How many of you would propose it is down to one thing: that people are really born bad or good eggs, or that really there is only conditioning and interpersonal influence at work — Benj96

These two options fail to take into account the issue of intelligibility, that interpersonal influence isn’t blind or arbitrary conditioning, but is instead oriented around a reciprocally created pragmatic way of making sense of the world.

Ken Gergen explains:

“We commonly suppose that suffering is caused by people whose conscience is flawed or who pursue their aims without regard for the consequences to others. From a relational standpoint, we may entertain the opposite hypothesis: in important respects we suffer from a plenitude of good. How so? If relationships-linguistic coordination--are the source of meaning, then they are the source as well of our presumptions about good and evil. Rudimentary understandings of right versus wrong are essential to sustaining patterns of coordination. Deviations from accepted patterns constitute a threat. When we have developed harmonious ways of relating-of speaking and acting--we place a value on this way of life. Whatever encroaches upon, undermines, or destroys this way of life becomes an evil. It is not surprising, then, that the term ethics is derived from the Greek ethos, the customs of the people; or that the term morality draws on the Latin root mos or mores, thus affiliating morality with custom.

Groups whose actions are coordinated around given constructions of reality risk their traditions by exposing them to the ravages of the outliers. That is, from their perspective, efforts must be made to protect the boundaries of understanding, to prevent the signifiers from escaping into the free-standing environment where meaning is decried or dissipated. In this sense, unfair or exclusionary practices are not frequently so from the standpoint of the actors. Rather, they may seem altogether fair, just and essential to sustain valued ideals against the infidels at the gates. . Centripetal forces within groups will always operate toward stabilization, the establishment of valued meaning, and thus the exclusion of alterior realities.

“…to declare that injustice is an unalloyed fact is also an invitation to conflict. Such declarations suggest that there is someone or some group that is acting unjustly. It is to make claim to a moral high ground, from which the unjust may be held accountable—possibly shamed and punished. It is to invite resistance, antagonism, and retaliation against an “evil other.“… In contrast to the consequences of this realist orientation, to understand that one's sense of injustice is one way of constructing a given condition—fully justified within a given enclave or tradition—is also to realize the possibility of other perspectives that may contain their own inherent justifications… Rather than creating a relationship of us versus them, it is to open the possibility of dialogue. It is to invite curiosity, mutual understanding, and possible collaboration in building a more mutually viable world.

I would like to explore the age old argument: Nature verse nurture. With a focus on the propensity towards crime, wrongdoing and malice as well as virtuosity, charity and outstanding citizenship. — Benj96

None of this happens in a social vacuum. Right- and wrong-doing is judged, indeed, defined, by the requirements of a community. Crime is defined by its laws. Charity is dictated by the needs of its membership. Citizenship is both a given and a demanded role of the individual. How that role is elaborated, empowered and delimited by the society is a major component in the individual's ability and willingness to carry it out well.
Society, too, plays an active part in the nurture of the individual who grow up in it. The prosperity, solidarity, values and expectations of the society are transmitted to the young subliminally, as a normal part of their environment. The father may tell a child, over and over, "Always tell the truth." and even punish him for lying, if that child then hears the father call in sick to work and then go golfing, he knows that what he's told is not what's really expected. If the child sees constant warring and fisticuffs on television, it's no use telling him that fighting is not the solve problems. He may be exhorted to work hard in order to succeed, if he sees that the hardest-working people are the least respected, he will understand: he will repeat the covering lies and do whatever is actually required to reach his goals.

We are all born with the entire spectrum of human traits and capabilities - in different proportions. Competent parents and teachers recognize each child's character and respond according to the dictates of their society, in their attempt to guide each child to whatever kind of adulthood the society assigns to him or her. Not all parents and teachers are competent; not all societies are clear or honest about the roles they assign to their citizens; not all children are willing to be molded to their assigned role.

These two options fail to take into account the issue of intelligibility, — Joshs

Not sure if it "fails to account" for intelligibility. I feel that is nurture no? One is nurtured based on the paradigm (culture and form of education) of the surrounding people.

