil' is itself an increasingly hazy area.

Or if even such concepts truly exist, as opposed to being something that mankind has developed itself in order to better govern itself.

I believe we start out neutral and goes into what Sam said, it's nurture. The second we're born, we begin to be integrated and socialized into where we're born.

Extreme example: A child is born into Nazi Germany. Is he born bad? Nope, he's just born into a place that most consider evil at the time of his birth.