r/MoralityScaling • u/Old-Celebration3781 • 3h ago
Who's Viewpoint Is Better? Who is right?
28
u/Expensive_Range7204 3h ago
Man is born as a blank slate, all knowledge is acquired is likely closest but non of them are correct.
8
u/Temporary-Pin-4144 3h ago
Studies show that babies would usually prefer those who commit good deeds.
I say man is born benevolent due to our social nature, but then is corrupted (or rathet adapted) to what society thinks is goid or bad in all contexts
1
1
7
2
u/ComfortableReality32 2h ago
Dang, literally what I thought. First 2 are nature based arguments, last one is nurture based. In reality, at every given point both your genetics and your environmental conditioning will have a combined effect on your interpretation of events and responses to them.
2
5
5
u/Acrobatic-List-6503 3h ago
Sorry, but whoever the man on the left is gets my vote.
My philosophy prof once said that man is instinctively made to do good. However, that "good" depends on interpretation.
1
1
u/Connect_Art_6497 3h ago
Morality in a world where mans own God is his own reflection can only ever wrought wicked works of men who worship and sacrifice the ones they love to "morality" itself.
3
2
u/Cease-2-Desist 3h ago
Good and bad are relative terms and often defined in context. Excessively violent might be a bad trait. Someone who is quite violent might be bad until your village is attacked, and then they're good. Therefore it might be good to have people capable of extreme violence, but you will want to train those people well to direct that violence in the proper direction.
Man is nature plus nurture. That's been all but proven now.
1
u/Any_Table9811 2h ago
You are conflating good with useful, which already assumes utilitarianism. However for example happiness, friendship or love is not necessarily useful (although it can be) yet we consider it good.
Also just in general, traits aren’t necessarily bad, behaviors are. For example being violent can mean you become a solider, a policeman or a price fighter but still generally stay pro social, but it can also mean you become a criminal.
1
u/Cease-2-Desist 39m ago
I am a utilitarian. And I believe maximizing utility maximizes happiness, friendship, and love.
2
u/KPraxius 3h ago
None of the above, though the third is mostly true, and doesn't contradict either of the others. You can know nothing and be bad or good.
Men vary by nature, and their environment impacts them from there. A nurturing environment might cause one to blossom into a wonderful person, while it might turn another into an angry, greedy fool. And deprivation, similarly, might create both good and bad people.
2
u/Any_Table9811 2h ago
I would say John Locke was the closest. At the same time we are not born completely as a blank slate, since obviously there is genetic inheritance like general human proclivity for language and there are also differences in levels of empathy. For example psychopathy is genetic. But overall, morality is overwhelmingly learned from our environment.
3
u/CostatePrancer 3h ago
All of them. I'd say it depends on the country, the century, the economic circumstances, the mesosystem...
1
u/ret_ch_ard 2h ago
Well the country, time and economic circumstances don't change the baby itself. (Except for birth defects and shit obviously)
All that change happens afterwards
1
u/CertifiablyMundane 3h ago
It's funny that most people tend to pay lip service to one while all of capitalism is predicated on the assumption of another.
1
u/MustacheMan666 3h ago edited 3h ago
Locke is the most right. There is also no such thing as “good” or “bad” in nature. It’s subjective and what we define as someone who is “good” or “bad” changes.
1
1
u/n_looks_for_kindness 3h ago
Man has a innate instinct to do good but is not born with knowledge. The knowledge and experience are all acquired and shape your definition of good, even in twisted ways
1
u/ret_ch_ard 2h ago
The instinct is a result from evolution I think.
Mankind was never the strongest or fastest, but they could work together and we're therefore stronger than the sum of their parts.
If everyone was completely self-centered, humanity as we know it could've never existed
1
u/DwarvenGardener 3h ago
Somewhere between the first two. People are inherently self interested but altruistic towards those that they consider part of their group. That being good or bad is up to interpretation. Too much of how people act is simply due to genetics and evolutionary pressures for man to ever be described as a blank slate.
