People are inherently good

[Graham]

Originally posted by MoeFaux


I believe that people are inherintly good. And I believe that people should be able to make decisions on their own. And I'm against altruism.

The core of my belief is that people are good and can take care of themselves. What's so flawed about that?

This from MoeFaux in a thread in Politics & Current Events.

I am interested in discussing this as a philosophy.

Initially, I'm inclined to disagree with this statement. However, in another thread, I just made comparison between indigestion - angina - mi infarction and "feelling a bit down" - depression - wanting to kill yourself. Basically, on reflection, I realise that I was arguing for "normal" as a base state and depression and other mental disorders as " additions, if you like, add-ons in the terminology of the insurance world.

By this same logic, I think I'm committed to considering "good" as the base state and increasing levels of "evil" as "add-ons" from "small-time scumbag" to "psychopath".

On reflection, I am inclined to argue for "neutral" as a base state but then I am confused by people who are born psychopaths (if that is actuallly the case).

In short, it's a conundrum - somebody enlighten me . . .

Graham

[c4ts]

Most people think they're inherently good.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Without a working definition of good to go by, this is going nowhere quick. I'll just have to stick with the empty "People are inherently people."

[Graham]

Originally posted by c4ts
Most people think they're inherently good.

I've been posting here for a while and lurking here for even longer. I know you (or your online "personality" anyway").

So, in the immortal words of "that robot in Red Dwarf" - "justify yourself"

Do you acknowledge that "psychotic" and "psychopathic" and so on are "additions" to human personality?

If so, how can you argue that people are not inherently good?

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Without a working definition of good to go by, this is going nowhere quick. I'll just have to stick with the empty "People are inherently people."

Hmm, like C4Ts and my very self you are inherently smart-arsed ;)

Think about it, though.

What makes people "do" "evil"?

If you remove those factors, what is left?

Graham

[Nyarlathotep]

Machiavelli had it right, people (as a rule, there are always exceptions) are either short sighted and stupid or ruthless amoral b@stards. And the ruthless, amoral b@stards will usually find their way to the top to rule over the rest.

Want evidence of my postion? Watch the news. That ought to convince anyone.

[Andonyx]

I'm sorry, I don't think people have an inherent moral sense, I think it has developed as a by product of society and being gregarious animals.

I think a "moral sense" is the result of conditioning from having the will of the majority slap you around when you get too far out of line.

But I agree with Nyar$#%^$^ in the sense that those who achieve the most power / notoriety, are often those who can straddle the line between being an opportunistic selfish jerk and being an out and out criminal.

[roger]

Well, I'll answer this, but within the context in which it was uttered - defending Libertarianism.

I will offer one objection - I think there are more.

Emergent behavior.

Even if you take a collection of 'good' people, whatever your definition of good is, and organize them in a society, there is nothing that guarantees that the social behaviors and patterns that emerge will be in the best interests of either the individuals or society as a whole. The tragedy of the commons is an, er, common example.

[Franko]

Some people (Souls) are inherently Good and others are inherently Evil.

For any action or situation which requires “choice” and involves more than one entity there are three basic possibilities:

1) The entity making the “choice” knowingly harms the other entitie(s) in order to personally benefit or avoid harm himself.
2) The entity making the “choice” knowingly avoids harming the other entitie(s) even at the cost of being harmed himself or missing the opportunity to benefit.
3) The entity making the “choice” unknowingly benefits or harms the other entitie(s) in order to personally benefit or avoid harm himself.

The first option is the type of “choices” that evil individuals tend to make.
The second option is the type of “choices” that good individuals tend to make.
The third option is the type of option that uneducated/unaware/unenlightened/unevolved/confused/unsure/deluded/or insane individuals tend to make.

As a general rule entities (consciousness) ALWAYS follow the path of least resistance. Consciousness ALWAYS selects the path (or “choice”) of maximum perceived benefit (same as the path of minimum perceived harm).

[Graham]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Machiavelli had it right, people (as a rule, there are always exceptions) are either short sighted and stupid or ruthless amoral b@stards. And the ruthless, amoral b@stards will usually find their way to the top to rule over the rest.

Want evidence of my postion? Watch the news. That ought to convince anyone.

Again, I am inclined to agree with you. If someone had taught those amoral b@stards otherwise, though, would they have turned out otherwise? If your answer to this is "yes" how bac you claim that people are inherently "evil"?

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by Andonyx
I'm sorry, I don't think people have an inherent moral sense, I think it has developed as a by product of society and being gregarious animals.

I think a "moral sense" is the result of conditioning from having the will of the majority slap you around when you get too far out of line.

But I agree with Nyar$#%^$^ in the sense that those who achieve the most power / notoriety, are often those who can straddle the line between being an opportunistic selfish jerk and being an out and out criminal.


