Are people basically good?

[not.your.average.joe]

My english teacher, one day in class, said that he was looking into libertarianism and was favorably leaning towards the libertarian philosophy (this was back during the election when people were considering Gary Johnson). One of the things he mentioned was that libertarians believe that people are basically good, or that people are born sinless/morally just.

I find myself disagreeing with the "born good" philosophy for a couple of reasons.

First, if people are born good, that doesn't explain how there is evil in the world. If people are born good, does that mean they have to choose to be bad? And how can they choose to be bad if they are already good, because wouldn't choosing to be bad mean being bad?

Second, what is the standard for good? Assuming that nobody is perfect/everybody sins, the only standard one could set based on human behavior would be imperfection/sin. So if people are born good, and everybody sins, does this mean that to sin is to be good? To me, this points towards the existence of God and Jesus as one sinless entity.

Based on my understanding of the argument, I have come to the understanding that people are basically neutral, meaning that they are neither good nor bad. If this is true, people can choose whether to be good or bad. The standard for good and evil are set by Jesus and Satan. This explains why there are good and bad people, and it also provides a standard for behavior.

What do you think of my argument, and about human nature in general? Hopefully I haven't used the words "good" and "bad" colloquially.

[AuH20]

I don't buy that for a second. People act 'good' because society provides them with incentives to act civil. Take the incentives away and their true selves will be revealed.

[fisharmor]

I've never heard any libertarian claim that a part of libertarian philosophy hinges on people being naturally good.

I subscribe both to Orthodox Christianity and libertarianism. Historical Christianity teaches that all men have sinned. It also teaches that all men have the law of God written on their hearts, and that even unbelievers know inherently what is good and what is evil.
C.S. Lewis broke it down pretty simply: people at least have a sense of fair play. They are capable of appealing to an objective standard of what "good" is.

Whether or not you choose to believe that or base a political philosophy on it is secondary to its existence. People in general have a sense of good vs. evil. Of course, they still do the evil and neglect the good. If they didn't continue to do evil, then there would be no reason for us even to have this discussion.

So I think both propositions are axiomatic. One, people commit evil. Two, people know what good is.

Another thing we can observe is that no state that has ever existed has been founded on evil. The Nazi soldiers who ran the gas chambers still fundamentally believed that they were doing a good work. The Soviets who ran the gulags believed in the system they were perpetuating. And the majority of police officers in the US aren't ignoring the work of their sociopathic brethren because they too are sociopaths: they ignore them because they believe overall the system they are part of is doing good in the world.

I am a libertarian, and a radical one at that, because the thing the state does more than anything else is legitimize evil. I can tell good from evil, and when I see 240 pound officers tazing 110 lb women because the officers are too fat to chase her, and she falls and hits her head on the concrete and spends the rest of her life as a vegetable, I can tell that is evil.

But when this happens, over and over, we get a parade of excuses for why it was a legitimate action. That is the job of the state: to make what is otherwise a heinous crime, acceptable to the masses.

I am not so much focused on what good and evil are or whether people are good or evil. I am focused on who is trying to convince me that what is clearly evil is actually good.

[Anti Federalist]

Most people will be "good" as long as it is in their self interest to be so.

[fisharmor]

Most people will be "good" as long as it is in their self interest to be so.

Do you have children?

[Suzanimal]

I think so.

[Lamp]

I think so.

[brushfire]

I agree with others who recognize that morality is relative.

When your children are fat and happy, it is immoral to steal. However, when children are crying and in constant hunger, parents will find it easier to rationalize theft/crime.

Want people to be generally good? Prosperity does it, and libertarianism is the best way to generate prosperity.


...oh, and there will always be a constant ~10% of sociopaths. They'll flock to banking, politics, real estate development, and law.

[Natural Citizen]

Well. I contend that people are born innocent. But born innocent under the sight of God's Law. The Natural Law. The Individual is of supreme dignity and value because of his spiritual nature. So while The Individual's moral duty is created by God's Law, knowledge of this duty to obey God's Higher Law comes from conscience which the morally aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. The Bible says that we are to be like children in that sense. Effectively, the greatest sin of all is to forget this moral truth. That's about the best way to say it, I think. And I'm kind of off-quoting and sharing from a good book I'd read on the topic.

[osan]

Most people will be "good" as long as it is in their self interest to be so.

Thread winner.

/thread.

