Orthodox answers

[Aeson]

You are disagreeing that people on average do more good than they do bad ... but then explaining (part of) why they do more good than bad?

[Elok]

My original claim was that we are guided by expediency more than actual morals, if you recall. Morality is, to some extent, expedient. It's good for everyone to have a system where order and trust can largely prevail. However, we delude ourselves if we mistake obedience to the system for intrinsic goodness. On those occasions when the system has changed-wars, famines, and the like--behavior have changed fairly promptly to match.

[Aeson]

But clearly some people do hold ideology over even their own physical well-being in the most extreme circumstances. Ideology can be an extremely powerful motivator and guide, and it's important not to dismiss it as irrellevent. I haven't said anything about intrinsic goodness, quite the opposite ... that "goodness" is at least somewhat nurture rather than simply nature. I have also said that given all factors that humans are on average positive influences on their environment themselves.

I think you are overly focusing on extreme situations involving relatively small numbers of people (especially in regards to decision makers), people who really don't have an ideology other than "go with the flow", and ignoring wide swaths of humanity who behave according to their principles even in terrible circumstances. There are billions of people living in poverty. Hundreds of millions in abject poverty. And the vast, vast majority of them remain good, decent, hardworking (if given a chance) contributors to society. Sure, no one is perfect, but only a small percentage people actually become criminal when faced with harsh circumstances.

So I don't think it's fair to say that people will just discard what they think is right when it becomes convenient to do so. Especially when we have clear examples of people holding onto what they think is right even when it obviously will cost them their life.

[Berzerker]

I've never been seriously tested, I'd probably steal money if I had to (mugging's a bit too much like assault)

I'd have to see some moral good and I'd replace the money when possible acknowledging my sin

[Ben Kenobi]

Hundreds of millions in abject poverty. And the vast, vast majority of them remain good, decent, hardworking (if given a chance) contributors to society

That explains our difference in outlooks. You are a believer in Rousseau, whereas I am a believer in Hobbes.

[Aeson]

a) no
b) the rates of criminality amongst those in abject poverty is not an "outlook" ... it is a fact

[Elok]

Exactly what is your frame of reference for describing the average person as good, hardworking, etc.? Good and hardworking compared to whom? Themselves, or a gangster, or who?

Also this is an Elok-thread so all Tweedles out of the pool plz

[Aeson]

Hardworking ... do I really have to define it? Go watch a subsistence farmer work. Or a miner working with hand tools. Or a mother carrying the day's water from the well to their home. Try to do what they do for one day ... see if it's what you would call hard work or not.

As for good, it's relative ... sure ... but similarly easy to spot for anyone who's not worthless. Have you ever been invited into a hut or a shack, offered a meal by people you just met? People who treat you that way not because you need it, not to get you to give them something (they'll often even refuse any compensation), not because there's a threat of force that they are bowing to, simply because that's the way they treat visitors. Have you seen the hours it took them working just to scrape together that little bit they are giving away with a smile on their face?

People who aren't trying to kill anyone. People who aren't trying to rob anyone. People who day in and day out worked hard, do what it takes to eek out a living in (to us) miserable circumstances and provide for their families. That is the overwhelming majority of humans who have ever lived on this earth.

[Elok]

If working to feed yourself and your family (in the absence of clearly superior options) is an example of moral virtue, almost everyone is virtuous, yes. If only because the non-virtuous all starved or died in jail. I have been a guest in a developing country, and yes, people in such societies can be quite gracious. They can also be conniving criminal ****s, just like every other subset of humanity (bribery was utterly endemic at the time of my visit, and I understand it still is). Most of the people in the middle were polite enough without being overwhelming. There's a spectrum everywhere.

As for killing and robbing, you again mistake my point. Killing and robbing are blatantly maladaptive behaviors under all but the most unsettled circumstances. Unless you have overwhelmingly superior force on your side, they're liable to get you hurt or killed; the cost-benefit ratio is pathetic. In our society, even relatively genteel forms of evil like graft and smuggling are not safe occupations. In countries like Peru, where there's a less robust and stable government, la coima is a fairly typical part of life because more often than not it improves one's prospects considerably. Not everyone does it because relatively few are in a position where they can demand bribes ("give me fifty soles or I'll stop selling these potatoes!"), and where it makes sense to take the risk. And yes, upbringing does convey some resistance to immoral conduct. But prolonged exposure to temptation, however subtle and low-pressure, has a way of eroding the best of upbringings.

