Is it helpful to assume people are "basically good"

[Kenhinds]

I personally have not even taken the time to read the previous posts on this topic. If i am repeating a previous idealogical idea then I do apology. But why are we so in a way lead to believe that we do in a way start as a good?? We all start as bad

[Starfleet]

Given the right environment, people can behave in either in an altruistic way, or in a way that benefits only themselves. "Good", is subjective.

[Outwardape]

There are numerous factors that determine whether or not the actions of an agent outside of our influence (i.e. A stranger in the grocery store) are "good" or "evil", in the respective context of those terms. One of the key components necessary to draw a conclusion on such a question is the discovery of the intentions and values of oneself in comparison to the like in another. The conflict comes from the intrinsic motives of people, which is a variable that, without prior exposure to an individual, can be incredibly difficult to identify.

The statement, "people are 'basically good'." is in itself a false one, given the history of our species. Of course, many 'good' actions have been performed by many people, as have many 'bad' or 'evil' actions. We must also not forget the fact that what can be and what will be can never be accurately quantified, humans simply do not always behave consistently. The logic is simple, the fallacy is the human variable. We as creatures are capable of actions that, in reference to morality or ethics, come with an inherent disposition of varying degrees based on ones own sense of 'right' and 'wrong'.

As a thought experiment on the subject, I propose a hypothetical situation:

You are walking down the street of a city. As you round a corner, you notice an elderly woman. She is attempting to enter a store, but the door is to heavy for her to open on her own. As a courteous gesture, you open the door for her. She thanks you and proceeds to enter the store. Once inside, the elderly woman removes a handgun from her person and shoots the clerk.

Do you feel responsible for the situation? Have you, through an action you considered to be 'good', caused a result that is morally and/or ethically 'bad' or 'evil'?
How do you know that the actions of the elderly woman are or are not justifiable? Could the death of the clerk have been avoided if you decided to not act in a 'good' manner?

Examples like the one above provide only the slightest glimpse into the complexity of the human variable.

On the other side of the argument, it would be acceptable to ask the question "Is it helpful to assume people are basically bad?" When addressed this way, the question shifts sides, yet any logical answer would be similar to the first. The assumption, whether 'good' or 'bad', leads to the same underlying concepts; trust in others and personal accountability.

To assume people are naturally good, you must first have trust on a large scale. Giving the benefit-of-the-doubt to the entire human race is another internally motivated decision. Individuals who decide on this mentality to be true may find themselves disappointed when they discover an agent that disproves their theory. Alternatively, assuming people are basically bad lends itself to a lack of trust, and therefore a skeptical outlook of others. Yet, given the human variable, this logic could also be disproved by an agent who acts in a manner that one considers to be good.

Personal accountability, in this matter, should be defined as not only one's own sense of morality, but also the extent of said morality. By which I mean the varying degrees of 'good' and 'evil' capable by the individual, not outside agents. A criminal, in theory, should have a much large acceptance threshold to actions considered 'bad' than the average person. On the other hand, a law enforcement officer will have a higher acceptance threshold for that which is morally 'good', while having a lower threshold toward that which is considered 'bad'. In the end, it all breaks down to the individual.

I would not say that it is 'helpful' to assume people are basically good, nor bad. I would argue that it is within our own right to decide who we trust and why, as long as we understand the morality and ethical intentions of ourselves first. Only then can we truly define what is 'good' and make assumptions in others.

[Starfleet]

But isn't all behavior a product of altruistic and non altruistic, which developed due to the environmental demands that were placed on our ancestors, which they then passed on to us? Also, wouldn't life experiences create a unique brain and mind, shaping how we react to things, and ultimately what we consider to be "good " or "evil"?

[Outwardape]

But isn't all behavior a product of altruistic and non altruistic, which developed due to the environmental demands that were placed on our ancestors, which they then passed on to us? Also, wouldn't life experiences create a unique brain and mind, shaping how we react to things, and ultimately what we consider to be "good " or "evil"?

I would also argue that not all behavior is conditioned through raising or environment. A lot of the primal urges and impulses humans experience are rooted in our reptilian brain (lower brain), which has been imperative for our species survival since the beginning. The majority of these brain processes still play an underlying role in our daily thoughts, regardless of upbringing or environmental agents. Over the span of our lives we pick up pieces along the way that shape our method of thinking and perceiving good and bad, yet I theorize that many of the key morals are subconsciously apparent to us from birth, regardless of them having been defined for us.

[Wilson]

But isn't all behavior a product of altruistic and non altruistic, which developed due to the environmental demands that were placed on our ancestors, which they then passed on to us? Also, wouldn't life experiences create a unique brain and mind, shaping how we react to things, and ultimately what we consider to be "good " or "evil"?

I would also argue that not all behavior is conditioned through raising or environment. A lot of the primal urges and impulses humans experience are rooted in our reptilian brain (lower brain), which has been imperative for our species survival since the beginning. The majority of these brain processes still play an underlying role in our daily thoughts, regardless of upbringing or environmental agents. Over the span of our lives we pick up pieces along the way that shape our method of thinking and perceiving good and bad, yet I theorize that many of the key morals are subconsciously apparent to us from birth, regardless of them having been defined for us.

I agree that the framework for morality and behavior is in our DNA, but I think you have located it in the wrong part of the brain. The "reptilian brain" - the brainstem and cerebellum - controls our vital functions - respiration, heart rate, and so on. The "limbic brain" - consisting of the hippocampus, amygdala, and hypothalamus - is supposedly the seat of emotion, and the neocortex - the big hemispheres - is where abstract reasoning, imagination, and what we think of as intelligence are carried out. So since our ideas about morality are largely emotional, but also involve subtle reasoning at times, my guess is that "good" and "evil" come from the interplay between the limbic system and neocortex. My own belief is that the capacity for believing that certain things are right and others wrong is in our brain wiring, configured there by evolution, but that our upbringing and life experiences cause some of us to believe that capital punishment is wrong, for instance, while others believe the opposite.

[LuckyR]

I understand that humans have always lived in communities/tribes but our instincts are not always pushing us toward the communal good. That's why some of the safest and apparently highest quality-of-life countries have extensive laws and norms to promote the communal good.

Is it helpful to pretend that people are basically good and act as if it's shocking when someone does something selfish and harmful to others?

So you're not asking if folks are in fact good, but is it "helpful" to pretend they are. Yes, if you live in a community where cooperation is the norm, thus you have a lot to gain from others, then presenting yourself as trusting will maximize that benefit. of course in so doing, you will be vulnerable to the evil person, who can take advantage of your trust, but that is a risk you take and you can minimize that risk by keeping a wary eye behind your trusting exterior.

OTOH, if you live in a dangerous community with little to gain from others and a lot to lose, then no it is best to have your wary eye on your sleeve and make folks earn your trust over time, if you distrust a good person, you might lose out on a potential positive situation, but that would be rare or at least uncommon so it is not much of a loss.