Since this debate is about human nature of good vs evil it would be helpful to explain what I mean when I use the words "good" and "evil". This is actually very easy, we already know what these words mean. We may disagree on what good and evil are but we do have an understanding of these terms in our heads. People who cheat, steal, kill, pillage, purposely lie to deciet other people are doing "evil" things. People who are friendly, compassionate, assisting, empathetic, kind, so on and so forth, are doing "good" things. This debate is about when we look at the human species altogether should we attribute the word "good" to ourselves or should we attribute the word "evil" to ourselves (or maybe what I just presented was a false dichotomy and there might be other possibilities, like an empty slate). My argument is that we should think of our nature as being good.

I am going to be more specific about my argument. Consider a judgement scale and take a typical human being and judge him on this scale between his good deeds and evil deeds. Where would the scale point? Will it be completely outweighted on the evil side suggesting that our nature is demonic, or will it be completely outweighted on the good side revealing that our nature is angelic? Or perhaps maybe it be in the center - balanced. When I argue that human nature is good I am not saying that we are angels, I am arguing that the scale will lean on the good side, but not dominated on the good side. Thus, I am arguing that we are good but not extremely good, we have a dark side and we can be capable of terrible things but for the most part we act with goodness. Furthermore, if we have a population scale and on one side put all the good people and on the evil side put all the bad people then the scale will be dominated on the good side. Thus, people are overwhelming good, that is to say, if we look at it collectively the good people will completely outmatch the bad people. These are my reasons for saying that human nature is good. Now I will give several arguments why this is thus.

The first argument is from evolution. Indeed, the question of where we get our morals from has been addressed by evolutionary biologists. I know that Charles Darwin talks about it himself and some work on this was done by Richard Dawkins, but this is again getting a little off topic. Just consider for a moment that we were mostly bad people. In no way possible would we have been able to progress to the point where we are today with all our technology and discoveries. Our success from the primitive savanna days was only possible because of our cooperation with one another, with our ability to have a connection to our fellow man instead of destroying him. Humans show a very advanced level of sharing with one another when compared to the animals. Chimps are not really capable of sharing. Do an experiment, have a few chimps try to get themselves food. If the only way they can get food is by working together they would not do it, they would only work together if not one of them has to share. Humans, however, will work together and then share. It is an evolutionary advantage of people to have a sense of sharing. I am sure your mother taught you that sharing is good. And consider the direct opposite. If people were inherently evil then our species would have went extinct a long time ago. Because nothing would have been done if we demon like savages. It is also a survival advantage to think primarily of yourself first. Thus, humans have self-interest more than interest for others. But this is not necessary always a bad thing. People are supposed to think of themselves first, then and only then think of people around themselves because if no one thinks for himself then who is going to think for him? This returns back to my point main argument, that we are good but not angels, we mostly have self-interest but we do not just think of ourselves.

This is rushed, because I am bound by laws.

Actually, I cannot say anything more because I am limited to 750 words only. Sad I had a lot of say.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain power
over people is to assure the people that they are ruling
themselves. Once they believe that, they make wonderfully
submissive slaves." - Joseph Sobran

I contend that human nature is more evil than good. My contention is evidence based, not philosophical soliloquy of the like presented by my worthy antagonist.


First I will rebut the arguments of my esteemed opponent. Then I will present some of my evidence based arguments.


I accept the definitions given by my noble adversary. Having said that, I reject and refute his arguments:

* The argument supporting the conclusion that “people are overwhelming good” contains no evidence. None. Bupkis. Nada. It consists simply of a series of unfounded statements. I could just as easily copy and paste the argument and then merely interchange a few key words.

* The second argument is based on a fallacious interpretation of evolution. Be that as it may, cooperation and sharing does not prove inherent goodness. Indeed, you will find numerous examples where cooperation and sharing have perpetrated evil. I do not need to list examples (but will do so if challenged).


My arguments are evidence based. The evidence is obtained on experiment on unwitting subjects.