"Nyar$#%^$^" - I'm glad to see I'm not the ony one with a problem with that! "Nyar" it is from now on!

Here is my question - without a "moral sense" as you phrase it, what is the "base" state? Is it "good" or "bad"?

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by roger
Well, I'll answer this, but within the context in which it was uttered - defending Libertarianism.

I will offer one objection - I think there are more.

Emergent behavior.

Even if you take a collection of 'good' people, whatever your definition of good is, and organize them in a society, there is nothing that guarantees that the social behaviors and patterns that emerge will be in the best interests of either the individuals or society as a whole. The tragedy of the commons is an, er, common example.

Excuse me, but I do not understand. Perhaps you could elaborate a little further . . .

Graham

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Graham


Again, I am inclined to agree with you. If someone had taught those amoral b@stards otherwise, though, would they have turned out otherwise? If your answer to this is "yes" how bac you claim that people are inherently "evil"?

Graham

"Good" and "evil" are very vague terms. If you define evil as a behavior whereby a person will put his own happiness and well being ahead of everyone elses, even if it causes harm to others (which is a good, if perhaps slightly oversimplified definition) then I will say that people are inherently evil because taking other peoples well being into account is a behavior that has to be learned. Look at your average two year old, they have to be taught not to hit other kids and steal their toys. Few children will refrain from that sort of behavior without their parents teaching them.

This is all well and good for a toddler, but alas, many adults either never learn these lessons or choose to ignore them, therefore they revert to their "default" behavior, which in an adult is considered evil.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Franko
Some people (Souls) are inherently Good and others are inherently Evil.Why bother to include the concept of souls? Can we not simply judge people (as you do below) by actions?

For any action or situation which requires “choice” and involves more than one entity there are three basic possibilities:

1) The entity making the “choice” knowingly harms the other entitie(s) in order to personally benefit or avoid harm himself.
2) The entity making the “choice” knowingly avoids harming the other entitie(s) even at the cost of being harmed himself or missing the opportunity to benefit.
3) The entity making the “choice” unknowingly benefits or harms the other entitie(s) in order to personally benefit or avoid harm himself. Ok, though it seems to miss knowingly benefits themselves and others or knowingly harms themselves and others. You've defined this as a zero sum game, which I suppose is hypothetically valid even if I don't agree with it. Quite pessimistic overall, really.

As a general rule entities (consciousness) ALWAYS follow the path of least resistance. Consciousness ALWAYS selects the path (or “choice”) of maximum perceived benefit (same as the path of minimum perceived harm). How can a "general rule" "ALWAYS" apply? Seems rather self-contradicting, doncha think?

Economists generally assume people act in their own perceived best interest, but that view can certainly be limiting. Many people volunteer their time at soup kitchens and homeless shelters because it is "the right thing to do," which would put them in category 2 above but rather violates your argument here. Unless your argument is that category 1 acts in perceived personal best interest and category 2 in perceived societal best interest. Surely there are innumerable examples of individuals sacrificing personal benefit for the perceived common good.

I also don't believe that maximum perceived benefit is equivalent to minimum perceived harm. I used to joke that the way to maximize world happiness was to minimize unhappiness, and the best way to do that was to kill everyone (so they are no longer unhappy). Thus a nuclear war would "maximize world happiness." This is a patently absurd conclusion, and I do not see how it is materially different from your statement.

However, I do agree with you on the point that some people inherently tend towards good and others towards "evil" (for lack of a better term). Some people will go out of their way to help complete strangers for no personal gain, others will deliberately harm others for little or no reason. I happen to feel that the those who tend towards good far outnumber the others as society manages to keep lumbering on despite the destructive tendencies of some of it's members.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Franko
Some people (Souls) are inherently Good and others are inherently Evil.

For any action or situation which requires “choice” and involves more than one entity there are three basic possibilities:

1) The entity making the “choice” knowingly harms the other entitie(s) in order to personally benefit or avoid harm himself.
2) The entity making the “choice” knowingly avoids harming the other entitie(s) even at the cost of being harmed himself or missing the opportunity to benefit.
3) The entity making the “choice” unknowingly benefits or harms the other entitie(s) in order to personally benefit or avoid harm himself.

The first option is the type of “choices” that evil individuals tend to make.
The second option is the type of “choices” that good individuals tend to make.
The third option is the type of option that uneducated/unaware/unenlightened/unevolved/confused/unsure/deluded/or insane individuals tend to make.

As a general rule entities (consciousness) ALWAYS follow the path of least resistance. Consciousness ALWAYS selects the path (or “choice”) of maximum perceived benefit (same as the path of minimum perceived harm).

It seems to me that if your first statement is correct, ie:

Some people (Souls) are inherently Good and others are inherently Evil.

