The war on human nature

[noddy]

Condradictions are just false dichomtomies projected from a third party perspective

[Enki]

The very idea of 'human nature' is a statement of values. Usually when people talk about 'human nature' they are referring to their own values as if they are an objective fact. i.e. Humanity's fallen nature. They are basically dropping Christian dogma as if it's an objective description of the human organism or the social person. As if altruism is less a part of human nature than gluttonous self-interest.

[Endovelico]

As if altruism is less a part of human nature than gluttonous self-interest.

Altruism is definitely part of human nature, but it doesn't express itself as often as gluttonous self-interest. Which means that historically altruism wasn't as successful as gluttonous self-interest in preserving the species. But things may be changing. Unfortunately we may have to wait a few thousand years before we notice it...

[manolo]

Folks,

People who think that human nature is basically selfish should maybe get out more. I recommend some charity work for starters, but there is generosity to be found all over; I see it every day.

Alex.

People are not basically anything, Alex. They are capable of all kinds of decency and indecency considering the endless variety of conditions they come out of and are confronted with. If one needs to fabricate a view of "human nature" though, it is probably the most practical to form that with a positive bias. Your view will guide your intentions and actions and will have a major influence on how people and the world respond to you. You will tend to get what you expect from your confirmation bias, so if you are going to have a bias it is probably best for that to be a positive one.

I would be very careful though and hold that view very lightly. Taking our views, good or bad, too seriously and holding them too tightly can blind us. It is easy to do. In times of unsettled conditions, adhering to a strong viewpoints allows for a reassuring coherence not provided by real people and events. Still, holding strongly to a view is dangerous, and makes it impossible to see the world from the frames of others and respond effectively. It can blind people not only to the decency and indecency of others but also to their own.

kmich,

I don't think we are disagreeing. When I say "there is generosity to be found all over" it's not to claim that everyone is generous or that a certain person is always generous without exception. We can and do respond differently according to conditions. Having said that, I have found that character can be a factor in our appraisals, something considered when we employ someone in a responsible position or lend them money etc.

So, I'm not propounding an essentialist philosophy, but noting that there are some features in character that can be discerned and relied upon much of the time. For example, my wife of 35 years is a painfully honest person. In the absence of some psychological illness I don't expect her to change much at all.

Alex.

[manolo]

As if altruism is less a part of human nature than gluttonous self-interest.

Altruism is definitely part of human nature, but it doesn't express itself as often as gluttonous self-interest. Which means that historically altruism wasn't as successful as gluttonous self-interest in preserving the species. But things may be changing. Unfortunately we may have to wait a few thousand years before we notice it...

Endo,

One of the most futile and boring internet activities is discussing altruism with the gluttonously self interested. A few thousand years of such discussion is not on my 'to do' list.

Alex.

[kmich]

I don't think we are disagreeing. When I say "there is generosity to be found all over" it's not to claim that everyone is generous or that a certain person is always generous without exception. We can and do respond differently according to conditions. Having said that, I have found that character can be a factor in our appraisals, something considered when we employ someone in a responsible position or lend them money etc.

So, I'm not propounding an essentialist philosophy, but noting that there are some features in character that can be discerned and relied upon much of the time. For example, my wife of 35 years is a painfully honest person. In the absence of some psychological illness I don't expect her to change much at all.

Alex.

We are on the same non-essentialist page, Alex. What you are describing are pragmatic understandings derived from life experience. People can often display an assortment of characteristics that one can learn to rely upon. There are practical understandings of human character that we depend upon every day.

While this is all true, people can be very surprising. In the work I do and particular in the overseas medical emergency missions I have been on, I have been with people under extreme stress. Under those conditions, people who had lived selfish lives of dubious ethical character can become surprisingly decent and giving, and people one would expect to be decent by the esteem they had been given their friends and family can notably turn cruel and venal. Under these high stress conditions, that paths people take are unpredictable. I have also seen these sides in myself and have had to make my own choices. I believe this is why Viktor Frankl's work has been so meaningful for me.

Endo,

One of the most futile and boring internet activities is discussing altruism with the gluttonously self interested. A few thousand years of such discussion is not on my 'to do' list.

Alex.

Kind of like the endless, overnight, dormitory discussions I used to hear in my first year of college about "nature" vs. "nurture," "environment" vs. "instinct." Around and around they would go, and in the morning they would be exactly where they started and they still had to get to class and likely fall asleep during lectures. I was too busy working to overcome over my own immaturity at the time in order to succeed in a Pre-Med curriculum to play along with them for very long on that.

[Simple Minded]

Condradictions are just false dichomtomies projected from a third party perspective

Amen bro. reminds me of these great quotes (somewhat paraphrased):

Contradictions do not exist! Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises, you will find that one of them is wrong.

To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction, is to abdicate one’s mind.