[ZEE]

All these words. All this debating. All this effort. All this brainpowar and thinking. All this typing... for what?

No stances will be changed. No opinions will be changed. Nobody will learn anything. Nothing will change. It's simpler to just say...

Elok is a nerd.

[Elok]

That means a lot, coming from a man who uses his Poly time as productively as you do.

[Sir Og]

Regarding the slightly off topic subject of heritability of character traits you can check the study Top 10 Replicated Findings From Behavioral Genetics.

Finding 1. All psychological traits show significant and substantial genetic influence
...
As an example, a review of the world’s literature on
intelligence that included 10,000 pairs of twins showed
identical twins to be significantly more similar than fraternal
twins (twin correlations of about .85 and .60, respectively),
with corroborating results from family and
adoption studies, implying significant genetic influence
(Bouchard & McGue, 1981, as modified by Loehlin, 1989).

Although most of this research was conducted in the
United States and western European countries, significant
genetic influence has been found in countries such as
Russia, the former East Germany, Japan, and rural and
urban India (Plomin et al., 2013). Recent studies continue
to report similar results, as seen, for example, in a report
of 11,000 pairs of twins from six twin studies in four
countries (Haworth et al., 2010). We are not aware of a
single adequately powered study reporting nonsignificant
heritability.
...

As late as 10 years ago I used to think that upbringing/environment were far more important than genetics etc. but I have gradually revised my position. Environment sure plays an important role, especially negative role. However if you raise a child that is not malnourished, abused or deprived of adequate stimulation there seems to be not much you can do to lift that child above his/hers genetic potential. (this of course is more than enough to do well in at least 80% of human activities) (this number is totally made up by me, but feels right)

Additionally there are various studies showing no effect on test scores when comparing kids who get more education and earlier education with kids who get traditional education starting at traditional age. The studies show gains for the kids starting early but with time these gains disappear and there are no differences between the two groups of kids attributable to the different upbringing/education.

The morals and ideologies that we were discussing above seem to be determined by similar complex psychological traits such as IQ so for me it is safe to assume that there is also a significant genetic component at play there. Most people think of all the lessons and examples they gave their kids regarding good/bad behaviour but they also give their genes at it seems this is the more important part. By luck of the draw the child will turn out to have very similar genes to the parent and will end up with similar morals.

[Bereta_Eder]

let's take intelligence as an example.

few people will claim that there are not strong genetic factors predetermining intelligence desposition.

However environmental factors will be key in either making the child achieve its maximum capacity or if the IQ growth will be stalled.

About ideologies there was a study not very far ago that talked about different brain structures between people on the left and the right wing.

It is interesting but geneticizing everything is silly. Environmental factors play a major role still.

There are more encompassing fields still.

Let's take the punk scene (of whichever country) big urban centers etc are its growing grounds.
However you will see both ideologies represented.
If you look closer though the mannierisms are very similar and what basically identifies them with each other is aesthetics, the notion of extreme, lifestyles etc

These can be compared with more middle class settings and the differences are eye watering

[Ben Kenobi]

Hardworking ... do I really have to define it? Go watch a subsistence farmer work. Or a miner working with hand tools. Or a mother carrying the day's water from the well to their home. Try to do what they do for one day ... see if it's what you would call hard work or not.

As for good, it's relative ... sure ... but similarly easy to spot for anyone who's not worthless. Have you ever been invited into a hut or a shack, offered a meal by people you just met? People who treat you that way not because you need it, not to get you to give them something (they'll often even refuse any compensation), not because there's a threat of force that they are bowing to, simply because that's the way they treat visitors. Have you seen the hours it took them working just to scrape together that little bit they are giving away with a smile on their face?

Would you consider Southern Baptists to be the same?

[Aeson]

I was speaking about humans in general.