Not sure if it "fails to account" for intelligibility. I feel that is nurture no? One is nurtured based on the paradigm (culture and form of education) of the surrounding people — Benj96

It’s nurture but not blind conditioning, not a one-way shaping from culture to individual. Cultural meanings are formed and reformed in a reciprocally participatory manner in specific contexts of interaction.

How many of you would propose it is down to one thing: that people are really born bad or good eggs, or that really there is only conditioning and interpersonal influence at work. Who would propose that it is in fact an obligatory combination. That both are neccesary to give rise to certain outcomes. Please support your arguments with examples. — Benj96

People are born either bad or good -- so nature. I apologize in advance to those who disagree. When we apply intelligence to behavior, i.e. learning, experiment, results, we are turning to nurture to modify bad behaviors. Look at recidivism of criminals (although it's not confined to those who went to prison as we do have other bad people at large also).

People are born either bad or good -- so nature — L'éléphant

Interesting. I'm not sure if I agree but all views are welcome. How might one look at a baby and say this is definitely a bad person. Do you suggest genes dictate antisocial behaviour? That there may be "crime" gene so to speak or a collection of genes that makes someone well civil.

I would find it hard to believe for the simple reason as it could be argued then that people should be imprisoned or stripped of rights from birth because they are fundamentally bad.

How many of you would propose it is down to one thing: that people are really born bad or good eggs, or that really there is only conditioning and interpersonal influence at work. Who would propose that it is in fact an obligatory combination. — Benj96

A person is the product of both nature AND nurture. Nature may be stronger than nurture for some characteristics, but nurture may be stronger than nature for others.

I would like to explore the age old argument: Nature verse nurture. With a focus on the propensity towards crime, wrongdoing and malice as well as virtuosity, charity and outstanding citizenship. — Benj96

Good, bad, crime, wrongdoing, malice, virtuosity, charity, and outstanding citizenship are all subjective. Is stealing a loaf of bread to feed your hungry children a good thing or a bad thing? It depends on your point of view. Often it is a combination of both good and bad.

I would find it hard to believe for the simple reason as it could be argued then that people should be imprisoned or stripped of rights from birth because they are fundamentally bad. — Benj96

You must not have heard the joke about the thought police. No, we don't imprison people just cause they were born bad. We wait until there's evidence. There was a research done on some murderers whose ancestors were once murderers as well. Generations of families did not wipe out the traces of evil in them.

But we don't have to go to the most heinous criminals. Just your everyday functioning, employed sociopaths will do as an observational experiment.

Some people are predisposed to sociopathic behavior because they have it in them something similar to what gets them high. Some people have the alcoholic predisposition, some phobic predisposition.

Is stealing a loaf of bread to feed your hungry children a good thing or a bad thing? — Agree-to-Disagree

I thought we're talking about the evil here? Obviously, we can ignore those.

I would find it hard to believe for the simple reason as it could be argued then that people should be imprisoned or stripped of rights from birth because they are fundamentally bad. — Benj96

Why imprison them, if they're only going to re-offend anyway? Why not kill them as soon as the evil gene is detected?

Both, of course, but that's not saying much.

Nature has been shaping animal behavior for a long time, and all present-day animals, including humans, are the beneficiaries of this long process. We inherited a catalog of potentials--like the ability to fly into a rage or carefully plot revenge--and we also developed this uniquely large brain. We should not crow too much about the size of our brains; they have been a quite mixed blessing.

Emotions were invented long before we came along, but we have this big blob of grey matter than can act in fiendishly clever and unfortunate ways to express our emotions, or punish whoever/whatever set us off. A lion might literally bite your head off if you are too annoying, but then it's over. Humans can bear a grudge for decades, declare war, and wipe out millions, if they feel too irritated.

So, I say a lot of the good and bad stuff is from Nature, who doesn't have a long range plan.

Nurture is necessary because we don't hatch out of the egg ready to become a noble saint or a major crook. We're helpless helpless helpless for years, and if we are not taught well, we really aren't good for much. A lot of our nurture is aimed at controlling our nature -- because if we don't, we're likely to end up dead PDQ.