Pre-empts your later statements about choices, If you are inherently"good" or "evil" then surely your "choices" are colored by that.

As a general rule entities (consciousness) ALWAYS follow the path of least resistance. Consciousness ALWAYS selects the path (or “choice”) of maximum perceived benefit (same as the path of minimum perceived harm).

Again, there is a conflict here - between "consciousness" and "ALWAYS". "Consciousness" IMO precludes the notion of "ALWAYS".

Graham

[roger]

Originally posted by Graham


Excuse me, but I do not understand. Perhaps you could elaborate a little further . . .

Graham I probably should have posted that in the original thread.

Somebody was basically asking "why Libertarianism", and Mofo answered with the quote at the top of this thread.

My point is that even if every person acts with good intentions, that there is emergent behavior - a collection of automous agents, each acting with simple behavior, create a larger scale set of behaviors not trivially reducable to the original behaviors.

For example, a group of tiny animals whose only behaviors are to sleep, eat, and drink water, and defecate well away from their food and water supplies, could, when organized in a society, develop complex social behaviors that end up killing half the society.

So, it does not necessarily follow that just because each person is 'good' (I don't agree, but ignore that), that the best governmental structure is very small ala the Libertarian Party.

[DanishDynamite]

From the outset, I would say that the behaviour of living creatures is almost 100% determined by their genes. Afterall, you never see frogs or snakes (for example) acting like humans. However, if the question is in regard to the fine-tuning, i.e. "how much of a homo sapiens behaviour compared to other homo sapiens behaviour is determined by genetics and how much by environment", the answer is more diffuse. This is partially due to the diffuseness of the question.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


"Good" and "evil" are very vague terms. If you define evil as a behavior whereby a person will put his own happiness and well being ahead of everyone elses, even if it causes harm to others (which is a good, if perhaps slightly oversimplified definition) then I will say that people are inherently evil because taking other peoples well being into account is a behavior that has to be learned. Look at your average two year old, they have to be taught not to hit other kids and steal their toys. Few children will refrain from that sort of behavior without their parents teaching them.

This is all well and good for a toddler, but alas, many adults either never learn these lessons or choose to ignore them, therefore they revert to their "default" behavior, which in an adult is considered evil.

In your opinion, if an adult never learns this behavious, are they "good" or "evil"?

If our "sons with Dowms Syndrome" never progress to the point where they can learn this, are they "good" or "evil"?

What does this imply for the rest of society?

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
From the outset, I would say that the behaviour of living creatures is almost 100% determined by their genes. Afterall, you never see frogs or snakes (for example) acting like humans.

Sorry, but I have to ask you to support this statement. Are you suggesting that, if it came down to "him or me" with a frog or a snake, it would choose "him" over "me"? Are you suggesting that frogs and snakes do not make selfish decisions? If so, I would have to respond that evolutionary theory would suggest otherwise. It is survival of "me" not "survival of the fittest" as the creationists would misrepresent it.

Graham

[Whomp]

We're still working without real definitions here.
Graham, tell you what ...
You define good for me, and I'll answer your original question of whether I think people are inherently good.

Deal?


Whomp!

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Graham


Sorry, but I have to ask you to support this statement. Are you suggesting that, if it came down to "him or me" with a frog or a snake, it would choose "him" over "me"? Are you suggesting that frogs and snakes do not make selfish decisions? If so, I would have to respond that evolutionary theory would suggest otherwise. It is survival of "me" not "survival of the fittest" as the creationists would misrepresent it.

Graham I'm saying that as far as behaviour of a given living specimen is concerned, almost 100% of the behaviour observed can be attributed to the species.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Whomp
We're still working without real definitions here.
Graham, tell you what ...
You define good for me, and I'll answer your original question of whether I think people are inherently good.

Deal?


Whomp!

I would love to make a deal on just that point but if I knew the answer to your question I wouldn't be here debating, I'd be selling my book on Oprah.

I'm afraid I have to resort to "I don't know what good is, but I know it when I see it".

I know what's good, you know what's good, I know what's bad, you know what's bad but neither of us can define it, can we?

I personally don't believe that people are inherently good or evil, I agree with C4Ts (I thinks it was) - people are inherently people.

I am trying to find someone who can convice me otherwise, however - are you volunteering for the role?

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I'm saying that as far as behaviour of a given living specimen is concerned, almost 100% of the behaviour observed can be attributed to the species.

Is selfishness a factor of "the species"?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Graham


Is selfishness a factor of "the species"? Depends what you mean by "selfishness". However, almost all species will have the urge to propegate their own personal genes. Is that what you mean by selfishness?

[Graham]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Depends what you mean by "selfishness". However, almost all species will have the urge to propegate their own personal genes. Is that what you mean by selfishness?

