The view used to be man was inherently good, but culture corrupted him. The real take is man is both and culture can play to both sides of man.

An interesting thread to resurrect. It's been over a year now so I suppose I can share my initial hypothesis which appears incorrect based on the responses here where I'd say the majority is conservative.

I hypothesized that conservatives felt mankind was generally inherently good, lessening the desire to control others and enjoy a generally laissez faire attitude. Liberals or more correctly socialists felt humanity was inherently bad and needed to be controlled.

The plan was to ask the same question at the most left wing place I know if I saw the poll here tilt in favor of my hypothesis. So with that if you did vote, thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
... I hypothesized that conservatives felt mankind was generally inherently good, lessening the desire to control others and enjoy a generally laissez faire attitude. Liberals or more correctly socialists felt humanity was inherently bad and needed to be controlled. ...

Does that logically make sense though? I think it would be more correct to say conservatives would hope to move in that direction and are apt to direct their children in that direction. But inherently or by nature, we're not close. Goodness is learned. Evil happens.

Prager is far more eloquent than I am so I'll let him present my position:

.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
... I hypothesized that conservatives felt mankind was generally inherently good, lessening the desire to control others and enjoy a generally laissez faire attitude. Liberals or more correctly socialists felt humanity was inherently bad and needed to be controlled. ...

Does that logically make sense though?

If people are good, they don't need to be controlled they'd just behave in such a way as to not harm one another. If they're bad then clearly rules and more importantly punishment are needed.

The reality of how people are wasn't the end goal of my question because ultimately that's set by our nature. The question was how do conservatives and liberals perceive people to be; and that seems to be a mixed bag.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
... I hypothesized that conservatives felt mankind was generally inherently good, lessening the desire to control others and enjoy a generally laissez faire attitude. Liberals or more correctly socialists felt humanity was inherently bad and needed to be controlled. ...

Does that logically make sense though?

If people are good, they don't need to be controlled they'd just behave in such a way as to not harm one another. If they're bad then clearly rules and more importantly punishment are needed.

The reality of how people are wasn't the end goal of my question because ultimately that's set by our nature. The question was how do conservatives and liberals perceive people to be; and that seems to be a mixed bag.

Well, yes. That's my point, too. If a conservative considers mankind inherently good, perhaps they've formed or were raised in a "bubble of good". Nothing wrong with that, in fact it's enviable. Or perhaps they've not tested their thoughts and are giving weight to their hopes.

First, lets be honest for a moment. Humans are little different than all the other species on this planet. Good or bad at birth really isn't a part of the equation. Second, again like other species, we are simply an outcome of our environments. Kids brought up with structure in their lives 'generally' develop into more productive members of society. The converse is also true in 'general'. Ultimately, we are simply a product of the environment we develop in. Inner city kids with zero structure, guidance, and education 'generally' develop into what we'd consider or view as bad, while kids who developed in stable, multi-parent families who placed a value on morals, ethics, and education, generally develop into contributing members of society.

Ultimately, we are not nearly as complex or complicated as many would have us believe.

Well I must have missed the earlier posting of this thread, but am glad it has been resurrected.

I would claim that humanity is good and successful at being good based on my own interpretation of being good. Being good would thus mean getting along with others whether it be family, neighbors, the community, state, nation or internationally. I base this on a very poor recollection of a reading that a thousand years or so ago, a man would die at the hands of another at a rate of 1 of 16, whereas today even with the vast deaths reported in international wars, the rate is 1 in many thousands.

If my recollections are even off a wide amount, it would still seem that we are better at getting along hence being good.

quote:

Inner city kids with zero structure, guidance, and education 'generally' develop into what we'd consider or view as bad, while kids who developed in stable, multi-parent families who placed a value on morals, ethics, and education, generally develop into contributing members of society.

I agree. Parenting is important. Good parenting requires self-sacrifice. I think we humans are inherently selfish. Self-sacrifice is not 'natural' and requires a choice to put others before self.

That's where a sense of obligation to community comes in which I believe best comes from some form of organized religion. I would add that the replacement of a voluntary obligation to community, in the form of charity, with a forced obligation, in the form of welfare 'entitlement' is corrosive and destructive.

Mark 123's Dennis Prager video is spot on and makes a very convincing case to me that good and empathy are for the most part learned behaviors. Bad parenting (or no parenting) clearly has an overwhelming correlation with high rates of crime, drug abuse and other evils. Good behavior needs to be taught, either directly or at least by example.

Neither. It's what free choice is about. One chooses their own fate, and can even change their mind later.

quote:

Originally posted by von Trakehnen:
Neither. It's what free choice is about. One chooses their own fate, and can even change their mind later.

Perhaps, but one's environment (good or bad) has a huge impact on those choices.

While I am not judeo-Christian, I just see the judeo-Christian theology on this as essentially correct.
Man is made in the image or likeness of God. So there is some fundamental core that is purely "good". But every human is also contaminated by the realities of genetics, cultural history, the negativity and malevolence of others who have gone before. Call that " original sin". You can't intellectually realize that you are "responsibe" for all those sins, but they are a reality in your character anyway. No amount of reason, rationalization, or compensatorory "penance" or good works can wash this away. But they can be washed away through sincere repentance and the supernatural "grace" of God.

Good or bad is individual and varies. Parenting, environment and inherent character drive what and how a person chooses to do good or bad. I'd say humanity has only one thing in common relative to goodness or badness. We all start in the same way.....a lump of clay as it were. From there is as stated above.

Humans are THE apex predator on the planet for a reason.

We are not inherently benevolent.

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:
While I am not judeo-Christian, I just see the judeo-Christian theology on this as essentially correct.
Man is made in the image or likeness of God. So there is some fundamental core that is purely "good". But every human is also contaminated by the realities of genetics, cultural history, the negativity and malevolence of others who have gone before. Call that " original sin". You can't intellectually realize that you are "responsibe" for all those sins, but they are a reality in your character anyway. No amount of reason, rationalization, or compensatorory "penance" or good works can wash this away. But they can be washed away through sincere repentance and the supernatural "grace" of God.

This post matches my own thinking fairly well.

We are, what we want to be.

In America ?
In America we choose to allow selfish and criminal behavior, as people are under the impression that there is money to be made by doing so.

When being good starts to make a lot of people money , then ,only then will the selfish and poorly behaved start to dwindle in numbers .

As it stands, the big numbers are with the bad people, by 17 to one.

So when you hear someone say "This country is going to to shit"

Ask them how many hours a week they spend trying to make a difference, and change it

Make good behavior beneficial, financially . and we have the ability to turn it around

Slavery is all but eradicated, as acceptable. Freedom of speech and religion are generally accepted as good, State planned economies are generally viewed as a failed idea. Women and other races are generally viewed as human beings, so we really are making progress.

Good within the small groups we are biologicially designed to live in. The bigger the group, the easier it is to be bad, and we have got some pretty big groups.

Fundamentally, though, the answer is neither. We are designed to survive and reproduce. That is the prime directive.

I am a Christian.

But I have always been intrigued by the Asian 'yin / yang' concept

the capacity for both is in all of us as God and Satan battle for our souls

but such a rich topic : many examples of 'good' behavior performed at extreme cost ... and the opposite also

as others have stated -- socialization (environment) plays a big role but there are definitely 'born' good and bad people who defy the conventions of their upbringing.

fascinating really.

--------------------------------