1
u/SugarFupa 3h ago
Man is born with a set of drives and predispositions that must be organized into a functional unity adapted to the environment he finds himself in.
1
1
1
u/Azylim 3h ago
solzhenitsyn - The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained.
1
u/Constant-Complex-853 3h ago
Man is bad by nature, for it is their nature to cut corners and reach to an invalid conclusion. Man is good by nature, for it is their nature to get to as close to a truth they are willing to go through. Man is a blank slate in nature, for they do not know.
They're all right. They're all wrong. They're all fools. And they're all visionaries.
1
1
1
u/Antonius6812 3h ago
People are all different shades of grey, some are darker and some are lighter and both can and will change to a different shade throughout their life.
1
1
u/Sir_Isaac_3 2h ago
Man is a wanker who likes to wank. He then ponders his wanking and tells everyone about it.
1
u/Nathmikt 2h ago
Disagree with Rousseau .
Slightly agree with Machiavelli.
Highly agree with Locke.
1
u/bdproductions34 2h ago
Okay raise a kid with absolutely no socialization, never correct their actions, never teach them how to behave, never teach them right from wrong and see what type of person they become. Society is a set of collective rules that allows us to cooperate with each other.
If a kid wants a toy from another kid that won’t give it to him, the most natural thing for him to do is just take it. Stealing in this instance is not a bug but a feature. He has to be socialized out of it. To show that hey, even if you want to take from him you can’t. We have to cooperate. If he never learns that lesson he becomes a poor fit for society.
Does that make him inherently good/bad? There’s no good or bad in nature, it’s just survival. But we as humans recognize that are best chance of survival as a species is through deep cooperation. So we set a bunch of social rules to follow with intense punishments if broken. Don’t steal, don’t murder, don’t assault your neighbors. All of these have to be socialized.
So I guess I lean more towards “blank slate”. But a poorly socialized or maladaptive human who hasn’t learned right from wrong, even if they had great personality traits by nature would also have some very undesirable traits as well. So maybe a little bit of “bad” if we consider bad as someone who is extremely maladaptive to current social standards in modern society.
1
u/Dreams_Beginning 2h ago edited 2h ago
A mix of all that is the issue.
Humans are complex and nuanced but I would say it is more so a mix of 1 and 3.
Humans as social pack animals have specifically developed empathy in our evolution and we can feel and understand others but said development of empathy can be either stunted or left with holes during our development.
Behaviour evolutionarily is set in our genetics and the many strides of evolution to get to this point but also likewise our development and experiences with how they impact us, as these experiences make the body favour certain gene expressions and behaviours over changing behaviour as a result.
A child raised in a tribe with no concept of war or impossible power dynamics or cruelty where people help each other in the entire community would have much more developed empathy for anyone than a rich heir to some CEO who neglects them, compensates with money and from birth is taught he is above everyone else, such a person wouldn’t have much empathy.
Then there are circles and groups, we can have great empathy for those in our “In” circles like our country, our region, our city, our class or our sports team with the more specific you to the more we are inclined to view them positively unless given reason to the contrary while other people not in our circles can easily be dehumanised and not see as real people.
Happens especially in war times. Hate the enemy, feel nothing for the enemy, they are an amorphous blob of evil and nor “people” to be seen with qualities worth empathising with so many don’t.
Humans are however also selfish, not a bad quality in and of itself, selfishness is simply the desire to have it good for oneself, everyone wants that, everyone wants to feel good and for their own needs to be taken care of, if we didn’t develop this quality we would have gone extinct ages ago, the issue is as I said our development and how much said selfishness is rewarded or kept in check, the tribes child example would be less selfish typically than the rich child cause they are more encouraged to be selfish or not to be.
So genetically (unless talking about born psychopathy where there is some issue that hinders even the formation of certain feelings all together) we all have empathy, selfishness, care, love, hate and so forth as things we can feel but how they are expressed highly varies depending on our development.
