I've got a theory about something, please take this poll honestly...

Question:
On average is humanity inherently good or bad?

Choices:
Good, and sucessful at being good.
Good, but generally failing.
Nither
Bad, but generally failing.
Bad, and successful at being bad.

 

That's a tough one.

What is your definition of "good" or "bad", your definitions are probably similar to mine but other people may not share our definitions.

I don't have children so I don't have the experience of watching them make their first decisions.

I lean towards humans being taught to be good, which means they start out neutral or "bad".

I voted "neither" because in this context it is impossible to define "good" and "bad". From an evolutionary context, those terms are meaningless as "good" means I survive and pass on my genes, where "bad" means I don't get to do that.

In a societal context, however, those terms mean different things. Merely surviving and screwing aren't always the measuring stick.

I will likely come across as a Bible thumper here, but according to it, all men are sinners in need of salvation.

I see humanity as incomplete, developing. Each individual is born to progress. The question is will he move toward evil or righteousness and how fast? As such, some of us are evil and some are righteous at varying degrees and in cycles. Sometimes we are better than other times and we can move from righteous to evil and vice versa.

I think the key to righteousness is selflessness. The more selfless an individual becomes, the more righteous he will develop. Children are born selfish and necessarily so for survival. But as the child matures, he should progress toward selflessness or he will become destructive in degrees relative to how selfish he is. We see this demonstrated in society.

So, is humanity good or bad inherently? It all boils down to potential.

From my admittedly limited exposure, I believe it’s a wash between good and bad.

But the good are timid in keeping the bad in check.

Hell...just look at the criminal justice system for an example. People confessing to murdering others, sometimes not even serving active time, rarely facing death even in the most heinous circumstances.

/sarc on
Let's just say, humanity is so inherently good that police and law enforcement are universally optional, and violent crime and aggressive warfare are legends from mythology.
/sarc off

A mix, of course.

Humanity has an equal capacity for both good and bad which cannot be universally quantified because what is good or bad depends upon how you view it.

If a person is shot and killed by a bystander while robbing a dollor store the clerk may view the action as good while the sister of the dead robber may view the action as bad (true story bro). Who is right?

Even the youngest children don't need to be taught to do wrong. They do need to be taught to do right.

Being generally conservative, I see humanity as basically evil with the ability to change as long as it is an accepted state.

I believe that is why leftist cannot see their own folly, because they generally believe humans, including themselves, are good.

There’s a Better way to phrase the question.

I hate lumping entire groups, let alone humanity as a whole into a catagory of good or bad. Life is not black or white.

Experiences and our environment shape us. Some people have screws loose that make them evil and can be considered “bad”... but it’s too nuanced of a thing to make a cavalier decision.

I think ignorance and lack of intellectual curiosity combined with a lack of morals and work ethic make for bad people.

I’ve met many, many more good people than bad in my life.

It’s “neither,” humanity largely acts in its own self-interest. God Bless those who are selfless.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
I voted "neither" because in this context it is impossible to define "good" and "bad".

Bingo. "Good" and "Bad" aren't defined, plus they often aren't black/white and vary by situation.

But, as noted by a couple previous posters, I'll agree that humanity's default position is "selfish".

It's an ingrained drive that all animals have: increase our chances of survival and procreation, even at the expense of other animals.

It takes effort to act otherwise.

I voted neither. It seems that increasingly, ethics and morals are situational.

Just a heads up...

Definition of nither. -ed/-ing/-s. chiefly Scottish. : to shiver or tremble especially with cold.

Good in that we are made in the image of our creator and he declared all of his creation "very good". But we fail because we have the self-induced critical flaw of sin, which invades every aspect of our behavior.

my inept spelling aside, thanks RAMIUS

I've specifically not defined good and bad, Leaving that to the opinion of the poll taker.

"Nither" but really both.
Man achieved the propensity to sin when Eve ate the apple.
It from that point out has been a struggle to be "good" but not impossible.
So the inherent nature would be "bad" but the struggle is what life is all about.

Women have always been able to make men do the wrong thing.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
my inept spelling aside, thanks RAMIUS

I've specifically not defined good and bad, Leaving that to the opinion of the poll taker.

Just figured I’d help brotha. Thank you for not taking offense.