[Natural Citizen]

Also....Johnson is more of a cultural Marxist. He's not a libertarian in its most fundamental meaning. Your teacher likely shouldn't be coming to libertarianism by way of Johnson. It must be understood that the principal support for The Individual's rights to life and liberty themselves is property rights. Johnson openly contended that he'd send men from the government with guns to force Individuals and groups of Individuals to relinquish their property to other Individuals and to other groups of Individuals at the barrel of those governmeent guns. This, effectively, made him the primary aggressor to the very fundamentals of Individual Liberty wholly. What is amusing is that he did so under the banner of libertarianism. And even here in our own circle, he was touted as favorable.

I saw Johnson mentioned in context with libertarian so I just wanted to add that in there.

[osan]

I agree with others who recognize that morality is relative.

Not quite that simple, IMO. I believe there is an objective and universal human morality that applies to all people. That some will not accept it does not invalidate its universal applicability in a manner similar to one's belief that the earth is flat makes it so.

When your children are fat and happy, it is immoral to steal. However, when children are crying and in constant hunger, parents will find it easier to rationalize theft/crime.

It is always immoral, which is why anyone from whom property is being taken is justified in forcibly stopping the theft.

Want people to be generally good? Prosperity does it, and libertarianism is the best way to generate prosperity.

You bet.

...oh, and there will always be a constant ~10% of sociopaths. They'll flock to banking, politics, real estate development, and law.

A properly structured culture would deal with those very effectively. Such a land would be as a paradise in comparison with what we now have, where a man has to fear for his own safety at the hands of government as he decides on how to defend his own life from impending destruction.

[Lamp]

It doesn't matter whether you think people are inherantly good what matters is how you propose to deal with the problem of being inherantly bad.

[otherone]

My english teacher, one day in class, said that he was looking into libertarianism and was favorably leaning towards the libertarian philosophy (this was back during the election when people were considering Gary Johnson). One of the things he mentioned was that libertarians believe that people are basically good, or that people are born sinless/morally just.

I find myself disagreeing with the "born good" philosophy for a couple of reasons.

First, if people are born good, that doesn't explain how there is evil in the world. If people are born good, does that mean they have to choose to be bad? And how can they choose to be bad if they are already good, because wouldn't choosing to be bad mean being bad?

Second, what is the standard for good? Assuming that nobody is perfect/everybody sins, the only standard one could set based on human behavior would be imperfection/sin. So if people are born good, and everybody sins, does this mean that to sin is to be good? To me, this points towards the existence of God and Jesus as one sinless entity.

Based on my understanding of the argument, I have come to the understanding that people are basically neutral, meaning that they are neither good nor bad. If this is true, people can choose whether to be good or bad. The standard for good and evil are set by Jesus and Satan. This explains why there are good and bad people, and it also provides a standard for behavior.

What do you think of my argument, and about human nature in general? Hopefully I haven't used the words "good" and "bad" colloquially.

Worry less about what "people" are doing and concentrate on what "you" are doing.

[brushfire]

Not quite that simple, IMO. I believe there is an objective and universal human morality that applies to all people. That some will not accept it does not invalidate its universal applicability in a manner similar to one's belief that the earth is flat makes it so.

I read the discussion as talking about people and whether they are inherently bad or good. My believe is that someones perception of morality can/is often derived from their circumstances. The bible makes multiple references to this fact - if you're not a person of faith, I'm ok with disagreeing on this one.

It is always immoral, which is why anyone from whom property is being taken is justified in forcibly stopping the theft.

I will acknowledge that there are those who promote big government welfare in the name of God, and it disgusts me greatly. Still, I think its a mistake to ignore the relativity of morality - even if you dont believe it to be so. I use the fact that people have different moral compasses to help me make good decisions. I want to do the best I can within my abilities to give my family options - safety, security, food, shelter, all this so I dont have to consider compromising my morality for my family's survival.

Not sure if that makes things any clearer. These types of scenarios are the first things that come to my mind when the topic of "inherent evil" comes up. It really is hard to top AF's quote - people are going to operate on their own interests, generally. Its a libertarian principle.

Kind of on topic - an entertaining bit

[oyarde]

No , I doubt it . So , just in case , I am ready .

[pcosmar]

Humans are born with both.
They inherited the knowledge of good and evil at birth.

They are fed on evil..and hopefully introduced to good. and to God.
and they choose.

