Is humanity good in nature?

[Nat Turner]

Humans are animals. No more, no less. We have millions of years of survival instincts ingrained within us. These survival instincts don't run in parallel to the way we're supposed to behave in a society. So my answer is no, we're not good natured beasts, just like each and every other species on this planet. We're smarter and able to think, but our brains have the same basic needs as animals that aren't smart and able to think.

We're the only animal that has a developed and complex language, and are the only animal that has built a vessel that traveled to the moon.

 

[Loc-Dog]

We're all alright. It's society that corrupts us.

 

[Fliko]

But, we are an animal nontheless.

 

[spookymooky]

I don't believe in morality at all, so in that sense, I think humans are niether good nor evil.

I also agree with Angree Lawyer about people being selfish, I know I am.

However, it seems to me that naturally humans are inclined to want those around them to be happy. I do. I think it's a natural part of being such a social animal.

 

[Raziaar]

I don't believe in morality at all, so in that sense, I think humans are niether good nor evil.

I also agree with Angree Lawyer about people being selfish, I know I am.

However, it seems to me that naturally humans are inclined to want those around them to be happy. I do. I think it's a natural part of being such a social animal.

Tell me then, what you think about a child rapist who goes around murdering and raping little kids, not necessarily in any particular order?

is he just a selfish person, who simply deserves criminal punishment because its against the law, rather than some deeply disturbing, evil act that he committed?

Are they just a victim of nature's programming, following their instinctual habits just like any other animal?


I think with human beings, we've definitely evolved past primitive thoughts and actions, and ascended into concious thought and being... knowing the differences between good and wicked.

 

[spookymooky]

Tell me then, what you think about a child rapist who goes around murdering and raping little kids, not necessarily in any particular order?

is he just a selfish person, who simply deserves criminal punishment because its against the law, rather than some deeply disturbing, evil act that he committed?

Are they just a victim of nature's programming, following their instinctual habits just like any other animal?


I think with human beings, we've definitely evolved past primitive thoughts and actions, and ascended into concious thought and being... knowing the differences between good and wicked.

I don't think he "deserves" criminal punishment. That implies that he has a right or responsibility to it. As I've stated in the thread to which you are refering, I don't hold to the traditional image of justice. See Nat Turner's and NotATools comments for a large part of my views. Niether said much I would disagree with.

Also, I don't think man does know the difference between good and wicked, at least I don't. If you're referring to divine revelation, I don't put much stock in that. If you're referring to Natural Law, the traditional basis for western moral thought as shaped by Aristotle and Aquinas, then I would refute that as well. Natural law only claims to list what is most natural, or primitive *cough* , in human behavior. The idea that this is morally or spiritually correct has been slowly added on over millenia. Also, there is no saying that Natural Law is correct. One of the simple examples of it is that Lying is wrong because speech was invented to convey fact, thus lying is a perversion of the truth. In fact, it's possible that white lies are in integral part of speech, as speech may have been a more efficient form of social grooming: http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/05/65/bbs00000565-00/bbs.dunbar.html

 

[Raziaar]

I don't think he "deserves" criminal punishment. That implies that he has a right or responsibility to it. As I've stated in the thread to which you are refering, I don't hold to the traditional image of justice. See Nat Turner's and NotATools comments for a large part of my views. Niether said much I would disagree with.

Also, I don't think man does know the difference between good and wicked, at least I don't. If you're referring to divine revelation, I don't put much stock in that. If you're referring to Natural Law, the traditional basis for western moral thought as shaped by Aristotle and Aquinas, then I would refute that as well. Natural law only claims to list what is most natural, or primitive *cough* , in human behavior. The idea that this is morally or spiritually correct has been slowly added on over millenia. Also, there is no saying that Natural Law is correct. One of the simple examples of it is that Lying is wrong because speech was invented to convey fact, thus lying is a perversion of the truth. In fact, it's possible that white lies are in integral part of speech, as speech may have been a more efficient form of social grooming: http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/05/65/bbs00000565-00/bbs.dunbar.html

I'm not referring to any thread. And it has nothing to do with religious or divine. Good and evil doesn't have to be a religious thing.