No, I mean "selfishness" on a far more personal level.

Evolution, IMPO, is not about sirvival of "the species", it's about survival of "me".

Your posts above suggest to me that you believe this level of selfishness is specific to humanity, I am inclined to think otherwise.

Graham

[Lord Emsworth]

I completely subscribe to everything that MoeFaux has said in her post.

I believe that people are inherintly good.

Of course, everybody wants to do good. Whether or not it turns out to be good is another question. So, I would say that people are inherently good, but that this good is subjective.

And I believe that people should be able to make decisions on their own.

If people do not make their own decisions about what is good and what not, they are all too easily prone to do what s.b. else perceives to be "good".

And I'm against altruism.

Me, too. I am not very much interested in some people's altruism and their wanting to do me "good".



Examples:
- Hitler thought the Jews are bad and evil. So, he proceeded to do humanity a big "favor" and tried to kill them all. Everything with that altuistic and selfless attitude as he himself never entertained the thought that he would profit from his work

- The 9-11 suicide attackers thought they were sacrificing their lives in a fight for good against the big Satan.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Graham


No, I mean "selfishness" on a far more personal level.

Evolution, IMPO, is not about sirvival of "the species", it's about survival of "me".

Your posts above suggest to me that you believe this level of selfishness is specific to humanity, I am inclined to think otherwise.

Graham Sorry if I gave you that impression. Evolution is indeed about the survival of the individual.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth

Me, too. I am not very much interested in some people's altruism and their wanting to do me "good".

Examples:
- Hitler thought the Jews are bad and evil. So, he proceeded to do humanity a big "favor" and tried to kill them all. Everything with that altuistic and selfless attitude as he himself never entertained the thought that he would profit from his work

- The 9-11 suicide attackers thought they were sacrificing their lives in a fight for good against the big Satan.

Misguided altruism or actual altruism? Or is that too "no true scotsman--ish"?

Graham

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Graham


In your opinion, if an adult never learns this behavious, are they "good" or "evil"?

If our "sons with Dowms Syndrome" never progress to the point where they can learn this, are they "good" or "evil"?

What does this imply for the rest of society?

Graham

Good and evil do not exist in a vacuum. It really depends on ones realtionship with society. If someone doesn't have the intellectuall capacity to be able to learn good from evil to at least some rudimentary level (i.e. don't hit people, don't steal things etc), then they can't really function within society anyway so I would say such classifications as good/evil wouldn't be applicable.

[Graham]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Depends what you mean by "selfishness". However, almost all species will have the urge to propegate their own personal genes. Is that what you mean by selfishness?

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Sorry if I gave you that impression. Evolution is indeed about the survival of the individual.

I think the misunderstanding between us lies in the phrase "propogate their own personal genes". To me, that suggests that they want something of "their line" to continue through the ages whereas I feel that it is more a case of their wanting "them themselves" to continue.

The average Joe-blow frog is not concerned with the next generation of frogs - he is concerned with himself and no other. He feels the urge to pro-create but only insofar as it is pleasurable to himself and continues "himself". He cares no more for the next generation of frogs than he does for the next generation of snakes.

Graham

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Graham


Misguided altruism or actual altruism? Or is that too "no true scotsman--ish"?

Graham

What is actual altruism? What is actual good?

It is very possible that an altruist does some good for me, but it is also very possible that I do not subscribe to his notion of good.

[DanishDynamite]

Graham:I think the misunderstanding between us lies in the phrase "propogate their own personal genes". To me, that suggests that they want something of "their line" to continue through the ages whereas I feel that it is more a case of their wanting "them themselves" to continue.

The average Joe-blow frog is not concerned with the next generation of frogs - he is concerned with himself and no other. He feels the urge to pro-create but only insofar as it is pleasurable to himself and continues "himself". He cares no more for the next generation of frogs than he does for the next generation of snakes.In which case we are almost in agreement. Where we (perhaps) differ is that a selfish gene also cares about the well-being of genes which are almost like itself. I.e. siblings, for example.

[Whomp]

OK, for the sake of argument, I've gotta go with people are not inherently good.
Wether that makes them inherenly evil is a seperate argument.

Babies and toddlers are monsters. each one a perfect little sociopath.
No thought or care for anyone or anything other than it's self.
Self gratification is all.

Young children must be taught that this is not ok. We have to teach them that you don't push people down or hit them because they have what you want, or are in your way.

You don't have to teach something that's inherent.

Whomp!

[MoeFaux]

Well, since I made the comment originally, I really out to say something about it.
My statement of "people are inherently good" is in response to laws that assume people are bad and want to commit crimes. Please don't slam me on this, I can't put it as eloquently as the person I origianlly got the idea from.
My beliefs of people being inherently good are based on this (http://www.theadvocates.org/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=LS&Product_Code=LIOL&Category_Code=B) book, Libertarianism in one Lesson. I really, really recommend it. I read it just for ideas on what being a Libertarian was, and it helped me create my own ideas.

