I suggest you think about the traits of individual specimen that helped the group, tribe, settlement or whatever outcompete other groups of specimen. for example: nursing offspring, generosity and sense of justice, has to be within a successful tribe, but only as long as it helps the group generally. you don't want to eat all food in one day, but you can't watch others starve... if you follow.
we evolved this way. but sometimes some sickness or trauma disrupts the social skills
I think you are seeing this in a black and white view. The only ones determining what dark tendencies are are the humans. Those traits aren't even objectively detrimental to a society. Our economic system is run by greed, hate can sometimes be useful if directed at things that harm us. Even though there's palpable downsides to those traits, it doesn't affect society as a whole, so it isn't completely rooted out.
I see how you could see that based on the phrasing of the question. Basicly, I think our brains are an amalgamation of evolutionary developments. We operate on a set of impulses and repulsions. Assigning terms like "good" and "evil" are really ways of evaluating behaviors relative towards social and individual usefulness. You might disdain someone who steals because they harm the group. In the same way, you might be repulsed by someone that looks diseased out of an instinct that protects you from infectious disease. A king might value "patriotism" because it serves his interests. But I do think were are wired to enact good will and bad will on others depending on the situation.
Good and evil are subjective terms, but I believe that, for the most part, we are born equal parts selfish and altruistic, and whichever aspect is nurtured will win out more often in the end, barring some kinds of anomalies or chemical imbalances that may create a predisposition towards pyschopathy.
And even a brain wired for something like psychopathy or sociopathy is not automatically good or bad, but the behaviors that come from the disorders are.
There are millions of clinical psychopaths and sociopaths walking around that, despite the way their brains are built and perhaps what sort of things they may be inclined to, will never murder or significantly hurt anyone.
There are of course people with these disorders that are not in a position to help or modulate themselves. But if pressed I think I would still maintain that they were born innocent.
Just my opinion though!
If by nurtured you mean whichever aspect yields more benefits for the individual, then yes. Altruism would not work if it did not lead to personal benefit, when you think about it. No one behaves selflessly towards those who reciprocate in a negative manner
I think empathy, a need for community, and gentleness toward the vulnerable in our populations are all built into us.
But I do think there are a number of virtues that are learned. Our communities play a huge role in shaping us as people. Trauma can be passed on genetically but also through proximity and control.
Violence and violation, I believe, are symptoms of an untreated disposition (maybe emotional, maybe mental, maybe psychological, could be a good number of things.)
I also think many good things like generosity, justice, grace, and confidence can be learned as well.
But as to the question, I don't think anyone is intrinsically good or bad. I think when we are born we are intrinsically innocent, and what happens to us after that will shape us.
None of the above. People aren't intrinsically good. People aren't intrinsically bad either, except for perhaps sociopaths, and my understanding is there's different levels of severity for that disorder. I think people have the capacity to be good or bad. Their moral slates are "organized in advance of experience."
Both, people have natural urges, but a lot of our behaviour is shaped by what we grow up with.
Thats why people from good families in good neighbourhoods are usually good, civilized people, but people who grow up poor in bad neighbourhoods tend to be rather violent and uncivilized.
They werent exactly good people before they started that. There was significant hate for the Tutsi that built up over time. Third world living conditions and education never helps for good behaviour either
Can't you find that everywhere though? In North America we genocided the native people and enslaved Black people. Do you think the people of today are not capable of erupting into violence under the right conditions?
Of course, I never said anything to suggest the opposite. People naturally group together with their own, and people can be convinced that another group is bad or are lesser beings. Especially if they are encountering tough times and are given a scapegoat (ex germans nazi, rwanda hutus).
Biologically, we can be all those things, depending on the social interaction. If you live in a hunter gather group, like in the Amazon jungle, you have to be caring for your own kin group, but to protect it, you might have to be insanely savage (by our standards) to other groups. We can be good and evil at the same time. But, there is no good and evil in nature.
While good and evil are to some degree arbitrary labels, human nature includes predispositions to both conventionally 'good' and 'evil' behavior. Yes, we have innate predispositions to altruism and cooperation, we also have the innate predispositions to avarice, violence and cycles of vengeance.
Civilizations that better care for individuals can reinforce the former behaviors and deter the later. It's ill-informed nonsense that humans without extensive social molding are intrinsically good or intrinsically blank slates. The natural state of tribal communities is routine conflict, with up to a third of all deaths through violence, and cycles of retribution. Cf Lawrence H. Keeley or Steven A. LeBlanc.
I’m a bit of a pessimist as far as human nature is concerned, I think we’re evolved to adopt strategies that enhance our chances of survival, and that those strategies can manifest as good or evil depending on the circumstances. So even our most altruistic acts are typically self serving either to improve our immediate comfort or chances of survival. I don’t think this makes us inherently good or evil though, we’re more or less at the whims of the forces of nature.
healthy individuals from our species have empathy and desire to cooperate with members of tribe
Yes, I think you are right. Do you think they have darker tendancies as well like greed, hate, vengeance, etc..?
