People born bad and taught to be good...

[IndependantAce]

I hear some people say this. Essentially that goodness is a mere social construct resulting from upbringing (meaning not only is goodness therefore meaningless, but actually motivated by fear of human punishment, and therefore merely selfish fear).

But if people are born bad, and goodness is merely conditioning, then why should people be "good"?

If people are just another animal, and we don't consider it wrong for a chimpanzee to live as it's nature inclines it, then why should we consider it wrong for humans to do so? Even if this means behaving like a wild animal and having no restraint on vices?

The only difference then between a good and a bad person is that the bad person is more courageous.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I hear some people say this. Essentially that goodness is a mere social construct resulting from upbringing (meaning not only is goodness therefore meaningless, but actually motivated by fear of human punishment, and therefore merely selfish fear).

But if people are born bad, and goodness is merely conditioning, then why should people be "good"?

If people are just another animal, and we don't consider it wrong for a chimpanzee to live as it's nature inclines it, then why should we consider it wrong for humans to do so? Even if this means behaving like a wild animal and having no restraint on vices?

The only difference then between a good and a bad person is that the bad person is more courageous.

Could be. Considering it is the bad people who end up with the most wealth, power and influence.

 

[IndependantAce]

I hear some people say this. Essentially that goodness is a mere social construct resulting from upbringing (meaning not only is goodness therefore meaningless, but actually motivated by fear of human punishment, and therefore merely selfish fear).

But if people are born bad, and goodness is merely conditioning, then why should people be "good"?

If people are just another animal, and we don't consider it wrong for a chimpanzee to live as it's nature inclines it, then why should we consider it wrong for humans to do so? Even if this means behaving like a wild animal and having no restraint on vices?

The only difference then between a good and a bad person is that the bad person is more courageous.

Could be. Considering it is the bad people who end up with the most wealth, power and influence.

If that's true what makes the behavior "bad" to begin with?

 

[TheOldSchool]

I hear some people say this. Essentially that goodness is a mere social construct resulting from upbringing (meaning not only is goodness therefore meaningless, but actually motivated by fear of human punishment, and therefore merely selfish fear).

But if people are born bad, and goodness is merely conditioning, then why should people be "good"?

If people are just another animal, and we don't consider it wrong for a chimpanzee to live as it's nature inclines it, then why should we consider it wrong for humans to do so? Even if this means behaving like a wild animal and having no restraint on vices?

The only difference then between a good and a bad person is that the bad person is more courageous.

Could be. Considering it is the bad people who end up with the most wealth, power and influence.

If that's true what makes the behavior "bad" to begin with?

Totally subjective. Maybe they crushed a bunch of small businesses, but created tons of jobs. Maybe they accepted a bribe to pass a bill, but it ended up protecting wildlife. It depends.

 

[IndependantAce]

I hear some people say this. Essentially that goodness is a mere social construct resulting from upbringing (meaning not only is goodness therefore meaningless, but actually motivated by fear of human punishment, and therefore merely selfish fear).

But if people are born bad, and goodness is merely conditioning, then why should people be "good"?

If people are just another animal, and we don't consider it wrong for a chimpanzee to live as it's nature inclines it, then why should we consider it wrong for humans to do so? Even if this means behaving like a wild animal and having no restraint on vices?

The only difference then between a good and a bad person is that the bad person is more courageous.

Could be. Considering it is the bad people who end up with the most wealth, power and influence.

If that's true what makes the behavior "bad" to begin with?

Totally subjective. Maybe they crushed a bunch of small businesses, but created tons of jobs. Maybe they accepted a bribe to pass a bill, but it ended up protecting wildlife. It depends.

That's basically consequentialism then.