Discussion on human nature

[Ekade]

*********Split from another thread. Too much fun to stop, but a tad off topic from the original post - Del'tar (Krusshyk)*********

There is no doubt in my mind that humanity is rotten to core. It is our nature. History proves this time and time again, and continues to do so to this day. You can look at the world today and people are slaughtering eachother SOMEWHERE at any given time.

The only reason we behave is because our instinct to keep ourselves alive overrides our outright savage nature. We cooperate only because it improves our chances of survival.

You can see this in small children between the ages of 1 and 3. They throw tantrums, the push a pull and grab. They would continue to do so unless someone teaches them they need to conform to the rules, and learn to communicate to get what they want.

That being said, I am a person of faith and I do believe in a higher power and that it has a major impact on this discussion. But in resect to our policy of not getting too heavy into politics and religion I will leave it at that.

My other controversial comment will be this.. I believe men and woman are wired differently when it comes to this "primal nature" discussion, but there are exceptions.

[Krusshyk]

While I do give credence to the Hobbsian state of nature that everyone has been hinting at (ya know...a state of all against all, limited or non-existant altruism, the works), I don't know if I would say that humans are "rotten to the core" like some of us have presupposed.

We say that humans are evil and will kill and steal and fight to get what they want. Why? Because they are evil.

I disagree.

We would do it that way (in an unregulated or "Social contract-less" society) because it is EASY. Why bother going through the hassle of negotiation or bartering when I can just take what I want from you.

Yoink.

Oh, you want that back? Ok, here is my fist of death. Problem solved. Sure there was some time wasted in the conflict and resolution, but I'll be damned if it wasn't relatively quick and final. Quicker than talking and resolving our issues.

I think the "state of nature" would exist because humans are rational creatures, choosing to do things the "easy" way. Not because we are vile at heart. We are simply choosing immediate effeciency.

[Seret Sajet]

That's a good way of looking at it, a little optimistic but something I would personally like to believe in.

But look at the definition of Good and Evil. Evil isn't a thing or an action or a place, its the absence of Good. There can be no absolute Evil because then there would have to be a complete absence of good. Take away Good and Evil does not exist.

What this shows is that good is our inhibitor. Tell me you've never thought about savagely beating someone you hated or thought about whether you could take a human life. If anything our environment teaches us how to be good people. Like Ekade pointed out children will do whatever they want until they learn what is right and what is wrong. Things like compassion, humility, courage and morality teach us to be good people.

But what if you're taught to take you own life if your honor is compromised. Suddenly that inhibitor isn't there, its replaced with something you believe to be good. What if a child is taught that you should hit people to get what you want? He will do it over and over again until it's too late to put the inhibitor in place. Suddenly the world breaks down into do's and do not's.

Then we come back to the case of this murder. This person probably had some sense of right and wrong. He probably had a sense of honor and he was shamed by this theft, virtual or not. Suddenly everything breaks down and all that's left is rage, hate and vengeance.

So I believe people are primal and savage at the core but there is plenty of time and room to keep those urges at bay by learning to be good. We shape ourselves into good people but sometimes those layers fall away and all that's left if primal instinct.

(God I'm rambling. Shoot me please.)

[Jerrel]

I agree with E on that last statment.

However I do believe that she is wrong in the idea that we a naturally vilent and I believe that if some one said the opposite they would be wrong as well.

Let me lead you through my logic first before I state what I believe.

If humanity is naturally violent and that we only coroperate with one another because of society then why did we ever begin to coroperate? At one time in human history we did not have "societies." We where hunter/gatherers with none of the socialal hang ups of today. So "if" we are naturally violent and would bring harm to others because of our nature then how did civilizations begin? Think of it this way. Humanity is violent and the only thing that curbs that violence is society, however humanity is older than society and society was created bt humanity. So how can society be formed?

If humanity is naturally peacful and our violent urges have only arrisen with the dawn of civilization then how did we protect ourselves, our hunting grounds, and our offspring? Before humanity came to become the masters of our enviroment we had to compeet with it to survive. Humanity had to fend off preaditors and other humans who would have strained food supplies. If we where peacfull by nature then we could not have survived cause there would be nothing to drive us to defend our selves, our food source, and our offsprings from compition. We as a species would have died off and the fact that we didn't and I'm siting here typeing this proves it.

