Do you agree with Anne Frank, which means that in spite of everything you also believe that people are really good at heart?

While I’m sure this would be nice to believe, I do not, simply because I know that there is a good percentage of people who are as corrupt as corn; if I were to follow the assumption that everyone is really good at heart, I would only be making myself an easy target for these predators.

I think most people are basically good at heart – look at all the people who stop to help if there is an accident – but I also believe there are some people who are selfish and indifferent, and a few who are sociopaths.

I believe people are good at heart, especially when they are born. Some are corrupted by experience, and some become less so [good] as they age.

I think that 99 percent of people are good another .9 percent want to be good.
I have this habit of loosing my purse. I must have lost it at least 100 times in my life. It always seems to come back to me completely in tact. I think it didn’t once. Most people want to be good.

Yes, I agree with that, though people can behave in extremely evil ways.

I’d go with “humans are capable of immense goodness but also infinite cruelty”. And I do believe that we are defined by our words and actions, which can often be based on circumstances.

I’m not sure whether I actually believe it, but I do act as if I believe it. I’m guessing this will lead to problems sometime in my life, but until now, assuming people mean to do good, trusting people without them having proved themselves trustworthy yet, hasn’t really caused any significant problems for me that I still recall.

I think most people are good at heart. I think that oftentimes we get a certain reaction based on our own behaviour, without even realizing it. In other words, socio-paths and criminals aside, most people are decent and good, and those who are prone to cynicsm and sarcasm are also mostly good, if not given the chance to show that side.

Granted, easier said than done. But fluther is a good example of how people can get along better (than say, wis.dm) with A. a little moderation B. a little more tolerance and respect and C. sometimes taking the higher road.

I guess I must be cynical because I just don’t buy it. I think that the majority of people are out for themselves. While there are many who would not hurt others in pursuit of their own happiness, there are also many who will squash whoever gets in their way. Even those who aren’t out to destroy others will not consider the feelings of others first when they are working toward their own goals.

I’m sure there are people who are inherently good and will always try to do the right thing, but I am not convinced these people are the majority. I do believe that if a person is a genuinely kind and good individual that part of them will shine through, even in the face of tremendous hardship, mistreatment, or pain.

@squirbel – “Especially when they are born?” Well, I agree that babies and toddlers seem totally innocent, but when you look at older children often they are more cruel to each other than adults are, don’t you think?

Well, I used to believe that, then I read the story this morning of the guy in Washington state that shot his five kids (ages 16 to 7) with a rifle in their beds and one in the bathroom. Then he drove about thirty miles away and killed himself with the same rifle. All because he was pissed at his wife. WTF?

People confound the crap out of me. How do you kill your own kids? I just can’t get my mind around it. Sure, this is an isolated case, but it saddens me to think someone could actually do that. People suck and Anne Frank was obviously delusional.

There are people who are sociopaths and are incapable of being good at heart. And then there are people who’ve been abused enough as children that they just behave in such a way that hurts others. Some people just snap and any thoughts of goodness fly out the window. I can’t agree with Anne. Poor child. If only more people were like Miep Gies. :(

I would love to believe it, but it’s just not true.
I’m wondering, was she referring to the Nazi’s, that she must have believed were brainwashed to do the things they did. That they normally were good people? That’s all I can think of.
Sociopath’s aside, some people are just not good people at heart.

@aprilsimnel most of the people in the Nazi party that did those horrific acts were thugs and criminals already. The ordinary Germans were pretty much forced to join the Nazi party in order to survive. After WW1, the German people were out of work, starving, and their country was in a shambles. Hitler gave them a scapegoat for their ills, and it just happened to be the Jews. In those days a good German was an obedient German, as the story goes, and they knew enough not to question authority, Of course, many people defied the Nazi regime, and were punished for it with their lives. To understand the history of that era, one needs to understand the history that preceeded it. But I still think Anne Frank was delusional.

@mattbrowne: It is not because the child is evil that he exhibits mean tendencies – it’s because he has not been taught how to treat others. One who lacks manners and sensibility is not “not good”.