[osan]

I read the discussion as talking about people and whether they are inherently bad or good. My believe is that someones perception of morality can/is often derived from their circumstances.

OK, but what is the practical implication of this? It COULD be validly inferred that this justifies criminality.

You seem to be attempting to say that perception trumps positive reality. It does not.

PERCEPTION: there is no 145-car coal train bearing down upon me at high speed as I walk this mainline rail.

REALITY: There is a 145-car coal train bearing down on me at high speed as I walk this mainline rail.

RESULT: SPLAT.

MORAL: Believe anything you please, but be aware that reality will not much care when you depart from it.

One may believe that his morality is just to whatever degree he wants. His "circumstance" (let's assume of growing up here just to keep it manageably narrow for the sake of this exchange) taught him that it's OK to steal if he "needs". Fine with me. But when he breaks into my home at 3 AM to fulfill his "need", the result is likely to be a forthwith meeting of his Maker.

To put it arithmetically:

REALITY = 1
PERCEPTION = REALITY - ∆

M = Misery and death
P = Prosperity and happiness

Lim_∆→1 PERCEPTION= M

Lim_∆→0 PERCEPTION = P

The bible makes multiple references to this fact - if you're not a person of faith, I'm ok with disagreeing on this one.

Which faith? All men are people of faith in one form or another. Were it not so, we would all die long before our first week of life.

I will acknowledge that there are those who promote big government welfare in the name of God, and it disgusts me greatly.

Far more common is the promotion made in the name of "the greater good", which I remind everyone is never really quite defined. It is a weasel word designed to get people to feel shame in the event they disagree. Very clever, but having been so grossly over-/mis-used, is losing its effect with those who choose to use their brains as more than just hat racks. The rest, of course, are eating it up more than ever before. Unfortunately, they constitute what now appears to be a majority.

Still, I think its a mistake to ignore the relativity of morality

Depends on what you mean by "ignore". I acknowledge that people believe in it, or at least use the notion to justify their perfidy. I do not, however, acknowledge it as a valid basis to excuse atrocious behavior.

Let me be clear, while I am at it, that not all atrocious acts merit misery and death as the consequence. It really boils down to the choices made by the individuals in question who may claim harm. A starving boy steals a loaf of bread from my shop. I have no idea of his circumstance as to why he is stealing, so I pursue and catch him. I might be within my right to beat him or hand him over to police (just to AmeriKanize the scenario), but the choice is MINE. Perhaps I choose to let the lad have the loaf, having discovered his reason for having stolen it, my sense of mercy and charity carrying the day beyond the reach of any sense of vengeance. I might call that a good and just result. But the decision is wholly mine and mine alone.

In AmeriKa, if police get wind of it, they are likely to arrest the thief regardless of my wishes that he not be taken. This is what intelligent men call "tyranny". The theft was a private affair between me, the shop owner, and the starving boy. If I had needed police intervention, I would have asked for it. If I am happy to allow a starving boy a miserable loaf of bread that he might not lay awake all night with an empty stomach, it should make no matter to police regardless of the circumstance by which our agreement was reached.

No harm, no foul. And in most cases, it is the victim who gets to determine harm... within reason. If I decide the theft has caused me no harm, it is not the place of police or "the state" to decide otherwise. How often they make reference to the fiction and nonsense of "the dignity of the state" as the harmed party in justification for putting people behind criminal charges. It is a filthy and artlessly bald-faced lie worthy of nothing better than a good beating with an iron bar. Such people should cool it in dank prison cells for the remainders of their misery-logged existences.

- even if you dont believe it to be so. I use the fact that people have different moral compasses to help me make good decisions.

So what, then, would that mean when you catch a man raping your four year old daughter in the boothole? That is a very serious question. Would you kiss him and pray he continue to satisfaction? Would you let him go? Or would you beat him and feed his semi-lifeless body to the rats down by the wharf, taking what satisfaction you may from his final screams of horror and agony in payment for what he has done to an innocent child? YOUR innocent child.

What practical difference does your recognition make where real harms and immediate threats thereof are in question? I don't see much value there, so please show me so I might understand.

I want to do the best I can within my abilities to give my family options - safety, security, food, shelter, all this so I dont have to consider compromising my morality for my family's survival.

Good. Now please demonstrate how your acknowledgement of moral relativity takes you to such a place? I'm seriously failing to grok this.

