CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Um, some people are born evil. For example, some are born as psychopaths who just so happen to like killing people. But the rest that aren't born sadistic are just neutral. It all depends on how they were raised, their environment, etc.
It is in our biological structures to be both "good" and "evil". The more science explores traditionally prescribed "good" and "evil" actions and attributes, the more it uncovers that both have had and continue to serve a practical function. Traditionally "evil" attributes (e.g. greed, jealousy, lust, rage, etc.) served us so well in our early evolution as to be passed on genetically, and they retain that function today.
No. Science says that every child was born with a moral code. We learn evil out of necessity; criminals and killers are the result of childhood childhood gone wrong.
Cruelty only occurs if the supply are depleted (or bad nurturing) but the act of kindness and honor are the basic foundations of evolution. Even brainless microbes have been observed to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others because it increases the chances survival of their species
That is incorrect. Your very own supporting evidence refutes your claim. Depending on your secondary source coverage of the research (the original studies are notably inaccessible), only 70-88% of babies are pro-moral within a 30% margin of error. That is hardly "every child". The research cannot explain the purportedly anti-moral babies, nor does it even attempt to do so.
Further, the research precludes the possibility of concurrent moral and immoral thought/behavior by forcing a choice. An evidenced capacity for good does not preclude a simultaneous capacity for bad, and in fact a single given thought/act could be both good and bad at the same time.
Doesn't mean that the research did not reach a full 100% doesn't make it any less credible. And the research did explained why a few of the babies did not like the "bad bunny".
"But Bloom, who is married to Wynn, says this sense of justice is "tragically limited." Although babies are born with an innate sense of morality, they are also born with flaws.
Skeptics of the studies say babies are not capable of making intelligent choices, and perhaps babies are drawn to a certain color, or they choose according to where the puppets are placed.
The team at the Baby Lab has been very careful in their studies to change the puppets, shirt colors and placement of the animals before presenting them to various babies, and they feel confident their published research is sound.
The Baby Lab has developed a series of studies based on the simple premise that babies have this simple understanding of good and bad. The other studies explore reward and punishment, compromise and the roots of bias."
There are many things that may affect the results of the study (e.g mood, genetics, and colors). However, condemning the study as flawed just because of a minor influence is the same as saying that Evolution is "just a Theory" and therefore "not true"
Doesn't mean that the research did not reach a full 100% doesn't make it any less credible. And the research did explained why a few of the babies did not like the "bad bunny".
I never said that made it less credible. I said that supports something other than your claim. If morality is gauged by which critter the babies choose and not all choose the "good" one, then it follows that not all babies are pro-moral. Which is contrary to your claim. There is no explanation of the variance; something expressly admitted to in the BBC coverage of this "research" by one of its authors.
There are many things that may affect the results of the study (e.g mood, genetics, and colors). However, condemning the study as flawed just because of a minor influence is the same as saying that Evolution is "just a Theory" and therefore "not true"
Those are not the same. Research into evolution includes accessible, replicable, verifiable research. As all you have provided is an imbalanced second-hand recounting of the original research it is impossible to verify their claims of legitimacy. The potential contamination of uncontrolled variables is not a minor flaw; that alone is adequate within the standards of scientific research to dismiss the findings in their entirety.
Until you provide actual original source material, your argument remains assertive and assumptive.
If morality is gauged by which critter the babies choose and not all choose the "good" one, then it follows that not all babies are pro-moral. Which is contrary to your claim.
You're taking it out of context.
"More than 80% of the babies in the study showed their preference for the good bunny, either by reaching for the good bunny or staring at it. And with 3-month-olds, that number goes higher, to 87%."
That does not mean that "not all babies are pro-moral" rather, it means that all children are born with a moral compass and his perception of right and wrong grows with time.
Those are not the same. Research into evolution includes accessible, replicable, verifiable research.
Are you saying that the research done by Yale University's Infant Cognition Center is inaccessible, irreplicable and are not verified?
I would like to see your papers.
Until you provide actual original source material, your argument remains assertive and assumptive.
There is no context to take it out of. As already expressly indicated, the original research has not been provided.
