• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is man inherently good or not?

That's the point....the concept is not logical. People don't give up their life for another because it's logical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I've used it. It doesn't always stop bullets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm here today because someone was altruistic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Stinger007 said:
You think in these moments of altruism one has the time to think about all that? Let me ask this....have any of you almost lost your life? If so, did you feel out of control, yet you still acted? Did you act by thinking or did it just happen?
Click to expand...

If you read my comments, you will note that I stated that it could be conscious or unconscious. Decisions we make are not always decided upon for a specific reason. Why when you meet someone new are you respectful in your greeting? Are you consciously thinking, "I want this person to like me"? Probably not, but it is an unconscious instinct, brought on by one's desire to be liked and respected, and how one remembers achieving these things in past experience. We all have our own personal sense of right and wrong and our own personal perception of how we get liked and feel good about ourselves. The decisions that we make in order to achieve these things are not always conscious, but they always exist. One cannot separate behavior from thought or emotion.
 
Stinger007 said:
That's the point....the concept is not logical. People don't give up their life for another because it's logical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's completely logical from a biological standpoint. And that is what most of your brain deals with - biological logic. The "higher" thinking areas of the brain are relatively new, and make up a minority of its mass. Most of the things we do are driven by biological impairment, which is subconscious and "pulls rank" on our higher thinking on a regular basis.

Protecting the group is a biological imperative to social mammals. When it's time to protect the group, often times your "lower" brain will pull rank.
 
Last edited:
Stinger007 said:
That's the point....the concept is not logical. People don't give up their life for another because it's logical.
Click to expand...

Well, it MIGHT be logical to them, if the importance of feeling good about themselves is more important than survival.

But, in reality, it is not logical, but then again, there are plenty of things that we do to make us feel good or feel like a good person that are not logical.
 
This is all good and I respect it. From what I've personally experienced I saw none of that. All I saw was a man being a good man because it's what good people do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Stinger007 said:
I'm here today because someone was altruistic.
Click to expand...

You are here today because someone did something that made them feel good... something that they liked/wanted.
 
Stinger007 said:
This is all good and I respect it. From what I've personally experienced I saw none of that. All I saw was a man being a good man because it's what good people do.
Click to expand...

How did the good man know what good people do?
 
Stinger007 said:
This is all good and I respect it. From what I've personally experienced I saw none of that. All I saw was a man being a good man because it's what good people do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And why do good people do it?

If you say "because it's the right thing," then answer this: How do they know it's the right thing?
 
I guess if the time comes, let's pray it doesn't, and you are looking into a strangers eyes and your life depends on them putting their life at risk, then you might understand my point. Until then I respect your views.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Stinger007 said:
I guess if the time comes, let's pray it doesn't, and you are looking into a strangers eyes and your life depends on them putting their life at risk, then you might understand my point. Until then I respect your views.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What, you think none of us have ever needed help?

And so what if they do it because it feels good? Is it so terrible for them to feel good for doing something good? They did something good, and they get a chemical cookie for that. They deserve it - they did something good.
 
Stinger007 said:
I guess if the time comes, let's pray it doesn't, and you are looking into a strangers eyes and your life depends on them putting their life at risk, then you might understand my point. Until then I respect your views.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And if they help... great. But they did it for the transaction. Just as I would get something out of it, so would they... either consciously or unconsciously. See, what I think you are doing is you are attributing the transaction to something negative, believing that because the transaction exists, it diminishes the act of goodness. It does not. The transaction does not indicate a moral identity. All it does is explain the behavior.
 
Human beings alone decide what is good or what is evil. Aside from those definitions, human beings just do what human beings do.
 
Man is neither inherently good or inherently evil, because good and evil are relative.

I do believe that man is inherently altruistic, to a degree. Doing good to members of your family/tribe was no doubt a survival behavior in the past, and that has carried over to us now.

Man is also inherently violent and selfish, for those thing were also survival behaviors.
 
Stinger007 said:
My post spells it out....is he inherently altruistic or not?
Click to expand...

that is not a very good definition of 'good'. you should have set the topic as 'altruist' (the 'istic' is unnecessary - 'altruist' is already an adjective).

that would depend on you definition of altruist. and we have to remember that a creature is incapable of doing something that is not natural to it... creatures, themselves, define what is natural to them. the biologist's (and anthropologist's and philosopher's) aphorism is "the individual defines the group".

humans are social animals. to be a social animal is to identify a certain grouping of like animals as 'us' and the rest as 'them'. sharing within 'us' is natural to social animals, depriving 'them' to benefit 'us' is equally natural.

if we take the definition beyond 'unselfish' to 'self sacrificing', the answer would appear to be yes, on the level of the species if not at the individual level, which is to say that it is a trait that SOME members have though it is not universal.

geo.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
Surely you mean altruistic.
Click to expand...

no, i mean 'altruist', though it is pedantic and certainly a lost cause (dictionaries now include such barbarisms - even my browser spell check flags it), i will probably keep fighting it.

the 'istic' is cumbersome and unnecessary. english lost most of its inflections but keeps some for the purpose of making one word serve as several parts of speech.

we use 'ism' to identify abstracts, mostly. when we change an abstract into a concrete, an idea word ending in 'ism' (such as 'communism' or 'pragmatism') into a person we change the 'ism' to 'ist'; 'communist', 'pragmatist'. when we change that noun into a modifier we may leave it as 'ist' ("he has 'communist' ideals") or change the 'ist' to 'ic' ("he has pragmatic' ideals"). if we are not familiar with these conventions, we end up doing BOTH... 'atheistic', 'socialistic, 'altruistic'.... but it is cumbersome and unnecessary.

atheist tendencies, 'socialist tendencies', 'atruist tendencies' are all better.

but as i say... i recognize that it is a losing cause.

geo.
 
Geo Patric said:
atheist tendencies, 'socialist tendencies', 'atruist tendencies' are all better.
Click to expand...

You are simply using a noun as a modifier. Atheist is a noun, atheistic is an adjective.

When used in this way it is called a noun adjunct.
 
Last edited:
I think man is neither inherently good nor evil. I think man is always looking out for what is in his best interest and the people they hold close and dear best interests. Whether this makes them good or bad is subjective.
 
Why do good people sometimes do evil things. If you consider that a valid question, the one in the OP becomes rather obsolete. Man's clearly capable of doing any disgustingly wicked act you can think of, even a good man.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You are simply using a noun as a modifier. Atheist is a noun, atheistic is an adjective.

When used in this way it is called a noun adjunct.
Click to expand...

as you like.

geo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom