Are the vast majority of people good at heart?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes. This is one of my core assumptions.

[DC Al Fine]

No, not remotely. This is one of those debates where I have a really hard time understanding the other side.

[RFayette]

No, not remotely. This is one of those debates where I have a really hard time understanding the other side.

[Cassius]

I don't think this is really an either/or question. I don't happen to believe that people are naturally 'good', partly for fairly standard Christian reasons regarding original sin, but, more to the point, good is such a nebulous term, much like it's opposite 'bad' (or 'evil' if you're going to go to the extreme end of the spectrum). I mean, what is 'good'? How does one define a 'moral code' (which I would assume is where a sense of 'good' would be derived from) as it were? It all seems very complicated; the things we do which we think are good and right can sometimes have dreadful consequences, whilst those that we feel a little squeamish about and guilty can often yield generous rewards, both for ourselves and others. I mean, not to sound poncy or philosophical, but life is basically riding blind - you don't know really know where you're going to end up and how you're going to get there, but you will do (well, unless you fall off the horse and break your neck), and you'll probably do a lot of things that are 'good', 'bad' or even a mixture of both along the way. I've always thought that people are just a kind of neutral blank slate upon which both bad and good things can be... written.

Of course, this doesn't take into the fact that probably the majority of our actions are influenced by our 'surroundings' and other people than anything intrinsic to ourselves, as being 'good at heart' would imply. I mean, there's the obvious example of World War II - the citizens of the Allied powers (the good side in the war) weren't really more 'good at heart' than those of Germany or Japan, they simply happened to be on a different side, the legacy of which has coloured perceptions accordingly. Of course, the Germans and the Japanese did perpetrate enormous atrocities, but then so did, on a smaller scale, the Allied powers (and it's debatable in the case of the Soviet army as to whether their atrocities were any 'better' than those committed by the Wehrmacht or the Japanese army). These things are, in my view, a matter of time, place and perspective, whereas a concept of 'intrinsic good' would imply that good has some sort of objective, measurable value, which I ultimately don't think it does.

Tbh I just try and sidestep this whole issue in my own life by roughly following the law, and the basic principles of the Roman Catholic Church, and try not to go poking any deeper than that, as I doubt they're are any satisfactory answers to be found.

[Blue3]

Yes. This is one of my core assumptions.

[fhtagn]

Yes. This is one of my core assumptions.

[Mopsus]

No, not remotely. This is one of those debates where I have a really hard time understanding the other side.

Probably because you use different definitions of "good".

If your idea of a good person is someone who's never tempted by sin, then no, most people are not good at heart. OTOH, if your definition of a good person is someone who generally seeks to do no harm, then I think it's fair to say that most people are good.

[Beet]

People are people. I wouldn't say they are either good nor bad, because these concepts are social constructs, which we can't even agree on the meaning of. Can anyone even provide a definition of a good person?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Rare is the person who actively seeks to do what they know to be evil. All too commonly we do what we know to be evil, but would rather not do.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Pretty much what Beet said

[7,052,770]

Yes. I had a friend once who argued that this question is the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Not sure if I agree, but I guess this thread so far is evidence of it.

[°Leprechaun]

"Evil" could be defined in human terms as doing ignorant things for selfish reasons. "Ignorant"+ "Selfish" = evil.

That may not be an accurate definition literally speaking, but is my analysis of why people often don't do the right thing. How many people agree on what the "right thing" to do is?

I have a dark side, I am willing to admit that. How many people are in touch with their dark side? We have the power, perhaps, to rise above our dark side. Some people chose not to.

edit: It's a question of win/win vs win/lose. Win/lose often devolves into lose/lose.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Yes. This is one of my core assumptions.

[RI]

I tend to believe so. I don't believe that the idea of original sin is incompatible with an innate human goodness. We are created in the likeness of the ultimate good, after all, and fallen is not the same as bad.

[TDAS04]

I am honestly not sure, humans can obviously can be pretty evil, but I don't like it when tyrants use that as an excuse to tightly control others.

Historically, the evilness of human nature has been used in conservative thought as a justification for powerful and strict authority.  After all, if those common people are up to no good, they need righteous, wise people to make them behave correctly.  I personally think the human capacity for evil is exactly why authority needs to be limited.  Common people are no angels, but neither are government officials.  Human evil is especially evident when people abuse their power.  

I am hesitant to say people are basically good, but it would be nice if we at least respected others enough to treat them as if they were good.  History has shown that brutal dictators often describe a populace as lazy and immoral or something else as a justification to be ruthless.  Ironically, people who speak forcefully of others' character flaws have evil intentions themselves.

