<p>"The original nature of man is good but corrupted by society." - Jean Jacques Rousseau.
Are people born innocent and good and morphed by society or born with evil intentions immediately?
My instinct is to go with the "born good, ruined by society" side but there are certainly lots of arguments for each.
What do you think and why?
~~~</p>
<p>Everyone is evil; some are just a little less evil than others.</p>
<p>oh dang poifect answer</p>
<p>The concepts of good and evil themselves are societal constructs and are meaningless in the factual natural world.</p>
<p>
Who corrupted society in the first place?</p>
<p>People are fundamentally selfish. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe corruption is like an emergent property of societies and a group can be corrupt without the individuals being corrupt.</p>
<p>milliee-</p>
<p>Some would argue that people naturally will do what they have to for their benefit- natural selfishness and tendency to act against someone else to succeed, get what they want, etc.</p>
<p>I side with this argument,</p>
<p>“The original nature of man is good but corrupted by society.” - Jean Jacques Rousseau</p>
<p>In my perspective, it is true because in my understanding, we are all humans which are a part of nature, albeit it can be viewed that we are the main problem in Earth (with respects to environment, etc.). BUT, people are not born evil, society makes them corrupted, because although one can argue that if society corrupts people, that means that they were born with evil intentions. However, people are not born with that mentality of inflicting harm, or corruption, but rather with one of survivorship, which is a big difference between corruption. As survivorship is to survive, thus it is seen as good, with respects to future generations, and corruption is created by society, after the mentality of a “natural” survivorship, since greed overcomes other lively directives, now society in this example creates the mentality of corruption.</p>
<p>To Sum it Up: People are born good, but society corrupts them as originally argued.
It is a good debate topic in my opinion.</p>
<p>Just my 2 cents.</p>
<p>I think Rousseau pulled that statement out of his behind. Firstly, he never defined “good” or even “society” (is a hunter gatherer tribe a society?) Secondly, once we define those nebulous concepts the question becomes a testable, scientific claim we should try to figure out empirically, I don’t see how pure philosophy is going to help us here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This isn’t true though; altruism is a natural adaptation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…but neither is this, as anger, jealousy and deceit are also natural adaptations. Humans are also naturally at least partially xenophobic - hence why racism, sexism, etc. have been nearly universal problems.</p>
<p>I find it curious how many of you accept concepts like “good” “evil” and “corruption” without further inquiry. What is good? What is evil? Why?</p>
<p>There are several reasons why I don’t believe in that concept, but even if I did, the idea of being “corrupted by society” is absurd, because society is not some external “thing.” Society is people. So Rousseau is essentially saying that people, and their constructs, corrupt other people. Therefore it is reasonable to state that people bring out the worst in themselves through social contact. That is just empirically false, as years of civilization have proven; society has a net benefit, despite its perceived costs, or else it wouldn’t exist.</p>
<p>Has anyone taken a look at the current NFL PF debate topic? I just finished prepping for a mock debate vs. a pair of other freshmen in my club. I’m prepping for, and my partner against.</p>
<p>What do you guys think of this? (some research is necessary): Development assistance should be prioritized over military aid in the Sahel region of Africa.</p>
<p>Nihilus, Is your username a Star Wars reference?</p>
<p>apandia: I don’t know if I like its obscurity. On the one hand we can’t just argue from background knowledge, for better or worse, but on the other the civilian judges really won’t have a clue as to what’s going on any more than they already don’t.</p>
<p>@RMIB, it is pretty ambiguous, I spent a good amount of time familiarizing myself with the region specified. The UN has already decided to throw $8B at the region, and I’ve a pretty good understand of why they would actually decide that way. I just want to compare my arguments with existing ones.</p>
<p>@RMIBstudent Partially. It’s a mixed reference to the Sith lord Nihilus and also the fact that I used to consider myself part of the nihilist school of philosophy. I reject philosophical labels/boundaries now.</p>
<p>@apandia I don’t know of the Sahel region specifically, but speaking for Africa as a whole, this is an interesting question. While incisive arguments could be made for either side, the fact is that both are necessary. Without proper development assistance, the aid we send is meaningless, it only destroys and re-orders and does not foster the economic or technological progress of the region. At the same time, if we send in development aid without the proper military backup, then the region may disintegrate and fall under the control of rebel groups, as many parts of Africa are right now. Then the aid would not only be wasted, but would be abused and would fund these oppressive criminal regimes. Foreign policy must always be a delicate balance of hard and soft power.</p>
<p>I would have liked to speak for military control, but I lost a toss and got development. The nature of military action has been exhausted in many regions of Africa, and has almost always had the same result, a corrupted government. At the point of corruption, the ephemeral benefits of structure is gone to waste and the indolence and difficulty of anybody now to do anything without great cost is unbearable. Rather than risking the military action of a militant group, give the money to those who know the region and knows where it needs to go. Giving the money to those who know what to do with it provides the opportunity for not only a more stable structure, but development of the areas that need it the most. Of course, the interception of those funds and attraction of domestic terrorists is always present…, but you have to bring that up :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry but…what? Neanderthals were a species, not a society…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah 
</p>
<p>My biggest problem with the resolution is that the judges won’t have any idea what’s going on, which can work both towards objectivity and confusion.</p>
<p>What resolution are you talking about?</p>
<p>Assuming you’re talking about my vies regarding good/evil:</p>
<p>Judges serve to interpret/apply the law, and the law is created not on higher moral grounds but due to societal necessities. Crimes and punishments are sensible and objective in that regard: felonies, such as murder and robbery, cause prison time because incarceration prevents the criminal from committing further criminal acts that may endanger society. Misdemeanors are generally crimes that would not be prevented or lessened with incarceration, and thus do not generally carry prison time.</p>
<p>The issue arises when we consider crime and punishment through some artificial lens of “justice” rather than the objectivity for which it exists; that’s when we punish things “because they are bad” rather than to actually achieve an effect. That’s when we get ridiculous sentences such as prison time for nonviolent drug possession/offenses.</p>
<p>@milliee “homosapiens is a species with a society, so do Neanderthals”</p>
<p>Please English? Thanks do.</p>
<p>The decline of Neanderthals was not due to any degradation that was caused by society, but due to basic evolution. If a meteor hits earth right now and wipes out our civilization, that doesn’t mean that society is evil and corrupt. It just means that tertiary factors exist.</p>
<p>Both humans and Neanderthals work better together than apart. Hence, society has a net benefit.</p>
<p>“other species killed them off” -> interspecies competition -> natural biological event due to evolution =/= societal degradation.</p>
<p>The matter of what is evil and what is good is completely subjective, but yes, people are shaped by their childhood experiences and society.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know that babies do anything intentionally until they’re a few years old. They don’t seem to make conscious choices. That’s why I wouldn’t say people are born “bad” or “good,” because those words kind of imply that you had a choice.</p>