That does not mean that "not all babies are pro-moral" rather, it means that all children are born with a moral compass and his perception of right and wrong grows with time.
No, it does not mean that. For reasons already expressly indicated, and remaining unaddressed.
Are you saying that the research done by Yale University's Infant Cognition Center is inaccessible, irreplicable and are not verified? I would like to see your papers.
My statements were quite clear, but thank you for your misrepresentation of them. Despite repeated requests, the original research has still not been provided indicating that this particular source is not accessible and thus it cannot be determined if it is valid or replicable.
I am done engaging with you on this particular subject, and for most forthcoming debates henceforth. Doing so has proven an unproductive exercise in misdirected energy every time.
There is no context to take it out of. As already expressly indicated, the original research has not been provided.No, it does not mean that. For reasons already expressly indicated, and remaining unaddressed.
If I do not see it, would you mind repeating it?
My statements were quite clear
I can see that.
You're claiming that BBC is not a valid source and yet you cannot present any valid evidence for your doubt. It takes only a single google search to find more studies, you know
well we're definitely not born evil. its probably the environment a child happens to stay in that may change his attitude towards things in general. but usually we're as born as good as can be!
From where do you derive such certainty? Your nurture over nature theory is quite obsolete, scientifically speaking. Present research indicates that in reality our behavior is a consequence of both nature and nurture, with our environment triggering biologically predetermined dispositions. There is also research indicating that attributes commonly conceived of as "evil" or "bad" (e.g. jealousy, anger, lust) fulfill just as much of a necessary function as do those conceived of as "good".
i agree some emotions might be linked genetically and run in the family but the fact the environment and surroundings in which a child is brought up does alter and affect a lot of his/her emotions.
therefore it would be wrong to say that we are born evil (or born good).
but good here may be considered as innocent and impartial.
There is also research indicating that attributes commonly conceived of as "evil" or "bad" (e.g. jealousy, anger, lust) fulfill just as much of a necessary function as do those conceived of as "good"
agreeably here. what may seem good to one can look bad to another.
but speaking in general here, wouldn't being born good seem more valid?
i agree some emotions might be linked genetically and run in the family but the fact the environment and surroundings in which a child is brought up does alter and affect a lot of his/her emotions. therefore it would be wrong to say that we are born evil (or born good).
Our thoughts and actions are intrinsically founded in our genetic dispositions. We are born predisposed to be "good" or "bad" to varying degrees in different situations. That the environment acts upon those dispositions to bring one to the fore or suppress it does not negate that those dispositions are inborn attributes.
but good here may be considered as innocent and impartial.
How do you figure? That is not a common definition.
agreeably here. what may seem good to one can look bad to another. but speaking in general here, wouldn't being born good seem more valid?
i think children are born unbiased. their choices depend on what they like or dislike. this may not necessarily be similar to your own likes or dislikes and here one may call them evil or good.
however, in both cases it's the thought that counts. so what one may think is good could be evil to somebody else and vice versa.
i don't think people are born bad or good. its their choices which define them at a certain time. but i don't agree that a person can be understood in his/her choice at one time or another. everybody makes mistakes and one mistake shouldn't be used to define their whole life.
Oh, really? Science would tend to disagree with you. Current research indicates that our thoughts and behavior are a consequence of our internal biological dispositions as they are acted upon by external stimulation. The potentiality for attributes commonly conceived of as "good "and "bad" exist to varying degrees within each of us; we are neither innately "good" or "evil".
we born good cause we totaly knew nothing and we born kids , who were cant think or decide untill our parents and environment taught us , who to be and how to be :) and thank you i know im right
were so perfect to be bad man !, i dont care , were amazing, i mean im amazing , and dont be too serious take it easy, i dont know what im saying now so just ignore it :)
Human beings are born good . The most obvious proof is the innocence of infants.
In my opinion ,human beings learn to follow their lust and greed from the society. The society promotes inclining towards the primitive instincts or discourages so .
So, how did society get bad, then? Why does society promote primitive instincts? And would it not be the case that children, if anything, follow their natural, primitive instincts more than people who have learned to control it?
