American conservatives often frame the debate thusly.

"Leftists believe that people are inherently good and that if we just abolished all the rules and social stigmas and enforcement that we could live in peace. Leftists even think that it is the rules that make people bad. Leftists believe that babies are inherently good when they are born and that it is societies socialization that turns them into monsters."

Meanwhile Conservatives believe that the evil of government is only surpassed by the evil of an unrestrained mankind. Liberals believe people are basically good. Conservatives believe people are basically bad. Conservatives believe that babies are inherently evil when they are born and that societies socialization is the only thing that separates us from anarchy."

Does anybody on the left disagree with this? Do you believe that our babies would be never be greedy if they never learned what money is? Do you believe they would never rape if they never learned what rape is?

From where I stand, if the leftists buy into the "people are inherently good, its just our socializations that make us evil" then I think they already lost the argument. That comes from my own person experience with children. From my experience children have no empathy and only lust after material and emotional satisfaction. The needs or wants of others are secondary. They will assault each other over crackers at lunch. Children are little demons.

Stating that babies wouldn't learn to rape without being taught what it is is a steaming pile of bullsh*t

I don't believe people are born good.
Whether they turn out "good" or "evil" is mainly a result of their environment.
I don't think crime would disappear and people would live happily ever after if you get rid of all rules and policing. On the contrary it would be terrible.
However I think many capitalist societies promote bad aspects of humanity. Competition and greed drives people to put themselves before others. I think the rules in a better society promote selflessness and cooperation, and punish people who reward themselves at others' expense.

"Leftists believe that people are inherently good and that if we just abolished all the rules and social stigmas and enforcement that we could live in peace."

No intelligent person believes the quote above is accurate.

Looks like nothing more than a strawman designed to make leftists look like idiots.

I'm economically centrist, and socially left, but there's no way I'd ever argue for even a fucking second that all people are inherently good. People are people. They're individuals.

Edited 11/22/2017 07:52:24

"Leftists believe that people are inherently good and that if we just abolished all the rules and social stigmas and enforcement that we could live in peace. Leftists even think that it is the rules that make people bad. Leftists believe that babies are inherently good when they are born and that it is societies socialization that turns them into monsters."

Meanwhile Conservatives believe that the evil of government is only surpassed by the evil of an unrestrained mankind. Liberals believe people are basically good. Conservatives believe people are basically bad. Conservatives believe that babies are inherently evil when they are born and that societies socialization is the only thing that separates us from anarchy."
.

Is this something like one and a half quote or does this debate base on your personal impressions with children? Is there any source for your statements?

Do you believe that our babies would be never be greedy if they never learned what money is? .

I dont think that babies understand the concept of greed. You probably confuse existential needs and the natural instinct with greed at this point.

Do you believe they would never rape if they never learned what rape is?

Assuming an *anarchist society* there would be no rape as there would be no judgement - every sexual intercourse would be sexual intercourse - but why do you conservative care? - your president supports a child molester and is a pussy grabber himself... somehow weird that you try to swing the moral club.

From where I stand, if the leftists buy into the "people are inherently good, its just our socializations that make us evil" then I think they already lost the argument.

It is funny that you think you won the argument before the debate even started, based on your weird and very antiquated world view. I rather think you already lost the argument due to your lack of information and education within this subject. it is pretty much like watching two guys milking a bull and the other holding a sieve.. but what do conservatives know about moral and ethics? funny thread though. =D

Children are little demons.

holy shit =D

However I think many capitalist societies promote bad aspects of humanity. Competition and greed drives people to put themselves before others. I think the rules in a better society promote selflessness and cooperation, and punish people who reward themselves at others' expense.

I think that pretty much nails it.

I personally think too much leftism isnt good, however too much right isnt good either. Economically speaking, competition is good, because it drives innovation. On the other hand, though, this shouldnt happen on the expense of other humans. In my opinion the point of society is to improve life standards for as many people as possible, and not just for the strongest. Humanity came to the point, where we are no longer bound to evolution and survival alone, but can afford luxus, like supporting people who cant support themselves.

The classic liberals believe that state intervention and collective social influence over institutions is a bad thing. To them, the individual is complete not only without the state, but without nonjuridical de facto social rules. They believe people can supply their own morality, ethics, and spirituality. The classic liberals don't believe that people are basically good, but see rules and social stigmas as corrupting good people. I think you're on to something here, but I would modify it to this: liberalism (in the classic sense) believes people are good enough to be left alone by the state and social rules. They are individualists and they want to emancipate people from social rules.

Egalitarianism believes that all humans are mold-able into a certain moral and ethical way of acting. Not that people are inherently good but that all bads, insofar as they form within entire collective cultures and races of people (the egalitarian still believes in the futility of rehabilitating certain criminals within society) can be beaten out through education and coexistence. Modern "liberalism" accepts egalitarian ideals, and as the incompatibility of egalitarianism with human nature have become more apparent, "liberals" have become more authoritarian as necessary to force their worldview onto society.

Modern "liberals" believe that people are molded by social rules. I agree with you. They think race and gender are social constructs, even though those conditions are informed by biology. But they don't believe in the inherent good of people. They actually believe the opposite. They believe (correctly) that people will naturally form tribal groups informed by organic characteristics, and that these human patterns must be broken through authoritarian action. They want to inorganically mold groups into one common identity in opposition to traditional identities humans have had hitherto this point in history.