But, you know what? People really ARE good. Not a bulls*t godly good, but just a polite, happy good. People open doors for other people. They smile at one another and lend a helping hand. This isn't something they feel they HAVE to do, no, it's something most people WANT to do. People are nice.

However, what's good for some is not good for others. The so called "golden rule" is really the biggest bunch of crap around. So maybe you like to be taken care of when you're sick. But don't you even think "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" when I'm sick. I want you to leave me the hell alone.

My rule for my life is "always do right". To just do the right thing. If that means helping someone or NOT helping someone, then that's what I do.

I really can't put the thoughts together better than that right now. I'll write up something better later (most likely after someone shoots this down).

[ReasonableDoubt]

People are basically like you.

[Suezoled]

People are born with the instincts and reactions to survive. Greed, avarice, the desire to possess... they are all things used by humans in order to assure their own personal survival. It is the wish to be kind, and to think outside of the self... that is the challenge and the manifestation of maturity. It is often an ongoing process, and the actions to follow the choice to be other than a self-serving being can be difficult, and even seen as hypocrisy. But surely, in practicing, we are growing throughout all our lives. And surely, the kindness will inspire others as well.

That, I believe.

[Boo]

Last night I started re-reading 'Anne Frank - Diary of a Young Girl'
It is from her diary that the quote "I believe that deep down, that all people are good". I find myself in agreement with this statement.

It is my opinion that most people will do that which is 'right' or 'good'. There are of course exceptions and they either will isolate themselves from the community or the community will isolate them.

Good and evil seem to be tied up in right and wrong. The individual determines their actions based on internal integrity and adherance to the concepts of what is good and what is evil as defined by the culture or society that they live within.

There is no universal yardstick by which all of humanity is measured unless it is the "Golden Rule". Each individual action can only be evaluated by the society that raised up that person and can judge it's 'goodness' or 'evilness'. This applies to the person as well. Only in rare cases can seperate the act from the individual.

I find that this is one area where the cynic will call themselves a realist and everyone else is an optimist. When it comes to people I'ld rather be an optimist.



Boo

[Prospero]

:dl:

Call me an unrepentant cynic, call me what you will, but I don't see how anyone could fool himself into believing human nature is innately good. To those that would claim you are good, I hereby place on your conscience the infants and children that die daily in Africa because you could not afford the 60 cents necessary to keep one of them alive for a month.

I also place on your Titan shoulders the knowledge that every act performed by every human being is selfish. Despite what you may claim as a justification to yourself or others, your actions, at the very heart of things, are based on selfish desires. Was it your stinginess that kept you from saving those infants? No, it was willful ignorance, intentional amnesia, denial of reality, all of which protect you from the awful truth. You believe yourself more important than those dying babies and thus you choose to let them die rather that dedicate your precious emotional and monetary resources to them.

Your third burden is that of the proof that good can exist without evil. You believe that humans are innately good, which implies no evil, yet in this realm of good and evil, there is undeniably what could be considered evil in many people's actions. Is abortion an evil act? Or is it preferable for a bright young girl to have to drop out of high school to support herself and live on to be a total waste of potential? Good? Evil? Bah! One implies the other while both contradict each other. You can't have good without evil, but you can't be a good being if you're partly evil. Both words are meaningless. There is no natural moral state to humans. Morality is an invention to be used in the manipulation of the weak-minded.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by MoeFaux

But, you know what? People really ARE good. Not a bulls*t godly good, but just a polite, happy good. People open doors for other people. They smile at one another and lend a helping hand. This isn't something they feel they HAVE to do, no, it's something most people WANT to do. People are nice.


People also torture each other, maim each other and kill each other for the slightest of reasons, even in a lot of cases for no reaon at all except for the fact that they enjoy doing it.

I also happen to think they do that a lot more than they help each other etc.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by c4ts
Most people think they're inherently good.

Yeah, and most people think they are above average in intelligence (or looks, athletic ability, wit, sexual prowess).

AS

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't think that people are "inherently good" but I think we do have the potential for "inherent goodness." The question is are we socialized to acting out of natural and logical goodness or are we socialized to act out of more primal urges.

I would get into my sex life and "inherent goodness" vs. "socialized goodness" but I don't want to expose too many details about myself.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I believe that people are inherintly good. And I believe that people should be able to make decisions on their own. And I'm against altruism.

The core of my belief is that people are good and can take care of themselves. What's so flawed about that?
Lots.

First, people are not inherently good. They have the inherent capacity to be good, and an instinctual desire to be good. Just like they have the capacity for language, and a desire to communicate. But if you raise a child in an isolation box until puberty, he won't ever be very good at language, and he won't ever be very moral.

