Thought Issues needed a philosophical row. So, here it is:

Is humanity innately good, corrupt, or neither? Are we programmed by nature or nurture to know the difference? Left to our own devices, without outside influences, is it possible to say what human nature would be? Or are we nurtured into our behavioural patterns?

Otherwise stated, are we a 'noble savage', influenced to violent, destructive, and otherwise undesirable behaviour by a corrupted society, or a society corrupted as a whole by violent, destructive individuals?

To quote Jean-Paul Sartre:

Existence precedes and rules over Essence.

First and foremost, we exist. Any meaning, purpose, "human nature", moral law or ethical principle we come up with is a fiction created by us and having nothing whatsoever to do with "truth" or "reality".

Everything we do, and everything we cause, we are responsible for. There are no excuses; it's all choices.

Humanity is inherently good. We have an inbuilt moral code parts of which have no survival value whatsoever. Humanity also desires to survive and survive well (comfortably) and therein lies a tendency to selfishness. I think humans are good creatures that follow the path of least resistance and the conflict between these forms habits that define a person.

Hmm. I don't think humanity is innately good or corrupt. I believe we choose which we are, and I don't think there is a very clear-cut line there. I strongly dislike George Bush, but I would be very reluctant to say he is 100% evil and there is absolutely nothing good about him (particularly since I've never met the man). I don't believe someone can be totally evil, with no shred of goodness to them (and vice versa)...which I suppose is one reason why I've always had trouble with the traditional concepts of God and Satan...but that's off-topic. We're discussing humanity, not deities.

Humans do disappoint me a lot of the time, however. But...I still say it's their choices (and what environment they were raised in), not their nature.

i belive its good.... look at all the other animals in the world.

While I believe there can be an ultimate good I don't think there can be an ultimate evil as it would be a non-entity. What we call evil is the seeking of good things through dubious means. Tyrants seek the good of themselves or even imagine they're doing good for others (good things) by doing terrible things. Even the devil in Judeo-Christian theology is a fallen angel who wanted power and to become a god (good thing) but screwed up by destroying himself and others through the means he used to acquire power. All evil that is done is always done for a good cause when the ends have all the outer wrappings ripped away. It sounds twisted but it's true.

I think humanity is inherently neither good, nor evil. Humanity is inherently selfish. Many acts of altruism can be explained in terms of selfishness. For example, supporting your kids' development such that your kids grow up to be all that they can can be explained as simply wanting your kids carrying your genes to have an advantage over the other kids, so they'll make more babies, and eventually the entire population will look like you.

As for good or evil, they're defined purely in context of society, which in turn defines morality. Let's consider a man who was raised by wolves. Let's suppose he attacks, kills and eats a camper. Is he evil? I'd say no, because he has no human moral framework to relate to. He's very good in terms of wolf-morality if he shares his kill with other members of his pack.

Lets consider the concept of slavery. Modern day slave owners would be considered evil. Rewind 2000 years to the Roman empire, and slavery was morally transparent. Neither good nor evil. That's nothing to do with humanity - it's everything to do with society.

Humans, like other animals, have their self-preservation formost above all. They strive to be able to continue living, and to have the most assurance of continued living.
This assurance may come in the form of aquiring excessive wealth if you live in a system where wealth has a meaning. It's not strictly greed until you realise you are comfortable for life and yet keep on trying to get more.
Evil is only when we use our rationality and undertake an action that gives us no direct benefit to our continued self existance, but nonetheless causes harm to another.
So it can be argued that no one is evil if they think they need to do something to ensure their own life. Also, they arn't evil if they believe they are doing good, just delusioned.
Theres arguments for and against this, but I think the bare bones of it is that humans are born neither good nor evil. What we think of as 'good' and 'evil' (differing from culture to culture) comes later through education, interaction with others, and living in a society.

Just my tuppence.

I don't believe in clear lines between good and evil either, or that a person is entirely one or the other, and that therefore neither can be inborn. At that same time, it's lazy to attribute bad behaviour to the influence of a bad society. Society is made up of indiviuals. It defines good and bad, but it can only create it to a very limited degree.

Usually, "good" and "evil" actions are defined by the repercussions they have on others. Since it is instinct to do foremost what is best for one's individual survival, "good" and "evil" would become definitions we have imposed on natural behaviour. They can also be pretty arbitrary and vary depending on the society.

The problem, narth, with the humans=animal=naturally good ('noble savage') theory is that animals do not work within a concept or good or evil. When my dog licks me, she's doing it for the salt; when she bites, it's because I stepped on her. Humans are uniquely capable of vindictive, manipulative, senseless behaviour. While I agree that we don't tend to good over evil or vice versa, but simply natural impulses, I think our awareness for the perameters of both heightens our ability to act in extremes, and because our actions are intentional despite this awareness it's different than simple survival instinct. So individual choices, not just nature, define humanity.

Hmm, perhaps time to do a bit of advocating for the devil here...

One thing that many people appear to miss in Darwin's work is that he believed very clearly that humanity was in no way different to any other animal. If this is the case, and we also hold to the idea of nature not working within any concept of good or evil, then we must also concede that morality has no place within the framework of mankind either. Even what we might call aspects of these ideas do not really exist; truth, justice, liberty, these are all intangible and transient ideals. If they do exist then it would only be in the mind of the divine, and if we then choose to believe that instead we must also follow that good and evil comes not from our choices or relative perspectives but from one constant source: ie. God (in whatever form).

So, is good/evil merely (to quote CommieBastard) "fiction created by us" since morality is not inherent within nature and humanity is just another animal working within the planet's natural sequences and therefore cannot be inherently good or evil, or is it divinely inspired whereby morality is defined not by our chronological nor geographical positions, or even by the choices we make, but by God instead?

Confucius said:

When a child is born, he or she is not evil. It is things later in life that affect him or her. Or something like that.

ar.un, that is such a William Golding question.

I'd definitely agree with Jonman in that humanity is inherently selfish. I could also see a link between degrees of selfishness and good and evil. When you're good, you're contributing to the well-being of all people, but when you're evil, you're more likely to contribute to the well-being of yourself.

I used to think that people for the most part good but as I get older my views have changed I remember everyday the past that haunts me and how people that are suppose to protect and keep you safe, hurt you more than strangers How could a child see goodness in the future when theyso such evil so young

Humans though are capable of overriding the most basic instinctual drives, for good or ill. A person can sacrifice their lives for others or for a cause. A person can also murder their own offspring. Of all creatures on the Earth the defining element of humanity is potential. Humans alone are capable of dying for a cause that they will never see reach fruition. Animals might die for the pack but they won't die for justice. Humans also not only develop new means to kill each other they also develop new reasons to.

Okay, gotta tell a story. An anthropologist went to live amongst a tribe of cannibals to learn about them and teach them about the world. He spoke to the chief and the chief told the scientist how many people he had eaten proudly. The scientist, a little disgusted, said he'd never eaten another human. The chief was puzzled and asked him if there was no killing either. The scientist said there was but these were wars against and for tyranny, justice, liberty, rights, etc. The chief asked how large these wars were and was given figures for World War II and was shocked. "Your soldiers must then eat many people," he said, a little jealously.

"No, no, we don't. There's no need or cause to eat them."

"But then............you have no reason to kill them."