Jump to content


Are people inherently good or inherently bad?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
13 replies to this topic

Poll: Are people inherently good or inherently bad? (19 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Are people inherently good or inherently bad?

  1. Yes, humans are wicked, beast-like creatures. (15 votes [78.95%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 78.95%

  2. No, humans are good and noble creatures. (4 votes [21.05%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 21.05%

Vote Hide poll

surcell #1 Posted 31 July 2013 - 09:28 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 23838 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011
Hello tankers!

Yesterday evening I was having an interesting talk with my girlfriend / future wife about humankind's true nature.She kept teling me that humans are kind, gentle and good while I could only see humankind since ancient times as evil, wicked and war-beings.

Thommas Hobbes saw humankind as brutes and beast-like creatures, selfish, greedy, restrained or kept under control by the society and civilization.

Opposite of Thobbes' theory was Jean Jacques Rousseau's theory, which saw humankind as kind, gentle and noble beings, forced by society to act wild.


Since this is a game about tanks, war, etc...I would like to know the opinion of other tankers on this matter.

Is humankind inherently good or evil?

Please discuss.

Best regards,
Surcell

PS: sorry for any spell errors, writing this at work in a hurry, plus it is my 1st poll, so it may not be working on 1st try.

Eight_Ball #2 Posted 31 July 2013 - 09:34 AM

    Captain

  • Clan Commander
  • 36758 battles
  • 2,484
  • [AVOS] AVOS
  • Member since:
    09-07-2011
As usual people try to find one facette only - Don't you think it is a bit more complicated than that? And taking it to the individual level, the mix of "good" and "bad" is wide spread, where the big average pretty much covers the majority of people, and thus setting the norm? I.e. 50/50 good/bad = average Joe?

On top of this, you also need to define the terms Good & Evil.

NiemandXL #3 Posted 31 July 2013 - 09:39 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 37955 battles
  • 2,934
  • Member since:
    01-30-2013
I believe it's neither, we aren't evil by nature, but we aren't paragons of goodness either. Nature does not care about good or evil, it's about survival, and as a product of nature, humans usually do what they perceive as required to survive. Often even without being consciously aware of it.

That's why Sun Tzu already wrote that it's best to leave a cornered enemy a way to escape, because humans can become real beasts when their life is on the line.

tin53 #4 Posted 31 July 2013 - 09:44 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 35929 battles
  • 717
  • Member since:
    09-03-2011
i believe evil, just look at all the stuff people have been doing to each other from the beggining of humankind. agreed with hobbes 100%

Eight_Ball #5 Posted 31 July 2013 - 10:02 AM

    Captain

  • Clan Commander
  • 36758 battles
  • 2,484
  • [AVOS] AVOS
  • Member since:
    09-07-2011

View Posttin53, on 31 July 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

i believe evil, just look at all the stuff people have been doing to each other from the beggining of humankind. agreed with hobbes 100%

You forgot the humaitarian side of humans, developing cures, medicine, healing ? And what about the spirit of people in case of disasters like the tsunami, or Cathrina? Even in those situations we see people helping out of humaitarian interest, but also people helping for personal gain, and looters simply grabbing the opportunity.

Again a mix.

anonym_kL7qtn3e52MB #6 Posted 31 July 2013 - 10:17 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 6,815
  • Member since:
    07-10-2018
There is this saying that goes like "Where interest lies, honour dies"

Which means that if people need to make important descissions, they choose for themselves.
Is that evil or good? I dunno.
But that's how it works.

tin53 #7 Posted 31 July 2013 - 10:43 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 35929 battles
  • 717
  • Member since:
    09-03-2011

View PostEight_Ball, on 31 July 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

You forgot the humaitarian side of humans, developing cures, medicine, healing ? And what about the spirit of people in case of disasters like the tsunami, or Cathrina? Even in those situations we see people helping out of humaitarian interest, but also people helping for personal gain, and looters simply grabbing the opportunity.

