« Are We Winning the War? | HomePage | Lies Seem to Live Forever »
01/12/2005
Good Or Bad
Are people basically good or bad?
This seems like a pretty straightforward question, but how you answer it says a lot about your life, history, politics, religion and understanding of the world in general. This question seems like it only has two possible answers, but if you take the question seriously you will find that there are many ways to answer this question that involve saying that people are basically neutral, neither good nor bad.
If at first you begin to think that people are generally either “good” or “bad” you will certainly begin to think of the exceptions to your answer. This is because of our understanding of “good” and “bad” in our culture.
However you choose to answer this question in general people answer this question in regards to specific issues all the time. For example, if people are generally “good” we should help the “good” poor people who have fallen on hard times get out of their misery. Or, if people are generally “bad” we should not give handouts to these moochers who will just take advantage of the system.
In fact, if we make the assumption that people are either generally “good” or “bad” we will come to an entirely different set of solutions for each problem that we face. If people are generally “bad” then we can never assume that people can make their own decisions. Therefore, we need to make laws to govern every aspect of their lives. For example, we would need to make laws specifying when people should be quite and when people are permitted to make reasonable noise in their homes, because people can not be counted on to respect the neighbor’s need for quiet. On the other hand, such laws would not be needed if we understand that people are generally “good.” People who choose to make noise would do so at reasonable hours and if they disturb a neighbor then the neighbor could call them and ask them to tone it down a bit and they would comply. Perhaps this is an extreme case of a simple issue, or perhaps not. Perhaps it depends on where you live and what your history is with noisy neighbors, or making noise yourself.
But even when we look at this simple example the understanding of what it means to be “good” or “bad” begins to break down. In fact, how you feel about people in general falling into one of these categories has a lot to do with your understanding of what it means to be “good” or “bad.” Religions make it their job to define what it means to be “good” or “bad.” And, it is not surprising that religions in general make it clear that you need to be a religious person in order to be “good.” It is certainly a rare religion that would suggest that a non-religious person could be “good.” This is because a person needs guidance in order to know what is “good” and what is “bad.” How can anyone be “good” if they don’t know what is “good?” The result of having multiple religions defining what is “good” results in multiple understandings and definitions of what a person needs to do in order to be a “good” person.
On the other side of the spectrum is the non-religious person who has their own understanding of what it means to be “good.” The non-religious person generally creates a personal philosophy to live by. Most of the time this personal philosophy is not written down, but a collection of experiences and stories that help someone know how to do the “right” thing. If you thought that religions had a multitude of understandings of what is “good,” the non-religious has an even more diverse understanding.
Based on the diversity of understand of what is “good” and what is “bad” it shouldn’t be surprising that your understanding of these definitions will have baring on how the above question is answered. And, it turns out that if you believe that most people are fundamentally “bad” and they need some rules to help to know how to be “good,” then you are more likely to be conservative. And, if you believe that people are fundamentally “good,” but they just need to be educated to know what helps the most people then you are most likely to be liberal. The majority of people are actually more likely to be neutral on this question as they think about it.
For example, people are most likely to be “self-interested” instead of “good” or “bad.” They will act in a way that helps them the most as long as it doesn’t hurt other people. If they don’t know that their action hurts another person, then the action isn’t detoured. However, if people know that an action hurts someone else even if they will benefit highly they are likely to avoid the action. But, people don’t take time to think too much about harm that they might cause, because considering these possible harms is non-productive. Ignoring possible harms is not considered “bad” because a person rationalizes that they “just didn’t know.” Does this make a person fundamentally “good” or “bad?”
But, even the self-interested person can choose to be more “good” or “bad” by the decisions they make based on the questions that they ask. This is because we now know that building community is actually a positive result for the individual. The whole idea behind organizing cities, states and nations is to use the organization of resources to make the individual’s life better. This organization means that it actually makes sense to investigate the harms to the community because ignoring possible harms may be beneficial to the individual in the short term, the harm will hurt the community and therefore the individual in the long run.
An example would be allowing a company to pollute the air. An individual may choose to ignore the possibility of the pollution harming the public. The individual saves the company money by not investigating the effect of the pollution. But, the pollution causes the community to suffer higher numbers of lung cancer over the next 30 years each requiring treatment and some resulting in death. The individual can claim ignorance and save money, but did he save money in the long run? Did he do harm? Was he “good” or “bad?”
Well, this has gone on for quite a bit, and it could go on quite a bit longer but I will cut it short for now and pick it up again in the future.
