I'm curious

"People are inherently good, and simply choose to be bad later in life."

I heard something interesting about this particular statement last night. This statement was posed to undergrads in Psychology at a local university and they responded in the Likert scale format. I thought it was kind of an odd thing to ask. I don't imagine that it's highly relevant to the science or the study anymore, but they are probably learning about some theory that governs it or something that would justify it. For me though, the results are the more striking part.

Spoiler: Their answers:

75% of the class answered, "Strongly Agree."
20% of the class answered, "Agree."
0% of the class answered, "Disagree."
5% of the class answered, "Strongly Disagree."

So, /khv/, where do you stand?

 

No one is born bad in my opinion, they just make choices that turn them bad.

 

I can't help but see "people are born good and just become bad later on" as idealistic nonsense. People are inherently evil, just look around. Goodness is taught. We have a natural instinct of what is right and wrong. If we know what is right and wrong, but still choose to act on the wrong when it benefits us, it stands to reason that we only act good when it benefits us as well. Nature vs. nurture and all that. If you take away all the pressure of society we would be animals. Society suppresses our evil impulses. I mean look at all of those apocalyptic stories where the structure of society is broken down and people break into stores and do whatever to ensure their own safety. Our humanity informs out fiction. I suppose a better statement could be "people are inherently selfish," and since selfishness is a bad quality, people must be inherently bad in some way.
Now that's not to say we aren't able to rise above this, obviously we can and have. And of course not everyone is the same so take this with varying degrees.

 

People are inherently nothing when they are born. Pure-mindedness is the baseline neutral. Babies lack the mental faculties to form decisions based on morality, thus they cannot be held accountable by the grown-up ethics which we consult when assessing men and women. Following such logic, I do not believe that 'good' is the absence of 'bad,' which this statement seems to be implying. Real selflessness or 'goodness' only enters the playing field when its administers are mature enough to pick whichever side they root for. Likewise, a true baddie acts irrespective of how his actions may affect the lives of other people, despite having an intimate knowledge of human empathy. You can make mean decisions, but simultaneously not be a bad person (in the traditional sense of the word) if you are genuinely out of touch & lack emotional intelligence.

 

I can't come at this from a psychology perspective because I've never studied it, philosophy is more my jive.

I chose Strongly Disagree but not for the reason you'd expect. I do believe people are inherently good, but I don't believe they "choose" to do bad things. Saying that they have a choice in it implies that it's their fault, which I don't believe it is. It's hard determinism, if anyone knows basic philosophy. There's always something else at work. Someone has had something happen to them in their lives that has made them into what they are, and is responsible for their actions.

If I grow up to be an abusive person, there must have been something in my childhood that made me that way. I didn't choose to be that bad person, nor should I be blamed for my behavior (because it's not my fault, and casting that blame doesn't accomplish anything).

 

Whoa, I almost agree with Misty here!

I believe people are born a pure, blank slate. This we can derive good.

I don't believe people turn bad, or can choose to be bad. Every one acts in a manner that they see as good. Saying they don't is basically acknowledging that a villain who would classify himself as "evil" could exist and not be a paradox.

 

I've got essays to write but expect some sort of response later. Bet on it!

How is it a paradox?

 

Because evil can't naturally exist, it's an opinion.

People in that position are doing what they believe to be good. Like Hitler. He believed he was doing good.

And if you believe you're doing good, why would you classify yourself as evil?

Unless you were dumb.

I mean, think about it- look at the crusades! Slavery! They all thought they were doing legitimate good and bettering the world.

 

Kids aren't inherently good or bad if you spend enough time with them, they're generally just curious and selfish at times. Not good or evil, just being young.

 

I agree. As much as it would be nice to believe 'we are born good and just become bad through events that take place in our life,' it isn't that cut and dry. We aren't born good. We are born selfish and needy and depending on how we are raised, we will either continue to be selfish and needy or grow to be independent and self-sustaining. It is always easier to take the negative route. That's why people should be praised more when they do the right thing the first time.