Again a mix.
i'm a pessimist by nature so i tend to see the bad in people first. but yes, you make a valid point.

surcell #8 Posted 31 July 2013 - 11:39 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 23838 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011
IT may be somehow, partially correct, but think about it for a second:How often do you see humanitarian aid and under what circumstances? How often do you see groundbreaking discoveries in medicine vs permanent improving of weaponry...

Someone said once, don't remember the name, that any discovery, in any domain, will 100% be used 1st into a weapon - I think that says enough about our nature, our hunger for power.

I won't deny the fact that there is also the humanitarian side of humankind, that tries to help the ppl in need, but how ofted no you see that happening?People die of starvation in Africa - no one cares, unless there are natural resources there. There was military intervention in Iraq and Afganistan pretty recent, becouse there had to be "democracy" there and there were "weapons of mass distruction" that no one even bothered to plant later to support their actions. Guess what: democracy and human rights should be established also all over the world? Do you see any international concern regarding other regions of the world in this matter(Africa seems to be the best example)? Nope, Zero, unless there are useful natural resources or financial interests.

Isn't somehow our humanitarian and helping nature, most of the times, motivated by other goals and personal / national gains?



And talking about survival in general, aren't we already top of the food chain? Our survival is only endangered by...guess what...we, humans.

Since ancient times, humankind faced countless wars, terrible atrocities - same thing happens today. Nothing has changed in thoulsands of years, and we live in the 21th century, we consider ourselves modern human beings, with access to information like never before in the past, and still - history repeats itself over and over again.

Eight_Ball #9 Posted 31 July 2013 - 11:59 AM

    Captain

  • Clan Commander
  • 36758 battles
  • 2,484
  • [AVOS] AVOS
  • Member since:
    09-07-2011
The small country, where i come from, are contributing with billions of Euros every year to other countries, in the name of humanitarian projects - Even we do not have the money to take care of the people here, that are worst off, or trying to improve the conditions for the young and elderly, that could need the help.

Dunno if it is stupidity, or the price for being in some sort of community, where people have to show how "good" they are to benefit from the act of sending money out of the country....

Arkhell #10 Posted 31 July 2013 - 12:08 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Beta Tester
  • 16942 battles
  • 6,748
  • Member since:
    09-20-2010
people are choatic neutral when they are born, depending on their live experience they stay neutral/become good or bad.

Garrolus #11 Posted 31 July 2013 - 02:14 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 28432 battles
  • 281
  • Member since:
    08-10-2011
"I'd like to share a revelation - - It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet." -Agent Smith

While this quote pretty much sums up the more pessimistic opinions and is a pretty good description of the modern human society, it's wrong and hugely excessive realist description of human nature. That's not to say the opposite opinion is more closer to the truth as IMO it's naive and ego boosting.

Why? The inherited evil in human beings is a purely Christian way of thinking, which by know has merged with western society so well that it influences our thoughts were we christian or not. It's basic fault though is that it's sort of a paradox, the evil here points to the fact that humans need to break the rules set by the society, which means the same society has set the standard of evil somewhere above normal human behavior. I think we all can agree to the fact that different societies have different moral values, which means it's possible for the evil western man to travel and live on the other side of the world in a entirely different moral set, where he could be anything but evil. So does that mean travelling can remove Satan from you?

Back to the quote, mammals do not develop a equilibrium with their surroundings, the surroundings make the mammals adapt. The same goes for human beings, but the problem is that the surroundings aren't trees and flowers anymore, but a concrete jungle and other humans and that has developed humans into this virus type of organism for the planet. Or more precisely to other living organisms on the planet, the planet doesn't care about the atmosphere, or the diversity of life, we do, or should...or what?  You could argue that humans have become evil by becoming harmful to their own existence, but then again if you break the ecosystem by increasing the amount of any living organism above it's natural state it becomes a threat for itself and others. So are living organisms evil? Or is the planet or the universe evil for making this situation possible?

