24th May 2005, 10:29 PM
On a scientific basis (considering the scientific method is still the only acceptable way to prove any phenomenon) it's better to state this argument in terms of "nature vs. nurture" rather than "good vs. evil", as good and evil are undefined and entirely subjective terms.
Stuff like lazy's sharing can probably be traced down to an instinct of survival of the species - you naturally, instinctively feel good because you're helping your species thrive - so in this case, yes, sharing would come naturally. Thus humans have a naturally "good" side.
Now on the other hand if lazy had been attacked, and someone had tried to take his food, he probably would have fought back - even instinctively as a kid. He would have been fighting to keep what is his rather than sharing it. Similarly if lazy had been very hungry, and having trouble surviving, he might himself have attacked another member of the species to take his belongings - most probably without paying attention to whether that individual truly needed them or not.
In a nutshell I think that instinctively - inherently - an individual will be aggressive when attempting to survive, and generous when all his needs are satisfied. I believe all other behaviors are learned. For example someone who was poor and became rich, and felt the world helped him through his hardships, may grow to become generous and giving; whereas someone who was poor and became rich, but felt persecuted by his surroundings, may become greedy or selfish. In that way it's much more complicated than inherent goodness or badness.
Stuff like lazy's sharing can probably be traced down to an instinct of survival of the species - you naturally, instinctively feel good because you're helping your species thrive - so in this case, yes, sharing would come naturally. Thus humans have a naturally "good" side.
Now on the other hand if lazy had been attacked, and someone had tried to take his food, he probably would have fought back - even instinctively as a kid. He would have been fighting to keep what is his rather than sharing it. Similarly if lazy had been very hungry, and having trouble surviving, he might himself have attacked another member of the species to take his belongings - most probably without paying attention to whether that individual truly needed them or not.
In a nutshell I think that instinctively - inherently - an individual will be aggressive when attempting to survive, and generous when all his needs are satisfied. I believe all other behaviors are learned. For example someone who was poor and became rich, and felt the world helped him through his hardships, may grow to become generous and giving; whereas someone who was poor and became rich, but felt persecuted by his surroundings, may become greedy or selfish. In that way it's much more complicated than inherent goodness or badness.