Being against altruism is either stupid or tautological, depending on how you define it. The general definition, that altruism is performing good deeds that have no immediate significant payback, renders your position stupid, because those acts do have indirect payback which is significant. Why return a wallet you find, if it gains you no immediate reward? Because you want to live in a world where wallets are returned, in case you lose yours. You can't garuantee that world's existance, but you can garuantee it's non-existance (by not returning the wallet). Ergo your allegedly altruistic act actually affects your existance in a positive way. If you define altruism as an act that brings no payoff of any kind ever, then it is indistinguishable from a random act, and yes of course we are all against that.

The notion that people can take care of themselves is rendered false by simple observation. We are a social animal: we require other humans assistance for our existance. Furthermore, the example of insurance demonstrates that even ordinarily comptentent people sometimes need assistance. This notion that you are so competent that you will never need help is an egotistical fantasy.

Finally, while I agree people should be able to make decisions on their own, I also recognize that some decisions are easier to make as a group. Ask an alcoholic. Or a jury. Sometimes we need each other's assistance even in making decisions.

We are a social animal. Get over it already. I'm not saying I'm for socialism, or communism, or the collective: I'm saying we need to recognize basic facts about human nature.


Originally posted by Graham
On reflection, I am inclined to argue for "neutral" as a base state but then I am confused by people who are born psychopaths (if that is actuallly the case).
Yes, it is the case (at least sometimes) but so what? Some people are born without legs. Does that do any damage to the definition that human beings are creatures with legs? Humans are supposed to have legs, and the ones that don't have them are defective. This doesn't make them not human, it just makes them not normal. So what?

People are supposed to be born with a moral capacity. Some aren't. They need assistance just like people without legs need assistance. It doesn't make them less human, and it doesn't challenge the definition of what a normal human is.

Originally posted by Andonyx
I'm sorry, I don't think people have an inherent moral sense, I think it has developed as a by product of society and being gregarious animals.
This is demonstrably untrue. Note that no matter how hard we try, we cannot instill morality in roaches. Clearly there is an innate capacity for morality, just as humans have an innate capacity for language. You are correct that expressing this innate ability requires cultural conditioning, but you are incorrect in asserting that it is not at some level innate.


Originally posted by Roger
Even if you take a collection of 'good' people, whatever your definition of good is, and organize them in a society, there is nothing that guarantees that the social behaviors and patterns that emerge will be in the best interests of either the individuals or society as a whole.
Yes there is. It is called survival. Those societys that do not promote the best interests of both individuals and society will eventually be forced into extinction by societies that do.

Mind you, this could easily take 200,000 years, and involve nuclear weapons, but that's not the point. The point is that there is a natural mechanism, however painfully slow or inefficient from our point of view.

So, it does not necessarily follow that just because each person is 'good' (I don't agree, but ignore that), that the best governmental structure is very small ala the Libertarian Party
A very good conclusion.

I object to Libertarian philosophy on one simple ground - I think you are entitled to air. By mere virtue of the fact that you are born human, you are entitled to as much air as you need. This assertion of the common ownership of global resources is contrary to Libertarian philosophy. While I fully support private property rights, that does not require me to pretend that communal property rights do not exist. Man is a communal animal. Get over it already.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Yahzi
[b]Originally posted by Graham

Yes, it is the case (at least sometimes) but so what? Some people are born without legs. Does that do any damage to the definition that human beings are creatures with legs? Humans are supposed to have legs, and the ones that don't have them are defective. This doesn't make them not human, it just makes them not normal. So what?

People are supposed to be born with a moral capacity. Some aren't. They need assistance just like people without legs need assistance. It doesn't make them less human, and it doesn't challenge the definition of what a normal human is.

Hi Yahzi. This is an interesting perspective that I hadn't considered before.

However, I would like to know if you are defining the base state purely on the basis of majority.

This is easily allowable in the case of legs since, plainly, the vast majority of people are born with functional legs. Therefore we can safely conclude that the base state of humans is to have legs.

It is not so immediately plain to me, however, that people are born with a moral sense or, by implication, that the base state of humans is to have a moral sense.

Further again, there is a nature/nurture issue as well. Who knows how many psychopaths would have turned out (at least relatviely) normal, had their upbringings been different? Similarly, how many normal people would have turned out to be psychotic? Some people are, indeed, clearly defective from birth but others are born "normal" but never develop a moral sense through lack of education, a "bad" environment, etc.

It seems to me, therefore, more likely that most people are born without a moral sense, as such, but with the ability or capacity (brainpower, the correct neurological framework or whatever) to develop one. Not a moral capacity, as such, just a brain that can be trained to perform that function with the proper stimuli.

