Are people born good or evil?

Yeah, total fail

So they just dropped this article online about some "violent" gene—but honestly, there’s a massive difference between being evil and just having an aggressive streak, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/health...B+page+statusi

Some are good, some are bad—most are just a blank slate. If the world is truly a mirror of humanity, then it’s pretty obvious that people generally aren't great, though a few individuals actually pull their weight.
I don't think humans are inherently evil so much as we are just pathetic. We're fragile in every sense of the word, with far too few people possessing the actual strength to stick to what's right—and even when they try, their own weaknesses often turn those "right" intentions into something completely wrong and disastrous.

Paul Thompson3 said:Some are good, some are bad—most are just a blank slate. If the world is truly a mirror of humanity, then it’s pretty obvious that people generally aren't great, though a few individuals actually pull their weight.
I don't think humans are inherently evil so much as we are just pathetic. We're fragile in every sense of the word, with far too few people possessing the actual strength to stick to what's right—and even when they try, their own weaknesses often turn those "right" intentions into something completely wrong and disastrous.

👍

I dig this theory...
plus, if you ask me, there isn't really such a thing as good or evil—it's all just stuff happening that triggers some kind of reaction.
We're all selfish, whether we admit it or not. The universe couldn't care less about who cheated on who, who stole someone's partner, or who's out there causing chaos... we're all just stardust in the end...

Paul Thompson3 said:Some are good, some are bad—most are just a blank slate. If the world is truly a mirror of humanity, then it’s pretty obvious that people generally aren't great, though a few individuals actually pull their weight.
I don't think humans are inherently evil so much as we are just pathetic. We're fragile in every sense of the word, with far too few people possessing the actual strength to stick to what's right—and even when they try, their own weaknesses often turn those "right" intentions into something completely wrong and disastrous.

To me, this sounds like the most basic excuse in the book. It’s a nice little way to dodge accountability—convincing ourselves that nothing is our fault because we're all just "pathetic" and "weak," so we might as well just drift along with the current and see where it takes us.

This whole idea of human "frailty" or being "pitiful" just makes me feel sorry for the logic, not the people. Do actual monsters deserve pity? I'm talking about murderers, rapists, predators, sadists. Would you ever sit there and try to "understand" someone who committed an atrocity against your own family just because they were "too weak" to resist their impulses? Of course not. That's nonsense.

People can be anything, but let's stop pretending they're weak.

Justin Brooks58 said:To me, this sounds like the most basic excuse in the book. It’s a nice little way to dodge accountability—convincing ourselves that nothing is our fault because we're all just "pathetic" and "weak," so we might as well just drift along with the current and see where it takes us.

This whole idea of human "frailty" or being "pitiful" just makes me feel sorry for the logic, not the people. Do actual monsters deserve pity? I'm talking about murderers, rapists, predators, sadists. Would you ever sit there and try to "understand" someone who committed an atrocity against your own family just because they were "too weak" to resist their impulses? Of course not. That's nonsense.

People can be anything, but let's stop pretending they're weak.

Yeah, they’re definitely weak, and honestly, that’s exactly why they act out like that in the first place...
Look, the whole thing about you being unable to forgive someone isn't actually about how much "malice" they had or how bad they acted... it’s really more about your own capacity to let things go, if you think about it...
And let’s be real, the people who actually end up causing the most damage are the ones who desperately need our help... I mean, look, you can't really save a total psychopath; those freaks thrive on the chaos and the carnage, so they're basically a lost cause... But someone who grew up in the gutter, someone who started stealing just to put food on the table and then spiraled into even bigger crimes because that was the only life they ever knew? That’s where the real work is. Even with predators... they need intervention to learn how to actually control those twisted impulses before they ruin more lives...

"Every villain thinks they're the hero of their own story."

Evil is just a byproduct of all those subconscious patterns we pick up during childhood. People didn't get the love or attention they actually needed, so they end up projecting that void onto the world through judgment and a deep-seated hatred for anything that doesn't mirror themselves. They’ll kill just to prove they were right, because at the end of the day, they don't hate the world—they hate themselves. That’s how you get wars and murders, plain and simple.