I dunno, its IMPOSSIBLE for me to shrug off something so horribly grotesque as an action like that, something done for sick, sick pleasure resulting in the mutiliation, humiliation, rape and death of innocents, CHILDren innocents. Its just so disturbing, and I find it inhuman to not think something like that is wicked and so wrong, going against the fabric of what we are as an evolved, highly intelligent species.

 

[OCybrManO]

People are selfish. Whether said selfishness manifests itself as "good" or "bad" merely depends on the circumstances. That's my view.

 

[Raziaar]

People are selfish. Whether said selfishness manifests itself as "good" or "bad" merely depends on the circumstances. That's my view.

If people have this whole mindset, why are people upset and offended about say for example, the Iraq war. Its just humans being the animals they are, right?

I guess I just don't feel that way...

 

[spookymooky]

I can't shrug off suffering and gore, myself.

However, I don't assume that those things are wrong in and of themselves. I just have no taste for them, like most people.

its IMPOSSIBLE for me to shrug off something so horribly grotesque as an action like that, something done for sick, sick pleasure resulting in the mutiliation, humiliation, rape and death of innocents, CHILDren innocents.

To me things like this sound a bit manic and a bit scary in and of themselves.

I find it inhuman to not think something like that is wicked and so wrong, going against the fabric of what we are as an evolved, highly intelligent species.

As I've said before, just because it's against our nature, doenst make it wrong. I also don't think that humanity is necessarily the pinnacle of nature.

 

[Nat Turner]

Raziaar, if you really care about whatever spiritual form of justice you're talking about, you should be an advocate of vigilante groups. There's no need to have the unstoppable government take on border-line religious or 'moral' values and do it for you.

Also everything is natural, period. Arguing what's most natural is pointless and leads nowhere. And for example, if it was natural for ancient humans to enslave others and treat women like objects(it's found in many ancient cultures), would you want that for today? Evolution has nothing to do with this discussion, also.

 

[Laivasse]

I dunno, its IMPOSSIBLE for me to shrug off something so horribly grotesque as an action like that, something done for sick, sick pleasure resulting in the mutiliation, humiliation, rape and death of innocents, CHILDren innocents. Its just so disturbing, and I find it inhuman to not think something like that is wicked and so wrong, going against the fabric of what we are as an evolved, highly intelligent species.

Noone's asking for it to be shrugged off. Such a dangerous individual needs to be dealt with. They are a threat to others in society and need to be shut away where they can do no harm.

But right and wrong is much more complicated than most people have been brought up to understand. For a start - have you ever felt a particular urge to kill and rape a child? Probably not. It's not common to most people, not normal - something has gone severely wrong somewhere within that individual, something unrectifiable.

Yet, if you've never felt the same compulsions and never had to act on them, how can you compare yourself to that person, on a level playing field? The idea of a black and white morality creates the idea of this straight line that can be drawn across all of humankind, one side of which is good, one side of which is evil. If you had felt some kind of disgusting urge to kill or rape a child and not acted upon it, then you could say you were operating under the same circumstances as that individual, but showed empathy where they failed to show any; restraint where they showed callousness. However, all to often people make a judgement thinking along the lines of "That person did something I will never do, therefore I am better than them - I am good and they are evil", when a more accurate way of summing up that line of thought would be "That person is someone I will never be, therefore I am good and they are evil".

I'm not saying killers and whatnot have no choice in their actions. But different people have different degrees of choice and get judged differently. An easy way of summing up what I mean is like this - someone might possess all the callousness and lack of compassion as a child murderer, yet that same person might not ever feel a particular desire to go and kill and rape children. This person could end up working in some bureacracy, making people's lives difficult on a daily basis and showing no capability for compassion, yet never be condemned as anything more than a twat by the occasional disgruntled customer, or a mediocre joe by everyone else. This person hasn't necessarily made any more effort or choice to be 'good' or 'bad' than the average child murderer, yet automatically comes up 'better' when judged by this kind of level-playing-field morality.