1
1
1
u/GenericUsernameN 2h ago
All are wrong.
The first two aren't worth discussion because "good"/"bad" are social categories, they doesn't exist without mankind.
The third is correct in a sense that social fabric matters a lot and proper conditions make deviant behavior significantly less popular. However a man is far form a blank slate due to his natural properties. An extreme example would be a guy with damaged impulse control structures who behaves poorly despite his proper social landscape. While the majority of people aren't this guy, everyone has his natural predispositions that resonate with the society in different ways.
1
u/GilbertT19 2h ago
Man is both good and bad
It is easier to do whichever you are most adjusted to genetically or behaviorally via your environment
1
1
1
u/Neither_Syrup759 2h ago
As others have said non of the above. Is it society that corrupts man or does man corrupt society.
Good an evil are subjective to begin with to be able to define something. You must have set a agreed rule set.
Some humans/cultures can get close but know one person agrees with everything another says it is to be good.
Human are defined by both there surroundings and then environment they grow up in and the nature that they are born as.
A culture or society will label them as good or bad. Does that make them good or bad. They and their close friend will think differently. A different culture or society will label them something else.
No one can see what you can see or think or feel what you can feel all we can try to do is try to reach out and understand as close as possible.
1
u/CourseNegative8381 2h ago
In the words of yahweh, I am that I am
Good & evil are human constructs that people disagree on in even the most extreme, seemingly cut and dry cases. Murder is wrong, but not all people consider abortion or state mandated executions or murdering yourself or self defence under that umbrella. There's wiggle room even when it comes to ending a life. There are some weirdos that think humanity deserves to be wiped off the face of the earth cause of what we've done to the environment.
Man is inherently man. I personally choose to believe that is a good thing.
1
u/Huge_Entrepreneur636 2h ago
All of them are wrong. If you have interacted with toddlers. They have many personality traits that are intrinsic, like they were born with them. You can have siblings where one like to share and the other doesn't. But no one is ever completely good or bad. And overtime people's beliefs and behaviour change as they gain knowledge and experience.
1
u/REEEEEEDDDDDD 2h ago edited 2h ago
We're blank slates with an innate sense of empathy so both Rosseau and Locke are right. Don't recognise the guy in the middle but he is wrong we're naturally good for the but most part but can become bad when we need to
1
u/Exact_King6390 2h ago
Man prioritizes survival first, morality second.
A good society makes the first point moot, so we can all be better at the second.
1
1
u/Mysterious_Win_4101 2h ago
#3 is closest to accuracy. there are no real examples of universal good and bad. they are relative human concepts.
1
u/Great-Souled-Sam 2h ago
Ignorance is the root of evil, actions taken without care for the responsibility or consequences are those which harm. We are born ignorant, and therefore naively evil, with little power to cause harm. This can change as we grow, and realize we must be seen to have value to be wanted, which is our greatest need. Those who choose or are guided to hate others to be included in their group continue their ignorance and propagate evil unto the world. Those who choose to do harm knowing they are doing so but filter those consequences from their mind to choose ignorance are varying degrees of evil and have stopped questioning. What is the best measure of good then? Hindsight. Agonizing self examination. To be able to critically examine, recognize and improve upon the mistakes of yourself and others is the only way to come closer to objective good. An examined life, one that accepts the discomfort and pain of such, is the only path to goodness. Why then, is being good even worth it? How do we know it is objectively true? Because someone who has learned to be good will be trusted by others who are good, regardless background, because a person who takes the consequences of their actions seriously is good for every group.
1
u/aaronjohns 2h ago
All are wrong. Man is by nature inclined to be good to close friends and family, less good or sometimes bad to others. Environment can push man away from default settings.
1
u/InfiniteMonkeys157 2h ago
None of the above and not that simple.
New study: DNA of personality linked to life outcomes | MSUToday | Michigan State University
This is a recent meta-study suggesting 5-16% of the variation in 5 personality traits, avg 13%, come from DNA.