Morgan Bishop4 said:Yeah, they’re definitely weak, and honestly, that’s exactly why they act out like that in the first place...
Look, the whole thing about you being unable to forgive someone isn't actually about how much "malice" they had or how bad they acted... it’s really more about your own capacity to let things go, if you think about it...
And let’s be real, the people who actually end up causing the most damage are the ones who desperately need our help... I mean, look, you can't really save a total psychopath; those freaks thrive on the chaos and the carnage, so they're basically a lost cause... But someone who grew up in the gutter, someone who started stealing just to put food on the table and then spiraled into even bigger crimes because that was the only life they ever knew? That’s where the real work is. Even with predators... they need intervention to learn how to actually control those twisted impulses before they ruin more lives...

Of course, it's not all black and white. There are varying degrees of extreme "evil," and yes, there are people who are genuinely weak (I might have overgeneralized in my last post by grouping everyone together), but we shouldn't label every "bad" person as weak just because of them. Some people are just born bad.

Right, and I wasn't talking about forgiveness at all; I was talking about empathy.

Justin Brooks58 said:Of course, it's not all black and white. There are varying degrees of extreme "evil," and yes, there are people who are genuinely weak (I might have overgeneralized in my last post by grouping everyone together), but we shouldn't label every "bad" person as weak just because of them. Some people are just born bad.

Right, and I wasn't talking about forgiveness at all; I was talking about empathy.

Okay, fine, then a lion eating an antelope isn't "evil" either, right?
Psychopaths are basically the same thing, they just act toward their own kind for various reasons, but whatever... damn it all...
And as for empathy or forgiving someone, it doesn't really matter if you choose to feel that way toward some killer, because honestly, people often do it out of weakness—and there's a pretty good chance that's exactly what's happening here. There’s no rule saying you have to sympathize with every single weakness... if someone chooses to be a junkie because they're weak, well, I couldn't care less about them...

Justin Brooks58 said:To me, this sounds like the most basic excuse in the book. It’s a nice little way to dodge accountability—convincing ourselves that nothing is our fault because we're all just "pathetic" and "weak," so we might as well just drift along with the current and see where it takes us.

This whole idea of human "frailty" or being "pitiful" just makes me feel sorry for the logic, not the people. Do actual monsters deserve pity? I'm talking about murderers, rapists, predators, sadists. Would you ever sit there and try to "understand" someone who committed an atrocity against your own family just because they were "too weak" to resist their impulses? Of course not. That's nonsense.

People can be anything, but let's stop pretending they're weak.

Not true. Weakness is probably the most obvious human trait.
When someone does something truly horrific because it's just their nature, it doesn't matter if they deserve pity or an explanation. The point is they need to be punished and stopped.

Take a predator, for example—someone born with those impulses. They aren't "guilty" of being born that way.
Eventually, they realize they can't control the urges and it's only a matter of time before they hurt a child. If that person had any sense of integrity—if they weren't so weak—they’d know what to do: end it themselves or seek medical intervention to stop the impulse.
Since those cases are rare, and it's much more common for people to buckle under their weaknesses despite knowing they'll cause harm, we're back to the same conclusion: most people are weak.

Why do average people hide their opinions when they don't align with the crowd or aren't "socially acceptable"?
Why do they step on others just to save themselves?
Why did ordinary Germans follow the Nazis so easily?
Why is it so simple to manipulate people into doing exactly what a dictator wants?

And maybe the clearest example: why, when someone is getting beaten up in the street, don't bystanders jump in to stop the attacker?
Because they're weak.

