Are individuals naturally good or evil?

[birthday pony]

I think the premise has a contradiction.

Most humans will do good if free, but we admit that there are people out there oppressing people, otherwise people would be free and good. Assuming that humans were born free, someone did bad and oppressed.

Am I making sense?

[blueyedbum]

i understand what you mean pony.

i dont believe individuals are naturally one or the other. i would say that there is most likely different levels of each in everyone and social construction doing the rest.

[Yarrow]

Oh, you're a Christian. Yea, I should have remembered Anarchists have religious whackjobs too. I should have been a little more specific. "My hypothesis is that most Anarchists (except for Christians)..."

just like those market anarchists. man, are those guys wrong.

i'm not much of a scientist, but shouldn't hypotheses be based on scientific observations or principles? to decide a hypothesis and then analyse it seems unstable.

it seems you have a few errors with your scientific method. did you ever study? and judging someone on their beliefs is a bit harsh. perhaps criticise.

[Francois Tremblay]

just like those market anarchists. man, are those guys wrong.

Once again, just because I disagree with you on animal rights doesn't make me wrong about everything. Get over yourself already man! Geeze.

At least I am not a Christian.

[Francois Tremblay]

So far here are the results from GOTG + blackened.net:

Naturally good: 11 (7+4)
Naturally evil: 1 (0+1)
Blank slate: 6 (1+5)
Neither: 9 (5+4)

[Francois Tremblay]

I think the premise has a contradiction.

Most humans will do good if free, but we admit that there are people out there oppressing people, otherwise people would be free and good. Assuming that humans were born free, someone did bad and oppressed.

Am I making sense?

No. No one is saying that there is NO potential for evil in human nature. The question clearly says "ON THE WHOLE."

[birthday pony]

I think the premise has a contradiction.

Most humans will do good if free, but we admit that there are people out there oppressing people, otherwise people would be free and good. Assuming that humans were born free, someone did bad and oppressed.

Am I making sense?

No. No one is saying that there is NO potential for evil in human nature. The question clearly says "ON THE WHOLE."

Well I think it's too unclear to make a generalization.

[Francois Tremblay]

Then you'd have to answer the last option.

[Yarrow]

decided by his own morality

actually we disagree on a few things; child rearing, the inherent nature of morality (which i deny), the possibility of a fair market etc. and, of course, your lambasting of people who disagree with you. i'm just criticising. and at least christians are nice people (ON THE WHOLE). AFAIK.

[Francois Tremblay]

Yarrow, I see you are still on the "Franc is a meanie" kick. Are you planning on keeping this nonsense up for a long time? I am this close to just ignoring you.

[Yarrow]

feel free, i just wanted to clear up a few things.

[Francois Tremblay]

I know you guys aren't big fans of science (and I do agree with a great deal of the libsoc criticism against science, but not all of it), so I don't whine about it too much, but you honestly still believe in blank slate theory? Geesh. Well, I know the belief is still widespread, so that's why I added that option.

As an aside, since you guys apparently don't believe in any moral instincts, how exactly do you explain the pleasure/pain reactions and the fight/flight reactions? Are they taught too? Has any parent here taught their babies to feel pain when they touch a stove? Also, how do you explain that the basic principles of justice are universal to all human societies, including primitive ones? Coincidence? Or everyone just happens to agree for no particular reason?

It just seems very silly to me.

[Yarrow]

i don't think morality (which i see as governing our actions towards other living beings) as being connected to pain, or fight-or-flight. i also disagree with your points about universal justice, because of things like debates on capital punishment or female circumcision. justice, i think, is more about cooperation, maintaining the satus quo and preserving a balance.

what are your thoughts on blank slate?

[scarydreams]

i dont believe for a moment that human beings are naturally one way or another. we as humans have amazing capacities to hurt and destroy, but we also have equally strong abilities to love and work together. the reason we seem to think human beings are somehow inherently bad is because of the society we live in. it's based on greed, exploitation and competition, of course those aspects of ourselves are going to be revealed. if we had a society based on co-operation and solidarity maybe we would see other sides of humanity that we thought never even existed.

[Francois Tremblay]

i also disagree with your points about universal justice, because of things like debates on capital punishment or female circumcision.

How do these debates disprove the fact that justice is inherent? I don't think capital punishment is a core issue. There's always gonna be debate on the margins. That's like saying that the ongoing debate about punctuated equilibria proves evolution didn't happen.

justice, i think, is more about cooperation, maintaining the satus quo and preserving a balance.

Balance of what?

what are your thoughts on blank slate?

I think it's been disproven scientifically, and it just doesn't hold any water.