Not sure if that makes things any clearer. These types of scenarios are the first things that come to my mind when the topic of "inherent evil" comes up. It really is hard to top AF's quote - people are going to operate on their own interests, generally. Its a libertarian principle.

OK, well let me ask you this: is there any morality justifying wanton murder that would give you cause to stand quiescent as a Mennonite and watch as your living, loving children were hacked to pieces before your eyes?

Help me to understand.

[osan]

Well. I contend that people are born innocent.

All else equal, I cannot disagree, for one must commit acts in order to bear guilt. Unless sloshing around in isotonic saline for 9 months qualifies as an act to which guilt attaches, I'd call newborns perfectly innocent.

But born innocent under the sight of God's Law. The Natural Law. The Individual is of supreme dignity and value because of his spiritual nature.

This might presume a step too far, but it's pretty in any event.

So while The Individual's moral duty is created by God's Law, knowledge of this duty to obey God's Higher Law comes from conscience which the morally aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. The Bible says that we are to be like children in that sense. Effectively, the greatest sin of all is to forget this moral truth. That's about the best way to say it, I think. And I'm kind of off-quoting and sharing from a good book I'd read on the topic.

I see how this would have good practical results in the main, but philosophically it is low hanging fruit for challenge.

That aside, a point arises implicitly, which Snr. Pete hits upon, below.

Humans are born with both.
They inherited the knowledge of good and evil at birth.

They are fed on evil..and hopefully introduced to good. and to God.
and they choose.

That was the first thing I thought of when I read NC's first line.

It therefore pretty well nails the lid on the coffin of the arguments in favor of tyranny. We owe it to us not to provide an environment that does not pervert a man's natural innocence, and yet we work so diligently to opposite ends.

We are our own worst enemy.

[brushfire]

OK, but what is the practical implication of this? It COULD be validly inferred that this justifies criminality.

Just as with the bible, things can be misconstrued and nearly anything rationalized to support an agenda. You like smoking pot? You enjoy a neat scotch? Tell me which is moral? You might have to factor in a time-frame and/or religion to answer those questions. Is there a universal morality? I have my understanding of morality but I'm under no illusion that this is somehow shared, and I know for a fact that if put under the right circumstances I'll start to make rationalized compromises (choices). I dont wish to put my family into your formula, so I do the best I can to make decisions that give me and my family options. There are, however, a great deal of people willing to play your game of chance.

What practical difference does your recognition make where real harms and immediate threats thereof are in question? I don't see much value there, so please show me so I might understand.

You've already acknowledged it in you last post. I'm not saying you need to accept rape - not at all. Still, I suppose you could, and some do. All I'm saying is that there are some who dont follow your, or my for that matter, understanding of what is moral. For what its worth, I would have no qualms about killing a rapist - I wouldt think twice. Rape brings risk of life threatening disease and complicated social, mental, economic, and life issues. I think lethal force is warranted in such cases, but masses (including the media) probably do not. People might say that I'm not a judge, and have no moral standing to kill a rapist. I cant control the world, but I do the best help my children be aware of their world/surroundings. I try the best I can to avoid risky behaviors (my children have only had 1 babysitter, ever - their grandma). If my wife's mother raped my children, would I be morally justified in killing her? My wife and I might have a different moral take on the matter - you might too.

Good. Now please demonstrate how your acknowledgement of moral relativity takes you to such a place? I'm seriously failing to grok this.

My wife is a pretty good example. She believes that we give to our local church, and therefore they will support us should there be an economic collapse. Its the moral thing to do... She believes that the police will help keep order, and that our neighbors will continue to be "moral" people if such an event is to occur. However, acknowledging the fact that police have their own families and self interests, might help one decide to purchase firearms, ammunition, training, etc.. The neighbors are friendly and "moral" today, but when they are hungry they just might lower the bar... Its not so hard for the neighbor to kill or steal when their survival is at stake.

OK, well let me ask you this: is there any morality justifying wanton murder that would give you cause to stand quiescent as a Mennonite and watch as your living, loving children were hacked to pieces before your eyes?

Help me to understand.

