The question is backwards. The nature of good and bad is essentially human.

Ideas of “good” and “bad” human nature are products of human behavior. Some people behave in ways that we consider “bad”, some people behave in ways that we consider “good”. The terms “bad” and “good” were invented to categorize our natural responses to this behavior. (I can only presume that humanity’s contingent path through history, i.e. nature, causes what I call “our natural response”.)

You can’t then go back and ask which of them better describes humanity. That they both describe humanity is the only reason the concepts exist.

My take is that most people consider themselves to be acceding to their own idea of goodness, but we’re not perfect, and we know we’re not expected to be. Since nearly everyone is trying to be “good”, you will think people are “essentially” good if you agree with popular notions of goodness.

Posted: April 10th 2010

See all questions answered by George Locke

It seems obvious to me that it’s a bit of both. People are not basically good or basically bad, that’s a far too simplistic view.

I think it is evident from history that people are capable of actions that we (modern society) would view as good, bad and so-so.

The good actions don’t seem to be exclusively religiously-motivated, contrary to what Christians might expect. I think these good actions happen partly as a result of our nature as SmartLX describes and, at a higher level of abstraction, partly the influence of society.

Posted: April 9th 2010

See all questions answered by Eshu

Human nature is essentially human. Good and bad are labels we’ve invented for things humans do. No person is entirely either, no matter how virtuous or cruel they are.

Posted: April 9th 2010

See all questions answered by Mike the Infidel

I’m speaking for myself here.

Human nature (like the nature of any animal, or other living thing) is broadly self-interested, in the sense of looking out either for one’s own self or for one’s family, community, whole species or even one’s entire planet. That can lead to actions we see as good and/or bad.

I base this view (it’s more of a rule of thumb than a belief) on evolution. Natural selection has always favoured those who look after themselves and their kin, so a strong instinct has evolved over the aeons which drives us to keep ourselves alive and healthy. Not just ourselves but those around us, since in the early days of humankind a person was usually surrounded by relatives. Each tribe was its own gene pool.

Now, however, we’re surrounded by people who are so distantly related we tend to say they’re not related at all. That hasn’t had time to affect the hereditary instinct in the few short millenia we’ve been living like this, so our altruism naturally spreads beyond our own families. It’s a misplaced kind of self-interest, in a way, but it remains beneficial to all concerned.

Of course this natural altruism always has to compete with the more direct instinct of self-preservation, and sometimes people will simply act selfishly. That accounts for a great deal of actions in the world in the “evil” category.

History and society support all this pretty well if you look for the selfish reasons behind evil acts, and the more broadly selfish reasons behind kind acts.

Posted: April 8th 2010

See all questions answered by SmartLX