The most obvious proof is the innocence of infants.
The 'innocence' that children have is a social construct. If we look at education in the early 1900s it was very much about correcting an inherent evil in the child - children were naturally bad and needed to be tamed.
Your opinion is poorly informed. Present research indicates that our thought and behavior are determined both by our internal biological dispositions and external stimuli. Those attributes commonly conceived of as "evil" or "bad" are just as much a part of our genetic makeup as those conceived of as "good".
P.S. Your source actually refutes your point. Well done.
I am not arguing with what you have said about this persons point, however an opinion can not be "poorly informed" its an opinion, someone's own view on how they see a situation, just because you disagree with what the person has said, their opinion still their own.
Of course an opinion can be poorly informed. If someone told you that clouds are cotton candy that would be their opinion, and they are welcome to it, but it would still be a poorly informed opinion because we know factually that clouds are actually composed of water vapor. This does not mean they cannot hold that opinion, but I certainly do not have to respect it as being informed or accurate.
We are not born good or evil; these are perceptions that develop from outside influences.
The closest attribute I might consider as being an innate morality would be based on the same natural instinct inherent in all living organisms; not exclusive to humans. This I would consider to be the natural instinct to survive and procreate. These can, in a sense, be considered an objective good to the individual and in most cases to the species, but in terms of morality regarding a society consensus on the matter it is subjective.
We're born neutral, and it takes decades for our defining personality traits and habits to kick in. As we grow we will all do both "good" and "bad" things and adapt our personal (and largely genetically determined) sequence of responses and priorities to fit our changing environment, experiences and responsibilities. As adults, I imagine the majority of us still do a little bit of both, and even those who never do anything wrong don't necessarily act this way out of legitimate benevolence. They may do so because they want people to think well of them, stay away from jail/hell (or to get good things like raises and eternal joy in the afterlife), or maybe literally don't know any other way to be.
I know some people see good as being the lack of evil. Others think the exact opposite, that evil is the lack of good.
I think both good and evil are specific types of actions with special characteristics. Not all actions are good or evil. Drinking that second cup of copy, double-checking to see if you locked your door, hanging your shirts just right in the closet. None of these actions are evil, but I refuse to say that they are now good by default.
So what I'm saying is: we are born neutral, and many of us will remain so, with occasional forays into both "good" and "evil".
No person is ever born good or evil, environment, upbringing, religious views, friends, education so many different things contribute to the way that we all turn out.
No, though for a rather different reason (I do not personally believe in good or evil). If forced to operate within the constructed ideas of "good" and "evil", then I would actually say we are born both rather than (n)either.
It seems to me that if our thought and behavior are conditioned by our genetics and we are born with our genetics, then we are born "good" and "evil" simultaneously. That the environment exerts influence upon our dispositions does not alter the fact that those dispositions towards good/evil in particular situations are inborn.
Further, I would contend that we are not "neutral" but rather exist in varying states of mixed good/evil to varying degrees.
Actually, you do not agree with me at all. Your qualification of my observations stands in contradiction to the very points I was making. No person is born either bad or good, and no person is either wholly perfect or wholly imperfect. We are a confluence of attributes, and this is a direct consequence of our biology and conditioning.
How can we born good or evil if we born not knowing what GOOD or EVIL is. We are born ignorant and if you consider ignorance to be bad or good it really is subjective to a situation. No one can be born good or bad because they haven't develop personality or displayed good or bad traits yet, its when we live and get conformed by our surrounding when we show our colors.
"Good" and "bad" are both so subjective, it's almost impossible to answer this question.
However, I am on the "Bad" side because I think from the beginning, humans are selfish. We care only for our personal gains. Even when someone dies, we only cry because that person is no longer around to continue fulfilling whatever needs of ours that they were when living. Babies and children need time to develop a moral compass, and they need to be taught what is wrong and right. I think that if we were born good, we wouldn't need to be taught morals and our environment wouldn't impact our personality. But that's just me. Some people would say my argument is more in favor of "Neutral", because everyone has an individual way of thinking about morality.