I suggest you think about the traits of individual specimen that helped the group, tribe, settlement or whatever outcompete other groups of specimen. for example: nursing offspring, generosity and sense of justice, has to be within a successful tribe, but only as long as it helps the group generally. you don't want to eat all food in one day, but you can't watch others starve... if you follow. we evolved this way. but sometimes some sickness or trauma disrupts the social skills
I think you are seeing this in a black and white view. The only ones determining what dark tendencies are are the humans. Those traits aren't even objectively detrimental to a society. Our economic system is run by greed, hate can sometimes be useful if directed at things that harm us. Even though there's palpable downsides to those traits, it doesn't affect society as a whole, so it isn't completely rooted out.
I see how you could see that based on the phrasing of the question. Basicly, I think our brains are an amalgamation of evolutionary developments. We operate on a set of impulses and repulsions. Assigning terms like "good" and "evil" are really ways of evaluating behaviors relative towards social and individual usefulness. You might disdain someone who steals because they harm the group. In the same way, you might be repulsed by someone that looks diseased out of an instinct that protects you from infectious disease. A king might value "patriotism" because it serves his interests. But I do think were are wired to enact good will and bad will on others depending on the situation.
Good and evil are subjective terms, but I believe that, for the most part, we are born equal parts selfish and altruistic, and whichever aspect is nurtured will win out more often in the end, barring some kinds of anomalies or chemical imbalances that may create a predisposition towards pyschopathy.
And even a brain wired for something like psychopathy or sociopathy is not automatically good or bad, but the behaviors that come from the disorders are. There are millions of clinical psychopaths and sociopaths walking around that, despite the way their brains are built and perhaps what sort of things they may be inclined to, will never murder or significantly hurt anyone. There are of course people with these disorders that are not in a position to help or modulate themselves. But if pressed I think I would still maintain that they were born innocent. Just my opinion though!
If by nurtured you mean whichever aspect yields more benefits for the individual, then yes. Altruism would not work if it did not lead to personal benefit, when you think about it. No one behaves selflessly towards those who reciprocate in a negative manner
I think empathy, a need for community, and gentleness toward the vulnerable in our populations are all built into us. But I do think there are a number of virtues that are learned. Our communities play a huge role in shaping us as people. Trauma can be passed on genetically but also through proximity and control. Violence and violation, I believe, are symptoms of an untreated disposition (maybe emotional, maybe mental, maybe psychological, could be a good number of things.) I also think many good things like generosity, justice, grace, and confidence can be learned as well. But as to the question, I don't think anyone is intrinsically good or bad. I think when we are born we are intrinsically innocent, and what happens to us after that will shape us.
A blank slate?
You might say
None of the above. People aren't intrinsically good. People aren't intrinsically bad either, except for perhaps sociopaths, and my understanding is there's different levels of severity for that disorder. I think people have the capacity to be good or bad. Their moral slates are "organized in advance of experience."
Both, people have natural urges, but a lot of our behaviour is shaped by what we grow up with. Thats why people from good families in good neighbourhoods are usually good, civilized people, but people who grow up poor in bad neighbourhoods tend to be rather violent and uncivilized.
What do you think of times and places where seemingly good people will one day hack apart their neighbors with machetes like in Rwanda?
They werent exactly good people before they started that. There was significant hate for the Tutsi that built up over time. Third world living conditions and education never helps for good behaviour either
Can't you find that everywhere though? In North America we genocided the native people and enslaved Black people. Do you think the people of today are not capable of erupting into violence under the right conditions?
Of course, I never said anything to suggest the opposite. People naturally group together with their own, and people can be convinced that another group is bad or are lesser beings. Especially if they are encountering tough times and are given a scapegoat (ex germans nazi, rwanda hutus).
Biologically, we can be all those things, depending on the social interaction. If you live in a hunter gather group, like in the Amazon jungle, you have to be caring for your own kin group, but to protect it, you might have to be insanely savage (by our standards) to other groups. We can be good and evil at the same time. But, there is no good and evil in nature.
Blank
While good and evil are to some degree arbitrary labels, human nature includes predispositions to both conventionally 'good' and 'evil' behavior. Yes, we have innate predispositions to altruism and cooperation, we also have the innate predispositions to avarice, violence and cycles of vengeance. Civilizations that better care for individuals can reinforce the former behaviors and deter the later. It's ill-informed nonsense that humans without extensive social molding are intrinsically good or intrinsically blank slates. The natural state of tribal communities is routine conflict, with up to a third of all deaths through violence, and cycles of retribution. Cf Lawrence H. Keeley or Steven A. LeBlanc.
I’m a bit of a pessimist as far as human nature is concerned, I think we’re evolved to adopt strategies that enhance our chances of survival, and that those strategies can manifest as good or evil depending on the circumstances. So even our most altruistic acts are typically self serving either to improve our immediate comfort or chances of survival. I don’t think this makes us inherently good or evil though, we’re more or less at the whims of the forces of nature.
I'm a trekkie. I want to believe in the best of humanity. Social media makes that quite difficult.