We spend a lot of time thinking about nurture, because at birth, nature has largely finished blessing us or screwing us over, and there may not be much we can do about it. Then society comes along and either blesses us or screws us over some more.

Life is a bitch and then we die, but many of us have nature and nurture on our side and we'll probably live a long time. Or so some of us think. Whether living a long time is a good thing or not is an open question.

Is stealing a loaf of bread to feed your hungry children a good thing or a bad thing? — Agree-to-Disagree

Maybe they should be out stealing birth control pills and condoms so they don't have the problem of not being able to feed their children?

(I give money periodically to help feed the poor's children, but there are times when I look at some people and think "Oh, PLEASE don't reproduce -- you can't take care of yourself, let alone others!")

:100:

(I give money periodically to help feed the poor's children, but there are times when I look at some people and think "Oh, PLEASE don't reproduce -- you can't take care of yourself, let alone others!") — BC

But that decision - or event, because they don't always intend to reproduce - is also greatly influenced by society. How they're trained to think of their body and its functions, how much they're taught about reproduction, how strongly they're warned against thwarting God's Will, how much information and access they have to birth control, what the roles, rights and prerogatives society assigns to sexes and classes.

It is physically possible for a collective society to breed out intelligence and perhaps even things such as pain sensitively (physical or emotional) ie. are emotionally blunted or as some would say "just dumb" and as a result things such as consideration, empathy, or emotional intelligence are socially of low importance where any who happen to consider them important reproduce substantially less - if at all - resulting in a genetic tendency to more likely be what people consider and associate with or as "evil" ie. prone to violence, lack of empathy, or enjoyment from the unwarranted suffering of others.

In addition to genetic mental conditions that affect things such as impulsivity, lack of long term planning and consequences, emotional cognition and recognition, etc, etc. Along the lines of medical research implying some people can be "born" or otherwise prone to psychopathy or sociopathic tendencies.

There's also something known as the crucial development phase (1-5 years or so) or otherwise where the person's "comfort zone" is strife, conflict, and what an otherwise "normal" person would call unease. In simple terms they don't feel normal or "at home" unless people are fighting. It's normal for them. So it can go both ways. See the movie (Cycle?) or History of Violence, one of the two or something along those lines I forget.

In addition to genetic mental conditions — Outlander

In my previous posts I avoided saying the "mental conditions" because I don't want to turn this into a mental health issues. When the OP asked if good and evil are born or nurtured, my response is they are born (nature). And we only turn to nurture to modify bad behaviors (and foster good ones). So, continuing on, the reason why I don't want to bring in the emotional or mental health issues is because most people have those conditions, short term or long term. There are many bipolar individuals who are not evil, let alone mean, for example. So, I hope this is clear.

I'm talking about people who have good command of their emotions and mental conditions but whose constitution-- the whole of their personhood-- predisposed them to be bad.

I'm very interested in this topic because I'm currently observing an individual who I shared an office with recently and whom I got to know closely for over a year. I have moved to another office now, but to continue with this point: this individual is just your ordinary person who has held her job for a long time. I believe it's only me who got to know her dark side, though. Not even the boss knows her well, at least not what I've discovered. I won't go into the deep dark secrets, but the example I'd use is she revels in "playing tricks" on others: manipulation, compulsive lies, and dramas to get her "wins" no matter how small that is.

she revels in "playing tricks" on others: manipulation, compulsive lies, and dramas to get her "wins" no matter how small that is. — L'éléphant

She has been doing this from infancy, in spite of all attempts by her caregivers and teachers to modify the behaviour?

She has been doing this from infancy, in spite of all attempts by her caregivers and teachers to modify the behaviour? — Vera Mont

That’s probably why she has been doing it so long. Because the people around her are more interested in ‘modifying her behavior’ than understanding her point of view. Her ‘dark side’, her ‘evil’ and manipulations are how her behaviors appear to us when we fail to see the world through her eyes , and instead try to force our perspective on her.

