Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 23:55:31 +0100

D Gallo i posted an idea about morality a while ago, you should chek it out, go to my profile. It was called "How does one define morality? Was Kant Right?"

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 23:40:27 +0100

i think that compassion itself has generated the moral relavence we give it today.. do a good deed for the deed not for what you will recieve in return...this shows that the higher human thought and realization of compassion places value in the feeling itself, not just in the reward of the feeling. this value (to me) shows that we have created some hierarchy of emotional realizations and thus have reveared certain actions that portray these intrinsic and trancending qualities (feelings).

that being said...people have their own cultural social and relgous takes on what is right. and this leads to disagreement and suffering...

does life have universal value? i think so, i can see how others might disagree...i myself believe in the death penalty, for the greater good...continuation of the tribe. but it isnt to say we are not taking a life with intrinsic value.

so can we come up with a universal law?? maybe, probably not without atleast someone disagreeing with a particular point of view. but everyone adds their own flavor into the mix, and it's this flavor that can represent our awareness of this social justice. although we may never agree what it may be, it doesnt take away from the fact that we have a seperate internal realization that seperates our higher thinking with pure animalistic tendencies.

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 23:02:13 +0100

You are corect in that its no longer directly the tribe individual reletionship that drives compassion. It is simplly the reason for the existance of compassion. But i dont think that makes it "something more" or deeper in any way, we simply dont directlly realise our motiation to be compationate. Which is again to ensure the unity of the tribe.

As far as moral truths i dont think there is a single moral rule that we can get everyone in the world to agree upon. And even if we did what wouldmake that universally true. I am a subscriber to the People as ends in themselves view of morality (i wont go into that now) but please explain to me why something is universally morally true.

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 22:29:09 +0100

Skep: "Compassion develops as i said because we need to survive and its easier to do so as a tribe so we develop a certain closness with others." Why?

just because one stems from another doesn't me we can just disregard the difference.

so you will agree that this closness develops...if this is the case then others may argue that it is this closeness and not just the need to survive justifies "right action" or "the good"...i know you prefer me to leave this out because it doesn't reflect the immediacy of survival (i.e nature). but it (nurture) is a driving force none the less, seperate of, even though caused by, natural adaptation for survival.

so again, what would lead a man to risk his life for someone he does not know? you can say it is to protect the tribe (all of humanity) and thus protect the genepool. but it seems to me that there is still something more.

a criteria that people have put on action. now while much of it does stem from cultural relavance, which can be seen in foot binding and FGM etc. but does this mean that there is no universal truths? and i dont want to get back into the skeptical argument again. but it would seem that we have a universal code of ethics. TO A DEGREE. people obviously disagree what is right and wrong...and those universals do seem to stem from what is natural (selfless = selfish) but again people know it's WRONG to kill undeservingly.

What is Justification for action? what makes us know that an innocent person is innocent? why can we decide justice? can we? is it purely tribal? is it only to survive? why is abortion ok to some and not to others when we still have the same natural forces acting apon us? why does reason change the equation? what is it in CHOOSING that allows us to deny nature as you would say?

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:38:23 +0100

Compassion develops as i said because we need to survive and its easier to do so as a tribe so we develop a certain closness with others.

Now there is no distinction of where nature stops and nurture picks up. Because nature influences nurture. So the traits present is a certain genetic group dictate their culture and their values. We are not all the same, thee are genetic reason for the culture of japan, spain, and afganistan.

Now there is another factor that enters into the way we nurture our young, reason, we take our impulses we mix it with reason and that is what we call culture. There apears to be a diference around the world in which cultures are prone to be function using reasn,and which tend to be more emotional.

Call me a stereotypist, but looking at the culture and laws around the world, and my persnal experiane with people of these cultures it apears that eroupeans and asians are dominated more reason. And such places as the middle east and africa are dominated by emotional thinking.

But again nature influences nurture. And HZ nothing is really choice. Taking the question of free will on the atomic leve out of it. Most socialogist and psychologists agree that we are influenced 100% by nature and nurture so weather we chose one or the other is really chosen for us.

