Are people bad, good, or neutral?

[Yellow]

Do you think that people are naturally good, bad, or neutral? Are we born that way? Can circumstances change someone's alignment?

Why I'm asking

Spoiler

Part of my MS Psychology/Mental Health Counseling degree program (I switched back and forth 3 times) required that I find a mentor by the end of the first semester. So I called on a professional acquaintance (who turned out to be a rational INFJ) to be my mentor.

She said the first thing I need to do, is identify my own opinion about whether people are naturally good, bad, or neutral. Then I need to know whether I believe they are born that way, and if circumstances can change someone's alignment.

Over the years, I have come to realize that a person's opinion in this area forms part of the foundation of his/her world view. It's one of the basic filters through which we interpret our experiences and observations. I am often more interested in learning a person's view on human alignment than his/her personality.

Please explain your choices.

 

[Grayman]

Where is the 'It is all irrelevant' button?

Babies are selfish and needy and cry over stupid stuff but it is functionally viable. The distinction of good and bad or neutral distracts from more realistic thinking.

 

[Brontosaurie]

born good and sometimes go bad instinctively appeals to me, no reason really though. just the perspective that comes naturally.

i have doubts whether true irreversible evil really exists but it makes sense to call certain behaviors and tendencies bad.

 

[Yellow]

Babies are selfish and needy and cry over stupid stuff but it is functionally viable.

This fall pretty squarely under the "neutral like any other organism" category, but maybe I'm misreading.

 

[Jennywocky]

I believe we are all born seeking certain needs (mostly practical, but as we age and become more complex, our needs can become more complex and branch into the intellectual and emotional). You can pull ideas from Maslow, although not necessarily his entire pyramid structure as listed; but he details various needs humans can have.

We also have particular preferences on how to chase down those needs. [For example, Horney's "moving against," "moving towards," and "moving away" broad categories.] The preferred strategy can impact how one's motivations are perceived and what kind of damage or help can be offered, although it's still not necessarily good or evil.

For example, when you naturally move aggressively towards others, this can be to pursue them for good reason or to damage them as enemies. Moving towards another can be to manipulate them for your own desires or to bond a positive relationship. Moving away is perhaps the most neutral as it withdraws and limits its ability to help or hurt; however, you can hurt people by abandoning them, and you can help them by not pursuing them and invading their space. So these various styles more determine the type of power and influence you'll wield over others driven by your motivations.

But back to good vs evil. I tend to see morality in terms of "identity circle." Is your sense of self limited to just YOU, and thus all that you do is directed towards either benefiting yourself particularly or protecting yourself particularly? Or to what degree has your sense of self expanded to include others in to the circle of identity? (To put it another way, how wide is your embrace?) The wider the embrace, the more people you perceive as a unit of "you" versus "other" -- and thus you will protect and nourish people in your circle as you would yourself. This is most obvious with the broad-scale philanthropists who are essentially humanitarian in outlook... many are included under one's umbrella of "self."

Still, do we see to connect with the "other" and bring them into the fold, or do we seek to destroy the "other" to gain power?

I guess I think we're more neutral when born. We do have all these various individual settings in place, and yes there can be dispositions where we might be more cranky/aggressive versus more open/considerate by nature. I think it's kind of a "ball" centered around neutral and people can fall within the bounds of that ball... some more on the side of defeating others and some more on the side of embracing others... but environment/upbringing as well as experiences can move people in one direction or another even if that original preference lies intact somewhere.

I don't think anyone is particularly locked into 'good' or 'evil'. However, the more you move away from the "balance" point and approach one of those two limits, each is a gravity sink of sorts and I think it becomes harder and harder to pull away from it. It's like starting on a peak where the slope is relatively flat but becomes steeper as you move away from that flatter surface. So you can start walking down one side or the other, but then to get back to the other means climbing back up the hill you just went down. It's not impossible, but to overcome the wiring you've been burning into yourself over time, well, it takes more and more energy and more severe experiences to motivate you.

 

[OptiMist_Prime]

Look at my avatar, what do you think I think about humanity? It's all going to hell! I think it's a false dichotomy maybe? We can be both devils or angels, under the right circumstances. Intuitively, it kinda makes sense that evolution would've made us this way, I mean why put all your eggs in one basket? I mean, we gotta have a little evil in us, just in case, no? Always have some gas in the tank so when it's time to go to the wall, we go to the wall.

That famous experiment came up in some article again, you know, the one where people electrically shocked strangers by pressing a button when ordered to? Milgram. They found a bunch of problems with the data, but that notwithstanding, I still think that if you can provide the proper motivation, you can pretty much get anyone to do just about anything. Everyone has a breaking point. Morals begin to recede and, poof, Monkey Mind commandeers your brain, and it's game over. “Teehee”?

