18 replies to this topic

[A941]

Is man benevolent, altruistic and good by nature or is he an agressive egoist?
What is the empathy-level of humans out there in the "wild"?

[Athanasios]

It depends on context and your definitions. The egoist position is not testable due to the after the fact labeling of 'selfishness'. It ultimately is self-referential and must seek values outside of a definition of selfishness. If attempted to be seen as a morality, another problem arises, see Hume's articulation of the is-ought problem. The important point that makes it fairly irrelevant is that we have rationality so choice is possible regardless of nature.

Edited by cnorwood, 14 March 2010 - 01:40 AM.

[brokenportal]

What comes to mind is that the choices a person is most likely to make, benevolent and altruistic, or agressive and egoist are dependant upon what level of their needs are met. If we go by Maslows Heirarchy of needs,



then it seems that the higher you rise toward the peak, the easier it is for you to be things like benevolent and altruistic.

You might see people that seem to be in the peak, but that are aggressive egoists, but they are probably not in the peak, but only think they are, or are pretending to be or something like that, and have still yet to transcent the levels completely.

Empathy in the "wild" it seems we would have to say is lower on the average. Empathy in well functioning societies it seems is much higher on the average.

I would love to see what the extrapolation of a discussion like this might bring out though, in others and my own thoughts.

[forever freedom]

I agree with cnorwood. By the way, A941, you could attempt to make your flood of topics and usual questions a bit more detailed and informed, to make them less useless.

Edited by forever freedom, 14 March 2010 - 03:47 AM.

[A941]

FLOOD???

Ive postet 3 times that much in other forums and no one said that it was a flood.

[Shannon Vyff]

I think humans evolved what they are and how they are due to helping each other out. Empathy/mirror neurons/emotions-allowed us to do this. I see more nice humans that are useful members of their community and contributing to their community-than I see selfish or parasitic humans.

[lunarsolarpower]

I think humans are basically tribal in their outlook and the better side of humanity we see more and more is created by expanding the definition of who is within one's "tribe". Your opinion on where that expansion should end probably determines many of your beliefs with people all over the spectrum from those sporting "God and Country" t-shirts to those who worship Gaia.

[JLL]

If you look at how our close relatives behave in the wild, it paints a pretty grim picture. But, altruism is good for the species to a degree, so there must "naturally" be some benevolence in people. And of course, we're not apes, genetically close as we may be.

[Shannon Vyff]

Our news, from the good stories to the bad-all revolve around things we see as problems and want to change, or people we see as heroes and want to emulate. Our whole educational system works to overcome the tribal "us vs. them" instincts -and in recent times many of the higher educated populations within many countries have adopted a more global outlook, even China. Most of humanity day to day business goes well and is uneventful, most people rate as satisfied -even some of the 40 million without access to proper sanitation, or the 80% of the world's population that lives on less than 10 dollars a day (poverty level). There is much to do to increase the standards of living all over, and I do my part in what way I can to help with that (supporting politics that are in-line with my beliefs) and I give 5% of my income to non-profit organizations dedicated to ending inequality. In regards to human nature though -I'm hopeful about growth in science & technology-I'm hopeful about elevating the billions in the world who have vastly less opportunities in life than the top 20% (that takes in three quarters of the world's income). I'm hopeful because I feel that people are mainly good-especially since selfishness is also seen as (and taught as) bad in countless stories ancient and modern. People constantly analyze themselves, humans are fascinating creatures.

[captainbeefheart]

Human nature doesn't exist, there's no real evidence for it. Social conditioning determines what we're like much more. I think it's better to look at it this way:

Think of it as planting a seed in a basement with a tiny crack in the ceiling with only a bit of light. The chances are that seed isn't gonna have much of a chance, some might, but most won't. Give the seed, light, water, care, attention and it'll grow fanatically.

[rwac]

Is man benevolent, altruistic and good by nature or is he an agressive egoist?
What is the empathy-level of humans out there in the "wild"?

We try to encourage benevolent, altruistic behavior culturally.
But when push comes to shove, the baser natures do come to the fore,
so lets not delude ourselves that people can become entirely benevolent.

[A941]

I by myself think that man is good and altruistic by nature, but spoiled through society.
But I believe in man, his great intellect and his abbility to solve problems through tools like science, i do so cause there is no one left to believe in...
God?
If he exists, and if he is allmighty, wouldnt there be really big holes instead of Mecca and Rome?
I mean, if some bloodthirsty Maniac would say that he has done such unoutspeakable, unthinkable things for nearly 2 millenias over and over again, in MY name...
to simply kill him wouldnt be enough... if there is a god he would have to invent hell for such people.

[Athanasios]

A941, do you realize that your question requires a definition of 'good'? Look up meta-ethics, as it tries to answer what is goodness.

[N.T.M.]

Is man benevolent, altruistic and good by nature or is he an agressive egoist?
What is the empathy-level of humans out there in the "wild"?

Employing the theory of evolution, benevolence, etc. would aid in social abilities which would of course in turn be solidified through natural selection.

[Shannon Vyff]

I think this debate will go on for a long time, possibly after humans aren't human anymore I do think though that overwhelmingly humans are nice, caring individuals and have followed with interest the new evolutionary kindness ideas:
http://www.alternet.org/story/145888/

[full_circle]

twins fight in womb for nutrition. sperms emit poisonous chemical to kill off nearby sperms. survival survival survival. it is only after survival is secured comes the humanity.

[Maecenas]

Mind is human nature. We are Homo Sapiens. And that's our greatest advantage. We can transform ourselves through ideas and nothing determines us except our understanding of the world, but after understanding it, we can stay above it. Our knowledge determines our freedom. But knowledge develops through development of society. Thus type of socialization creates what we call human individuality.

[YanaRay]

... it all depends on the environment and the situation one's in. If you're on a survival level and close to painful discomfort or death then the basic biological part of your nature takes over. Plants and animals fight for resources, kill each other, poison others, our history as mankind is no better - even worse, as we consider ourselves to be more than just bio-machines and still, still cause all that suffering.
If you're safe, satiated, at peace, it's so easy to be altruistic, but if you're not - well, you go back to your dark roots.
Many people are never happy with what they have - they may live in comfort, but still want to be BETTER than others, prefer competition (however cruel) not cooperation. We're all capable of being extremely aggressive and egoistic, that's the dark background that can be painted over with rainbow colours but never actually erased.

[Centurion]

Human nature to my mind is adaptiveness, I don't really believe we have much else in common at the basic species level. It's difficult to untangle sometimes what way our thinking works - is a given action driven cerebrally, by deliberate thought - or is it driven by instinct, with some thought grafted ontop to satisfy our own pride and narcissism.

Come to think of it, can we even reliably draw a line in humans between the subconscious internalisation of repeated, deliberate thought patterns - and "natural" base instinct?

I've just re-read the above and realised I really need to sleep.

Night folks