Graham

[roger]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Yes there is. It is called survival. Those societys that do not promote the best interests of both individuals and society will eventually be forced into extinction by societies that do.

Mind you, this could easily take 200,000 years, and involve nuclear weapons, but that's not the point. The point is that there is a natural mechanism, however painfully slow or inefficient from our point of view.

Before I quibble with your point, let me say this is an excellent point and was not something I was considering when I wrote my post. Shame on me.

Survival, in terms of Darwin? As Dawkins explains in The Selfish Gene, evolution works on genes, not individuals, species, or societies. Reasoning based on these larger units leads us to incorrect solutions. Not always, but sometimes.

However, societies are dynamic, complex systems, rife with strange attractors. Let me emphasize, I have not done the analysis, what follows is armchair philosophizing. The presense of these strange attractors means that we need to analyze society in terms of complexity theory, catastrophe theory, etc. If we map a societies possible ideologies on a surface (say economic freedom on one axis, and political power on the other), there will occur conflict regions - areas where local maxima occur, but with unstable local minima. So a society may slowly progress to some local maxima, but, once it reaches this point, it is in an unstable situation. Minor inputs causes instability, and society is quickly flung off into some other direction. These things happen at a time scale that is tiny compared to evolution and survival.

Also, consider this further as an optimization problem. Even if the current society is not positioned near an unstable cusp, it may very well be slowly progessing toward a local maxima which is far removed from the global maxima of the surface. If the surface is smooth at that area, then there is really no way for society to reach the global maxima by any 'natural' means, since to reach the global maxima the society would have to traverse a large part of the surface, which means trending towards lower optimality for a long period of time.

note: I stated the above with more conviction and authoriy than I feel. I'm just feeling these ideas out, not stating that they must be true.

[Upchurch]

As "good" and "bad" are relative abstracts, some people are considered inherently good by some people and not by others. To say that all people are inherently good would require an absolute standard of goodness. (which, of course, people would then have to measure up to) There is none, so the answer remains subjective.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by roger
The presense of these strange attractors means that we need to analyze society in terms of complexity theory, catastrophe theory, etc.
Another way to put it is: what makes us think intelligence (i.e. theory of mind) is a evolutionarly stable strategy? Sure it's paid off for the last 2mill years or so, but it's nowhere close to the 350mill record set by the dinosaurs.

My position assumes it is. I have no evidence for this. I don't need any, because assuming it does no harm. The negative result of the assumption being false encompasses and swallows any harm that comes from assuming it.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Graham
However, I would like to know if you are defining the base state purely on the basis of majority.
Genetics. Look at your DNA and it says your supposed to have legs. It's a little more significant than just majority.

It seems to me, therefore, more likely that most people are born without a moral sense, as such, but with the ability or capacity (brainpower, the correct neurological framework or whatever) to develop one. Not a moral capacity, as such, just a brain that can be trained to perform that function with the proper stimuli.
It is true that people are born without language, but with the capacity for langauge. However, there are elements of the brain that are clearly wired for language, making it not just another arbitrary task to be learned (like playing chess or checkers), and most important, children raised without language in a group will develop language on their own.

Exactly the same for morality. It is more than just the ability to learn an arbitrary system: children raised in a group will not necessarily rediscover chess, although they will rediscover games.

And just as our savage children would eventually discover that 2+2=4, they would also discover the principle of reciprocity and its value.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Upchurch
As "good" and "bad" are relative abstracts, some people are considered inherently good by some people and not by others. To say that all people are inherently good would require an absolute standard of goodness. (which, of course, people would then have to measure up to) There is none, so the answer remains subjective.
That is not true. There is an objective good. All living organisms, by definition, value continued survival. Hence continued survival qualifes as a good for all living organisms.

There is an absolute standard of goodness, and I don't understand why so many skeptics seem unable to grasp this. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Certainly you don't oppose slavery just because you were raised in a society that happens to view it negatively. Certainly you understand that slavery violates the golden rule, and hence is immoral. You oppose slavery because you wouldn't want to be a slave.

Skeptics are reacting against the absoluteism of the church so much, they tend to go over the edge. Just because the church was wrong about what the absolute good was doesn't mean there isn't any. It just means the church was wrong.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Yahzi

That is not true. There is an objective good. All living organisms, by definition, value continued survival. Hence continued survival qualifes as a good for all living organisms.Oh, I dunno. I'd say the continued survival of dinosaurs would have been a bad thing for small, soft, undefended things like you and me.
You oppose slavery because you wouldn't want to be a slave.Don't confuse good moral foundation with absolute good. I consider the slavery of people bad, but I consider the slavery of horses and dogs good.

Slavery of humans once was considered a good thing by some people. Now it is considered a bad thing. Was it always a bad thing and is only now recognized as such or has the standard of what is good and what is evil changed? What would it mean if it changed again in the future?