Okay, if we aren't exactly evil, we must be good right? One of the big problems in humanitarian aid is that it's hard to recognize what needs to be done. Who needs help and how can we do it? Let's say you give money to a charity, just because you think the charity case is important and you really just want to help, they get the money, they use it and think they're doing something good but it ends up becoming something completely useless. Who's good and who's bad in that chain of events? Everybody is trying their best to help after all. There's a very famous example of this: Communism, I wouldn't go as far as to call Communism humanitarian aid but the concept in this example is the same. In communism there was no market to control demand and supply, so there was an office that tried to logically recognize the peoples needs, which ended up in providing pants to people that needed shirts most of the time. Is a good deed a good deed if it comes to nothing, is a good deed a good deed if you do it for selfish reasons?

In philosophy there's a branch called Meta-ethics that seeks to find out what goodness is. The theories vary from questions like "what does good, bad, right or wrong mean" to my favorite "why should I be moral". The problem is, how can you know, and is there absolute good or evil? Can there be good without evil? You could argue that your question in itself is rigged, because isn't Hobbes's and Rousseau's theories in fact a matter of perspective? Are lions beast-like or noble kings of the savannah?

In my opinion ethics is connected to the conscious plane of existence and is always distorted to the needs of the subject at hand. It's ok to steal food if you're dying of hunger. It's ok to kill people if they are a threat to the society, or the more frightening option if they are subhumans. You can continue the list. Some of it feels downright disgusting, but there's no denying that in the right conditions human beings are able to do truly horrible things, or more simply: anything that's physically possible for a human being. So my verdict is, that as long as there's conscious diversity between human beings there's going to be conflicts resulting in change. That change is then judged by the ruling moral to be either good or evil.

That brings us back to the question "why should I be moral?". If everybody would believe and act perfectly by the same moral guideline, all acts of change would be indifferent because all and everybody would act the same way. Nobody would be moral because there wouldn't be such a thing. There's no guarantee it would save humanity, or help it by any means. Humanity would just hobble on to it's inevitable end, without anything to feel good or bad for. We need a minority to act reprehensible so the majority can feel good about them selves for stepping in and making a change. A good deed. It's a curse and a blessing.

soolerman #12 Posted 01 August 2013 - 08:33 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24366 battles
  • 1,218
  • Member since:
    12-10-2012
An invalid and spurious question mate. Go to the bottom of your philosophy class. Or the top of your sociology class. If the latter you do know you are wasting you time learning a load of bollocks don’t you.

JhonnyRAMBO #13 Posted 01 August 2013 - 08:40 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 1105 battles
  • 60
  • Member since:
    04-29-2012

View Postsurcell, on 31 July 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

Hello tankers!

Yesterday evening I was having an interesting talk with my girlfriend / future wife about humankind's true nature.She kept teling me that humans are kind, gentle and good while I could only see humankind since ancient times as evil, wicked and war-beings.

Thommas Hobbes saw humankind as brutes and beast-like creatures, selfish, greedy, restrained or kept under control by the society and civilization.

Opposite of Thobbes' theory was Jean Jacques Rousseau's theory, which saw humankind as kind, gentle and noble beings, forced by society to act wild.


Since this is a game about tanks, war, etc...I would like to know the opinion of other tankers on this matter.

Is humankind inherently good or evil?

Please discuss.

Best regards,
Surcell

PS: sorry for any spell errors, writing this at work in a hurry, plus it is my 1st poll, so it may not be working on 1st try.

Mankind is inherently good at finding ways to kill each other

steview162 #14 Posted 01 August 2013 - 08:48 AM

    Brigadier

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 33005 battles
  • 4,095
  • [-T-O-] -T-O-
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011
In normal life, voted B.

In WOT alone I would vote C, some decent people, with a vast pool of scrotums, created by anonymity.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users