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:26:16 +0100

There is no easily defined place where nature leaves off and nurture takes over. The various notions that we put into nurture after all have developed from distorted nature. A taboo regarding incest develops from a natural aversion to re-enforcing weaknesses in a gene pool. It develops to the extent that it becomes ludicrous, enshrined in religion and in law and further distorted to serve religious and political ends. There has been a recent case in the UK where a brother and sister were prosecuted for incest despite the sister having had a hysterectomy. People retain the nurtured revulsion at the incest despite there being no rational basis in this case. We nurture against our natural hunter/defender urge to violence and then have to break down our own taboos in the basic training of soldiers. You only have to travel a little to other cultures to realise how different our boundaries are and how arbitrary. US tourists are easily surprised and confused by the real diversity of moral boundaries and belief just as US soldiers have been in Vietnam and Iraq.

I%u2019m afraid that I might surprise you. There are many men that I would prefer to kill to my dog and some of them I don%u2019t really know.

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:56:45 +0100

We are not programmed with evil or good. They are habits we choice to make.

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:41:03 +0100

Alright then fellas, let me ask it this way then. because it seems that se can agree that most of what we think is 'right' (correct action) stems from our selfish desire to stay alive and for our genes to continue in that respect. we can also agree that it is the cultural environment we find ourselves in that further dictate just action...fundamentalists for example. but where is the disconnect? where does nature leave off and cultural relavance take over? why is action seperate from conciousness? what inside develops compassion? while good and evil are most certainly human constructs, what do we see in the world that may make us deny what would be naturally efficient and replace it with a elevated sense of justification?

so maybe we can move the dialouge to nature or nurture? and if they are aligned then what creates a change in realization. we can say that killing all living things is wrong, but we definitly place a higher standard on ourselves due to our ability to conciously choose. it may be wrong to kill your dog, but it's more wrong to kill a man. it seems that our awareness of our naturalistic needs and desires allows us to choose not to follow them...

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:25:23 +0100

In many small towns and villages people leave their cars and front doors unlocked. They are living in a small tribe and feel part of a community. Although altruism persists in bigger communities who leaves their car unlocked or their door open in a big city?

Skeptic is right on with the majority of what he says. Good and evil are human constructs and relatively recent ones at that. In some communities it has been fine until recently to eat people. In some ancient civilisations such as Thebes homosexuality was a normal part of ever male warriors training. Many royal families have had incestuous unions in the recent past and all the way back to ancient Egypt. In many communities it is fine for a fifty year old man to marry and have sex with a ten year old. Some communities regard some or all of these things as evil. Large sections of the US think that abortion is evil some believe to give a woman choice to be self-evidently good. For one man to kill another may be regarded as evil in certain circumstances and state sanctioned good in others. For some the murder of all animal life is evil. To deny god is the greatest evil to some and of no consequence to others. There is no basis for morality other that what your genes dictate and what you have absorbed culturally. Do you imagine that the terrorists on 9/11 regarded themselves as evil? No they believed they were serving their god and would be rewarded in paradise.

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:25:22 +0100

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 19:59:48 +0100

Of course it is natural, everything we do is. The question here is what is our nature more prone to individualism or compassion.

Again i think most of what we do that apears to be selfless is intrinsicallty selish. Not nessisarill on the concious level. But if you give up your life for your country, in the back of your mind you are protecting the tribe that is protecting your offspring. If you do something nice for a strange is because you expect the same in return not nessisarilly directlly from this stranger, but we expect members of our tribe to take care of us so we take care of them. Otherwise all our ofspring would die off.

But all in all i think it matters little what the intrinsic motivation for compassioate action is as long as its there. But interestingll enough even with all these individualistic benefits to compassion we still rarelly act in that manner.

The only true exeption to the rule seems to be compassion for ones parents. Once they get old they are usless in the tribal sense, so there is an intrinsically compationate reletionship there. I think it comes from the fact that their most intrinsically compationate impulse is your survival so you develop a similar compassion for them.

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 19:23:56 +0100

Skep says... "I would explain them in this manner, logical reasoning beings, begin to become aware of their similarity to all humanity, and they begin to see everyone as a tribe member. Interestinglly it is reason that I think leads to that, not increased compassion."

what get us thinking globaly? and even if it is few and far between does that mean its not natural?

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 19:21:40 +0100

ok skep..i'll play...

idividualistic vs the collective... i agree that most people would say if it's going to be or you then I choose me...as for the collective i'd say people are interested in helping others because it inturn helps themselves.

people aren't always forced to act when backed into a corner, and in this case i would agree that most would choose themselves to survive. would you kill your mother or sister to survive?

people make selfless choices often. not often enough (as you might say it is a weak impulse) which brings us to the world we are in today. i think that we are in the situation we are today because of the feudal system history has provided...those who had power took power...and those who didn't, power was taken from them...

so is there any motivation otherthan survival and continuation of genes?

nature or nuture? have we been taught to take what we can, or do what we need to? is it that fact than men have been ruling the world for all of time and until recently women (the nurturers ((spelling)) have a say the the social happenings?

that should give you some ammo...let me knwo

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:55:43 +0100

D Gallo
I think competition and conflict will be with us reguardles of resourses. As long as 2 people disagree on the invisible man in the sky, or which fruit tastes better there will be conflict.

