by PracticalPhilosophy

Created on: October 11, 2010   Last Updated: October 12, 2010

Are people inherently good?

While the question seems to introduce the contentious issue of inherent morality, it cannot be answered directly without assessing morality itself. Hence, there is a need to first assess what is “good” and “bad”.

At first glance of the word good in this context, one would naturally relate it to morality. However, there are more to “good” than just being “good in morality”. “Good” could also refer to efficiency and capacity. It is essential to keep this in mind as I will explain why later. The second point to take note of is what most would usually not miss, that what is good is highly subjective. Having both in mind, let’s take the extreme example of killing.

Most people regard killing as a “bad” action. Even in the Bible, it is stated that thou shall not kill. But the contentious question is, why do people kill? It is imperative to understand this question at a deeper level in order to find the answer to the philosophical question. The study of criminology reveals that most kill for a reason. On the surface, it is seen that some kill for money, others do it out of hatred. If we look through a philosophical microscope, we will find that the root of these “reasons” come from the inherent lack of human beings.

The late philosopher, H.L.A. Hart categorized 5 main lacks, or rather, “truisms” as he termed it, that human beings have. They are: human vulnerability, approximate equality, limited altruism, limited resources and limited understanding and strength of will. Without going into much details of his work, to put it simply, human beings are self-preserving creatures, just like other animals. Animals kill for food, for mating, and for territorial purposes. Because of our inherent lacking features, we then find ways to cover our lacks. These “ways” include both “good” and “bad” in terms of morality in the general sense.

A cliché example people tend to use in support of this topic, is that one would point out the fact that kids do not need to be taught to lie because it is inherent in them to do so. However, to think that one is inherently “bad in the morality sense” is missing the point. Kids do not lie for a malicious motive for no reason. They either lie for self-preservation or the desire for something rewarding. The root reason for them lying is due to their lack of ability to achieve it without doing so.

Please do not misunderstand that I am trying to justify what is generally bad in morality. The point is, humans are, in general, inherently neutral in morality. But due to their lacks, some choose to cover their lacks through “good” means, and others find the “bad” ways more effective. This is why children must be taught to not lie or deceive because they will try to cover their lacks in their own ways. At a bigger picture, this is where “laws” come into play. Colloquially, law is like a manual or guide on how we can cover our lacks in an amicable manner.

To wrap this up in few simple propositions: Humans are inherently lacking. We tend to choose whatever means that are most conveniently available to cover them. What is convenient would usually be bad in morality in a broad sense. Hence, one could somewhat say that people are not inherently good.

Learn more about this author, PracticalPhilosophy.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.