I like this part the best. Animals do what is necessary to survive, even if we find it to be morally wrong. They fight, steal, and kill, depending on the species. We are inherently raised omnivores and as such, we are hunters -- predators. Without a structured society, we too would do what is necessary to get by, even if it was looting and fighting.

Don't get me wrong. There are people that are born into the most respectable families and end up becoming monsters and vice verse. But we're also raised to take charge of our lives and do what it takes to achieve our goals. This can be both a good thing and a bad thing. Some people take the easy road. The easy road is usually not the right road. We are born selfish and it can be incredibly easy to stay that way, making it so that we are inherently bad.

 

You're thinking carnivores as the pure predator. Omnivores are not predators inherently, they are adaptors, capable of living in environments when plant or meat is not available to them. One of the reasons we are so adaptable.

And we are naturally omnivores, not inherently raised as such. Nowadays, the growing popular action of raising vegetarians or vegans shows that we can survive as more than hunters.

And a structured society is the norm of our species, according to history. Across all corners of the unconnected globe, we have all developed over time societies of unique values and history, but common goals. We are social creatures, beings who require social interaction to a complex level above what has been seen in other animals. We build bonds, our cultures have developed through the idea of family, of brothers and sisters not necessarily of blood but through a closeness, that deep bond we gain. We fight, for sure, but it is not purely who we are, the very fact we can resist temptation and immediate gratification shows we are more complex than a simple statement of good or bad, a lot of this world is grey. We are the sort of animal that is fully aware cooperation brings more benefits than the lone wolf lifestyle.

They're stories for a reason, because they're the imagination of writers trying to create a dramatic and shocking atmosphere. And even in said stories there are plenty of pious good people who work together. At best those stories show the duality of humanity, that we have both peace and war within us. And even then, there are many grey areas that it is hard to tell what part of the moral spectrum we are on.

 

Kinda also going with a philosophical approach here and saying that people begin as a blank slate and then choices make up their life. The closest philosophy I can think of is Sartre's atheistic existentialism whereas you can choose whatever you do but you must take the responsibility and consequence and only you are to blame for it. There's even choosing not to choose, in which case Sartre describes as a being "rock." Being stepped on, tossed around, etc, without any response or reaction whatsoever.

There is really no good or evil part, since Sartre was an atheist anyway lol. There is no God to say what is good, what is limited, etc. I, personally, am agnostic, so I kind of don't agree with this, since I believe there has to be some ultimatum to at least give us structure in our lives. But the freedom of choice to make what you are and what you will face is what I am in tune with.

 

Let's roll.

please note: this is all my opinion i am in no way stating or denying the validity of experiences and/or support for a particular perspective you follow. i am literally a potato pls dun hurt me WHAT IS LOVE BABY DON'T HURT ME

Fortunately, a psychology major is in the HOUSE

I agree with this

but disagree with both of these.

I'm rather fond of, and subscribe to, John Locke's theory of "tabula rosa", which is the idea that children are a blank slate. That through the nurture they receive, they can learn to distinguish between good and bad (and ideally swing towards good). Like Below said, "Goodness is taught". The "Evil" choices are also taught -- why else would we have punishment systems throughout our cultures? Granted, this is favoring the Nurture side of the Nature vs Nurture argument, although I believe that tabula rosa can apply to Nature as well.

While our Natures are determined when we're born, they're not black and white. No child is purely bad, just like no child is purely good. It's a varying assortment of gray morality, which can be refined and painted on by the nurturing children receive. They're the blankest canvas compared to people of other ages (especially adults), and can thus be influenced very, very easily.

On the matter of choosing to be bad, while this is something that does happen (as we can see from things like premeditated murder), there's also more things at work than just a choice to do wrong.

Cloud covered below:

People's environments can lead them to do wrong. People who are raised by people who are toxic and/or are living in a toxic environment have a higher risk of becoming toxic themselves (with various exceptions of course). People may also have to live with mental abnormalities that affect their behavior and mental processes to distinguish between right/wrong.