This is the kind of thing that will surely produce other results from other meta-studies and be countered and debated for decades.
The likely answer is it's not nature or nurture, not even a balance, but genetics, epigentics, health, education, inculcation, social opportunity, and probably some other contextual factors.
So, if we assume personality plays into the good/bad judgement of an individual, then that only gets us to the starting line. Then we can debate the meaning of good/bad, moral philosophy and moral systems, social good/bad, and individuals.
1
1
u/HangryBeard 2h ago
They are all wrong and all right. though I feel Locke to be closest to the truth. Man is born the capacity for both good and evil. Society is nothing more than the plurality of man. There would be no society without man. However within society a person with a bad idea can find other people with the same or similar bad idea to reinforce said idea. This reinforcement makes them feel clever and correct and the begin to outsource self examination to a group of what essentially becomes groups of sycophantic yes-men.
This still isn't necessarily evil. These people may have a very limited perspective based on their life events and their agreeableness can come from a place of wanting to lift others up because they understand their struggles.
These groups become susceptible to individuals( from other similar groups) who speak loudly in flattering tones and push these individuals that have forgotten how to self examine towards their own agendas.
This is how I feel true evil is born through lack of self examination and years of normalizing bad ideas. Most of it could happen with good intent. I'm not saying it always does, only that I can see how a good man can be twisted into an evil one without realizing it.
I believe this is largely how Hitler and individuals like him came into power.
In summary neither man nor society is inherently good or evil. The loss of the ability to self examine leads to the decline of morality and ethics.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Lord_Corves 1h ago
We shape life as life shapes us. Honestly, with how complex people can be, even at their most mundane, it's hard to say what can make a good or bad person. Sometimes you have people go through some of the worst things you can imagine, being broken in many regards, and still come out of it an extremely good and passionate person. Whereas other people going through the same circumstances could come out so much worse from it, that they become the monster that made them that way in the first place. Sometimes society has a great impact and no impact at all. And other times, you might meet people with certain traits you think would make them a terrible person, but in the end, they just end up doing their best. People are complicated. The human mind is complicated. And our spirit, even more so. Honestly, when it comes to philosophy, we'll never get a truly definitive answer that'll ever encapsulate the human experience. I think we're just too varied for that, even in our simplest. I do believe that to at least one extent or another, we all have the ability to choose. That we all have the ability to shape how our experiences shape us. Some probably more so than others. Not exactly a cohesive answer, but it's the best answer I can give for this.
1
u/snekfuckingdegenrate 1h ago
None of them are correct and it seems fairly obvious.
Good and bad are relative and subjective. But even using vague approximations that probably still isn’t true, to be “good” by nature or “bad” by nature. People in loving homes can be selfish and killers. People born into garbage homes can be good people.
And humans are definitely not blank slates, people are born with pre-dispositions. Environmental factors affect you strongly but to a degree.
1
u/Dismal_Consequence_4 1h ago
Locke
Man is born amoral, like any animal, it's only interest its his own survival. The notion of good and evil is shaped by it's surroundings and how the world reacts to its actions.
1
1
u/JohnVonachen 53m ago
Man is bad and through a process of education by society they approach good like an asmtote. Good changes over time and people have to pay attention and catch up.
1
1
u/leavecity54 52m ago
Man can’t be a blank slate, all living beings are born with some instincts to let them survive. These instincts direct their behavior later in life, they can be good to some people while bad to others
1
1
u/Scary-Personality626 27m ago
Man is selfish by nature. But also seeks social connection and desires to fit in with a collective. This is neither good nor evil.
Society shapes the ego and defines how the balance between selfish desire and social obligation balance between each other. This can be good or evil and is often a mixture of both.
All 3 of these are incorrect absolutes that can justify bad conclusions. Though I would say Rousseau and the noble savage implication probably is less harmful than the more misanthropic conclusions you can draw from "I just need to impose my values to make people better."
12
u/fire_chaser1 3h ago
everyone but no one at the same time
why? nobody knows