Man: Naturally good or Naturally bad?

[SlimJin]

This is a question open to everyone because to truly live in a Communist world every man must live for one another so a man whos intentions in this world are tainted wouldn't conform properly to this society. This brings my question, is man naturally good and influenced negatively as they go through life or are they born bad and pick up the better habits to get through in life?

[Individual]

Good question.

There have been studies on babies without any influence from society that have been molded differently. A baby is a new life, has a new perspective, and comes with no existing influence. The test showed that a baby comes with no existing habits besides those of survival.

Man is not born bad. Man is born as a brand new person. Society and a man's environment is what shapes attitudes and behavior. I strongly believe that human nature (again, beside that of survival) is nothing. Man is not born greedy, and man can behave properly in society with proper learning. Everyone's mind and train of thought is different, so obviously some adapt adverse ideas in which can create the good or bad in someone. However it is what society does to influence this person, of which the person comprehends thus becoming 'good or bad'. If it were human nature to be greedy, why would there be many that are not? If it is human nature to be good, why then would there be many that are?

We are all influenced by our surroundings, and by the way in which information presents itself to us. Many interpret things differently, thus creating the chance for someone raised 'good' to become 'bad', and vice versa.

To say that there are human genes in which cause man to become 'good or bad' is asinine. We are all born with a fresh start and with only the traits of survival and adaptation. We will adapt to the given circumstances, in which may cause 'good' or 'bad' behavior. In modern American society, we are taught to be greedy. Being taught to 'be a leader', and 'think for yourself' are common influences amongst our youth. These influences will shape many into becoming greedy or 'bad'.

Society is what influences the people. Human nature is only of survival and adaptation. Society is what forces you to be greedy for 'survival'.

[ComradeRed]

Man is evil in a capitalist society because he adapts to his environment which promotes greed, exploitation, oppression, etc. and in turn he receives these qualities.

[Michael De Panama]

There is absolutely nothing "natural" about the concept of good and evil to begin with.

There is no right. There is no wrong.

There is no good. There is no bad.

The world, as I see it, is divided into what's "interesting" and what's "boring".

[Morpheus]

Neither. Human nature is just BS capitalists use when they lose an arguement.

[Don't Change Your Name]

I agree with most of AQ's post and to an extent with MdP's.

There's a difference between "natural instincts" and "civilization". That's why we men don't go around raping women every time we see one just to reproduce. I believe that if someone didn't live in "civilization" they would behave like stupid animals. Our surroundings, our experiences, the place and time in that we live at, our family, the values, religions and ideas imposed on us, and the attitudes our parents teach us to "succeed in life" (which many times means teaching people to be selfish and ultra-individualist to survive in the capitalist order, but sometimes refers to natural things that are many times imposed by parents to make their kids be "normal", which means an heterosexual, "civilized" individual, and respectable). All that infludes on people's behaviour.

[Michael De Panama]

In that case, let me just say that I believe "civilization" is naturally bad.

[Rasta Sapian]

Man is naturally good of course, along the road of life we do tend to pick up bad habits, this does not mean that we become bad people, just good people that make bad decisions in life!

peace yall

[kylie]

I agree with what has been said about good and bad. They're just subjective terms.
As for human nature though, it has been proved to exist. An easy example: Babies are very sociable from almost as soon as they're born. In any case they're not developed enough to understand social interactions, language, or the concept of there being a future and rewards. So it isn't possible that they learn to be sociable, from how they see other people or their own interactions. Their brain just isn't developed enough. So why is it they're sociable? Human nature, encouraged by natural selection.
This applies to all other aspects of human nature, they have came into being thanks to evolution. Some behaviours help survival and the passing on of genes more than others, resulting in a type of behaviour becoming common throughout people in general.

[monkeydust]

I almost entirely agree with Alwaysquestion on this issue, I have little to add wich he has not already rightly said.

There are many in the left who reject the idea of 'human nature' entirely, instead believing that "everything we do is learned" or that at birth we have a "clean slate".

This seems a contadiction in terms to me. To state that "everything is learned" is, albeit implicity saying that it's human nature to learn from experience and to take our experience and apply it practically to our lives.

[STI]

Well, Nyder, THIS would be the place for human nature to be discussed, just in case my two posts in 'Tragety....Commons' weren't clear enough.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 08:11 PM
I almost entirely agree with Alwaysquestion on this issue, I have little to add wich he has not already rightly said.

There are many in the left who reject the idea of 'human nature' entirely, instead believing that "everything we do is learned" or that at birth we have a "clean slate".

This seems a contadiction in terms to me. To state that "everything is learned" is, albeit implicity saying that it's human nature to learn from experience and to take our experience and apply it practically to our lives.
Unless I'm missing something, that's the closest you can get to actually saying there's no such thing as human nature.

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 02:37 AM

Unless I'm missing something, that's the closest you can get to actually saying there's no such thing as human nature.
Perhaps it is, in any case to assume that human nature does not exist at all seems overly presumptous to me. I acknowledge the existance of human nature, but simply do not believe it lends itself to capitalism in any way at all.

Some people, such as the American psychologist B.F Skinner discount internal processes altogether, describing the human organism as a 'black box'.

It's this opinion that I disagree with, it seemed to be what Morpheus was implying earlier.

[Xvall]

'Good' and 'Bad' are simple words that don't really mean anything. Keep in mind that this ranges from person to person. Whatever you think is 'good', half the world thinks is 'bad'. Whatever you think is 'bad', half the world thinks is 'good'.

[STI]

I would tend to believe that humans are born with natural 'apperatae' (ie. the language apperatus, the mathematical apperatus, the emotional apperatus, etc.), but no hardwired tendancy toward any behavioral pattern.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I think that naturally, people are self serving animals. It isn't a matter of good or bad, thats just instinct. People become civilized through human contact, and subconsiously we mold to society.