people are good

[Mr.Positive]

Mr. Positive it was simply his instinct acting in response to his deeply internalized beliefs about himself.

In short it was instinct acting on behalf of the man's selfishness to preserve his self image as a good moral man.

Luthor Rex explains all of this much better than I can near the bottom of page 2 of this thread if you're interested.

Or..perhaps it was his instinct, as a man, to do what needs to be done..for nothing more than to help others in need.

To respect life, to preserve life, especially children.

Why? Just because it needed to be done, no other reason. THAT, is why it was a completely selfless act.

BTW, by instinct, I'm referring to an innate response, not something that was programmed into us via society/matrix, etc.

I believe this is inside each one of us, to some degree.

 

[STR8UP]

Or..perhaps it was his instinct, as a man, to do what needs to be done..for nothing more than to help others in need.

I will never ever believe this.

A man's base instinct is ensuring survival. To perform selfless good deeds goeas against this principal. If someone performs and act of "kindness" there are only two explanations. First, reciprocation. Second, personal satisfaction. Only a mentally ill person does things for no reason, and it could be argued that he does things for reasons, even if they only make sense to him.

 

[Mr.Positive]

A man's base instinct is ensuring survival. To perform selfless good deeds goeas against this principal. If someone performs and act of "kindness" there are only two explanations. First, reciprocation. Second, personal satisfaction. Only a mentally ill person does things for no reason, and it could be argued that he does things for reasons, even if they only make sense to him.

You are saying this because you are thinking of the actions you take, and other's take. Acting on instinct alone is something completely different.

A man's base instinct is more than just survival, (I believe from my experiences in life) and it's part of what separates us from other species.

An understanding of this comes apparent at some point, for some people. I believe you might surprise yourself str8up with what you are capable of, if the need arises.

If someone throws a rock at your head, you duck. That's instinctive, yes for survival, but you don't think about it. You just do it. That's the best way I can describe when someone does something selfless to risk their lives for someone else. They just do it, that's it. It's almost like you don't have a choice in the matter.

Someone else here must understand where I'm coming from...please help me explain this better..

 

[KontrollerX]

"BTW, by instinct, I'm referring to an innate response, not something that was programmed into us via society/matrix, etc."

Every last bit of civilized behaviour we have we owe to the Matrix we live in which is pretty much one of the only good benefits of the system.

If we were not brought up in a civilized system we would be feral ie wild animals as opposed to the tamed ones that we are today and wild animals only protect their own and not out of any sense of goodness but because its beneficial to them for survival.

If this man was not raised under this system he would've never risked his life to save anyone other than those that would prove useful to him.

Its all about survival when we are left to fend for ourselves as the uncivilized animals that we are at our core.

Thats what human beings are inherintley and that is hunter gatherers kill or be killed.

Creatures of survival instinct in the natural uncivilized world not inherintely filled with ideas of right and wrong good and bad.

In a civilized system a person's mind gets to develop beyond instinct and they make their choices based on what feels good to them.

Some are effected posivitely by those choices and label that person good while others are affected negatively by those same choices and label that person bad.

Whether the majority agrees on something being good or bad is irrellevant.

Both good and bad are a point of view and will be assigned to you by whoever's point of view you are being looked at from.

In the civilized system this man had developed in his mind he was a certain kind of person and his instinct acted without hesitation to uphold that view of himself or else he would've gradually fallen apart mentally as Luthor Rex explains on page 2 about another scenario of morality and selfishness.

The preservation of his self image was more important than any other consideration and as such was a selfish act.

 

[Phyzzle]

A man's base instinct is ensuring survival. To perform selfless good deeds goes against this principle.

No, not really. Individual wild ants have always acted in a selfless manner, and they have survived for at least 65 million years. Similarly, it's really not uncommon for people to sacrifice themselves because of social obligations, to not be thought of badly, to not let down their fellows.

Military organizations have long known that, in combat, no system of selfish rewards or punishments will keep your men from running away. You need camaraderie.

Suicide is hardly rare, and it is the ultimate expression of how the pain of failure in front of your fellow human beings outweighs the fear of individual death. (You could say that all suicidal people are by definition mentally ill, but that's a mighty controversial thing to say.)


A hereditary desire for altruism helps insure the survival of entire human groups.