I cant help you understand a moral justification for murder because it's not something I believe in. What I can say, or what I'm trying to say, is that your view of morality is not universal. If you try, you will no doubt find someone who can, in their minds, make a moral argument for murder. I know I have found such people! The murder argument is probably as close as one can get to universal though, I'm glad you brought it up, because most people dont want to die. Still, there are some who think its ok to kill... Lets go here - the Nazis convinced people that it was moral to kill Jews. It happened, and people did it. Most did it because they rationalized the morality of murder - whether it be by not thinking of Jews as people, or by saying they were obeying authority. I think it could happen again - even here, in the USA. And there are some people who will believe it to be moral to do so. White privileged motherfkers gots ta go! Those evil musilims need to go! In any of these cases, is it not the "winner" who has decided what is moral?

Right of conquest - there have been many native americans killed by Anglo settlers. Was that immoral? Are we, as current benefactors of this killing, immoral people? I dont feel immoral living here, and I am a descendant of someone who killed native americans. Still, by my saying this I'm sure there are some who believe it is immoral for me to be here because my great great grandfather killed "Indians". If it is moral for me to live here, should I be required to provide welfare for native american tribes? At what point am I paid up?

Who really decides this moral standard? Is it me? Is it my God? Is it your God? What if someone doesnt believe in God? Maybe morality is decided by the masses? When a child is starving, you acknowledge that a tithing store owner is behaving morally when he gives up his property to feed the child, but that its still relative to the store owner. Is the child immoral for trying to survive? What if the child was "defending itself" against hunger? Isn't self defense a natural right? (red herring alert)

I dont wish to put words in your mouth - I do have a lot of respect for you and your posts. If I were to guess though, I think you're hung up on the whole government thing, and what led us down the tubes. A collective morality is extremely important in order to maintain a functional government - its something this country once had. My issue with that its hard for me to see such a collective morality today - people change, and circumstances tend to weigh heavily on what people see as moral at any point in time. There was a time when faith was a big part of our country, and therefore an anchor for morality, but that changed, as did the morality. ...and yes, you said best:

Not quite that simple, IMO

Aint it the truth...

mo·ral·i·ty
məˈralədē/
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More
a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
plural noun: moralities
"a bourgeois morality"
the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
"behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"

[tod evans]

Are people basically good?

The ones who agree with me are.

[William Tell]

My english teacher, one day in class, said that he was looking into libertarianism and was favorably leaning towards the libertarian philosophy (this was back during the election when people were considering Gary Johnson). One of the things he mentioned was that libertarians believe that people are basically good, or that people are born sinless/morally just.

That's very interesting. Maybe some liberty lovers believe that, but not me. I oppose large government because I see the evils done by those who control it. Since power corrupts people, and evil people tend towards power limiting government seems like one way of minimizing the evil that people can do.

Some libertarians, and especially anarchists do seem to think the world would be perfect without government. I don't, I believe large government is just an additional evil to a world already full of it.

I find myself disagreeing with the "born good" philosophy for a couple of reasons.

First, if people are born good, that doesn't explain how there is evil in the world. If people are born good, does that mean they have to choose to be bad? And how can they choose to be bad if they are already good, because wouldn't choosing to be bad mean being bad?

I don't actually think the argument of whether people are born good or evil is that important. Most people, and certainly all Christians would agree that none of us are perfect, we all make mistakes and do bad things. Whether we were perfect when we were born and every single one of us fell since then, or if we were born with badness in us kind of brings us to the same place. Theologians would say it matters but objectively I think its a pointless argument to have if we agree we are all flawed.

Second, what is the standard for good? Assuming that nobody is perfect/everybody sins, the only standard one could set based on human behavior would be imperfection/sin. So if people are born good, and everybody sins, does this mean that to sin is to be good? To me, this points towards the existence of God and Jesus as one sinless entity.

As a Christian, I believe the standard of "good" is Jesus. Which is to say being sinless, if you ever have once failed to love and serve God and love your neighbor (the greatest commandments) that is "bad". The reality is we all fail, many times. One guy might brag that he's better than someone who went to prison for robbery, but compared to Jesus who is perfect and knows all of our individual sins we are all messed up people who need his
mercy.

Based on my understanding of the argument, I have come to the understanding that people are basically neutral, meaning that they are neither good nor bad. If this is true, people can choose whether to be good or bad.

I agree that people are capable of both good and bad. Even an evil dictator or bloodthirsty cartel leader might be kind to his own children, or even kind to some strangers. What I do not believe we are capable of is being perfectly good. Even the most wonderful, kind, generous people you will ever meet and aspire to be like have their own sins and shortcomings that you will not want to emulate. You might argue some people are overwhelmingly more "good" than "bad" but none of us are 100% good. But every one of us could be better than we are, so arguably we are all "bad". Unless you want to round up to 100% the people you might consider close enough.