It is my belief that we are a balance of both. I'm a strong believer in The Duality of Reality to the point where I'm acually thinking of writing a book on the subject. See if you break it down we are a mix between rational thought, rating between 1-10 and intictual thought comprising the remaining 10 value. For example most people fall into a 6/4 or 4/6 (rational though/ instictual thought). Humanity is both peaceful and violent. We seek peace because one can be safe and productive in such an enviroment, however we are whilling to fight to protect that which we see as a nessesity. In our current age people look at things that are not nesesities and believe them to be. For example ask yourself "can I live without my computer?" It's ok if you say no but we as rational being realize that we can by the simple fact that computers have not been with us since the dawn of time and we survived before it was created. This is ok but when you couple that with a mind that is inbalanced (8/2 or 2/8) your get problems.

Now for the sake of not making this too long I'll stop.

[Krusshyk]

I agree with E on that last statment.

However I do believe that she is wrong in the idea that we a naturally vilent and I believe that if some one said the opposite they would be wrong as well.

Let me lead you through my logic first before I state what I believe.

If humanity is naturally violent and that we only coroperate with one another because of society then why did we ever begin to coroperate? At one time in human history we did not have "societies." We where hunter/gatherers with none of the socialal hang ups of today. So "if" we are naturally violent and would bring harm to others because of our nature then how did civilizations begin? Think of it this way. Humanity is violent and the only thing that curbs that violence is society, however humanity is older than society and society was created bt humanity. So how can society be formed?

If humanity is naturally peacful and our violent urges have only arrisen with the dawn of civilization then how did we protect ourselves, our hunting grounds, and our offspring? Before humanity came to become the masters of our enviroment we had to compeet with it to survive. Humanity had to fend off preaditors and other humans who would have strained food supplies. If we where peacfull by nature then we could not have survived cause there would be nothing to drive us to defend our selves, our food source, and our offsprings from compition. We as a species would have died off and the fact that we didn't and I'm siting here typeing this proves it.

It is my belief that we are a balance of both. I'm a strong believer in The Duality of Reality to the point where I'm acually thinking of writing a book on the subject. See if you break it down we are a mix between rational thought, rating between 1-10 and intictual thought comprising the remaining 10 value. For example most people fall into a 6/4 or 4/6 (rational though/ instictual thought). Humanity is both peaceful and violent. We seek peace because one can be safe and productive in such an enviroment, however we are whilling to fight to protect that which we see as a nessesity. In our current age people look at things that are not nesesities and believe them to be. For example ask yourself "can I live without my computer?" It's ok if you say no but we as rational being realize that we can by the simple fact that computers have not been with us since the dawn of time and we survived before it was created. This is ok but when you couple that with a mind that is inbalanced (8/2 or 2/8) your get problems.

Now for the sake of not making this too long I'll stop.

This is me being the devil's advocate.

It is possible for "civilized society" to evolve from a race of inherantly evil beings. The point is that we are rational sentient beings. Look at it this way, Jerrel...

Lets assume for a moment that we are naturally evil and that this is a fact.
I like having food and water and homes and all of these wonderful things. I take things I like from other people and kill them if they resist or attempt to retake it. Until someone bigger than me comes along, stomps my ass and then takes it himself.

Ok, well being the intelligent rational person that I am, I decide that if I get another person to help me, I will go find that big guy, kill him and take the stuff I stole back. I will forgo being evil and killing my new found partner for the fact that I can benefit from being "not evil" to him.

Even if we are evil, we still like having "things" and not being dead. We agree to "not be evil" to each other in order to ensure that we don't die and lose our coveted possessions. Civility can arise out of evil in that case. People are quirky like that.

[Seret Sajet]

Krusshyk summed it up best. We learn to be good. Evil is easy, it comes naturally. Its fueled by instinct and raw human emotion. Its good that we have to work for.

While I believe human's are savage at the core I also believe in our ability to adapt and learn. We have things like free will that allow us to make choices and understand the consequences of those choices.

Humans will always have the instinct to kill. Its our ability to choose not to that sets us apart from other animals.

