The debate "Bad people are because of society" was started by
January 2, 2020, 8:30 pm.
45 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 38 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Allirix posted 4 arguments, Dez000 posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 1 argument, aspy posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
diecinueve posted 5 arguments, StrangeTime posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
jrardin12, rusianjudes, RightsHallam, Dez000, Nemiroff, aspy, m_ahmed, prince, chickenfordiner, eva_pet35 and 35 visitors agree.
LitleTortilaBoy, StrangeTime, bitchimaqueen, courage, Bgvikings08 and 33 visitors disagree.
First, I understand personal expirience is not a proper argument. However, my backround provides insight. In addition, I apoligize for typoes
I am an inner city latino male. I have commited robberies, I have commited assault, I have commited crimes that might make some cross the street if they see me, I'm that guy. However, I am fairly intelligant in my opinion and I am not naturally a violent person. To elaborate coming from the ghettos I was raised in others and I had no other choice, in these neighberhoods there is little to no emphasis on intelligance, so growing up we had no one to tell us we could do great things and get out of the hood. Furthermore, those looking in from the outside not understanding this, saw "preteen hoodlums with no drive to better themselves", not all but typically minor behavioral issues got me labeled as a "at risk youth" (meanwhile others from the suburbs on drugs or usually the ones we fought where not seen any differantly) . In addition, we tend to be poor. I kinda lost my point there, but you see where I was going I was seen as a delinquant rather then an intelectual, I made some choices that made things worse I'll admit that, but because of how others who didn't understand judged infairly I did what I had to to eat. If education was more of a focus, if urban life wasn't so bleak and hopeless I could've been a better person, I'm sure that's true for many.
I'd say a biological predisposition, where say someone gets intense pleasure from inflicting pain, can be so intense it becomes difficult to avoid, even with a good nurturing environment. But, cultural pressures can crush strong predispositions. It may not remove them, but it can stop someone from acting on them. Homosexuality is a great example of this.
although we must say that some people are just evil. no matter how good an ubringing, they are bad. this may be a dysfunction in the brain or something, but that appears to be a fraction of a tiny minority. it would be wrong to use these exceptions as anything more then a footnote.
If you were born (with the same genes) in Syria do you believe you'd be the same person you are today? Would Syria-you make the same decisions you make?
What about if your parents were blown apart by a US drone and you were raised by an Imam who indoctrinated you with distorted Islamic justification for a war of terror on the USA, the devil. Do you think you would still have the same mind you have today? Would you still have found it just as easy to say no to becoming a terrorist for ISIS?
dont you think you would be a very different person if you were raised by helicopter parents vs permissive parents? how about authoritarian parents vs authoritative parents? even if you grew up in the same city/same block, it would be a very different experience.
So what we are depends on our environment? If we had lived in another environment would we be different people?
i know this question isnt for me, but if i can just add my 2 cents.
genetics determines our temperament, but society (or more broadly/accurately, our environment) provide the context and framework for our world view.
both are factors in our decision making, but environment molds our generalized predispositions into specific personalities and is far more important.
a stressed out person raised with love and care will have more positive outcomes then a calm person raised in an amoral fend for yourself environment. and can we really call a person who treats the world the way the world treated them during their formative years as bad or just misguided? what are our expectations of people based on?
Do our decisions depend on society or our genetics?
society and the corruptive greed for resources and power is what causes people to be bad. people are not inherently bad and people who think we are cynical. they always seem to point out that babies always are evil because they are selfish for crying for things, buts thats how a baby communicates. everyone is born a clean slate except if they are born with mental issues. other than that children pick up traits from there surrounding. this does not only apply to family but it also applies to friends. thats why people who are born in a location where society is bad can still become good because good friends and role models can interfere with their corropted path.
It's just a question to reflect my belief that I don't think we have executive control over who we become. We're just a machine that is determined by genetics and its environment. Our genetics predispose us towards social behaviour, it's how evolution has wired our brains to build societies, but if your environment deprives you of positive social interactions while your brain is developing it can cause informational connectionsto predispose you to antisocial behaviour (maladaptive schema).
You still have a choice, but it's not as free of a choice as you may expect. Having maladaptive schema means your brain has learned to unconsciously connect information in a way that usually makes you rarely trust others or even yourself sometimes (among other things). If you never trust anyone then you're often in survival mode, and survival mode uses a part of the brain that doesn't understand good or bad. It just protects you from a harsh environment. Personality disorders, depression, anxiety, are all examples of antisocial disorders that occur from maladaptive schema.
Yes, I believe that free will is what makes a person bad. And I did not understand the last questions, which parts make up themselves?
So what is it that makes people bad? Themselves? Their free will to choose between good and bad? What part of themselves makes them choose bad? What part of them is free from the nature and nurture that develop who they are?
Normally a person learns both good things and bad things and it is up to him what he does. Therefore, that a person is bad depends on that person and not on society
Nurture is more than how your parents treat you. It's the impact your entire environment has on your development. An abusive childhood doesn't doom you to becoming an abusive parent. There are many other influences on your life. Role models, friends, media, stories, neighbours, etc are all other sources of nurture that can save someone from becoming anything like their parents.
I think that the fact that a person is good or bad depends on that person and not on others.
A person who was poorly nurture will not necessarily be a bad person.
I'd argue your second example, like the third, is an example of nurture so it is society making someone bad. I'm pretty sure the premise of your first example isn't a given too. There's no consensus that genetics determines who you become. Psychologists don't all agree psychopaths, sociopaths, and any of those personality disorders that make empathy difficult are born not bred. The general consensus is genetics makes you vulnerable to developing tendencies, but it's nurture that determines if you do or not.
I noticed the exclamation mark
well not their posts, but which threads they posted in.
also in the app, i get an exclamation mark if the creator disagrees.
furthermore you can open a profile and see their full voting, creating, or posting history.
defining "bad" is tough. If we're talking about lack of remorse and empathy, then no; some people are born without those capacities in their brain. (ie. psychopathy/sociopathy)
Then there are those who had a rough childhood. Some get born into shitholes, abusive parents and all. Others get bullied, etc. Those people often turn into what you might call "bad" people. They can also turn into the best people out there, because they know what it feels like to get abused.
The two examples above, in my opinion, are not societies problem. But sums down to things like genetics and how individuals deal with things.
The third argument, and this is purely society, is that our system often rewards people who lack remorse and are willing to do things that have bad consequences for others. This is why we end up with so many psychopaths as high ranking CEOs and in positions of power.
However, i argue that these people would still be "bad" regardless of how the system works. I do think this system needs massive changes, but that's a whole different conversation.
the red line left of your argument indicates your disagreement.
How did you know that I disagree?
Yes, someone good would still be, even if others are bad
I notice you've disagreed. What's your argument? Badness comes from nature more than nurture?