Consider the man with a death wish who wants someone to kill him. Is it good for him to kill because that is what he would want others to do to him?

Just because I base my morality on the golden rule doesn't mean that it is the absolute measure of goodness.
Skeptics are reacting against the absoluteism of the church so much, they tend to go over the edge. Just because the church was wrong about what the absolute good was doesn't mean there isn't any. It just means the church was wrong. I don't disbelieve in absolute good because it is a tennet of many religions. The golden rule is also a tennet of many religions and I follow that principle in my life. I disbelieve in absolute good because I have yet to see an example of it.

[DanishDynamite]

Yahzi:That is not true. There is an objective good. All living organisms, by definition, value continued survival. Hence continued survival qualifes as a good for all living organisms.Unless they are they are parents who will fight to the death to protect their offspring. In which case their continued survival is not the ultimate good.
There is an absolute standard of goodness, and I don't understand why so many skeptics seem unable to grasp this. It's as plain as the nose on your face.Because it doesn't exist.
Certainly you don't oppose slavery just because you were raised in a society that happens to view it negatively. Certainly you understand that slavery violates the golden rule, and hence is immoral. Unless I'm a slave-taking ant such as Formica sanguinea whose survival is dependent on slaves. Or unless I view my well-being (and hence survival) as paramount. Or unless...

Good isn't objective.
You oppose slavery because you wouldn't want to be a slave.I oppose slavery because our society's sophistication and wealth has reached a degree where the luxury of such contemplation allows this view to be rational.
Skeptics are reacting against the absoluteism of the church so much, they tend to go over the edge. Just because the church was wrong about what the absolute good was doesn't mean there isn't any. It just means the church was wrong. I agree as far as "the church was wrong".

[I hope others find this post of some value. I just remembered that Yahzi has me on Ignore. :) ]

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Yahzi

That is not true. There is an objective good. All living organisms, by definition, value continued survival. Hence continued survival qualifes as a good for all living organisms.




Sure, for the ones who survive.. Tell this to the organisms that the surviving one's ate.. This ' good ' seems relative, rather than ' absolute ' or 'objective', to me.

I trust you will have a rational response to this.. Just haven't guess what it might be.. ( or I wouldn't have bothered )

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Diogenes
[B]
Sure, for the ones who survive.. Tell this to the organisms that the surviving one's ate.. This ' good ' seems relative, rather than ' absolute ' or 'objective', to me.

I don't understand your objection. The ones that didn't survive didn't get the objective good, they got the objective bad. Does the fact that there is only so much good to go around, and not everybody gets some of it, mean that it doesn't exist?

My good may be bad for you, sure, but it's still objectively good for me. That doesn't make it relative. It just makes it limited.

Try to remember the terms of the conversation. I am simply asserting that for any living organism, we can say that survival is good. There are people who dispute that. I am saying they are wrong.

Edit: Perhaps it would help if I said that good was not arbitrary. I don't understand this notion about something being good only if its good for every possible participant. The definition of "up" is both relative and objective. It is relative, because "up" points in a different direction depending on where you are on the planet: but it is objective because up is always out of the gravitational field regardless of what planet you are on. To assert that good is relative, i.e. can be redefined to mean anything you want, is like asserting that "up" has no meaning because it always means a different absolute direction.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Was it always a bad thing and is only now recognized as such or has the standard of what is good and what is evil changed?
We now know that control over your own destiny, and a sense of personal dignity, are important elements to good health and happiness. Now tell me: has that always been true of human beings, or is only true these days?

When you answer that question then you will answer your question about the historical validity of slavery.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Yahzi


Edit: Perhaps it would help if I said that good was not arbitrary. I don't understand this notion about something being good only if its good for every possible participant. The definition of "up" is both relative and objective. It is relative, because "up" points in a different direction depending on where you are on the planet: but it is objective because up is always out of the gravitational field regardless of what planet you are on. To assert that good is relative, i.e. can be redefined to mean anything you want, is like asserting that "up" has no meaning because it always means a different absolute direction.


I understand your point. And I like it.... particularly:
I don't understand this notion about something being good only if its good for every possible participant.

Thanks for taking the time..

[a_unique_person]

Perhaps it is not so much that people are good, but that society is good. That is, people by themselves are nothing. Good is that which is sustainable.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by oopsie_whoopsie_he_almost_made_sense_at_last
Perhaps it is not so much that people are good, but that society is good. That is, people by themselves are nothing. Good is that which is sustainable.

All he forgot is that other societies will advise you if your societal choices are "good" and "sustainable". Think GWB advising Saddam that Saddam's choice was "not good" (or pretend history never happened and human nature has changed for the better -- that is, what every pc liberal firmly believes).