I hope I've made clear to an extent what I'm trying to say.

Edit: I'd just like to point out that the example of a child murderer really isn't the best to use, since by conventional morality that is the thing most people would give as an example of the most depraved and wrong thing you can do. But when most people make judgements based on morality most of the time they aren't judging the most extreme thing you could possibly get, they are judging 100's of little issues day by day, never considering that the morality that they are judging these things by is completely relative.

Also, just because there is no such thing as an across-the-board morality, it doesn't invalidate people's personal, reasoned value systems. For example someone might say selflessness is a good trait because they believe it results in a society where more people can benefit. That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that a selfish person is 'evil'.

 

[spookymooky]

I understand what you mean, Laivasse, and agree with you, for what it's worth. Although, I don't necessary agree with the idea of Judgement with a capital J, i get your point.

 

[OCybrManO]

If people have this whole mindset, why are people upset and offended about say for example, the Iraq war. Its just humans being the animals they are, right?

If you invade other countries on false pretenses and generally go about arrogantly doing whatever you please you will probably incite violence in return. So, perhaps they don't want to draw negative attention to the country in which they live. Then, there is the massive amount of money spent on a military escapade rather than other things that would benefit them. There are plenty of ways that both war and anti-war stances lead back to selfishness.

Also, I didn't say humans are necessarily evil. I said it can go either way. Selfishness doesn't have to manifest itself as murder, theft, etc. It can be supporting human rights, saving someone else's life, being nice to everyone, and even donating to charity... like if the person believes in a higher power that rewards good behavior, enjoys the feeling he gets from doing good deeds, expects other people to help him when he's in need, or just wants to make people like him.

Honestly, I'd be more surprised to find something that can't be explained through veiled selfishness.

 

[Raziaar]

Well... repulsion and abhorrent feelings about something. That generally stems from somebody's inner moral compass. It was developed as evolution went on. Otherwise, how would it stem? Would people in history just some day say, "Hey, i'm going to make my body feel sick like this to something because I want to impose morality upon myself."

Nah... people are naturally deeply offended by certain things, such as seeing others murdered/raped or whatever that violates them. It's wired into their being, at least I think so. It ties into all of the other emotions people feel. Happiness, sadness, loneliness, etc etc.

Humans are not instinctually designed to just be indifferent about seeing things like rape or murder, or death. They're naturally affected by it. People like serial killers, rapists, etc... if they hear certain keywords or sights such as those... their brain chemistry reacts entirely differently, and they just don't react much to it. Normal people do, however. I can't remember where I read or heard this, but these impulses of fear or objection can be seen in the electrical brain currents of a patient being studied.



I dunno. to me. The idea of judging(and by judging, I don't mean criminal punishment judging) a criminal who murders someone the same as someone who violently rapes, then murders someone... that doesn't seem logical to me. It does not compute.


I mean, can you honestly tell me that you feel the rape and murder of an innocent, young little boy or girl is just as objectional as the murder of a grown man, who may or may not be innocent? Is the rape and murder of that innocent, young life not evil? Is the rape or murder of that grown man or woman not evil? Just some sort of human action? We've not really evolved far at all if certain people can think that, in my opinion. There's no hope for us at all, if we're not bothered by the destruction of our earth, the mutilization of our people, not being able to think of them as good or bad, and just inevitable 'human action'.

 

[ríomhaire]

Hmm. It just seems like BS to me (the thing you heard, not that you heard it)...

Now that I think about it I think it was a study about whether someone would scam someone else. 1 in 10 would scam someone else given half the chance, another 1 in 10 would never dream of it.