Civilized society developed because we are not purelly driven by our impulses. We do have some reason, and reason leads to us eventually supressing our impulses, both copassionate, and violent ones. Its not our copassion that buils civilization its our reason.

People go to war percicely to protect the I, the main reason to go to war is to protect the familly and the tribe. The famill part is clear, the tribe needs to be protected because it in turn protects the family. Purelly individualistic motivation. As far as helping a total stranger, those instances are few and far between and are anomalies. I would explain them in this manner, logical reasoning beings, begin to become aware of their similarity to all humanity, and they begin to see everyone as a tribe member. Interestinglly it is reason that I think leads to that, not increased compassion.

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:44:12 +0100

Honestlly i dont think we should be refering to good and evil. We dont have a standart for either, what is good and what is evil is almost completly subjective.

So instead we should discuss the matter in more no bias terms, are we intrinsically individualistic. Or are we intrincicall compationate. Neither is good or evil, they can only be instrumentally beneficial or detremental.

Again i think the scales tip towards individualistic. For all of you who think that we are such compationate beings, please explain the curent state of the world. And then consider that this is probably the least violent time in history.

Milgram's obedience experiment shows that the majority of completly normal compationate people are wiling to seriouslly injure another person if comanded to do so b an aouthority figure. My point here is that there are counles influences that hold more weght with us then compassion and caring. In fact i would say that it is probably our weakest impulse. And those impulses we consider wiked ar most likely the strongest. Save of course caring for ones young that is a strong compasionate impulse because it ensures the survival of ones genes.

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:40:18 +0100

skep...if we didn't have to worry about death and our families survival, would there still be evil in the world? Also, if there were unlimited resources would the world be AS evil? i agree about the need for compitition and compassion at the primal level...we need to be alpha male for mate selection. but i have a problem beliving that the only reason bad people are around is because we have competition built into us...why then would be become civilized society if people were not aware of the greater good

herb..is it individualism vs. the collective? i think this brings up a very valid point. when do we choose between the I and the many? purely for a genetic legacy... why do people go to war? or help a total stranger at personal risk?

muys...what do we crave? life...? is that the good? is the evil what it takes to stay alive? i agree that both are present in everyone, but why are some more prone to violence than others?? some groups tend to be more aggressive than others, is it a learned experience or is it built-in?

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 16:39:30 +0100

Well put, musycks. I've always felt the balance between good and evil is the measure. Always try to keep the scales tipped toward good, and do our best to minimize the inevitable damage that can occur with just existing.

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 09:26:56 +0100

I think we have evolved and codified many useful evolutionary traits, empathy and love being the most important amongst them.
We know that goodness is beneficial and that evil should be supressed... we even make laws that support these notions. All that is good is inherant within us, and finds expression in our family life and esoteric, poetic pursuits like music and art. The flipside is we also harbour evil inside, so we need to take responsibility for the bad as well as the good.
But for me, yes we are intrinsically good.
No god required.

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 07:01:36 +0100

I agree with skeptic44 except that our goal is not to survive as an individual. As has been pointed out by Dawkins in the %u2018selfish gene%u2019 natural selection functions to ensure the survival of the gene which means that a degree of self sacrificing altruism towards members of the family and tribe is a trait rewarded in natural selection. From the genes point of view in some circumstances it is better for a parent/near relative to sacrifice its own well being to ensure its genetic legacy, this includes ensuring that the tribe flourishes in order that the next generation can be protected.

Comment on: Are people intrinsically good?

Bigthink — Tue, 13 May 2008 04:49:44 +0100

There is a problem with the statement "we are good people on a ruthles world". Because we define what our world is like, its not nature that is our greatest oponent in modern times its other people. So the way we interact with each other i what makes the world ruthless.

But both compassion and competition are nessisary evolutionary functions. What i think tilts the scales towards the side of "evil" is that everything we do is fundamentally for the survival of ourselves and our offspring. So even the compassion and the social interection is there for a rather selfish purpouse, to survive as an individual. So we are social animals out of nessesity, but we are fundamentally more individualistic.