I have friends in my church that blindly followed the Republican party because they feel they are the “Christian” party because of their anti abortion views. These are good people with good hearts. They don’t stand in front of abortion clinics and threaten people. Many of them are beginning to see what GW did as a betrayal of trust. I don’t want to go so far as to compare GW to Hitler, but I would bet that many Germans felt that same betrayal many times over, and a great bit of guilt and grief as well. It must be an awful feeling to realize that everything you thought was righteous and good was really evil incarnate.

@Judi now you know how I feel when I vote for a Democrat like our ex-governor Baloneyovich.

I think people are bastard covered bastards with bastard filling.

in serious, everyone just wants to be happy. that’s all, some people just don’t know how to be.

@ABoyNamedBoobs03 lurve to you for using one of my favorite lines.

@evelyns_pet_zebra – I’m well aware of the Versailles Treaty and the ruinous articles within it that caused Germans and Austrians a lot of shame and pain. But this isn’t about WWI or Victoria’s ridiculous preening grandson Willi and the messed-up alliances that that caused that war, so I’ll stop there.

What’s clear is that Anne Frank was a child, with a child’s mind and a child’s optimism. At the time, she had nothing else to hang onto. But the poor thing was wrong, as she soon discovered.

@evelyns_pet_zebra – In Germany we recently had a shooting spree which resulted in 16 deaths. The murderer was a 17-year-old kid. Well, in Anne Frank’s context we are talking about mass murder of millions of people. And she still said what she said. I find it amazing and puzzling at the same time.

@Vincentt: I like how you mention the difference between belief and action. I believe most humans are inherently geared to be “good” in the sense of greater good of their particular community. Not everyone acts on their good feelings or gut feelings.

I’ve always found comfort in the following quote:

“Remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall—think of it, ALWAYS.”
Mahatma Gandhi

@AlfredaPrufrock ; I wish I could give you more than one lurve!

A career Army friend sent me that after 9/11 when I was having an horrible melt-down. Even though we are not in New York, for some reason, our circle was directly tied to a lot of loss, and even more near-misses. It took me months to get back to normal.

I think that Anne Frank was writing something that she HOPED was true & by writing it down, it helped to reinforce this belief in her mind. She was afraid & hoping for the best, & trying to believe there was a basic goodness in people. I think there are a lot of good people, but I also realize that you cannot automatically assume that everyone is “good” – to do so would make you vulnerable to sociopaths who would not hesitate to do you harm if they crossed paths with you.

I try to assume that everyone I meet is good and trustworthy until shown otherwise. I’ve had good success with this, as people often respond in kind.

Occasionally, I forget to do this, and it also reaps what it sows.

And, unfortunately, I can imagine the despair that would lead a guy to wipe all traces of himself from the planet—kids, wife, and all.

@daloon I understand despair & the associated thoughts of suicide, but I cannot grasp the concept of killing the individuals that you supposedly love & who love you. I can even grasp the concept of despair morphed into rage that strikes out at people who probably have nothing at all to do with the situation that led to the despair (anger is frequently unfocused in these situations), but I absolutely cannot comprehend killing one’s own children.

They are not. Man is born evil, consequence of sin. He has constructed parameters within which “civilization” can progress, and we have found ways to work together. Love is a gift from God which, only by his grace, can we enjoy and share with others.

@Linda_Owl: I’m guessing you have children. How much do you identify with them? How much do you think they are an expression of you?

I imagine that for some people, they see their children as themselves. If that’s the case, in order to kill yourself, you have to kill your children. If you feel that badly about yourself, and you don’t want the world to ever have to deal with someone like you again, then you might see it is necessary to wipe out all traces of your genes on earth, and that would include your children.

I’m just guessing. While I have felt that despair that makes me long for death, I always was amazed by my kids, and it never occured to me to hurt them. Quite the opposite in fact. One of the reasons I loathed myself was because I got really impatient with my kids, and put so much pressure on them that they cried and were afraid of me. I thought I was hurting them so much, that I was not worthy to be in their lives.

@ABoyNamedBoobs03 – that’s Scrubs, isn’t it? <3 Dr. Cox :)

@2corgis I love you.