Experiment 1: Leave your money in plain sight on the front seat of your unlocked car. Four things could happen:

1. Someone will steal your money.
2. Someone will lock your car on your behalf to prevent the money from being stolen.
3. Someone will smash the window of your now locked car and steal your money.
4. Your money will not be stolen and your car door will remain unlocked.

A variation on this experiment is to also leave the keys in the ignition.

I contend that outcomes 1 and 3 will predominate. Police reports support this contention. This is because human nature is more evil than good.


Experiment 2: Suspend all rules and punishment for 1 week. Let anarchy reign supreme. Several things could happen but my money (which I’m not willing to leave in plain sight on the front seat of my unlocked car) is that evil acts will predominate. Unless people are regulated by laws and punishments their inherent evil nature will cause them to go astray.


Experiment 3: For those who still remain unconvinced, go to bed tonight with the door of your house or appartment left wide open.


When a situation presents evil choices with no risk of punishment and good choices, I contend that the evil choices will far outweigh the good choices. This is because human nature is more evil than good.

And to all Christians, I do not need to point out that humans are born evil – the evil of original sin that blackens the soul and can only be removed by the ritual of baptism.

__________________
There are two things you should never try to prove: the impossible and the obvious.

The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark. (Michelangelo Buonarroti)

• 
  To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  
• 
  To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  
• 
  To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  
• 
  To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  
• 
  To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  

My opponent clearly has no understanding of what anarchy is. Anarchy is not about disoder, chaos, and murder, I know this is what it is typically taken to mean by most people, but anarchist philosophy is about the non-existence of the state which is a coercive monopoly over people and instead focusing on the emergence of order from within. But I am not going to be talking about this because that is off topic.

I cannot imagine how many intelligent people believe in this false idea. I myself, two years ago, thought this was as well, not anymore. People do not kill not because there is a law not to kill but because they are capable of realizing that killing people is bad. I cannot respect anyone who tells me, "I do not do bad things because of laws". Because this person just admitted to me that he is too pathetic to realize himself that stealing and killing is bad. Seriously, if there was no law would you kill? If there was no law would you rob people at a point of a gun? Seriously? No you would not. Nor would I. Nor would any of your friends. How many people in your life can you even think of who would do this? If you analyze this in detail you would realize only very few people would actually do these evil acts. Again supporting my idea that people are overwhelmingly good. If we suspened the law "you shall not kill" not much will happen. Yes, crime will got up, but not that much, it is not going to be an all out war, men are not going to be raping babies in the street, so on and so forth. For the most part society will stay the same. What is evil, however, incredibly evil, is the state. The nature of the state is related to the nature of men. The sad thing is most people think that the nature of men is evil while the nature of state is good. Non-sense! No power, no istitution, no organization has been the cause of so much suffering and death as the state has. However, I do not want to get into the nature of the state now, even though it is related to what we are talking about.

It is a natural human tendency to look at the bad things that happen and overlook the good things that happen. My opponent's experiment on the contrary supports my view. Go and do that experiment. Sit there and count all the number of people who do not break into the car and steal the money. All what this experiment shows is that an overwhelming amount of people will just not do anything. What my opponent is doing is similar to what gun-control supporters do. One day there is a shooting and the gun-control supporters yell, "we need to ban guns look someone got killed". But they are ignoring all the good people. There are 50 million gun owners in America yesterday that did not harm anyone. So why generalize one event to all the people. My opponent generalizes one bad thing that happens to all the people that pass by. This experiment on the contray supports my position that people are overwhelmingly good.

People do not get their morals from God. For my atheist readers I want to point to your inconsistency when you debate with Christians. When a Christian asks, "if there is no God then where people get morals" you reply by saying it is because people know good from wrong themselves. However, many of you inconsitently think that we get our morals from the government. As I explained laws do not make people good, people are good. I would conclude by saying we do not get our morals from Gov.

--

At this point I will add a further argument to support good human nature. When people do evil things they mostly feel guilt and other negative emotions for doing so. So even when someone does something bad he realizes he is doing something bad and feels bad afterwards that he does so. This is in contrast with a sociopath who may kill twenty people and not care one bit. If people were truly evil then it would be consistent to say that they should not feel guilt for what they did. Instead, this is hardly the case.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain power
over people is to assure the people that they are ruling
themselves. Once they believe that, they make wonderfully
submissive slaves." - Joseph Sobran

My admirable adversary seems confused over the distinction between anarchy and Anarchy:

anarchy = general lawlessness and disorder.

