True Nature of Man

[DarkGhost89]

Today, I was talking to my friend over our reading of The Prince. Anyone eventually it turned into a discussion of human nature. Is our core nature is to be selfish, vindictive, and advantageous? Or is our true nature is to be kind, generous, and helpful? Are we by nature wish to be good unless our upbringing is otherwise or vice versa?

[MaximiIian]

In a way, both. Humans are equally capable of terrifying brutality and selfless kindness, of piggish greed and boundless generosity, of bottomless ignorance and unrestrained genius, of stunning rudeness and honorable courtesy. It all depends on two things, really: the balance of chemicals in the mind, and the environment in which one is brought up.
Truly, Humanity is a two-edged sword. But I'd rather be a versatile two-edge than a one-edge blade of limited use.

[boofhead]

When it comes to the crunch I think we are selfish. All positive traits, when you break them down, will most likely end up having sourced from selfishness.

If I give a gift or perform some other positive act with no compulsion I may be being selfish - to enhance my image, to assuage my conscience, to fit in with my view of myself etc.

As depressing as it sounds, I think even true altruism comes from a desire to satisfy the self. Mother Therese would have been a miserable person had she not lived such an altruistic life. She had no choice in a way.

Fundamentally I think it comes down to survival (which is selfish). What else is human co-operation, forgiveness etc except a social tool we have developed to ensure our mutual survival. It is inherently SELFISH.

PS. I do not use 'selfish' with necessarily a negative connotation. I am trying to look at it objectively.

[hulahooplolli]

In all honesty, I think that we are selfish beings. If you let a child grow up, that child will do bad, more than it does good....especially if you don't punish them. We must be taught as children what is right, and what is wrong. Most of the things that we do, are extremely selfish acts, for the furthering of ourselves. It might seem as if it is good for someone else (and sometimes it is), but the majority of our thoughts and cares usually stem from thoughts and worries about ourselves. We have the capability to do good, but a lot of the time we do not use it.
I think is sad, but true.

[boofhead]

In all honesty, I think that we are selfish beings. If you let a child grow up, that child will do bad, more than it does good....especially if you don't punish them. We must be taught as children what is right, and what is wrong. Most of the things that we do, are extremely selfish acts, for the furthering of ourselves. It might seem as if it is good for someone else (and sometimes it is), but the majority of our thoughts and cares usually stem from thoughts and worries about ourselves. We have the capability to do good, but a lot of the time we do not use it.
I think is sad, but true.

I agree with you but even disciplining a child so that they fit with societal norms is inherently selfish. I think everything is ultimately. How depressing.

BTW you look HOT in your avatar (will I get in trouble for that? )

[MasterAdnin]

In all honesty, I think that we are selfish beings. If you let a child grow up, that child will do bad, more than it does good....especially if you don't punish them. We must be taught as children what is right, and what is wrong. Most of the things that we do, are extremely selfish acts, for the furthering of ourselves. It might seem as if it is good for someone else (and sometimes it is), but the majority of our thoughts and cares usually stem from thoughts and worries about ourselves. We have the capability to do good, but a lot of the time we do not use it.
I think is sad, but true.

I feel that Humans tend to be good. All these things that we consider good, have come from humans. Basic morals are how humans feel we should treat eachother etc. If humans were selfish and bad, than the world would be much different with us not caring about murder, crime, etc.

Salaam,
Adnan

[I Have a Clever Name]

In all honesty, I think that we are selfish beings. If you let a child grow up, that child will do bad, more than it does good....especially if you don't punish them. We must be taught as children what is right, and what is wrong. Most of the things that we do, are extremely selfish acts, for the furthering of ourselves. It might seem as if it is good for someone else (and sometimes it is), but the majority of our thoughts and cares usually stem from thoughts and worries about ourselves. We have the capability to do good, but a lot of the time we do not use it.

Well, I'm a proponent of evolution and thus believe we have a sense of morality derived from emotive appraisal - murder is wrong, boo. Theft is wrong, boo. Charity, yay. Etc.

I don't think a child has to be taught what is inherently good or bad at all, I think it will instinctively come to them. Sure, the social circumstances of a child will affect its morality to an extent, but there has never been a civilisation that advocated murder within its ranks (well, there might have been, but it probably didn't leave much of a trace!).

What we percieve to be good is generally beneficial for our survival, what we percieve as bad is generally detrimental. BUT we are also selfish creatures, subconsciously we wish to survive so that we may be the ones that furthers our genetics. As such, we might make compromises with our subjective appraisals in order to better our situation or standing within a society in order to become more desirable, or even to simply continue subsisting.

Truly, Humanity is a two-edged sword. But I'd rather be a versatile two-edge than a one-edge blade of limited use.

Indeed. From a darwinist perspective, morality which can be bypassed for the furthering of one's own genetics is preferable. Perhaps thats not what you were alluding to, but I'll misappropriate the metaphor for my own ends whilst cackling evilly.

[MaximiIian]

Indeed. From a darwinist perspective, morality which can be bypassed for the furthering of one's own genetics is preferable. Perhaps thats not what you were alluding to, but I'll misappropriate the metaphor for my own ends whilst cackling evilly.