It's hard to say that "altruism trumps selfishness" or vice versa. It depends on how close you are to the targets of your altruism, how long you have to think before acting. A real situation: when you see a stranger fall onto subway tracks, you'd probably stay back if you think about it, but instinctively, you may jump down onto the tracks and pull him away without thinking. So which action is the "real" you? Some would say that man is a heroic being deep down.

 

[Interceptor]

So if I personally witness a car crash and see a car fly into a canal here in Florida, which happens often, and see the people desperatley fighting for life, because they will imminently drown, which does happen often here..I shouldn't do anything because I would then be giving in to The Matrix and a Self Delusion, right? It would just be my arrogantly Selfish Ego trying to preserve a false self image implanted by The Matrix, correct?




I do see how that can ruin my day, not to mention my shoes and clothes.

 

[KontrollerX]

Heh heh more evidence of people missing the point.

We're not arguing you should not do things you consider to be good we're simply arguing that you don't do good things from selfless reasons because that is impossible.

If you didn't rescue those people Interceptor you would likely be eaten alive by guilt or feel pretty bad about yourself for a long time.

We're saying you wouldn't just rescue those people for no reason at all ie selfless you would rescue them so as to not feel guilt or pain from that ie selfish reasons.

You get something out of doing what you consider to be good be it to feel good or to avoid emotional pain from not doing what you consider to be good.

You are preserving your self identity by doing the acts you consider to be good and necessary to perform.

 

[Interceptor]

Well, I respond to what I'm reading, dude.
I didnt write those posts.

Excuse me if I didn't get the perfect translation there.

Thanks for clearing things up for me.

 

[Mr.Positive]

It's hard to say that "altruism trumps selfishness" or vice versa. It depends on how close you are to the targets of your altruism, how long you have to think before acting. A real situation: when you see a stranger fall onto subway tracks, you'd probably stay back if you think about it, but instinctively, you may jump down onto the tracks and pull him away without thinking. So which action is the "real" you? Some would say that man is a heroic being deep down.

This is exactly what I was talking about, yet Kontroller won't answer this question.

We're discussing apples and oranges.

I agree to some extent with you Kontroller when we choose what actions we take, but as life would have it..sometimes things happen tooo fast. So, what is more "real"?

 

[KontrollerX]

I thought I answered the question two posts up?

The guy had internalized he was a certain type of person so it only makes sense with those deeply held beliefs when an instinctual situation arose he instinctually preserved his self identity by jumping in the lake trying to rescue as many kids as he could since a civilized individual's instinct is linked with their deeply held beliefs.

It was automatic for him because of that.

Had he grown up alone in the wild he would've simply watched them drown with no remorse or any other moral attachments, just one animal watching the fate of another.

On the news a while back there was this story about a woman who had some kind of organ failure and she fell down and lay dying in a supermarket.

People noticed her lying there but continued to shop like nothing was going on.

Another story a woman fell down and died on the sidewalk and some guy started p!ssing on her because he thought it'd make a funny video for youtube.

People around him just stared at him and the dead woman and laughed.

Where is the inherint goodness there as defined by most of the "people are good" believers in the thread?

Why didn't the "good" as you define the word come out instinctually in those dozens of people surrounding those dead and dying women so that those people would try to help the women or at least call an ambulance or something?

It didn't happen because people are not inherintely good or evil.

They just do what feels best to them at the time based on what they've grown to believe in, in the civilized society we live in.

 

[RedPill]

Even random acts of kindness with no expectation of reciprocity involve a latent self-interest. It's the projection of one's own needs onto others and preemptively taking care of those needs for the self. They haven't actually occurred, but are troubling enough - even hypothetically - to spur one to the aid of another who is perceived to be experiencing those needs in the present. This dynamic, however selfless, warm & fuzzy, and altruistic it might feel, is carefully operating beneath the surface.

Though everyone wants to save face, appear graceful, and tactfully appear to exude a totally selfless kindness, the driving force of self-interest keeps the world turning. It's like the pipes that bring you water, or the wires that conduct your electricity. We'd be hosed without it. Some cultures, most notably those of eastern Asian countries, are far more sensitive than Western society about the degree of tact which is to be exhibited in the course of helping others. In America, we are an amazingly brash people by comparison, and perhaps could learn a thing or two from our foreign counterparts about how to properly care for the egos of those whose favor we wish to win.

