It’s impossible to answer such a question on any rational basis. “Humanity” evolved from other life forms not because our ancestors were good or bad, but because they were successful in competition with other life forms. In recent history almost anything has been deemed to be good or bad at one time or another. Most “primitive” peoples have had innumerable taboos that they believed if were broken would endanger the individual or—most important—the group. The Old Testament is, for example, full of things such as not eating certain animals or wearing certain garments that today most of us here would only find laughable.

On the other hand, consider what sorts of things have been considered good, often down to this very day, including in accordance with divine command: murder, rape, slavery, incest, military conquest, human sacrifice to imaginary beings, polygamy, theft, infanticide, inequality, exploitation of others, et al. In fact, other bad things like destruction of the environment and mistreatment of other sentient life forms that were completely ignored except very recently in human history are still often dismissed today by most of the people on the planet.

There have never been universally-accepted standards of good and bad, and it’s very unlikely there ever will.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
It’s impossible to answer such a question on any rational basis ...

There have never been universally-accepted standards of good and bad, and it’s very unlikely there ever will.

The issue you describe is one that’s been debated thoroughly and, I agree, without any definitive answer. The problem with the issue as posed is that rationalism can’t lead you to a transcendent, objective morality. But the vast majority of people don’t believe that morality can be truly subjective either—-if it was there would be no basis upon which to object to any behavior someone else deemed rational.

These are very deep questions.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveL:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
It’s impossible to answer such a question on any rational basis ...

There have never been universally-accepted standards of good and bad, and it’s very unlikely there ever will.

The issue you describe is one that’s been debated thoroughly and, I agree, without any definitive answer. The problem with the issue as posed is that rationalism can’t lead you to a transcendent, objective morality. But the vast majority of people don’t believe that morality can be truly subjective either—-if it was there would be no basis upon which to object to any behavior someone else deemed rational.

These are very deep questions.

It's a moving target. Best you can do is try to be good in how you perceive 'good' and don't worry about what others think or do.

My answer is from Genesis.

“The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭8:21‬ ‭NIV‬‬
http://bible.com/111/gen.8.21.niv

I think humanity is inherently lazy. I am not sure if that is good or bad...

quote:

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

^^^^^^
This.

I'm going to bump this, hopefully for some more votes.

I’m going to define “good” for purposes of this discussion as “following the golden rule”.
Most religions have this in one form or another so it’s not specific to Christianity.

In my opinion most of prehistory and history has been exceedingly violent, shaped largely by wars between groups, and by slavery of the defeated.

Life spans increased dramatically after the development of civilizations that were less warlike; and the melding of Greco-Roman culture with Judeo-Christian teachings eventually resulted in cultures that were more likely to follow the Golden Rule (yes, I know, how about the 30-Years’ War, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, etc.).

These cultures were better at agriculture, so people were better nourished; developed commerce which increased prosperity, giving us surpluses so we didn’t have to battle others to get what we need.

Think of WW II, and the Japanese perceived need to take over lands that had the raw materials they needed in order to survive. They still have no raw materials, but cooperation in international trade has given them vastly more prosperity than they ever would have gotten with conquest.

To summarize (if you’re still reading, which is unlikely): people do good if they are in a culture which encourages good behavior (following the golden rule). That has meant rule of law, property rights, free trade and commerce, and a light burden of government. Under those circumstances peoples’ self-interest encourages them to be good.

Otherwise it’s more like Hobbes said: The war of all against all, and life in the state of nature is solitary, nasty, brutish and short.

both. totally. of course.

Unfoutunelty , I see more of humanities dark side on a daily basis, than it's good side.

But this is just my daily experiences.

But it makes the good sweeter.

One of the great advantages humans have over other animals is the ability to cooperate for the common good. It’s a total fallacy that “every man for himself” benefits every man, or even a select few except under unusual, limited, and often highly artificial circumstances.

Biologists often focus on the concept of the “selfish gene,” i.e. kinship, to explain why acting altruistically or at least when there is no immediate comparable benefit to the actor is common in human groups. They also then frequently express great mystification when such acts are performed for the benefit of comparative strangers or for people to whom we’re not directly related. Some people do such things because they believe their gods or other spirits want them to, but that’s not true of everyone. So why? Part of the reason is of course cultural conditioning, but why that? Ultimately it’s because helping someone else in the group makes it more likely that I will be helped when I need it.

Some of the strongest bonds outside the family are groups of individuals who are all doing difficult, dangerous things together. Our military special operations forces are a prime example. Bonding starts when they undergo and complete arduous training together, but it is cemented by the danger and mutual support of things like combat. When I was a member of an LE SWAT team, I would have risked my life for another member, and was confident that they would have done the same for me. The bonds that are formed often extend among the group for life, and each individual potentially benefits from those bonds regardless of any kinship to others.

I spent much time away from home this year due to a family medical emergency. During a few days’ break at home I also discovered that our water heater was leaking. When I asked a former Army friend for advice about whom to call to have it replaced, he volunteered. We have known each other for a few years, but weren’t particularly close because of the lack of opportunity to socialize or otherwise spend time together. I gave him the key to my house, and while I was back east again for several weeks he replaced the water heater. Despite the fact that he and I are not related except as creatures of the same species, our mutual belief that we were both honorable men allowed us to both benefit from the situation: I trusted him with my house and belongings, and he trusted me to pay him as agreed for the work.

There are “cheaters” in many groups, and they become far more prevalent when the group makes no effort to control the parasites, as is common today in the United States and Western Europe. People will act solely in their own self-interest when they can get away with it. A well-regulated society, such as the ancient Jewish communities that invented and enforced the various biblical commandments, will not allow parasites to prosper any more than they would tolerate the source of any other disease that threatened the group. Others, however, especially those that are richer than is perhaps good for them, do, and therein lies one seed for their eventual doom.

Since I’ve been alive, bad and getting worse.

I’m not going to think too deeply on this. Gut reaction is that, stupid people aside, most people are, on the average, good leaning.

However, it’s the bad people that take control.

I just read what I wrote in September, and I am quite satisfied with that. I’d forgotten about it.

quote:

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

That's the right answer! We are "short" of good.

Depends on the crowd one hangs around. Also depends on the attitude of the voter here.

I want to have hope.
Some want to despair.

If people were generally good then why do we need laws? Shouldn't religious law (torah), or governmental law (constitution, local ordinance) be unnecessary?

The necessity of law, to me, shows that humanity is bad.

I voted neither. If I had the power to see into the future a few million years, I might be able to determine if we are good or not.

If we are still alive and feverishly seeking greener meadows on another planet. I would likely change my vote to "Good".

If we're either extinct or clinging to the last vestiges of civilization, I'd say "Bad".