Society & Lifestyle >
Personal Morals & Values
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedAre people inherently good?
Results so far:
| Yes | 62% | 1112 votes | Total: 1797 votes | |
| No | 38% | 685 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesOn the surface it would seem that according to the theory of evolution, there would only be selfish people in this world,since time and other resources spent helping other people could have been utilised to better ensure one's survival. However, consider this. Birds with brightly colored feathers are chosen over birds that have duller plumage when females choose their mates , even though brightly colored feathers would attract more predators, and brightly colored feathers serve no practical functions.
So why?
It would seem that bright coloured plumage serves as an indication of healthy genes. A bird with nice long bright tail feathers has actually managed to survive all the way to adulthood. One might attribute it to luck, but birds have had centuries to mate, and to be lucky for centuries, one would have had to beat mind-boggling odds.
So why not altruism as well? To actually survive in this capitalist world and still find it in oneself to go out to help others is not easy. It demonstrates a certain faith in one's ability to not only take care of oneself but also care for others as well.
One might argue that there are cases of people who are barely making enough to provide for themselves, who nonetheless still volunteer for community service or go out of their ways to help others and thus the claim that altruism is a desirable trait in natural selection cannot be true. But then, altruism is just a single trait. There are also cases of bright, intelligent people who have had health problems that ensured that they could only expect to live less than three years. Or cases of strong healthy individuals with the minds of three-year olds. Just because a trait is desirable does not mean an individual will succeed in life, it is the sum of his or her individual traits, rather than a single trait that ensures their success. Possessing an exceedingly strong desirable trait might even prove to be a hindrance, without other traits to complement it. Consider the case of a man who is exceedingly strong but who is unable to control and moderate his strength. He would face difficulties even for simple everyday tasks, that another person endowed with less strength would execute without even having to think through. Similarly, altruism without complementing traits might hinder an individual, but that still would not invalidate altruism as a desirable trait.
There are also those who argue that the act of giving itself gives people a feel-good factor, and thus it is not truly altruism, as a person gains from it. What difference is there from this feel-good factor from the feel-good factor we have when someone gives us genuine praise for our intelligence, our strength, our looks? Or from self-praise for a work well-done? It is the same thing. Just because there are no circumstances at this current moment that let me use my superior intellect doesn't mean I don't possess this trait. And I certainly have no reason to indulge in a feel-good factor about my intellect when nothing arises to remind me about it. The same can be said for altruism. It is still there, regardless of whether something happens, and the feel-good factor is independent of the trait itself.
To end, I would like to present this scenario. When a person sees someone drowning, and he jumps in to save the victim, he will almost certainly regret it later, when both of them are safe on the shore, and the victim has been sent off to some other place. Our hero will be cold, wet and miserable, he'll probably have forgotten to take out his hand phone, name cards, and anything else that couldn't survive the water. Chances are, it'll be hours later before he can get a fresh change of clothing and a nice bath. The feel-good factor that comes after is certainly not worth the loss. He would have been better off donating blood for the feel-good factor. I do know for a fact, that should he ever happen across another drowning victim, he'll still jump into the water without thinking, though perhaps he'll take out his hand phone this time. Because it is the right thing to do.
Learn more about this author, iakul.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
As human beings, we want to believe that we are all capable of goodness; that we desire to treat our neighbors with kindness and have not simply the instinct but a true desire to do what is right and good, rather than what is evil. It is a simple enough exercise to define the meaning of the word 'good'; a much more difficult one to look at how this definition can change and become subjective depending upon the subject matter at hand and the various belief systems and cultural differences that have a direct effect on shaping one's opinion.
Webster's gives us a definition of "good" as "morally excellent, virtuous, pious". Pretty simple and straightforward, right? However, one's definition of what is good will vary depending upon one's culture, morals, or personally-held beliefs, and as we know, one's moral beliefs are derived from our worldview, or our outlook on the world based upon our basic belief system, which includes religious beliefs as well as cultural norms and mores. FGM, or Female Genital Mutilation, for example, is an acceptably held moral belief in North Africa because it is believed to prevent the birth of hydrocephalic babies, the poisoning of the mothers milk, and preventing vaginal cancer, whereas in North America and throughout the rest of the world it is considered immoral for reasons that seem patently obvious to those who do not share the North African culture. Genocide was an acceptable belief held by the German Nazi party, who considered it a highly moral act because it contributed to their philosophy of the Aryan race as supreme. For over four hundred years slavery was an accepted practice in this country, along with its inhumane and cruel treatment. And in ancient times, it was a morally held belief among the Canaanites to offer up their children as human sacrifices to the god Molech. Can any of us judge these acts as immoral or evil based upon our own definition of what is inherently good and what is inherently evil? The problem is that man's idea of what is good is an ever-changing one; it is subjective. Consider the highly debated topic of abortion. Prior to 1973 abortion was illegal in the United States (with the exception of a few states). Today, though it is legal, it is still a hotly-contested issue among people. Why? Because man's notion of what is right and what is wrong is based upon none other than man himself, a fallible human being whose ways are movable, whose thoughts and ideas adapt and change with the times.
In the book of Romans, Paul talks about a moral barometer towards good and evil that man was given at birth. In essence, this is our conscience. No one has to teach us that murder, for example, is wrong; we know inherently that it is. But does that make a person less likely to commit murder? No, it does not. It simply means that, though man was given a conscience to know inherently that some acts are wrong, and other acts are right, we don't come out of the womb with our minds turned towards doing what is right. After all, children have to be taught to do what parents believe is the right thing. In Psalms, David writes "The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies" (Psalms 58:3). And in the book of Genesis, Moses writes: "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart (or mind) was only evil continually" (Gen 6:5). For man to be inherently good would mean that he is born this way; however, the scriptures clearly state that this is not the case. Man, however, can choose to do good rather than to do evil. But by what standard is good measured? Is man the absolute authority on what behaviors can be deemed good?
Paul, in the book of Romans, also says: "there is none that does good, no not one." David, in the book of Psalms, offers us a glimpse of where goodness comes from and to whom we can look to for our righteousness: "The Lord is righteous In all his ways, and holy (or good) in all his works."
Learn more about this author, Valerie Williams.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Personal Morals & Values
- Can you control your destiny?
- Which is better: To be completely free or to be controlled?
- Are individual needs more important than relationship needs?
- Is it wrong to sell adult material on the internet?
- Abortion: Should the father have a say in the matter?
- Which is more important: Appearance or personality?