My personal favorite projection of self needs with a seemingly selfless gesture is when someone (usually female or AFC) vomits their fear of loneliness on me. It's an immediate and blaringly loud indication that I am more in control of myself than they are their self, which lets me know that I'm in the driver's seat within the scope of that relationship.

 

[Phyzzle]

hey guys,

very quick topic i wanted to throw out there.

Yeah sure, a real quick one!

We're simply arguing that you don't do good things from selfless reasons because that is impossible.

If you didn't rescue those people you would likely be eaten alive by guilt or feel pretty bad about yourself for a long time.

We're saying you wouldn't just rescue those people for no reason at all ie selfless you would rescue them so as to not feel guilt or pain from that ie selfish reasons.

Helping someone out of fear of guilt is the same thing as being good.

Do you wish to define "selfish" as "satisfying my own desires"? But I often have the desire to do unselfish things. Am I then selfish and unselfish simultaneously? This does not seem like a convenient definition of "selfish."

Any act you perform, you chose in some sense. And if you chose it, then you wanted to do it. And if you WANT is involved, then that's selfish. So any act you perform is selfish. By this definition, it is impossible to do anything truly good or unselfish, ever.

 

[STR8UP]

Even random acts of kindness with no expectation of reciprocity involve a latent self-interest. It's the projection of one's own needs onto others and preemptively taking care of those needs for the self. They haven't actually occurred, but are troubling enough - even hypothetically - to spur one to the aid of another who is perceived to be experiencing those needs in the present. This dynamic, however selfless, warm & fuzzy, and altruistic it might feel, is carefully operating beneath the surface.

Though everyone wants to save face, appear graceful, and tactfully appear to exude a totally selfless kindness, the driving force of self-interest keeps the world turning. It's like the pipes that bring you water, or the wires that conduct your electricity. We'd be hosed without it. Some cultures, most notably those of eastern Asian countries, are far more sensitive than Western society about the degree of tact which is to be exhibited in the course of helping others. In America, we are an amazingly brash people by comparison, and perhaps could learn a thing or two from our foreign counterparts about how to properly care for the egos of those whose favor we wish to win.

My personal favorite projection of self needs with a seemingly selfless gesture is when someone (usually female or AFC) vomits their fear of loneliness on me. It's an immediate and blaringly loud indication that I am more in control of myself than they are their self, which lets me know that I'm in the driver's seat within the scope of that relationship.

I could argue back and forth all day long but RedPill pretty much summed it up.

 

[Luthor Rex]

Yeah I think a lot of the "people are good" believers are missing the point that no good deed is done without selfish reasons being its motivation.

Joekerr's post to me a few pages back he was propping up this guy to be good who ended up dying trying to save another person's life by jumping in some lake I guess.

Luthor Rex I believe put it all into perspective.

That guy who died to save another's life was simply trying to preserve his own image of himself as a good moral guy and it meant so much to him that he was willing to die for it, in other words he was selfish about preserving his view of himself.

He didn't place the feelings and needs of his own family and friends he might leave behind and hurt by his possible death before his own feelings.

Oh no.

His self image meant a lot more to him at the time than the hurt they would feel if he were suddenly snuffed out and he made a selfish choice to preserve it.

As for the guy who drown -- just imagine how much tail that guy could have gotten if he had saved those people and lived. He would have been on all the shows with the talking heads and if he really wanted to he could have gone around scoring major azz.

Now, consciously that was probably never his motivation. Consciously he may have said to himself "I know I can save those people and if I don't then I will feel ashamed to face my friends and family again, because they will know I am a failure" even tho they wouldn't know he 'failed'. Or maybe he just didn't think about it at all and just did what he did because it was in his nature.

But as I pointed out above -- if he had lived there would have been major fame to have been had. Although it didn't happen in this particular case(?), his family could have received secondary benefits as well. Groups tend to glorify the altruistic members, and if that member dies such benefits can be passed on to family members.

Of course none of this usually happens at a conscious level -- this is human nature at work.

Read some more here: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_doesn't_explain_altruism

:flowers:

 

[Luthor Rex]

That is very sad if this is what most people think. I somehow feel this might be cultural conditioning also. America can bee too individualistic and selfish. I know of places where people give and share instinctively, not just save their ass*s. This thread is making me very sad.

Well if this is making you sad then stay the hell out of a science class that uses evolution to explain human behavior.

You'll be downright suicidal then.

Anyways, I just think it reflects poorly on society if it believes humans are incapable of dispassionate and selfless acts.

