If People Are Good

Try to imagine a world where people actually are good from the cradle, where badness had to be learned from a source outside of humanity. Imagine a world where people would have to be trained to fight, abuse, and cheat each other, where the prisons were empty and the churches were unneeded. When mobs gathered, they would suddenly burst into acts of goodness, cleaning up neighborhoods and caring for the poor and the orphan. Heroes would not be celebrated because it would be normal and expected for people to achieve great goodness. And there would be other advantages:

The government could grow to any size—even to socialistic proportions—because power would not corrupt and our leaders could be trusted to do what’s right.

Our leaders would not be chosen by their virtue or character, but by their I.Q. We would want the smartest people in charge so they could solve the hard problems for the rest of us.

Wealth could be redistributed and not meticulously tracked afterward because the recipients could be trusted to use it responsibly. The “donors,” of course, should not mind this because they would all be onboard with helping those less fortunate.

The military would be viewed unfavorably because it crosses into other nations and kills the inherently good people living there without their consent. In fact, the entire military would be largely unnecessary because other nations could be trusted to do the right thing.

We would barely need the police.

Whatever people want to do should be allowed and facilitated by the rest of us because whatever makes us feel good would actually be good.

Government programs would be measured not by their actual success at meeting any stated goals, but by the degree to which they give people what they want.

Children could decide how to raise themselves. In fact, since children are virtuous from the womb, the less parental involvement the better. In fact, we’d better just get those really smart people from the government to raise the kids.

Christianity would be bad because it puts restraints on people.

Science would be something of a savior because it appears to marginalize God and free people from any external moral code. It also increases our power as we make scientific progress.

Sounds like one of our major political parties, doesn’t it?

But if all of the above were true, there would be no way to explain the full half of the population who disagree with those positions. Maybe they’re all aberrant.

Of course, if people are not inherently good, then none of the above would be true, and such positions would be indefensible either logically or empirically, so their adherents would have to resort to one-line sound bites and name calling.