That’s probably why she has been doing it so long. Because the people around her are more interested in ‘modifying her behavior’ than understanding her point of view. — Joshs

That doesn't sound like close observation of a "bad seed"; it sounds like a child in the wrong environment.

That doesn't sound like close observation of a "bad seed"; it sounds like a child in the wrong environment. — Vera Mont

I don’t believe there is such a thing a ‘bad seed’, just bad psychological models.

There's a basic flaw in the assumptions of this thread; actions are what are good or bad, not people, and not genes.

Pretending otherwise has profound political implications, always along the lines of "our" genetics being good and "their" genetics being bad. There should be no need to list examples.

Shite begets shite.

There's a basic flaw in the assumptions of this thread; actions are what are good or bad, not people, and not genes. — Banno

But good and bad are subjective. What you see as a good action I may see as a bad action. This makes the topic of this discussion even more difficult to answer.

But good and bad are subjective. — Agree-to-Disagree

What could that mean?

What you see as a good action I may see as a bad action. — Agree-to-Disagree

And if you did, you would presumably be wrong.

This makes the topic of this discussion even more difficult to answer. — Agree-to-Disagree

Then perhaps you need to think about it differently.

I don’t believe there is such a thing a ‘bad seed’, — Joshs

Nor do I. I was responding to someone who apparently does.

Some concepts of good and bad may be subjective; most concepts of good and bad may be cultural, but the most basic test of good and bad is whether something causes harm, suffering and destruction or benefit, wellness and improvement.

What you see as a good action I may see as a bad action. — Agree-to-Disagree

In some contexts, that is true. When we imagine possible, probable and desired outcomes to an action, we may have opposing ideas of which is the right action. But this does not transcribe accurately to human character. Good persons may take some actions that result in harm and bad persons may take some actions that inadvertently benefit someone, but the aggregate of their actions will show a strong tendency to one side or the other.
But that doesn't mean they began life as good and bad people; it only shows that they somehow ended up acting in these ways.
If you are seeing actions that benefit someone without harming someone else as 'bad', you should probably re-examine your basic principles before you become a bad person.

What you see as a good action I may see as a bad action.
— Agree-to-Disagree
And if you did, you would presumably be wrong. — Banno

Are you saying that you are the ultimate authority on what is good or bad. Were you born with this godlike ability or did you acquire it later?

Are you saying that you are the ultimate authority on what is good or bad — Agree-to-Disagree

Are you saying I should take your word for it rather than trust my own view?

Are you saying I should take your word for it rather than trust my own view? — Banno

I am not claiming that I have ultimate authority on what is good or bad. Some things can have both good points and bad points. It doesn't have to be totally good or totally bad.

I am not saying that you should take my word for something rather than trust your own view. I am saying that different people can hold different opinions about whether something is good or bad without one of them being "wrong". The question of good or bad depends on your point of view. In other words, it is subjective.

I am saying that different people can hold different opinions about whether something is good or bad without one of them being "wrong". — Agree-to-Disagree

And I'm saying that, for example, if someone says that it is fine to kick puppies for fun, they are wrong.

Mine seems a more useable approach. I have grounds for a reprimand, perhaps even a sanction, while you only have grounds for expressing your disapproval.

And I'm saying that, for example, if someone says that it is fine to kick puppies for fun, they are wrong. — Banno

I agree with you that kicking puppies for fun is wrong. That is my subjective opinion and your subjective opinion is the same as mine. I think that the vast majority of people also have the same subjective opinion.

How do you feel about pulling the wings off flies?

How do you feel about killing mosquitoes?

How do you feel about eating meat?

Yep, folk disagree. Concluding that therefore there is no truth to the issue is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It doesn't follow. Some folk think the world is flat. Do you conclude that therefore the geometry of the Earth is subjective, a question of mere opinion, and hence there is no truth of the matter?

Concluding that therefore there is no truth to the issue is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It doesn't follow. Some folk think the world is flat. Do you conclude that therefore the geometry of the Earth is subjective, a question of mere opinion, and hence there is no truth of the matter? — Banno

I do believe that truths exist. However, they are understood subjectively.

The parable of the blind men and an elephant is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and imagine what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true. — A parable