[Enduro]

At our core, we are a collection of people who want to do good, but are broken almost beyond repair.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

by my standards? no. by their own standards? probably.

[°Leprechaun]

I am honestly not sure, humans can obviously can be pretty evil, but I don't like it when tyrants use that as an excuse to tightly control others.

Historically, the evilness of human nature has been used in conservative thought as a justification for powerful and strict authority.  After all, if those common people are up to no good, they need righteous, wise people to make them behave correctly.  I personally think the human capacity for evil is exactly why authority needs to be limited.  Common people are no angels, but neither are government officials.  Human evil is especially evident when people abuse their power.  

I am hesitant to say people are basically good, but it would be nice if we at least respected others enough to treat them as if they were good.  History has shown that brutal dictators often describe a populace as lazy and immoral or something else as a justification to be ruthless.  Ironically, people who speak forcefully of others' character flaws have evil intentions themselves.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

[anthonyjg]

Yes. I had a friend once who argued that this question is the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Not sure if I agree, but I guess this thread so far is evidence of it.

While I also tend to find that this is one defining characteristic between the left and right I do think the idea of a small government conservative viewing people as inherently bad/not inherently good is kind of strange. I would think that believing in people's inherent goodness would make it much easier to support conservative economic policies as you wouldn't have to worry about people needing help since everyone is good and would simply take care of each other without government intervention. But, I have my reasons for thinking that people are inherently good while supporting left wing economic policies, I assume that pessimistic conservatives have their own reasons as well.

[RFayette]

Yes. I had a friend once who argued that this question is the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Not sure if I agree, but I guess this thread so far is evidence of it.

The more interesting question would be if this partisan split would remain if the question were reframed, "Are the vast (or even a simple) majority of Trump voters good at heart?"  Because I get the sense that many leftists' belief in the fundamental goodness of the average human tends to go away when referring to the half of the country which disagrees with them politically.

(For the record, I would respond that the vast majority of humanity as a whole (same with Trump/Clinton supporters) are not 'good at heart.'  As the book of Jeremiah says, the heart is desperately wicked, which is why we need the atoning blood of Jesus Christ to save us.

[TJ in Oregon]

I tend to believe so. I don't believe that the idea of original sin is incompatible with an innate human goodness. We are created in the likeness of the ultimate good, after all, and fallen is not the same as bad.

^ I agree.

Humans in our fallen state have allowed our search for various goods to be twisted into wrongs. But every sin is still at some level a distorted attempt at some good. You can see this in all sorts of ways when you deal with people. Revenge is a distortion of justice. Cowardice is a distortion of prudence. Marxism is a distortion of charity. Judgment is a distortion of truth. Idolatry is a distortion of faith. etc.

We may be selfish and prioritize the wrong things, but still, on some level, do what we think think or have deluded ourselves into thinking is good (I would say "right" but people artificially separate the two and are more open about violating the latter).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I tend to believe so. I don't believe that the idea of original sin is incompatible with an innate human goodness. We are created in the likeness of the ultimate good, after all, and fallen is not the same as bad.

^ I agree.

Humans in our fallen state have allowed our search for various goods to be twisted into wrongs. But every sin is still at some level a distorted attempt at some good.

May I point out that in the Biblical story of the fall, the serpent didn't tempt Eve directly with the idea of sin, but with the idea that the forbidden fruit was actually good. The Quranic story is similar except Iblis (Satan) didn't take a serpent's shape, and he tempted both Adam and Eve equally.

[Intell]

At heart yes.

Through society, and what I would call the sin of profit-motive capitalism, which separates society into division, with no regards for the poor by the rich, or other institutions, and the oppressed that have no voice by those that have the power on the basis of capital influence.

I basically saying, that unequal distribution of capital, class differences and social stigma, forms prejudice and hatred which make people immoral, from capitalistic societal influences, and the power of money.

Poverty and despair resulting from unequal distribution of capital, resulted from the profit motive of Capitalism is Sin.

In that as moral righteous conservatives are so wrong on, being gay is not a sin, capitalism is a sinful and immoral institution, and the act of being a privileged capitalist (in so many scenarios) is most definitely a sin.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

No, humans are (unwittingly or not) terrible people at heart in need of a savior.  We don't deserve love, but God extends His love to us anyway.  This is probably where I'm most at odds with mainstream "liberal" Christianity.

[bore]

You must be logged in to read this quote.