Anarchy = Absence of any form of political authority.

Therefore the argument supported by the solid evidence of Experiment 2 (historical evidence which I am happy to present if challenged) remains unrefuted. And it is evidence not empty rhetoric that my arguments are based on.

Again my esteemed opponent gives unfounded statements and rhetoric rather than evidence in his attempted rebuttal of the facts. However, I am pleased to accept as true the statement
An obvious logical consequence of this statement is that the nature of man is evil.

I agree. An overwhelming number of people don't do anything because an overwhelming number of people walk past the car after the money is stolen (the theft typically occurs within 2 minutes). Again, experiment 1 is supported by evidence - the number of police reports of theft from motor car. How many times do the police say not to leave anything valuable in the car. Unfortunately for my learned colleague, my argument remains unrefuted.

My esteemed opponent would have you believe that the chances of the evil act (theft from the car) is 1 in 50 million. (The tossing in of random large numbers like this, together with an attempt to link my argument with somethng totally unrelated, is an old and shameless trick). I have generalised nothing. I have stated facts. Who among us is willing to do the experiment (money in front seat of unlocked car) in an attempt to refute the facts?

My argument to the Christians did not mention morals. It mentioned Original Sin. Original Sin (and the ritual of Baptism) is a central Christian belief.

Since all the other arguments of my my worthy foe have been completely rebutted in my first reply, it is well that he should give one more. I will now rebut it too:

Either my noble adversary is a mind reader, able to read the feelings, thoughts and emotions of the people who do evil things, or these are just more rash claims. Occams razor would suggest the latter.

This latest desperate argument of my worthy foe boils down to claiming that people feel guilt for doing evil things and therefore they cannot be evil. The evil nature of humans is demonstrated by actions. These actions are things we can see (and see them we do, all the time). There is evidence for these actions. Expressing guilt should not be confused with feeling guilt. How are we to know what someone truly feels - are we so gullible as to believe what people say? We cannot see or know what people truly feel, so the argument given by my esteemed opponent is merely wild speculation. There is no evidence. Unsubstantiated statements and wild rhetoric is all that my increasingly desperate opponent can offer.

I have presented arguments that human nature is more evil than good. Those arguments remain unrefuted. My esteemed opponent did not even attempt to refute the argument based on Experiment 3:

Perhaps he realised the utter futitlity of trying to do so. After all, you cannot argue against cold hard fact.

My learned colleague has presented several arguments in an attempt to support his contention that human nature is more good than evil. Every single one of those arguments has been exposed as empty rhetoric and unsubstantiated statements. Even the statement
is merely wild ranting. So wild in fact that my adversary failed to realise that an obvious logical consequence of this statement is that the nature of man is evil.

Members of MHF, when a situation presents evil choices with no risk of punishment and good choices, I contend that the evil choices will far outweigh the good choices. This is because human nature is more evil than good.


EDIT:
Read post #4.

(Re: Experiment 2. History is full of evidence for this. And there have been numerous psychological studies. Use Google (as I will if TPH challenges this)).

__________________
There are two things you should never try to prove: the impossible and the obvious.

The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark. (Michelangelo Buonarroti)

• 
  To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  
• 
  To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  
• 
  To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  
• 
  To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  
• 
  To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  

Looking good so far you two!

I just wanted to remind both parties that each of you has posted twice thus has 3 posts remaining. I have not checked your word limits. I am taking on faith that you are both remaining within or very close to to 750 words. Hopefully this act of faith isn't a mistake.

Good luck to you both as this continues and if you wish to address comments in the observer thread please make them in the observer thread, not in here.

It's approaching the 3 day mark. TPH please get in touch with me if you want an extension.

Since we haven't heard from TPH, I am going to conclude that this debate is over. I will give TPH until tonight to get in touch with me if he wants to reopen the debate.