Hi John,


>>>In my opinion, the argument of whether children are inherently good or bad is pointless.
>
>I agree. My point was about *people* not being intrinsically good. Children are people too. They can be incredibly cruel. Hopefully my point is clear.

OK, you mentioned children in a playground setting so I continued in the same line. In any case, I believe people are not intrinsically bad. Whether a person is good or bad is largely determined by (a) their upbringing and (b) their genetics. There is no "intrinsic" goodness or badness about people.


>>>Therefore you do not know whether the behaviour you see in chldren is their inherent, natural, behaviour or whether it is a learnt behaviour from the caregivers, or a combination of the two.
>
>If nurturing were the determinant, lovely people would have lovely children. How often have you seen decent parents heartbroken by the awful behaviour of a child?

Usually your first sentence holds true. Decent parents give rise to decent children, on the whole. The exception is not the rule. By and large people act in a reasonably moral manner. Their children follow, generally speaking.


>I might also observe that latest research suggests that being unfaithful is an identifiable genetic predisposition. Again, QED.

Not sure why that would be QED? Are a majority of people unfaithful? Is the latest research above question and 100% conclusive? I agree that we may have genetic dispositions to certain traits and behaviour. But that does not make people "intrinisically bad" per se.


>>>Personally I believe very young children are inherently good. There is no malicous ego in their actions even when such actions may cause another child harm.
>
>A hurricane has no malicious ego, but it is still not inherently good.

Nor is it inherently bad. You are applying a subjective judgement on a non-personal, objective event. The hurricane is what it is.


>>>However I again do not believe this is evil or "bad" but rather the normal behaviour of all animals in learning the rules of society, of pushing the boundaries, of testing the limits, finding the pecking order, etc. This is all normal behaviour.
>
>Sure. We have natural behaviours. Those behaviours are not lovey-dovey. They are investigative, testing, competitive.

...and loving and caring and nurturing. The argument here, John, is in respect of whether a person is "intrinsically bad" (your words). Being "investigative, testing, competitive" does not make a person evil.


>>>Morals and moral behaviour come from what the society is accepting and desiring and teaching. There are some "morals", like not murdering, that simply make sense in any society in order to maintain some level of harmony. We cannot all go around killing each other as it is detrimental to the society at large.
>
>You are saying that morality is determined according to what is best for the community at large. I disagree. True morality does not carry a "what's in it for me" pricetag. Morality often requires stepping beyond "personal/community benefit" in the interests of humanity or a greater sense of morality. For example, acceptance of refugees carries little if any materialistic benefit for the recipient society, but is a humanitarian moral act carried out every day. In addition, every day there are thousands of religious groups throughout the world who carry out moral acts with no hope of publicity or reward in this world, in pursuit of what they regard as morality.

I dont say that moral behaviour is prompted by some "materialistic benefit" per se. I do think that moral behaviour is in part determined by society and its norms.


>>>One does not need religion in order to have a moral society per se.
>
>No. Nor does one need to attack religion to have a moral society.

Not sure who said or implied this idea? The discussion in the thread, I believe, was whether religion was a prerequisite for moral behavior. Personally I dont think so. I think one can be moral without being religious. The question is not an attack on religion.


>in fact, societies that attack religions in the 20th century have a 0% survival rate.

Not sure what conclusions can be drawn from this or which specifics you are referring to? Why are we talking about attacking religion?