The standard for good and evil are set by Jesus and Satan. This explains why there are good and bad people, and it also provides a standard for behavior.

Yeah, I've heard that. I actually think though that its more like Jesus is the standard for Good, and Satan is just the most well known example of Evil. Evil is just everything that is not Good. If Satan did not exist, Evil would still be anything that is not Good.

What do you think of my argument, and about human nature in general? Hopefully I haven't used the words "good" and "bad" colloquially.

I think you have some great arguments. Most compelling thing I've seen in this forum in a while.

[osan]

Is there a universal morality?

Yes, there is.

I have my understanding of morality but I'm under no illusion that this is somehow shared

The question of whether it is shared is irrelevant to the fact that it exists. I have discovered it for myself. I have written about it and have demonstrated it here many times. It is fact. That people will not accept it is another issue entirely. Is our inborn freedom a fact? It certainly is, and yet look at how the vast and overwhelming majority of the people of this world reject it as false.

People rejected the earth as spherical. Look how that turned out.

and I know for a fact that if put under the right circumstances I'll start to make rationalized compromises (choices).

So? What has that to do with the factual existence of an objective morality? Plenty of good and married Catholics screw their secretaries or the pool-boy. Does that deny the existence of the Catholic corpus of ethics? No. It only means that some people violate them.

I dont wish to put my family into your formula, so I do the best I can to make decisions that give me and my family options. There are, however, a great deal of people willing to play your game of chance.

Game of chance? I'm sorry, but you have lost me here.

All I'm saying is that there are some who dont follow your, or my for that matter, understanding of what is moral.

Certainly that is true. If all you're saying is that you recognize this, then OK. But my next question would be whether that recognition alters your responses to the perfidious acts such people might attempt against you. Here, "recognize" is one of the lynch-pins of meaning, which I think I mentioned earlier. If not, my bad.

Its not so hard for the neighbor to kill or steal when their survival is at stake.

Agreed. However, the hazards of doing so may well remain in any event. At brass tacks, it can come down to a very real and immediate and mortal struggle to decide who is going to see another sunrise. But those are extreme circumstances. What of those of a more pedestrian flavor?

I cant help you understand a moral justification for murder because it's not something I believe in. What I can say, or what I'm trying to say, is that your view of morality is not universal.

I did not say my view was universal, but that the morality is. It is objectively derived on the basis of the very nature of human relations. It bases on the fact that no man is born to be slave to another, a fact that can be well demonstrated through the socratic method. Asking the right questions will invariably lead either to concession or to a raft of nonsensically arbitrary answers that lead to nothing but more of the same sorts of questions, establishing an infinite cycle of such queries that lead to the same arbitrary answers, leading back to the questions. Because there is no "loop invariant", you are doomed to iterate infinitely between the questions and the answers, with no possibility of escape. This demonstrates the invalidity of the position that rejects the true equality of all men and nails shut the lid on the coffin of the argument that attempts to justify the position that some lives are "more than, while others are "less than". It is an easy method of demolition of any position that asserts the authority of one man over another where there is no consent given. It is simple. It is elegant. It is, IMO, a gift from God that shows us truth under which all honest and decent men must operate if they are to remain as such, once made aware.

If you try, you will no doubt find someone who can, in their minds, make a moral argument for murder.

Attempting to make one is not the same thing as successfully doing to. A false argument is no argument at all. It is simply error or lies, or perhaps both.

I know I have found such people! The murder argument is probably as close as one can get to universal though, I'm glad you brought it up, because most people dont want to die. Still, there are some who think its ok to kill... Lets go here - the Nazis convinced people that it was moral to kill Jews. It happened, and people did it. Most did it because they rationalized the morality of murder - whether it be by not thinking of Jews as people, or by saying they were obeying authority. I think it could happen again - even here, in the USA. And there are some people who will believe it to be moral to do so. White privileged motherfkers gots ta go! Those evil musilims need to go! In any of these cases, is it not the "winner" who has decided what is moral?

And once again you appear to be confusing objective truth with flawed perception. All you write is valid, but it speaks only to the personal failings of individuals who choose to believe things that can be demonstrated as false, based on the yardstick of objective morality.