True. Sometimes ethics impede us from doing what is necessary and sometimes they defend us from doing what's wrong. The trick is to know when to apply ethics to a situation and to what degree so as to produce the most appropriate bevahioral response to said situation.

[LoZz]

humans natural instink is to forward their genes and produce offspring, so they will do whats in their best intrests, which can be ether. however sometimes they will do something not inline with that but thats caused by social conditioning.

[hulahooplolli]

Look at the Mundugumor society, they are very warlike and condone violence and killing. They were head hunters and cannibals. Opposite genders didn't speak to one another, because they would kill each other, in essence.

[Tom Paine]

Look at the Mundugumor society, they are very warlike and condone violence and killing. They were head hunters and cannibals. Opposite genders didn't speak to one another, because they would kill each other, in essence.

But we cannot use one society as a model of mankind generally, surely? A society conditions man as surely as man conditions his society.

[hulahooplolli]

no, he said he had never heard of a society in which they murdered and killed one another, I was just a tad bit late with my example, i couldn't remember how to spell the name...my apologies

[Tom Paine]

Ah, but even then, my point stands; the fact such a society exists is not neccessarily to do with the nature of man.

[hulahooplolli]

Clever said he had never heard of a society in which they kill one another, and I simply provided an example...the Yonomamo ( i think that's right) are also an example, just less extreme. But the fact that the society does exist show the capabilites of man's nature. Depending on circumstances, and that was the question.

[Tom Paine]

The capabilities of man are just as well shown by the fact we created welfare society where those in need are cared for. Depths of human depravity are countered by the heights of humanitarianism.

[hulahooplolli]

they are, and I agree...but each person when they objectively look over the thoughts that they have, and the actions that they commit, most of these are selfish and ambitious in their first nature. This is just my opinion. This is why I say that we are selfish people. Giving is better than receiving, but most would rather get than give.

[Tom Paine]

Ah, I disagree; and i disagree that giving is altruistic. Do we not feel good when we give, and do we not feel at least as good as when we get? Part of us is geared to giving for social cohesion and evolutionary benefit; yes, its cynical, but the fact is if we actually analyse our actions rather than thoughts, for thoughts are tempered when we act on them, I would say we found more giving than getting.

[Pnutmaster]

Agree to disagree, shall we ?

I would propose that the reason 'we feel good' after giving aid, a gift, etc is because we are fulfilling a step towards being the ideal, morally sound individual. Call me a hippie, but I find most of our values to be the products of social conditioning rather than innate truths that we discover inside ourselves. Do we arrive at the concept of good and evil when we're children? Yes, we may consider it, but our parents and mentors are the ones that classify certain actions as good and bad and encourage us to recognize them as such.

EDIT: damn, you guys post fast. I was posting in reply to Grim's second to last post

[Tom Paine]

I would propose that the reason 'we feel good' after giving aid, a gift, etc is because we are fulfilling a step towards being the ideal, morally sound individual. Call me a hippie, but I find most of our values to be the products of social conditioning rather than innate truths that we discover inside ourselves. Do we arrive at the concept of good and evil when we're children? Yes, we may consider it, but our parents and mentors are the ones that classify certain actions as good and bad and encourage us to recognize them as such.

Ah, but if its not conditioned why are we predisposed toward good acts? As Socrates puts it, "No man willingly does evil"; why not, if evil is simply societal preconditioning? The specifics may be conditioning by parents, teachers, etc, but the basis, a general framework, already pre-exists it, I think.

[Pnutmaster]

Ah, but if its not conditioned why are we predisposed toward good acts? As Socrates puts it, "No man willingly does evil"; why not, if evil is simply societal preconditioning? The specifics may be conditioning by parents, teachers, etc, but the basis, a general framework, already pre-exists it, I think.

I don't mean to say that before our social programming begins we hold a predisposition towards classical evil. Sure, we are aggressive, violent and selfish as our instincts dictate. However, our instincts also have a lighter side, as we are inclined to work with one another, aid to be aided--as chimpanzees demonstrate in their communities. Who can say whether we side more with good or evil, but I stand by the belief that until we are told otherwise, we see things in shades of gray.

Precisely. This is why I take issue with any 'rational' ethical code - we must, I believe, ultimately rely on instinct. The threat of reprisal coupled with deep-seated altruistic, empathic inclinations have served us well enough in the past. This is not to say I disagree with the 'law', for the sake of practicality I believe it to be necessary and its ideally a representation of the shared ethical principles of a given society. But deontology, utilitarianism, theistic based morality etc. - there are always examples that undermine them, or other flaws.

Unfortunately, when push comes to shove, instinct will override any moral code. Who here can say they would have the frame of mind to judge the 'appropriate' fate of a man intent on killing/harming them and/or their family. Such a circumstance easily unleashes the beast, and it is not quelled until the threat has been dissolved. Afterwards, the human psyche can do a marvelous job rationalizing any level of barbarism that the beast brought us down to :p