And there are also people who, as SJ stated, do bad things but it's good from their perspective. People go to war believing that they're doing something to protect their families & country, but that doesn't negate that people are killed, often in cold blood, and the resulting tragedies that happen when the psychological effects of war take root (My Lai Massacre, for example).

The people who initially posed this question limiting it to "people simply choose to do bad things" entirely ignores one half of the Nature vs Nurture argument, as well as some biological and cognitive matters that can lead people to do "wrong". I get that it's a question designed to promote discussion, which it obviously did here and for those students.

But it's still a bad question.

On another note:

I do agree that childhood traumas and such do lead to a person growing to be abusive; we see this with some people who have had abusive parents. But I don't think they should be totally pardoned for that behavior either. Rather than play the blame game they should own up to it when they realize (either through their kids, other people around them, psychologists, etc.) that whoever raised them/the people around them (I'll call this person performing abusive behavior "Abuser") did this to them when they were younger, and that Abuser is only perpetuating the cycle.

They should work to resolve these past traumas as much as they can and try to salvage their relationship with their child(ren) so that they also don't have to go down the same road. While Abuser isn't the cause of the behavior, they're still responsible for doing that to their kids.

 

Basically the philosophic spectrum on free will is

Do people have free will?
Libertarianism (Sartre): I am responsible for my actions and the actions of those around me. I am also responsible for what is done to me. Therefore, people always have free will.
Soft Determinism: Middle ground--sometimes we're free, sometimes we're forced.
Hard Determinism: Every action is caused or forced. Subliminal awareness, unconscious memories, control us. Therefore, people never have free will.

Our judicial system is based upon soft determinism; it is the most common and easiest philosophy to live by.

• Libertarianism is easy to defend because it approaches utopia; everyone takes responsibility for everything, admits guilt, and blames none. It is inspiring, empowering. It is difficult to live this way because you have the weight of the world on your shoulders. You also have to constantly admit guilt, and are faced with disappointment when others don’t.
• The easiest belief to live by is soft determinism, because you can reap the rewards of both beliefs—you get to blame people one day and get off scot free another. However, it is the most difficult to defend philosophically. You have to claim that you can prove what is or isn’t a valid force in people’s heads. Think of murder being unacceptable, unless in self-defense.
• Hard Determinism is easy to defend because it is linked to biochemistry, but it comes with the responsibility to never yell or blame someone--you must find out what caused someone to do something, and try to fix it. Essentially, you become everyone's therapist. See also utilitarian punishment theory.

Oh yes, this is hard determinism is for the most part. Here are some snippets from my notes/research on the subject:

The Twins Example (Criticism of Comparisons)
We cannot compare two people. “I overcame my depression, so why don’t you?” None of us have had the same life or have the same forces acting upon us. Even if you take identical twins, raised together, they don’t have the same experiences or the same causes acting on them. No two people, not even identical twins raised together, are the same. Comparing someone to another person could only make them feel worse.

This has a practical advantage in that it prevents us from righteous indignation and personal pride. If you could be doing better, you would be.

The Pleasure Principle
Hospers (father of hard determinism) borrowed this term from Freud, who believed that all animals will seek pleasure and avoid pain (or, at least, a reduction of pain). Hospers says that our species cannot ever do anything that isn’t in service of our highest pleasure. It is biologically impossible. Hospers, therefore, does not believe in the concept of altruism. We always seek what we think will bring us our highest pleasure; we may be wrong.

Compulsive Blamers (Criticism of Libertarianism)
Hard determinists believe libertarians are afraid of losing control, so they act as though everything can be fixed, anything can be accomplished. It is a compulsion; they need to believe in this.

Luck
Some people are lucky enough to overcome their deficiencies; they are capable of exerting the effort to overcome, and do so. Some are lucky enough to have no deficiencies at all. If we can overcome the effects of early environment, the ability to do so is itself a product of the early environment. If you’re not doing something, it’s because you can’t; if you can do something, you will. If you do not have the hardships of your friend, you are not better than your friend—you’re luckier. The people who cannot overcome a deficiency are unlucky; the ones who can are lucky.