Right of conquest - there have been many native americans killed by Anglo settlers. Was that immoral?

Yes, it was, where the acts did not constitute those of self-defense. Equally immoral have been the warlike tribes who engaged in gratuitous murder. There have been no innocents where we speak in terms of groups, which is always a very risky practice. But if we indulge this endlessly bad habit, we can see that few groups may claim innocence, through there are some. So far as I know, the Hopi have never been warlike. The Navajo to this day hate them with boiling blood. I know because I've been acquainted with each. My Navajo brothers, if you catch them in the right mood, have admitted to me that they would kill every Hopi on the planet if they could. I have no recollection as to the root of the animosity or even if I ever knew the reasons. Perhaps they are not so unlike Serbs and Croats, whose hate has festered for so long that they no longer know the reasons for it, yet carry it forward to the next generation in all good faithfulness. Who knows? I don't.

Are we, as current benefactors of this killing, immoral people?

We may be, but not for those reasons. Are today's Jews immoral because some cadre of their douchebag ancestors convinced Pilate to scourge and murder Jesus of Nazareth? No. I do not buy into the notion of inheriting guilt. It cannot be supported in reason, save that which is flawed beyond redemption.

I dont feel immoral living here, and I am a descendant of someone who killed native americans. Still, by my saying this I'm sure there are some who believe it is immoral for me to be here because my great great grandfather killed "Indians". If it is moral for me to live here, should I be required to provide welfare for native american tribes? At what point am I paid up?

Sure. Just look at the SJW anti-men who sit in public humiliation and self-excoriation because they are "white". FFS, those pigs have their children in on it as well. Talk about fodder to have therapists walking the streets with wild erections for at least an entire generation...

To wit:

Who really decides this moral standard? Is it me? Is it my God? Is it your God?

Observable truth sets it. We were given brains, the purposes of which were not to serve only as hat racks. Our minds, driven by our language and the tools of logic and reason that follow as the result of our endowment, enable us to perceive and know truth. We have been given the facilities for navigating the lives of men. I call that a gift from God. Some will call it a result of evolution. No matter, because the results are the same. I say toe-may-toe, he says toe-mah-toe.

What if someone doesnt believe in God?

It is precisely here that we see to greatness of the gift and the impossible humility in which it was bestowed: discovery of the universal principles of proper human relations requires no belief in God. The truth was put out there and we were, by whatever providence, graced with the ability to discover it and know it for what it is. That we have been fumbling about in the dark for so long is testament to the power of the forces that would see men remain in the pitch black. By whatever the virtue, there is deep evil in the hearts of some men; powerful men; men who want no hint of truth to drape itself upon the sleeves of those he deems lesser than himself.

Maybe morality is decided by the masses?

Oh hell... that's like democracy. Morality by consensus. What could possibly go wrong?

When a child is starving, you acknowledge that a tithing store owner is behaving morally when he gives up his property to feed the child,

That is not quite what I wrote. I wrote that it is within the boundaries of his prerogative to feed the child, but that he is under no obligation to do so. It is morally praiseworthy (MP), but not morally obligatory (MO). MP and MO are two notions and a distinction that appear to have disappeared from the base of common human knowledge. They are very important, IMO, to proper living and should be introduced to children at an early age such that by the time they are in eight-grade, all children possess a literally doctoral expertise on them. I exaggerate no whit in the matter. IMO, they are essential concepts, more important to individual understanding than even the most basic acts of integer counting.

Is the child immoral for trying to survive?

Moot issue because regardless of the answer, the injured party retains his right to defend his claims to the property in question, whether it be his life or a loaf of bread.

The relevant question, however, is whether the child is entitled to that which he steals. To that question, the answer is clearly "no". Otherwise, I would be obliged to turn my life over to any random jackass on the street demanding it.

But if through his act of theft he can continue his life for another day, then so be it. However, "getting away with it", at least at first, does not render him immune to possible consequences down the road. The victim may feel so put out by it all that he hunts the child and, having found him, remains within his rights to see justice done.

What if the child was "defending itself" against hunger? Isn't self defense a natural right? (red herring alert)

Let's assuming it is so. The result is the same because the victim of his crime retains his claim to property. This is why the "needs" argument fails so miserably. To accept it is to deny any right to property, which perforce includes the right to one's own life. The needs argument, when subjected to the withering light of even the most cursory and casual scrutiny, is reduced to the self-mocking absurdity that is its very weave.