[Jerrel]

Violence or, as Seret put it, savagry is not the same as evil. Violence is not nessisarliy connected with "evil." I am a religious person and being so I believe that evil is chosen. I must understand that what I'm doing is wrong but I chose to do it anyway. To be predisposed to evil imho is imposible because you must have a natural sence of right and wrong. I believe that we do not and until some one tells you this is right and this is wrong we are incapible of chosin evil over good. Violence on the other hand is the urge to use force to protect, or secure our basic needs. Is it ok to kill another for food when you are starving? If you take out the good vs evil aspect out of it, I think it is because you are trying to ensure your survival, however I would rather that someone else eat the food so they could survive because it would be the morally right thing to do. In prehistoric times we did this even when we were not starving because we could never tell when a famine would arise and food would become scarce. And as I've stated before we can easily confuse what is a nessesity. Part of human nature is to minimalize risk and energy, hence why we have invented so many comforts. Unfortuantly this part of our nature fools us into believing that wants are needs and in turn some of use will use our violent urges to aid us in obtaining what we have mistaken as a need.

[Jerrel]

To sum it up I believe Evil is knowing what your doing is wrong and you chose to do it any way. I believe that a person commits evil acts and when the majority of acts a person choses become evil the person can be considered evil.

[KirtViza]

Hmm, What if what we are doing is evil. I mean by living "Peacefully" is actually all in reverse that everything we think is right is actually wrong?.

[Dwilah]

Logically I can see no true Good or Evil with the capital letters. Things we attribute to "Evil" are done sometimes in the name of Good, or in the name of a higher purpose, and vice versa. Flat out, I think they're cultural constructs.

Human beings, I believe, are ultimately social creatures...we do what we have to do to keep ourselves and those important to us--and what we perceive as our Truths--safe and unshaken. We try to protect ourselves. I think it's natural and I think if anything, "human nature" equates to a more thoughtful and active set of attempts that is parallel to natural instinct in animal kind.

[Krusshyk]

Calling "good" and "evil" a cultural construct implies some pretty interesting things dwilah.

If Good and Evil are just labels applied by individuals to specific actions, any act can arbitrarily be considered good or evil and is inherantly devoid of either "essence".

I disagree. Torturing animals is wrong. I don't care if another culture says it isn't. Do I run the risk of "ethnocentrism" by saying that torturing animals is wrong because that is how it is done in my culture? I sure do. But it is a risk I am willing to take...becuase there has to be a "Good and Evil" yardstick, independent of cultural belief that we measure actions against. We create the yardstick through thought, logic, and contemplation.

[Isratt Lightsun]

Some people make things to be so much more than it is.

There is good. There is evil. Some are evil. Some are good. Thats how I look at it.

[Skorixor]

Some people make things to be so much more than it is.

There is good. There is evil. Some are evil. Some are good. Thats how I look at it.

MENSA called, they want you to join their society...

[Isratt Lightsun]

Are you patronizing me?

[Isleh]

Logically I can see no true Good or Evil with the capital letters. Things we attribute to "Evil" are done sometimes in the name of Good, or in the name of a higher purpose, and vice versa. Flat out, I think they're cultural constructs.

Human beings, I believe, are ultimately social creatures...we do what we have to do to keep ourselves and those important to us--and what we perceive as our Truths--safe and unshaken. We try to protect ourselves. I think it's natural and I think if anything, "human nature" equates to a more thoughtful and active set of attempts that is parallel to natural instinct in animal kind.

I have to agree and I was going to post something similar if I didn't find it by reading further.

Consider that until less than 100 years ago, a woman was considered evil for enjoying sex. Is that true? In today's society within the US, that is becoming less so do to changes in the society. The common example of murder being acceptable is Feudal Japan when proper respect was not shown.

It is my opinion that society defines "Good" is proper social behavior & "Evil" is improper social behavior as defined by the society. Anyone who deviates from the norm is labeled evil. It may not actually reflect what I consider Good & Evil. At the root of it all is the fact that people are social by nature. Generally, people are neither good nor bad when born but with a simple desire to learn. A child will test their social environment just as much as they will test their natural environment. In that process, they will:

• - scream and yell for something they want now
  - run back and give a parent a hug "just because"
  - burn their fingers on a hot stove and
  - remember to be careful when closing a door to keep their fingers out of the way.

There are conditions both mentally and physically that may hamper that learning process.

The society, by defining improper social behavior as "Evil" will naturally resist changes that makes a improper social behavior acceptable.

Does that mean Good and Evil does not exist? Depends on the person. To me, Evil is real and it is the presence of something, not the lack of something.

That something is Malice. The deliberate harm for the sake of harm without reason or remorse.