For the love of dog! It's not "attitude", it is a FACT of evolution!

Or maybe you're Christian: then it's Original Sin doing it.

 

[Bonhomme]

Altruism is present throughout nature. Many creatures, even as "low" as in the insect kingdom, act "selflessly" for the benefit of the colony or others.

Now, as far as people being inherently "good" or "evil," I just don't see it as and "either/or" matter, though I fall into the trap of regarding individuals as if they're "good" or "bad" myself at times... though it's incorrect to do so. The world is multicolored, not "black and white."

In some "eastern" religious philosophies, when someone attempts to live a perfectly ethical life, the "breaking point" at which they realize it cannot be done because undesirable unintended consequences cannot be absolutely avoided is considered "enlightenment." One can only "ride the waves" to the best of their ability.

That said, the best way to deal with the whole thing I've heard of is to treat people as if people are inherently good, and cover your backside as if people are inherently evil.

 

[joekerr31]

That guy who died to save another's life was simply trying to preserve his own image of himself as a good moral guy and it meant so much to him that he was willing to die for it, in other words he was selfish about preserving his view of himself.

He didn't place the feelings and needs of his own family and friends he might leave behind and hurt by his possible death before his own feelings.
.

hold up a sec. this is getting absurd.

you guys are arguing 'even when someone does something good. even when they act unselfishly, even when they give their life saving others - its not REALLY good, just selfish behavior exhibited as helpful behavior to others."

ummmm, so what? its still good behavior. the fact that people are being good for selfish reasons doesn't mean they aren't being good.

the fact that people choose to be a positive force in the world instead of a negative force means they are good.

im lost as to why the fact that someoen has a reason for being good, somehow diminishes the fact that they are.

the only assertion of my post was that there are way more people out there in the world who do good things and are good people and are positive, caring and kind than we think.

this whole notion that someone who is doing good is doing it for selfish reasons and hence its not really good in the pure sense is nuts to me.

 

[Bonhomme]

this whole notion that someone who is doing good is doing it for selfish reasons and hence its not really good in the pure sense is nuts to me.

I agree wholeheartedly, joekerr.

 

[joekerr31]

That is very sad if this is what most people think. I somehow feel this might be cultural conditioning also. America can bee too individualistic and selfish. I know of places where people give and share instinctively, not just save their ass*s. This thread is making me very sad.

It doesn't make sense to talk of a man without social learning... there was a reason we evolved from base instincts...

Anyways, I just think it reflects poorly on society if it believes humans are incapable of dispassionate and selfless acts.

happy - i agree with you. here in the west, from a very young age, we are taught that we are not good enough. the west is based on competition. each one of us is conditioned from a very young age with the concept that life is a battle and that we much earn our 'survival'.

the landlord sure aint going to say 'oh you don't have the rent this month, don't worry, im sure you'll pay for it next month or the month after that.'

our society also is very individualistic. we have no 'tribe'. our nuclear families broke down a long time ago. very few of us have 'big' close knit families.

as a result, we are conditioned to live in a 'world full of strangers'. these nameless people that pass us every day on the street. 'things' almost. some of them want to hurt us, some of them want to f*ck us, some of them want to sell us stuff, etc.

but none of them want to 'give' us anything. none none of these 'strangers' is goign to randomly walk up to us and give us money for no reason. i mean nothing to them and they mean nothing to me.

this is the west.

its very very different than the rest of the world. its the result of industrialization and currently the excess of wealth in the west.

but i do not believe that this is the natural expression of human nature. i do believe that man was actually meant to live with others, to care for others, and in return be cared for.

and i believe that spirit still exists among our fellow man and i believe there are more people who will be kind ot a stranger than most of us think. in fact, my argument in this thread was, that most people actually want to be good.

anyway, the world becomes a drastically different place when you start to believe that there is a HUGE amount of goodness and kindness out there in the world.

if goodness were light and badness / meanness / selfishness were dark, i believe we'd all have to wear sunglasses when we went out into the world.

but somehow, someway, we've been lead to believe that these 'strangers' we see in the world are more than likely mean selfish people.

i no longer believe this to be the case. while many are, many more aren't.

 

[Martin Shabazz Jr.]

A question:

All of you guys who say that even when one does a selfless act they are really doing it for their own validation. Wouldn't that still make them a good person, though?

To be internally validated by doing good deeds sounds pretty damn good to me.