A rational man knows that the contradictory is the impossible, that the attempt to achieve it can lead only to destruction. Therefore, he does not permit himself to hold contradictory values, to pursue contradictory goals, or to imagine that the pursuit of a contradiction can ever be to his interest.


of course, some people do believe contradictory beliefs with equal conviction. In my experience, they are usually unhappy, and often are self-destructive. Hard to say which suffer from medical or genetic problems and which suffer from bad are personal choices.

[Endovelico]

...people who had lived selfish lives of dubious ethical character can become surprisingly decent and giving, and people one would expect to be decent by the esteem they had been given their friends and family can notably turn cruel and venal...

Do doctors study statistics and probabilities? Do they know what a sample is and how to select it so that observations may be statistically relevant?...

[manolo]

of course, some people do believe contradictory beliefs with equal conviction. In my experience, they are usually unhappy, and often are self-destructive. Hard to say which suffer from medical or genetic problems and which suffer from bad are personal choices.

SM,

Interesting. I believe that abortion (except in cases of threat to mother's life) is wrong and yet I also believe that a woman has the right to choose.

Does this make me unhappy? Yes, a bit, but it also allows me to see that there is tragedy in the world and this can be revealed in what we sometimes call 'contradictions' or sometimes 'irreconcilable moral dilemmas'.

Does this make me self destructive? No. Medical or genetic problem? No. Bad personal choice? Don't know, the problem for me seems to be about not being able to make the choice between beliefs which seem to contradict. However, accepting that there is tragedy, it doesn't feel like contradiction, just how the world is I guess.

Alex.

[Simple Minded]

of course, some people do believe contradictory beliefs with equal conviction. In my experience, they are usually unhappy, and often are self-destructive. Hard to say which suffer from medical or genetic problems and which suffer from bad are personal choices.

SM,

Interesting. I believe that abortion (except in cases of threat to mother's life) is wrong and yet I also believe that a woman has the right to choose.

Does this make me unhappy? Yes, a bit, but it also allows me to see that there is tragedy in the world and this can be revealed in what we sometimes call 'contradictions' or sometimes 'irreconcilable moral dilemmas'.

Does this make me self destructive? No. Medical or genetic problem? No. Bad personal choice? Don't know, the problem for me seems to be about not being able to make the choice between beliefs which seem to contradict. However, accepting that there is tragedy, it doesn't feel like contradiction, just how the world is I guess.

Alex.

I don't see your opinions as a contradictions at all. So I am not surprised that you are not self-destructive.

Believing in a concept of good and evil, knowing that you will not have to "walk a mile in the shoes of others," and then forcing your concept of good and evil upon another human is where I see the greater contradiction. I am also pro-choice, both in terms of having an abortion and owning a gun. Especially when those in the peanut gallery will not bear the responsibility of imposing their desires on others. I find both the idea of the state deciding who must have children and the idea of who must not own a gun to be scary. The state is a broadsword, not a scalpel.

Switching to another arena, I have been buying health insurance for 25 years and have never used it, some day I will. Buying insurance rather than spending that money elsewhere, or saving that money for a potential future medical emergency has been my personal choice. There are those who advocate since the poor can not afford health insurance, the state should provide it for them. Fine with me, but only if the state is honest that everyone, including the poor will be paying more for food, clothing, energy, housing, etc. in order for the state to create a fund for these services.

Thinking that forcing the poor to pay more for goods they will need every day, in order to fund services they may not need, on may not need for decades, while lying to them that these services will be provided to them at "no cost" or "reduced cost," is an act of compassion and morality, is in my mind, contradictory.

Am I simplistic and self-delusional? No doubt. Everyone I have ever met has been. With complex systems, we all focus on what we think works and ignore what we think doesn't work in order to label the whole system as "good." Similarly, we all focus on what we think doesn't work and ignore what we think does work in order to label the whole system as "bad." As humans we simply don't seem capable of processing all the variables involved, nor do we seem to possess the desire to do so.

A better example of what I meant in my previous post would be the person who eats three bowls of ice cream a day and thinks it will not negatively effect their health, or the person who tattoos "F**k You!" on their neck, and then complains they can't get a job in sales, they are both engaging in contradictory thinking and are both being self-destructive.

[noddy]

of course, some people do believe contradictory beliefs with equal conviction. In my experience, they are usually unhappy, and often are self-destructive. Hard to say which suffer from medical or genetic problems and which suffer from bad are personal choices.

SM,

Interesting. I believe that abortion (except in cases of threat to mother's life) is wrong and yet I also believe that a woman has the right to choose.

Does this make me unhappy? Yes, a bit, but it also allows me to see that there is tragedy in the world and this can be revealed in what we sometimes call 'contradictions' or sometimes 'irreconcilable moral dilemmas'.

