people are good

[ketostix]

Sorry for breaking the rules, but I need to respond to this instead of sitting on the sidelines while he call people who push to think that there are more factors than just the biological needs of food, shelter, and reproduction not "open minded." Basically you left no area of disagreement that declared that anyone who don't agree with that statement is "close minded." It is one thing to believe in moral relativism, it is another to state that anyone who don't is a "close minded."

Please recognize that your conclusion on human nature is very much in debate and that there are plenty of intellegent and rational people that believes that people perfer to aim at a life that does not involving hurting others. Sometimes people will do injustice, but I don't think most will truly want to. You know with the statement that "people are people" is the fact that people's actions still have effect of good and bad on others, making while "people are people," their effect can be good or bad for the many.

Your conclusion is far from concensus, and the many who disagree are not a bunch of close minded people. We just like to argue that there is a side in humanity that can sympathize and care. We like to argue that humanity while have biological needs, we also have desires that goes beyond the basic instinct animal. That people may like to gain something from others, it doesn't mean exploit (exploit means gaining but by a deliberate and calulative hurting of the other).

Read my post above. I think you are misinterpeting what Str8up and others are saying. He's not saying that people don't do some good besides that being incindental or unintentional. I don't even thinking he's saying there aren't a few people who are overall good, but I don't want to put words in his mouth. Just about everyone does at least a little good intentionally and even without the motive of reciprocation or for an ulterior motive. But the balance of what they do is bad, therefore the net charastic of them is bad. Heck, even Hitler did some good and had some principles. You have to look at the overall balance, then draw your conclusion.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

personally, I think that good or bad labels have to come with a reference point. if you put two people on an island, without any influence of society, they will behave in a manner consistent with the most easiest and painless means of survival.

but in larger societies, which have been around for a few thousand years, people are more or less "good" only because people are generally pretty easy to brainwash, when the brainwashing starts at an early age. So I think that peoples so called "feeling" of right and wrong, is generally due to the influence of society at large. Even in situations where there is little likellihood of being punished for wrongdoing, people still feel a "pull" to do the "right" thing.

I would imagine that when people are removed from society at large without any hope for return, they resort to the pre societal state, that is the small hunter/gatherer tribes that pre dated larger societies. The only example I can think of is the crew from the Bounty which was left on Pitcairn Island and pretty much resorted to anarchy.

They only turned it around (after the males almost killed each other off) when they turned to the good book (and I ain't talkin bout the book of Pook)

So in their case, the question is:

did the inherent truth in the goood book guide them, or

was it merely an extremely deeply set anchor to their original brainwashing?

I believe it was the latter.

Taiyuu

 

[ketostix]

personally, I think that good or bad labels have to come with a reference point. if you put two people on an island, without any influence of society, they will behave in a manner consistent with the most easiest and painless means of survival.

but in larger societies, which have been around for a few thousand years, people are more or less "good" only because people are generally pretty easy to brainwash, when the brainwashing starts at an early age. So I think that peoples so called "feeling" of right and wrong, is generally due to the influence of society at large. Even in situations where there is little likellihood of being punished for wrongdoing, people still feel a "pull" to do the "right" thing.

I would imagine that when people are removed from society at large without any hope for return, they resort to the pre societal state, that is the small hunter/gatherer tribes that pre dated larger societies. The only example I can think of is the crew from the Bounty which was left on Pitcairn Island and pretty much resorted to anarchy.

They only turned it around (after the males almost killed each other off) when they turned to the good book (and I ain't talkin bout the book of Pook)

So in their case, the question is:

did the inherent truth in the goood book guide them, or

was it merely an extremely deeply set anchor to their original brainwashing?

I believe it was the latter.

Taiyuu

Interesting stuff.

if you put two people on an island, without any influence of society, they will behave in a manner consistent with the most easiest and painless means of survival.

And this smallest interaction of two people behaving that way is what I'd consider an instinct to do what's good or at least have the sense to know what is the best thing to do.

So in their case, the question is:

did the inherent truth in the goood book guide them, or

was it merely an extremely deeply set anchor to their original brainwashing?

I believe it was the latter.

