A DIFFERENT WINDOW: HUMAN NATURE

Whether the nature of man is good or evil has been argued for centuries. Arguments for either side can be based on scripture, events in history, and even personal convictions.

Dennis Prager, theologian, philosopher and radio talk show host, in his book called, "Think Again" claims that not only are people basically bad, but that the belief that people are basically good is a threat to Society.

He says, "The belief that people are basicaliy good is one of the most widely held beliefs in contemporary society. Yet it is both untrue and destructive."

He comments that the normal behavior of babies is selfish and he challenges, "On what grounds can it (the behavior of babies) be characterized as morally good?"

Babies behave the way they do because it is how they must behave in order to survive. Babies are helpless, totally dependent on others. This is further complicated because they have no language. Crying is how babies communicate. It is how they make their needs known. Mr. Prager says a baby's behavior is selfish. A certain degree of selfishness is not wrong. It is essential.

Mr. Prager also says that the less religious a person is, the more he needs to believe in humanity. I certainly can't agree with that! I believe that the more religious a person is, the more he believes in humanity. A person who is religious knows how the last chapter of the book of human history turns out . Good wins In Fact, the truly religious person deeply believes that good has already won.

Humanity is all humans as a group. Of course there are people within the group who are less good than others. Even a person who would be considered bad by most people lives by a code of ethics where he draws the line at certain behaviors. He may be a thief who loves and honors his mother. He may be a lawbreaker in some ways, but above reproach in others. Does this make him basicaily bad or basically good?

In another essay in the same book, Mr. Prager answers that some of the things we consider to be bad are worse than others. He even makes an attempt to categorize behavior as "ideal. Less than ideal, Lower ideal, Sinful, and Evil." That being the case, no matter how good a human is in general, he will always be bad in part. There will always be behavior that can be called bad. It seems Mr. Prager judges everyone bad because no one is 100 percent good. He could look at humanity and judge everyone good because no one is 100 percent bad. It's all a matter of what you see through your own personal window.

Mr. Prager says one of the worst consequences of the believer that humans are basicaily good is that we will neglect to teach children how to be good. He says that by believing that people are good, we will tend to blame bad behavior on outside factors such as environment, childhood trauma, television violence, parents, schools. etc.

A seems to me that Mr. Prager is contradicting himself. If we must teach children to be good, and being bad is the result of not being taught to be good, isn't he saying that bad acts as well as good acts are the fault of outside forces? The bad person or the good person is the way he is because of what he has been taught.

Who was supposed to teach the child to be good -- parents, schools, the media, society in general? Does this mean that the belief that people are basically bad leads to crediting outside factors for good behavior?

I believe all children want to be good. All people want to be good. When bad behavior is pointed out it is natural to justify and defend the action. If there appears to be no justification, the person will say. "Well I may have done something bad. but at least I don't _______." Humans do not want to be bad. The only person who makes a conscious decision to be bad for bad's sake is the one who has been taught that he is basically a bad person, is hopelessly a bad person, and there is no way he could ever be considered good.

Many argue that if a baby is not taught to be good, it will be bad. From the beginning of any kind of recorded history, even as far back as man has deciphered history that was not recorded, there has been a code of ethics. There were lines that were not supposed to be crossed, behavior that was not allowed.

The question of whether man is basically good or basically bad will never be answered by any research or study; it must be answered by each person individually. I prefer to believe in my fellow man. I don't want to be distrustful and afraid of everyone I meet. My vote is that a man who had not ever been confronted by someone who judged his behavior as good or bad would think of himself as good. Whether man is basically good or basically bad is a matter of how good you have to be to be good, and how much bad is allowed before bad overrides good.