Now that I have modified the argument to be more applicable to the 21st century, I will respond to it. People aren't inherently good nor bad. Any society that forms is bound to have some proportion of good to bad people, with the purest good and the purest bad being on the ends of a bell curve. Goodness and badness can propagate within society based on both genetic and environmental factors. The question of what environment exists now and will exist in the future is inseparable from genetics. Likewise the question of how a society's genetic pattern will change is inseparable from environment; social situations can be dysgenic or eugenic in nature.

Both hypotheses that you present, the "liberal" social construct theory and the "conservative" support for social authoritarianism are unliving; existing outside of human reality. What is needed is a living hypothesis that embraces human nature. Human nature is not good nor bad but certainly beautiful and transcendent when people act in a way that respects their past and anticipates their future. We are molded by social rules and we also create our social rules. The condition is perpetual but also dynamic. As long as this condition continues with a friendly embrace among similar people; is not forced upon them by enemies who simply want to destroy them, people will be fulfilled in their roles. The alternative is death. If society is deluded into pursuing unrealistic, unliving ideals then it will collapse.

Firstly, if OP is arguing against anything, it's anarchists. He's clearly just found out who Rousseau is and is arguing against him, but frames it against leftists because...?

You don't have to dig too deep into his argument to find out that he's not actually arguing against leftists.

Leftists believe that people are inherently good

If this was true, then it wouldn't be a left wing position to raise taxes on the wealthy, because if the wealthy are inherently good then surely they'll all become philanthropists, and there'll be no need for taxes, right?

Whether they turn out "good" or "evil" is mainly a result of their environment.

Pretty much my stance on this. Most right-wing people tend to overestimate their agency, and downplay how much their surroundings have influenced them.

The question was whether leftists believe the thing that conservatives say they believe.

No: Bla, TheUberElite

Yes: Ranek, Ox, Cata

I didn't include Wulf or Tabby b. c. they aren't on the left. If they recently turned into commies like everyone else on this site then thats my bad.

Very interesting results. Half of the left thinks that it is a straw man and the other half agrees with the strawman. Is it really a strawman if 3 out of 6 of those on the left believe it?

The central question is this.... Do you believe that newborns, before society socializes them, are good or evil?

Ranek seems to be the only person on the left who answered this question honestly even if he is an asshole.

Edited 11/22/2017 19:59:56

Edited 11/22/2017 20:00:03

^I don't consider myself leftist. Maybe I'd be in USA due to social stances, but less so from fiscal ones.
Just for reference, the political compass places me at 3.0, -4.77 (lib right)

Congratulations. You seem to be successfully mostly outsmarting (ok, really just kind of keeping up with) inarticulate teenagers who come here to play a video game.

Glad to see right-wing nationalist polemicists climbing up the intellectual ladder. Maybe in a year I'll find your debates on 9gag or the Facebook comments section of Sesame Street.

Edited 11/22/2017 19:22:54

@Japanball Sorry. I forgot your political stance.

The question was whether leftists believe the thing that conservatives say they believe.

I believe that conservatives believe their own bullshit, why not? you have to agree on something (at least some axioms need to be clarified before the debate can possibly start)- is this about beliefs? - I didnt realize that this thread is that pointless..

but maybe you shoud ask yourself a simple question: if everyone is bad from the beginning of life, why does everyone believe to do the righteous thing.. no one would honestly blame their selfs for being the evil in the world, or would they?

Edited 11/22/2017 23:19:39

What is a leftist? The term is very broad. Leftists could be commies, socialists, liberals, social democrats, ancom, post leftcom. Hell even nazism and nazbol are leftist ideology. Their main connection is collectivism whereas conservatives promote more a individualist viewpoint whether that be personally or with a family through family values.

Are there some leftists who believe what you wrote up there?
Yes absolutely because leftist is such a broad term

Do all leftists believe that?
certainly not

The central question is this.... Do you believe that newborns, before society socializes them, are good or evil?

Both and neither.
Chimpanees for example also do some kind of organised warfare for ressources or even for sadistic purposes (good read here https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140917131816.htm) The reason why we are perceived as more violent is probably because we live in huge, highly organised cultures. More individuals make us more violent, and therefor "bad". If apes lived with the same population density as humans, they would most likely massacre each other in a daily base. The existence of egalitarian tribes confirms that we can indeed live in mostly "peaceful" societies, if we are not being pressures by our own genus.

On the other hand there is talks that a larger brain and harsher conditions lead to more aggression. Raymond Dart for example argued that humans have a natural lust for violence, and will often prefer carnivirous diet over herbivirous diet (http://www.users.miamioh.edu/erlichrd/350website/classrel/dart.html - yes, I know the red text is hard to read, it's a citiation from 1953), and that therefor this was needed to become "human".

I personally agree that humans have something inherently "bad" in them. However that doesnt mean you cant have a peaceful society. Unlike apes, the Homo Sapiens is able to overcome instincts and rely on, seemingly, irrational reasons by being altruistic. So I think compared to other animals, we have become rather peaceful.

Edited 11/24/2017 12:11:56

Yes: Ranek, Ox, Cata

All three of those people disagreed with you.

I'm more concerned by the fact that I literally copy+pasted what Bla said and somehow ended up in a different category than him.

"Yes: Ranek, Ox, Cata

All three of those people disagreed with you."

That's the point.

Edited 11/24/2017 22:13:37

Mate I meant nobody has said your original statement was right. No sane human believes that bullshit.