The question is how easily can we get to that point? Or how long can we hold out? I vaguely remember other experiments that show we can be real basturds with the slightest provocation can't we? And some people are supposedly born with sociopathic tendencies, so it's easier for them to break bad. Those people tend to be leaders

 

[Black Rose]

this question is too general
people can only be gauged good or bad by intentions as individuals
being dumb does not make you bad or being angry but genetically people can be predisposed to irrational thinking that is against the natural rights of others so is a personality trait neutral? not to those who it affects but everything is circumstance, some people can be conditioned but mostly if you don't have self realization you are not fully conscious.

 

[computerhxr]

The word bad is subjective. Someone may be bad according to someone else.

The Bible Belt (as an example) convinces themselves and others around them that they are good, and many think being homosexual is bad. I would say that telling people they will burn in hell for being a homosexual is bad, and being a homosexual is moot. I would not say that one bad action makes a person a bad person but affecting many to commit suicide would make them a bad person. However, these people are not punished by traditional laws for being bad because it's relative to the group think of the overall area. This is why we have states in America so that relatively speaking, subjective views will not affect as many people.

So my view is that good/bad are subjective and relative to the time and overall opinion of a group. I also believe that animals have the same relative-subjectivism. We are all animals and grow up in situations that will lead us towards subjectively good or bad things. We are born with predispositions which affect us as well. Someone who is conflicted cognitively will likely end up more bad which is what therapy works to resolve.

Also killing in war we subjectively see "our" side as good and the other as bad. The other side see it the other way. If you do bad things for a good reason, would that make you bad? If you do bad things, knowing that they are bad, without a good reason; would that make you bad? I would say that it's subjective and as a whole our culture determines what is good or bad at any given time.

Also, are we bad for having opinions and pressuring people to making opinions that other deem to be bad?

So subjectively, you can be born bad (being born gay in the Bible Belt).

Overall we are part of a system where good and bad flow around. Everyone is a victim, and everyone is both good and bad to some degree subjectively. Spot healing is effective in making the system more good overall, but I believe that therapy skills should be taught to everyone from early on.

FYI, I didn't vote.

 

[Yellow]

FYI, I didn't vote.

I wish you had. I want a decent spread of data. And anyway, since it's asking for your own subjective opinion, it stands to reason, that your choice should be made with your own definitions of good and bad in mind. If you don't think people themselves are good or bad, there are a couple of neutral choices.

 

[computerhxr]

Alright. I voted with the closest option.

"Our situations/personality determine how we turn out."

If there was an option that said; "It depends..." Then that would reflect my opinion the closest.

The part that is missing is that good/bad are subjective and relative. I think there is a perspective that could make anyone good or bad. The Milgram experiment is a good example of one reason someone could do bad and not be a bad person.

 

[TBerg]

We are all born with certain predispositions that are either enhanced or withered by certain environments. Whether these origins and changes are good or bad is up to us to decide based upon the use in our human flourishing.

 

[redbaron]

Combination of nature, nurture, culture and other things.

I tend to just give people the benefit of the doubt. I think for the most part people are inherently co-operative, sociable and altruistic, with the often overriding desire for survival. Competition and access to resources causes 'undesirable' behaviors and deviation from a natural standard which I think genuinely falls under the blanket umbrella of 'good'.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I think that people operate on different, sometimes conflicting definitions of good, mostly ingrained in childhood/adolescence.

That some people have certain brain disorders(?) that cause antisocial fixations, and actions that are a-moral.

That humans generally stick to their habits and the path of least resistance.

That ambition and self-absorption are human traits that exist on scales, affected by person and situation.

That positive/negative feelings of satisfaction can be induced by helping or hindering others, and humans live off such stimulation.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think we are naturally born good. Well not 'born good' but I think there are developmental stages in life for everyone where we are dispositioned to learn good. Humans, being eusocial, are innately good entities. I wouldn't argue that they all stay good, however.

 

[Jennywocky]

where's the option for, "We are born sinners and can only be cleansed by getting our asses kicked?"?

 

[TBerg]

Like this one?

http://www.barnonecowboychurch.com/

 

[onesteptwostep]

lol that looks like a fun church

 

[Absurdity]

I don't think we're born one way or the other, but it takes more work to be good.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

ummm in my opinion, if we're going by the alignment system, people are born chaotic good i guess

 

[redbaron]

ummm in my opinion, if we're going by the alignment system, people are born chaotic good i guess

I think chaotic is correct, but wouldn't you say chaotic neutral is a better fit? Living life mostly based on fulfillment of spontaneous personal whims seems to be the status quo.

Then again I did just post about how I think the relinquishment of generally cooperative, altruistic attitudes is a social phenomena so then chaotic good would fit better.

