The Instigator
the_banjo_sender
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
lovecandy365
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Are humans really inherently good?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 414 times Debate No: 82527
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

the_banjo_sender

Con

What makes a person "good?" Is it the fact that we follow the laws? Or is it the idea that good people better humanity? Either way, humans must be trained under the ideas of what make humanity even remotely "good." If one is not taught these concepts, they will not do anything to either follow laws (see rebellious acts) or make the world better (see lazy bum).
lovecandy365

Pro

Although I don't disagree with you, humans may not be necisaliry "good" based on your standards. What makes a person good is not to harm others and animals, such a vegitarian or vegan, but since they one eat fruit and vegetables, what do the herbivores eat? Another is to be abngeation, or to be selfless, you mustn't care about yourself at all and only others.
Debate Round No. 1
the_banjo_sender

Con

Hmmm... your definition of "good" is very curious. How does not harming animals make one good? Can I be incredibly self centered or judgemental (technically not harming others) and still be considered good? How does not harming animals benefit anything besides the animals which, depending upon your world view, are in existence for the good of mankind to do with what we please, within reason? Now, being an animal abuser is bad, but is it not better to be an animal abuser than a people abuser?

Also, regarding abngeation, seeing as it is impossible to be truly selfless (even the act of being selfless to make yourself good is selfish), are you saying that humanity CANNOT be "good?" I just want to make sure we are on the same terms.

Also, just out of curiosity, your response, while brilliant and thought-provoking, are a little vague to me in terms of the actual debate. Would you like to continue with this topic, or move on to the one you provided in your response?
lovecandy365

Pro

Firstly, not harming animals is one component. Actually being self-centered does harm others, for example, splurging in money actually does harm others, others could use that money for food, shelter, etc. Humans can be close to "good" but they rarely try.
Debate Round No. 2
the_banjo_sender

Con

Me splurging in no way affects those who could genuinely use the money. How would anything I spend wind up in the hands of someone who needs it? Besides, this is the idea of Capitalism: those who do well reap the rewards, those who don't do not reap any rewards.

This is not to say we shouldn't be generous: giving to people who truly require aid is a very noble activity.

Also, terribly sorry, but I don't quite understand what argument you are making and against what. So if you could clarify... that would be great.

VFD
lovecandy365

Pro

I'm sorry I am on your side.......but I say that humans aren't "good" only because they can't. And as it is to capitalism....even if someone does well, rewards don't always come, if they do, usually it's "luck",
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
We are not good. We are not bad. We are.
Posted by the_banjo_sender 1 year ago
the_banjo_sender
Ergo the philosophy. Just because a debate does not have a definitive answer does not mean it should not be discussed.
Posted by jkl2953 1 year ago
jkl2953
This question has no right or wrong answer. A good person is all judged by one's idealogy, it all depends on one's taste. Such like how some people like Stalin and some hate him.
No votes have been placed for this debate.