Why does some man stubbornly live by righteous principles, staying kind and gentle even when society calls those traits weaknesses? Because he's strong. Most of our species is weak, and the fact that we have sayings like "only fools die for ideals" just proves how pathetic we really are.

driftingbear29 said:No 🥱 I think we all have certain traits buried inside us that could potentially make us act out in unkind ways. It's just part of being human. 😁 But I truly believe those darker impulses can be overcome if you lean into your better qualities 😍 And it all starts with self-awareness and having the actual willpower to change. For me, I tend to be an incredibly reactive person, and in the heat of the moment, that can go south fast. It really has... There have been times when I felt this intense urge to hurt someone. Not through swearing or anything crude, 😁 but by using a sharp mix of sarcasm and cynicism. I know exactly where to aim my words to hit where it hurts most. And afterward? The regret is overwhelming... absolutely crushing. 😢 To be clear, I’m not a malicious or confrontational person by nature—quite the opposite, actually—but sometimes my fuse is just too short. In those flashes of temper, I react in ways that would be completely unrecognizable to anyone who knows my calm side. 🙂 I recognize this flaw in myself, and I’ve worked hard on it. Since I started facing it head-on, there are very few moments left where I let that darker version of myself take control. 😬

🕺

Agreed.
I don't think many people are strictly "evil" or "good." We all have baggage, and if we aren't actively working on ourselves, those darker traits tend to take the wheel (either by choice or just because life happens).

Paul Thompson3 said:Not true. Weakness is probably the most obvious human trait.
When someone does something truly horrific because it's just their nature, it doesn't matter if they deserve pity or an explanation. The point is they need to be punished and stopped.

Take a predator, for example—someone born with those impulses. They aren't "guilty" of being born that way.
Eventually, they realize they can't control the urges and it's only a matter of time before they hurt a child. If that person had any sense of integrity—if they weren't so weak—they’d know what to do: end it themselves or seek medical intervention to stop the impulse.
Since those cases are rare, and it's much more common for people to buckle under their weaknesses despite knowing they'll cause harm, we're back to the same conclusion: most people are weak.

Why do average people hide their opinions when they don't align with the crowd or aren't "socially acceptable"?
Why do they step on others just to save themselves?
Why did ordinary Germans follow the Nazis so easily?
Why is it so simple to manipulate people into doing exactly what a dictator wants?

And maybe the clearest example: why, when someone is getting beaten up in the street, don't bystanders jump in to stop the attacker?
Because they're weak.

Why does some man stubbornly live by righteous principles, staying kind and gentle even when society calls those traits weaknesses? Because he's strong. Most of our species is weak, and the fact that we have sayings like "only fools die for ideals" just proves how pathetic we really are.

The user claims he was just born that way. So, he's saying it wasn't caused by his environment; he was simply born with that wiring. Concepts like "right" and "wrong" are relative, and while he surely has some sense of morality, he clearly doesn't view his pedophilic tendencies as "wrong." It's unrealistic to expect a person to fight their own nature, especially since, as Descartes noted, "Of all things, reason is the most equitably distributed."

All these questions could be framed as weakness, but the answers could also lie in the desire to belong, the pursuit of personal advancement, basic survival instincts, or just getting swept up in a cult of personality.

That one philosopher once argued that most of our problems stem from the fact that very few people can actually stand being alone—though he was likely talking about finding some peace within oneself.

People are essentially products of their environment, which exerts its most profound influence during childhood. An inadequate upbringing can foster various psychological issues that drive an individual toward harmful behavior. At the same time, there is the factor of genetic predisposition—for instance, certain personality disorders. If you have a volatile genetic makeup paired with a traumatic environment, you end up with someone capable of extreme violence or predation. Ultimately, genotype and phenotype both play critical roles; they don't act in isolation, but rather exist in a complex, symbiotic relationship.

Gerald Rivera60 said:This might lean more toward philosophy than psychology, though there’s definitely some overlap.
The issue is that defining good and evil is largely the domain of philosophy. Psychology tends to focus on the behavioral patterns and mental disorders that manifest as those actions.
That said, various psychological theories imply a baseline for whether humans are inherently good or bad, so it's a fair topic for discussion here. For instance, based on Freudian theory, one could argue humans are fundamentally flawed because the id operates strictly on the pleasure principle. On the flip flip side, Transactional Analysis—essentially the successor to psychoanalysis—starts from the premise that people are born with a fundamental "I'm OK—You're OK" attitude.