And I would argue that their "brainwashing" that taught them how to behave in a good manner and the existence of the good book is evidence that people instictly know good from bad. You could argue, like Christians generally believe, that the book was inspired by an all knowing god, so people aren't really good. My postion is people naturally and instinctively know good from bad, and they make a choice to do either good or bad and they tend to choose to do bad. This is what the bible basically says, people are bad and so they need to believe in god and strive to act good (and they'll be rewarded/punished for it in this life and the next). That's my interpretation of the book at least. Other's say you only have to believe and through contorted logic, and sniping select versus and ignoring other ones, you can basically do whatever the heck you want and it's OK. This aggravates the heck out of me, because what good is that to anyone else, and these people have sheered their conscience of any responsibilty.

It's interesting the scenario you described and mentioning the good book, since most parts of the first book were written long ago in a tribe trying to survive amongst themselves and among outside hostile tribes.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

...since most parts of the first book were written long ago in a tribe trying to survive amonst themselves and among outside hostile tribes.

What is interesting (I think) is that what is actually "written" is what had filtered down through many generations of "oral tradition", old dudes in the know telling stories to the young-uns round the camp fire.

And the rules they "kept" were the ones that were still needed as societies grew bigger and bigger (no use keeping laws on the books if you don't need em) in order to keep people in line, laws like:

don't kill
don't steal
don't lie
don't get a woodie over your neighbhors wife
don't commit adultery

in short, laws that kept the natural "Alpha" males from beating the crap out of/killing the AFC's of the day and banging all their women.

You see? if it hadn't been for the original burning bush hearing-AFC's that engineered the original matrix, we'd all be a bunch of crazed murderous raping cannibals

 

[STR8UP]

Please recognize that your conclusion on human nature is very much in debate and that there are plenty of intellegent and rational people that believes that people perfer to aim at a life that does not involving hurting others.

That's the problem with your "argument". You take what I say and turn it into something that it is not.

Nowhere did I say that "people's aim at life is to hurt others". I simply made the claim that BIOLOGY controls our actions a lot more than we would like to believe it does.

Sorry if that tears down and concept you have of humans being superior, god-like creatures.....

And that's where i believe your belief comes from. It comes from fear that if you were to acknowledge that you are simply the most intelligent animal on a planet full of other animals, that would make you lesser of a being.

 

[joekerr31]

haha people suck. well one guy sucks anyway. on the road today. in the oncoming lane some old man blindly backs into the street into oncoming traffic.

i hit my brakes because if he keeps going the other cars are going to have to swerve into my lane (ie. coming at me head on).

anyway, some dude behind me in a big SUV had to slam on his brakes because he was tailgating.

anyway, there was no accident and everyone goes on their way. this idiot rides my tail for a few blocks until i turn into where i was going.

when i turn in THEN he honks his horn at me. hahaha. guess he was too much of a coward to honk his horn when i was in front of him and could stop and get out of my car and confront him.

anyway, my stopping could have prevented an accident. the fact that he got pissed off by it ain't my problem.

but some people REALLY do s*ck balls and are eager to argue / create conflict etc. over nothing.

 

[Bible_Belt]

My favorite is when they flip you off, but are too scared to do it until they are able to drive away. The looks on the faces of the passive-aggressive little guys I have seen as they flip me off are always priceless. I love it. Anyone can get that mad at me if it makes them so happy.

 

[Andromax]

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/WhatWouldYouDo/Story?id=4377984&page=1

anyone seen the recent abc primetime special where they created mock scenarios to see how passer bys would react.

in one they had 3 teenagers harassing a homeless person (they were all actors mind you).

anyway, each time someone stepped in and confronted the kids.

just a follow up to my thread a while ago about people in general being good.

What state was that in? That would suck if someone that carries concealed handgun greased one of the actors. If they waved the bat at him or the homeless man it would be justified..

 

[ketostix]

What is interesting (I think) is that what is actually "written" is what had filtered down through many generations of "oral tradition", old dudes in the know telling stories to the young-uns round the camp fire.

And the rules they "kept" were the ones that were still needed as societies grew bigger and bigger (no use keeping laws on the books if you don't need em) in order to keep people in line, laws like:

don't kill
don't steal
don't lie
don't get a woodie over your neighbhors wife
don't commit adultery

in short, laws that kept the natural "Alpha" males from beating the crap out of/killing the AFC's of the day and banging all their women.

You see? if it hadn't been for the original burning bush hearing-AFC's that engineered the original matrix, we'd all be a bunch of crazed murderous raping cannibals

I agree totally but it was also a quide to keep the majority of betas from collaborating and wiping out alphas too. 'Betas" can be pretty conniving too.