 

[Lazy Vulpes]

We are neutral like zebras, viruses, orchids, & dragonflies, but our situations/personality determine how we turn out.

We're neutral entities acting in an environment, creating the duality of good vs. evil.

 

[QuickTwist]

Our situations/personality determine how we turn out... Morality has absolutely nothing to do with it in terms of good or bad. Sure there are cultural/religious influences we face, but this pales in comparison to what values we really hold. Also we are not all that diff from one another when it comes to morals. It differs, but only to a shallow extent.

 

[ferrumerux741]

I like to observe people out of curiosity. So far, I see that babies and toddlers are more friendly than most teenagers and adults. They do wrong things because they don't know what is right. Once you told them something shouldn't be done because of this and that, they will understand. Kids don't want to do the wrong/bad things. But adults, they do the bad/wrong things because it will give them benefits, even if they know that they shouldn't do those things.
I think that we were born as angels, but raised by devils. By devils I mean bad adults and bad environments. A good environment, education, and so on will of course let the angels being angels, but the bad environment will make them devils.
Um, well... I hope you understand, I have trouble explaining my thoughts in a simple way, and when I try, it will usually sound random and irrational and so on, and so on...

 

[Reluctantly]

all of the above, depends on who is considered. There seems to be plenty of people that make each one true.

I'm not sure what that says about me though.

 

[Vion]

Choice: There are those whom are born bad and that is all they will ever be. <--- This option was skipped because it negates a precedence shared by the other fallable options.

Morality has nothing to do with sentience for it is primal.

 

[nanook]

being good or bad is a story you have learned to believe in. those stories are very real to us, but we can become the authors of our stories, then they become fiction. what you really are is sensitive or insensitive, smart or stupid. and your judgemental reactions to your environment depend on how you perceive them, if you perceive them at all. so your judgement can't be judged from the outside, as if it had an autonomous bias, an intrinsic preference for appreciating or resenting goodness. because the outside judgement is hooked up with a different perception. your judgement can only judge your own judgement, taking further experience with the same line of perception into account. that means you are learning, slow or fast. the closest we can get to appearing evil is when it seems that our judgement refuses to learn, to take present facts into account. it does so by insisting on judging bast on old experiences. ironically judging that someone is evil is often an example of such an attachment to the past.

 

[TheZero]

I think of the concept of good and evil as a way of insuring that a society functions cohesively. Meaning; there is no real good or evil, only what we define ourselves. We do this because it is necessary in order to be able to work together properly, which we need to do. A race of lone wolves won't last long.

 

[ummidk]

Depends on your definition of good and bad, I can't really answer the question as I view these things as ways of identifying how a behavior effects you or others, basically it depends on your value system. Generally helping people is seen as a good thing, while harming them is seen as bad, but this is too simplified.

I think people mainly look out for their own self interest, if not only for their self interest. This can manifest itself in ways that most people would identify as good behavior, such as donating to charity to provide oneself with the psychological benefits of what they consider to be "doing the right thing." however if we're only doing it for our own good, is it selfish(a behavior generally deemed bad)? does it even matter?

 

[TBerg]

When we think about whether we are born bad or good, or whether we can change, we need to know what we mean by bad and good and answering what changes to what because of what. When we really consider what is bad and what is good at certain times in our development, then we can see that there are childish wild ones who are sublimated and domesticated, and there can be innocent flowers who turn into dark angels after being disabused of their notions and feelings. But we can also see how there are psychopaths who genuinely have no care for others, as well as those conscientious objectors who would die before killing even the most despicable people.

These examples show how our conceptions of human nature may not fit the reality of human nature itself. We have to first decide whether these examples contain good people or bad people and whether they turned good or turned bad. Then we must decide whether it is possible for there not to be a single human nature but the natures of many humans, each with his or her own variety. These varieties are not simply good or bad, but contain greed, envy, lust, multiple intelligences, compassion, and so on. There is always an amalgam that cannot be torn apart so easily and sorted through. Each part of human nature could encourage bad or good outcomes depending upon how it is channelled, and our prejudices regarding each nature often get in the way of understanding how there is always a depraved counterpart to a virtue and vice versa.

Now, when we try to change these things, we must ask ourselves what we have changed and what may have assumed the position the prior disposition held. When we give up drinking, for example, we might thereafter decide to replace our drinking with a compulsive religiosity. Both are compulsions and replace a loss of power with another loss of power. You might say the behavior changed, but the motivation stayed the same. Analogously, we might consider an Islamist who gives up his ideology and replaces it with a strident stance against all things to do with Islam. What we have done, in certain circumstances, is to take one position of advocacy and replaced it with another position of advocacy. What has changed?

From my personal experience, we only change something important after defeating part of ourselves. What remains after the vanquishment is a pale spark, and an angry child sending echoes of anguish from the past.