Does this make me self destructive? No. Medical or genetic problem? No. Bad personal choice? Don't know, the problem for me seems to be about not being able to make the choice between beliefs which seem to contradict. However, accepting that there is tragedy, it doesn't feel like contradiction, just how the world is I guess.

Alex.

nonsense, your main concern is appearing nice and thoughtful so your confused as to which of those positions maintains that appearance best.

in reality your not really engaged with either position so its easy to leave it all bubbling away in the background noise and focus on other things.

[kmich]

In reply to manolo and SM above:

Ethics and principles demand coherence and conviction. If they conflict or contradict with each other, they become weak and incoherent and prone to rationalizations and corruption. Such ethical grounding forms the decency or the indecency of each of us.

On the other hand, the actualization of our ethical sensibilities in the public sphere require taking into account the concrete results of actions taken. This is where the complications and apparent "contradictions" arise. If, for example, in actualizing my ethic, I wish to limit the number of abortions in my state. What laws should I support? Should I support them by default if they are "anti-abortion" and match my ethic, or should I assess them on their actual results in reducing abortions?

In considering the law, I am not primarily focused upon my own ethic, I am already clear on that. I have to consider the actual consequences of a law in the public sphere considering such things as the pro-choice legal precedents of over 40 years, as well as the related and common attitudes, aspirations, and likely actions of people who do not share my ethic.

What if I find after careful consideration that the law will only limit or prohibit medical supervision of the procedure, drive them underground or to locales where they are accessible, only creating more division, disrespect for the law, and self righteous posturing, and that's it? So I don't support it. Am I being ethically contradictory or hypocritical? Don't think so. I know where I stand, and actions in the public sphere are not measured by ethical purity, they are measured by their probable results.

If one is concerned about elevating the ethics of society, laws are not in that business. Civic and life examples, and appeals to heart and faith are available for that purpose. If your heart and faith is weak in that effort, don't depend upon the state to do it for you.

[Simple Minded]

In reply to manolo and SM above:

Ethics and principles demand coherence and conviction. If they conflict or contradict with each other, they become weak and incoherent and prone to rationalizations and corruption. Such ethical grounding forms the decency or the indecency of each of us.

On the other hand, the actualization of our ethical sensibilities in the public sphere require taking into account the concrete results of actions taken. This is where the complications and apparent "contradictions" arise. If, for example, in actualizing my ethic, I wish to limit the number of abortions in my state. What laws should I support? Should I support them by default if they are "anti-abortion" and match my ethic, or should I assess them on their actual results in reducing abortions?

In considering the law, I am not primarily focused upon my own ethic, I am already clear on that. I have to consider the actual consequences of a law in the public sphere considering such things as the pro-choice legal precedents of over 40 years, as well as the related and common attitudes, aspirations, and likely actions of people who do not share my ethic.

What if I find after careful consideration that the law will only limit or prohibit medical supervision of the procedure, drive them underground or to locales where they are accessible, only creating more division, disrespect for the law, and self righteous posturing, and that's it? So I don't support it. Am I being ethically contradictory or hypocritical? Don't think so. I know where I stand, and actions in the public sphere are not measured by ethical purity, they are measured by their probable results.

If one is concerned about elevating the ethics of society, laws are not in that business. Civic and life examples, and appeals to heart and faith are available for that purpose. If your heart and faith is weak in that effort, don't depend upon the state to do it for you.

Amen.

A great phrase whose source I do not recall is "The unreformed reformer seldom inspires reformation!"

I think it explains why so many who wish to change the world but not conquer their own flaws, while trying to maintain a career in the celebrity/popularity business fail.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Ethics and principles often overheat and fail. Laws remain a bulwark against a complete collapse of ethics, and a foundation of society. There is a reason judges, prophets, kings and priests were separate castes in the OT.

[kmich]

Ethics and principles often overheat and fail. Laws remain a bulwark against a complete collapse of ethics, and a foundation of society. There is a reason judges, prophets, kings and priests were separate castes in the OT.

Ethics and principles fail as do governments and rule of law. Laws are the articulation experience, tradition, and the governance of peoples. They are enacted for the essential business of safeguarding the safety and security of civil society. That ethical foundation, however, resides within the integrity of engaged, responsible citizens. Without that, rule of law cannot be supported.

[Endovelico]

Ethics, from a societal point of view, will only prevail when it becomes clear that respect for ethic values will improve overall quality of life and survivability. Only when people realized that torture, slavery and death penalty were disruptive of community life did ethics evolve to include the relevant principles and did society reject them. But this is a process. First there are only a few people who adopt the new ethical posture, but as people come to realize that such ethics, if adopted by the community, would be beneficial to all, it becomes a majority position and is officially adopted. It's a memetic rather than genetic evolution, but it follows very much the same principles.