@daloon Yes, I have children, but I do not think of them as an expression of myself. To me they are each very special individuals in their own right & as such, they deserve to have a chance to make their own lives. Any despair that I have felt has left me with an intense desire for things to change, but never to take my own life or the life of anyone else. I really cannot imagine choosing to end my life. The only time I can see this as being justified is when a person is experiencing a fatal health problem involving extreme pain, with no possibility of recovery – having the right to take one’s own life under those circumstances should be a right that we have. To inflict the pain of your loss of life on those who love you, if you do not have a fatal disease, is a horrendous thing to do. It strikes me as a supremely selfish way for someone to deliberately cause pain for those who must deal with the loss of your life.

This question brings out the ideologies of the fundamentalist people I know to avoid in the future. Thanks for asking it, mattbrowne.

@Linda_Owl. I hope you don’t think I’m trying to justify it. That kind of behavior is unjustifiable, even, I suspect, if you were Hitler.

What I’m trying to do is to explain it. What would a person have to think in order to do something like that.

@evelyns_pet_zebra In the same newspaper I read about that one man who killed on the from page, there was an article on page 12 about 100 people showed up to help with Habitat For Humanity to build homes and repair homes. People who choose to read only the sensationalized front page murder stories are losing out on what real life is all about. I could match you 10 to one for every single bad news person you wanted to bring up.

i think everyone just wants what they perceive as best.

eek.. i guess a strange question for me is: are some people incapable of learning quickly enough for it to matter in their lifetimes? hence.. might someone actually require more evidence than he can possibly amass in the rest of his life for them to learn to perceive things in a way that is acceptable to others (society) around him?

i know that some people aren’t capable of learning quickly enough for the lifetime of others. for example, if a man is a threat to others, he may have to be shot dead (or worse) to protect others.. or at least so i believe currently.. need to think about this all more

People are animals. Most people are struggling to feed their families, to make money, to build homes, and protect what they love at any cost. I believe the act itself is goodness. But there is a limit to how far that network of love and sacrifice extends. When two groups get in the each other’s way, they kill and fight. It is our instinct to protect what is ours. In groups, in front of a crowd, we transform into something dark and mad. Mobs, gangs, armies, fellowships… I think a “fluther” of people is always potentially dangerous. Once something threatens our comfort or way of life or beliefs, we lose ourselves in our horrible nature. I disagree with Anne Frank. We are houses of dark and light, and at any moment in life one or the other will prevail.

@alossforwords – The dark instincts are part of our generic program. But the very same program created social behavior as well – and a large rational brain allowing us to control our instincts, allowing us to control the beast within.

I can’t really identify with @alossforwords on this one, but to each his own. Great question Matt!

@Zen – I’m glad you liked my question!

100’s of people willing gave up their weekend to help look for a missing girl. They combed the neighborhood, looked in every nook and cranny, and have now contributed to the memorial in her honor. That’s the news that too many people skip over.

@YARNLADY That reminds me of a case a few years ago: A (divorced) man said that his 18 month old daughter had gone missing. The ex-wife confirmed it, and for days thousands of police and volunteers combed til the ends of the earth. After several weeks, while people were still searching, the man revealed that he had killed and buried the little girl.

As horrified as everyone was, as one can imagine, I didn’t hear anyone complain of the incredible amount of search-hours, resources and energy that were put into the (futile) search. The kindness and sacrifice was genuine; the bitterness almost non-existent.

In other words, despite the one monster of a human taking the precious life of a child, and driving thousands of people insane for nought, the overwhelming majority of people were so incredibly decent and kind – and would probably do the same again in the future without hesitation if called upon.

Saw this, thought of this question

mobs of people who believe in something will always act on it.

seems too simple to state, huh?

It is sort of like saying, we all have the potential to be president.

In all my experience with people, I will say most THINK they are good, but there is always a selfish undertone with all ‘selfless’ acts.

I think that when people are born, they are good. However, experiences and circumstances can have adverse effects on people and make them have bad thoughts or do bad things.

Hmm, I suddenly realize that this is what Plato/Socrates thought: people are always striving to do good, and if they don’t do good, then that means they don’t know what’s good but believe what they’re doing to be good.

Being good is a choice. I think I agree with Anne. Everyone has some good in them it’s just a question of what will triumph in the end.