Now, would Hitler have been Hitler regardless of his upbringing? Likely not. Even if someone possesses an innate predisposition toward antisocial personality traits, such as psychopathy, it doesn't guarantee they will become a criminal. In fact, many people with those traits find success in high-stakes fields like business, politics, the military, or professional sports.
On the other hand, given the political and economic climate of that era, someone else might have stepped into that role regardless. We'll never truly know.
Based on what you've said, I'd suggest that while some people may be born with a greater potential for good or evil, their environment ultimately dictates which direction they take.

That holds true generally, provided the individual doesn't adopt the tenets of their own personal philosophy; the United States is a prime example of this phenomenon, but I won't dwell on it.

The primary driver of psychology—even if it functions as an adjunct to philosophy—is indeed philosophy itself. Those who subscribe to this theory will specifically agree with the notion that Hitler and Napoleon were born "good boys," and that their specific life philosophies and experiences transformed them from decent children into hardened imperialists and global killers. A sort of global triage performed for the sake of world stability? 🙂

Well, perhaps, maybe. The planet can't sustain more than 15 billion people anyway, and it's struggling enough with the current 7.8 billion. The resources required for a healthy, high-quality, and long-lived global population are, frankly, astronomical.

Ultimately, if Hitler hadn't been a brilliant philosopher, he wouldn't have been able to mobilize such massive populations behind his vision. Furthermore, one must consider the state of the world at that time—what kind of environment allows a single mastermind to convince people to wage war against an entire continent? Hitler (and his inner circle) were absolute masters. They possessed the power to advance technology fifty years ahead of everyone else. And they had the Japanese working alongside them.

Who can say for sure? Perhaps the great minds of the world were fighting against its fools. Or perhaps it was quite the opposite.

Naturally, there are numerous opportunities for a third World War even today, and usually, the forces involved boil down to "stupid" versus "smart," which is how societies tend to cluster—a matter of sociology, which is a branch of philosophy just as much as psychology is.

Whether conquering Europe and Africa was a brilliant move or a moronic blunder is a question decided by philosophy. Some will claim it was a "stroke of genius," while others will call it "sheer idiocy." The world today isn't any smarter, nor is it any stupider, than it was back then.

Ethan Thompson74 said:Or do they just become that way as they go through life?
Look, let’s take the most obvious example: would a figure like Hitler have been Hitler regardless of the circumstances he was born into? 🙂

Personally, I find this question far too complex for serious medicine, though if explained through a medical lens, these traits are hidden within our genes.

I believe every human being is born with a certain narrative, a sort of karma, which is detected upon entering life, and they cling to it desperately because that is where they find their "purpose."

Therefore, my view is that you must be born evil. A smart and evil man will wreck the world, whereas a smart and good man will make it more beautiful. This remains true regardless of the circumstances they both find themselves in. ☕

The exact same logic applies to our personal lives, quite simply. A person who is brilliant yet lacks any moral compass will inevitably wreck their own existence, whereas someone who possesses both intelligence and genuine goodness will live a life defined by fulfillment and a smile on their face, regardless of whatever circumstances they find themselves facing.

I guess you could say that none of us are inherently "good" or "bad" people; rather, we just possess a collection of traits that can be perceived as either positive or negative depending on how they manifest. It seems to me that our environment dictates which of these qualities bubble to the surface, and then people just label us based on whatever impression we leave behind in that specific moment. Of course, everyone deals with anger or sadness from time to time for various reasons, but the real question is always about the context—because honestly, if everyone actually understood why others react the way they do, the world might be a much simpler place. For instance, I’ve never really felt the urge to lash out at someone verbally or physically... yet some people just seem to get this sudden impulse to act aggressively whenever they encounter someone else, often for no apparent reason at all. I don't necessarily view that as pure malice, though; maybe it's just one of those deeply flawed ways people try to validate their own sense of worth or strength.