The Grandmother Example (Criticism of Soft Determinism)
Two students miss an exam. Student A says his grandmother died—most teachers would say this is a valid excuse and allow Student A to makeup the exam. Student B says his goldfish died—most teachers would say this is not a valid excuse and not allow Student B to makeup the exam. Hospers says who are you to say this is or isn’t a valid force to prevent attendance or studying? How do you know what the grandmother meant to Student A? How do you know what the goldfish meant to Student B? Soft determinism is useless because you can’t get into someone’s head and say what is or isn’t valid.


If your therapist is a hard determinist, they will likely try to find the source of your troubles (something in your environment that caused it) and try various methods of helping you through it. You still have the power to overcome, if you are lucky, and if your therapist's methods don't work, that means that those methods simply aren't the right ones for you.

If I can to you and said I was depressed, you would not blame me for it, but try to help me through it. I am unlucky in that something in my environment caused this depression (could be chemical). I might try pills, a common treatment for depression; if they do work, I am lucky to have found treatment. If they don't work, that method is not right for me, even though it might be right for others. And that's okay. From there, exercise may help me, and I will be lucky to find that "cure."

 

I can't even. What?

That's gotta be the most ridiculously excusist reason for avoiding taking responsibility for one's own actions that I've ever heard, it's up there with "the devil made me do" it and "temporary insanity".

You're effectively saying people don't have a choice in anything they do, because every reaction is just a pre-programmed response from their childhood. While someone's childhood does greatly impact a person's paradigm, people always have a choice, even in the way they think about things/za warudo. Bad things can happen to people and it doesn't make them bad, what makes them bad is how they let those bad things affect them and the way they see the world. With the exception of people who actually have real mental illnesses (which, I personally believe, is a much smaller number than most people think), people have more control over their thoughts and feelings than they want to believe they do, it's easier to just say "I can't help it, it's just how I am" and pop some peels to "fix" things and

Ugh ugh ugh.

I need to not start this. I don't want to get into another huge discussion right now.

Plums, be my friend, I'm going into psychology, myself.



Just a quick addendum before I run away from the discussion like a little *****.

I find that not to be the case a lot. Unfortunately a great deal of people simply enjoy wallowing in their own misery because it's easier than trying to make a change for the better.

 

Well it's worth mentioning that this is, of course, a discussion of philosophy: it is not necessarily practical, nor do I claim to constantly live by it. It is something I believe in and strive to emulate, but I realize it has its flaws.

To address them, though:
Yes, some people have bad things happen to them and it doesn't affect them (that is, they do not go on to do bad things to other people). That's absolutely true, and is addressed in my post.

It's not saying that what someone does is or isn't bad. It's merely not blaming them for it, as it doesn't accomplish anything. It is up to the person--and society as a whole--to help them cope with their deficiencies. If they don't receive that help, it's not that there's something wrong with or they're lazy: they're not lucky enough to get that help or to want it. Many people, for example, won't seek help with their depression because they don't feel they're worth it. They're "unlucky," under this philosophy.

 

Fair enough.

I just find that people are all too eager to look for any reason not to take responsibility for the way they feel/act. And I find that sort of philosophy destructive and not helpful. in the slightest. I'm not out about blaming people for things. I guess you could say I subscribe to Libertarianism.

I believe people have the power to change anything about themselves, to varying degrees, but they're just either too scared or too lazy to try to change.

//cynical optimism

 

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals.

 

I believe they also have the power to change anything about themselves, to varying degrees, but they may not have the means to. In that vein, they are not to be blamed for how they are (as it is a product of their environment, as their actions are a product of stimulus), nor are they to be blamed for a lack of progressing on helping themselves. Not blaming someone doesn't mean that that person cannot (or should not!) attempt to address their issues.