11:50 Posted in Politics , Religion | Permalink | Comments (7) | Email this | Tags: religion
Comments
"And, it turns out that if you believe that most people are fundamentally “bad” and they need some rules to help to know how to be “good,” then you are more likely to be conservative. And, if you believe that people are fundamentally “good,” but they just need to be educated to know what helps the most people then you are most likely to be liberal"
I've actually heard almost the exact opposite of that maxim. 'Liberals' want to enact smoking laws, control peoples' children, control everyone's money, etc.
Posted by: Adam | 01/12/2005
Smoking Laws - what's "good" or "bad" about the people who smoke? What are the laws trying to do? In general liberals are trying to do away with the control of the elite and wealthy who make them work for low wages. Liberals would say that the lower class is basically good, but they don't understand the harm that smoking does. The laws are meant to protect the general population from those who don't understand the harms. If people were educated they would certainly not want to cause harm to others.
Similar arguments could be made of people who can't control their children.
Controlling other people money is a completely different set of arguments. It isn't that liberal want to control anyone's money. That is looking at the argument with conservative glasses on. Liberals want to make a better community. People are basically "good" and if they were educated they would understand that everyone should pitch in and share the responsiblity for the community. If the community builds an infrastructure the entire community benefits. The net sum is positive when everyone pitches in together. If everyone had to pave his own part of the road in front of his house some roads would be great while others may never be finished. In the end no one could get from point A to B because someone certainly wouldn't have something done.
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 01/12/2005
So what your saying is that conservatives believe that people are basically intelligent enough to know what is best for them personally, while liberals believe that people are too ignorant and the government must teach them that what Uncle Sam wants is best?
The smoking laws they refer to are the ones where you can't smoke in a private establishment. So long as people are informed of the basic risk (like a tobacco company shouldn't be able to put 'health serum' on the package) education is irrelevant to rights.
"Controlling other people money is a completely different set of arguments."
I disagree. Money is nothing more than a representation of the results of a person's labor. Controlling what a person does is controlling that person. Other than currency stream-lining everything, forcing a person to pay a certain percentage for this project or that project is literally speaking, forcing them to work on that project.
Conservatives are all for community too, and for getting things done. Republicans donate more in charity than liberals. The key word is 'charity.' There's a distinct but all-important difference between a voluntary contribution to the community and a mandatory one. The government is not the only co-operative organization there is, you know.
What I'm for is a voluntary community, where individuals come together for the common good, while respecting each others' difference and rights.
Posted by: Adam | 01/12/2005
Voluntary community equals no community. Do you think that if people went door to door to collect money for a school that you would get enough money for a school? I could be wrong, but I believe if you gave people a choice about donating money to build a school you would get less than half of the money you currently get through taxes. I base this on a recent tax on the ballot to fund a new school. 56% of the voted to increase taxes. Based on this estimate only half of the people currently taxed would donate money for this school. And, if the contribution were voluntary as you say, as the years went forward people would be less likely each year to contribute for the upkeep of the school as they decided that they would rather spend the money on audio equipment for their entertainment center...
Liberals would say that people would contribute this money if they are constantly reminded of how important education is, because people are basically good. Conservatives say that people are basically bad, so they need tax laws to make sure that everyone pays their fair share...
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 01/12/2005
"Liberals would say that people would contribute this money if they are constantly reminded of how important education is, because people are basically good. Conservatives say that people are basically bad, so they need tax laws to make sure that everyone pays their fair share."
But isn't your position that we need tax laws because no one would contribute voluntarily no matter how much you reminded them while collecting donations?
Posted by: Adam | 01/12/2005
Adam,
"The smoking laws they refer to are the ones where you can't smoke in a private establishment. So long as people are informed of the basic risk (like a tobacco company shouldn't be able to put 'health serum' on the package) education is irrelevant to rights."
I think that what liberals are saying is that people did not understand what life could be like without smoke in public buildings. So, making a law forcing everyone to do away with smoking was fair for all businesses. After living in smoke filled places like Cleveland and Hamburg and now living in smoke free California I can assure you that if there were two restaurants, one smoke free and one smoke full I would choose the smoke free place every time. I believe the free market would work if California did away with those laws tomorrow, because customers would stay away from those places full of smoke, except for the few remaining smokers who would gather in the few smoky bars owned by smokers. But getting the public building owners and customers to know that in the first place could never have happened, because of ignorance. Only a couple of years ago Ohio passed similar laws, and the bar owners and restaurant owners were worried, but now they are happy, because business didn't fall off like they thought it would.
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 01/12/2005
Adam,
Great comments. I strongly agree. I wrote on liberal puritanism just today:
http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/12/05/hypocritical-liberal-puritans.html
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | 05/12/2005