If I were to guess though, I think you're hung up on the whole government thing, and what led us down the tubes.

Not sure what you mean by "hung up" and "the whole government thing".

A collective morality is extremely important in order to maintain a functional government

Agreeable, so far as it goes. But you leave a lot unspecified. What kind of "collective morality"? It would seem to turn on the nature of the government in question. We have a collective morality here in America. One can see elements of it in the pornography, as well as other film and visual media. We see it in the results of the courts, where many times criminals are set free and righteous men are imprisoned for decades for having had the temerity to defend their rightful claims.

- its something this country once had.

See above.

My issue with that its hard for me to see such a collective morality today - people change, and circumstances tend to weigh heavily on what people see as moral at any point in time.

Au contraire, mon ami. The morality is everywhere. It's just not YOUR morality. Be thankful for that.

Part of the new morality is to shave off your pubes and have porno-sex as often as possible, both laudable goals for some. The failing is the new morality that when Janey gets knocked up, she runs down to the free clinic to get hoovered. After all, why should she be punished with a baby? For the record, I wanted to knock Obama's teeth down his throat when he uttered that filth. Then again, I wanted to do that for any of a large number of reasons. Sadly, I am apparently too cowardly to have taken the shot.

There was a time when faith was a big part of our country, and therefore an anchor for morality, but that changed, as did the morality.

Once again, it still is. The problem is that it's changed from something not perfect, but workable in that it tended to affirm life, to something that destroys life.

Shaving it off and having porno-sex all day can be loads of fun. However, a recent study has found a strong correlation between shaved pubes and instances of venereal disease. Our Designer was perhaps not so foolish in having put those things where they are. We think we know better. Now live with the results. That's the reality the younger generations don't want to face.

[Anti Federalist]

SJW anti-men

Perfect description.

I'm keeping that.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Damaged goods.

[osan]

Perfect description.

I'm keeping that.

Got it from wifey. Down in Guyana, homosexuals are referred to as anti-men. I busted a gut when she mentioned it. Pure genius.

Think "anti-matter"

[helmuth_hubener]

Are people basically good?

Some people are.

Others are not.

"Basically" is a fuzzifying/relativizing word, conveniently making your paradigm explicit: goodness is a spectrum. (And that's a very reality-corresponding paradigm; I can roll with that.) So, it depends where you plunk down that "basic" that's the minimum standard above which is acceptably "good."

Basically good for the pygmies in Papua New Guinea is maybe: "You eat other tribes' babies. You never eat our tribe's babies." So, very low.

Basically good for Victorian England is maybe: You work 12 hours a day; pray 5 times a day; don't laugh, or even smile, on Sundays; work on having good posture at all times; are brushing up on your Latin; and believe it's your duty to strive for excellence in all facets of life. So, very high.

Basically good for 'Current Year' USA: You celebrate sexual perversity; you embrace all cultures and religions (well, as long as they're not first-world ones); you recognize and know how to check your privilege; you are a good sensitive listener; you're comfortable wearing pajamas to work; you're saving the planet with #hashtags; you would never say anything mean or bigoted or offensively factual to anyone; and you courageously call for all white males to die. So, very confused.

[not.your.average.joe]

Wow, thanks for all the feedback.

Shoutouts to osan, Natural Citizen, William Tell, fisharmor, and Anti Federalist for making me think. It's always exciting to read something that encourages thought and forming conclusions through reason.

What I am overwhelmingly hearing is that it doesn't matter whether people are born good or not, because at some point everyone falls short of moral perfection. I agree with the reasoning. However, I don't think the discussion is worthless. I think if people understand that
a) nobody is inherently good, but
b) nobody is inherently bad, then
people can be convinced that using violence as a means to your ends before exhausting negotiation and persuasion is unjustified. It's nice to recognize that even the 'worst' people have the potential to choose good and its nice to be humbled by reminders that everybody falls short of God, because sometimes that's easy to forget when you're typing words at more words on a screen. Sometimes you need to take a step back and say "hey, I'm not perfect and nobody's yelling at me, maybe I should act more humbly towards those who are intelligent enough to be discussing liberty on something called Ron Paul Forums".

Thanks for the thoughtfood and meaningful discussion.

[RJB]

It depends upon which side of the bed that I wake up on.