Can we please stop debating this? It’s honestly a bit much to be typing out arguments about whether people are fundamentally good or evil. Like, are we talking about some kind of genetic blueprint that decides our moral compass before we're even born? I get that this PDF covers a lot of ground beyond just straight psychology—and hey, I'm not saying that's a bad thing—but some of these topics are really pushing it.

redbear2 said:Can we please stop debating this? It’s honestly a bit much to be typing out arguments about whether people are fundamentally good or evil. Like, are we talking about some kind of genetic blueprint that decides our moral compass before we're even born? I get that this PDF covers a lot of ground beyond just straight psychology—and hey, I'm not saying that's a bad thing—but some of these topics are really pushing it.

Don't be so socially sensitive. This topic is actually quite compelling (even if it’s largely futile, it serves as an excellent experiment), and let’s be clear: this psychology forum isn't a sanctuary where we should expect or demand content that is polite, comfortable, or socially pleasant.

It used to be a common, albeit reckless, assumption that environment alone breeds evil. Sure, the surroundings play a massive role, but you see children acting out from the moment they can walk; it’s hard to argue that their environment "calms them down" over time when many have already established a lifetime of trouble by age ten.

From a psychological standpoint, this subject doesn't just belong here—it provides necessary fuel for serious intellectuals in the field to debate.

redbear2 said:Can we please stop debating this? It’s honestly a bit much to be typing out arguments about whether people are fundamentally good or evil. Like, are we talking about some kind of genetic blueprint that decides our moral compass before we're even born? I get that this PDF covers a lot of ground beyond just straight psychology—and hey, I'm not saying that's a bad thing—but some of these topics are really pushing it.

In my view, the true source of human good and evil produces something that modern science and medicine haven't even begun to grasp, nor will they ever reach. That is why this entire thread, despite my writing it, remains ultimately futile; philosophy, medicine, and the human mind itself are all merely surface-level scratches compared to the actual core of this issue.

darkcyclist92 said:Don't be so socially sensitive. This topic is actually quite compelling (even if it’s largely futile, it serves as an excellent experiment), and let’s be clear: this psychology forum isn't a sanctuary where we should expect or demand content that is polite, comfortable, or socially pleasant.

It used to be a common, albeit reckless, assumption that environment alone breeds evil. Sure, the surroundings play a massive role, but you see children acting out from the moment they can walk; it’s hard to argue that their environment "calms them down" over time when many have already established a lifetime of trouble by age ten.

From a psychological standpoint, this subject doesn't just belong here—it provides necessary fuel for serious intellectuals in the field to debate.

In my view, the true source of human good and evil produces something that modern science and medicine haven't even begun to grasp, nor will they ever reach. That is why this entire thread, despite my writing it, remains ultimately futile; philosophy, medicine, and the human mind itself are all merely surface-level scratches compared to the actual core of this issue.

I'm not asking for anything impossible here. I just think these kinds of banal, mindless threads should be locked because they have zero connection to actual psychology or common sense.

It's a stretch to claim that environment alone creates evil out of thin air. Sure, surroundings play a role, but you see kids acting out from practically day one. It’s hard to blame their environment for calming them down later when they've already built up a lifetime of bad habits by age ten.

It’s much less of a stretch to suggest that evil is innate. Our nature dictates whether we turn out good or bad right from the start. There are no middle grounds for me. I don't do black-and-white nuances.

Of course, kids who act out are the embodiment of evil. A dog never chews on a slipper—where would it even learn that? If a dog happens to bite someone, we wouldn't call it "born evil" because it knows better. The issue is that it's bad, so it's better not to deal with it. An aggressive dog gets put down. That's just how it goes.

From a psychological standpoint, this topic doesn't just fit within the field; it provides excellent fodder for serious professionals to debate.

No comment.

In my view, the interplay of good and evil in humans produces something that science and medicine haven't even begun to touch. I don't think they ever will. That's why I wrote that this topic is ultimately futile. Philosophy and medicine are just scratching the surface of what this really is about.

Great "argument." 👏

Or you could just accept that circumstances, combined with certain traits, influence how any living thing reacts. That holds true regardless of the concepts of good and evil, which only exist as mental constructs in the human mind.