Humanity is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. As for what keeps humans in check, I'll go with conscience and morality; laws by themselves don't make people morally-committed.
Humanity is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. As for what keeps humans in check, I'll go with conscience and morality; laws by themselves don't make people morally-committed.ghoklebutter
Correct, I mean, if animals know what to do and what not to do how would it be any different for us?
Selfishness. If we do evil acts, there will be repercussions from our peers, and we want to avoid that. That's how altruism developed. The "Golden Rule" of "What goes around, comes around", is ultimately about being selfish, in a round-about way.
Selfishness. If we do evil acts, there will be repercussions from our peers, and we want to avoid that. That's how altruism developed. The "Golden Rule" of "What goes around, comes around", is ultimately about being selfish, in a round-about way.Tylendal
Interesting theory.
Hm but would you not say that the selfishness to, say, rob a bank and become rich, overcomes the selfishness to not get in trouble?
[QUOTE="Tylendal"]Selfishness. If we do evil acts, there will be repercussions from our peers, and we want to avoid that. That's how altruism developed. The "Golden Rule" of "What goes around, comes around", is ultimately about being selfish, in a round-about way.Ilovegames1992
Interesting theory.
Hm but would you not say that the selfishness to, say, rob a bank and become rich, overcomes the selfishness to not get in trouble?
Nope, because the trouble will result in a net loss for yourself. You don't see many rich bank robbers these days.
[QUOTE="Tylendal"]Selfishness. If we do evil acts, there will be repercussions from our peers, and we want to avoid that. That's how altruism developed. The "Golden Rule" of "What goes around, comes around", is ultimately about being selfish, in a round-about way.Tylendal
Interesting theory.
Hm but would you not say that the selfishness to, say, rob a bank and become rich, overcomes the selfishness to not get in trouble?
Nope, because the trouble will result in a net loss for yourself. You don't see many rich bank robbers these days.
But many people rob banks :lol:
Its risk vs reward. Many people take the risk for the huge reward. So i would come to the conclusion that the one form of selfishness rules over the other.
Hm but would you not say that the selfishness to, say, rob a bank and become rich, overcomes the selfishness to not get in trouble?
Ilovegames1992
Nope, because the trouble will result in a net loss for yourself. You don't see many rich bank robbers these days.
But many people rob banks :lol:
Its risk vs reward. Many people take the risk for the huge reward. So i would come to the conclusion that the one form of selfishness rules over the other.
Okay, I was wrong about the banks. It's still selfishness though, it all comes down to risk and reward like you said. I believe it also ties in with empathy, hence a feeling of guilt, which is part of the "risk".
[QUOTE="Tylendal"] Nope, because the trouble will result in a net loss for yourself. You don't see many rich bank robbers these days.Tylendal
But many people rob banks :lol:
Its risk vs reward. Many people take the risk for the huge reward. So i would come to the conclusion that the one form of selfishness rules over the other.
Okay, I was wrong about the banks. It's still selfishness though, it all comes down to risk and reward like you said. I believe it also ties in with empathy, hence a feeling of guilt, which is part of the "risk".
Yup, its an interesting theory. One that would apply to all the animal kingdom.
Its risk vs reward. Many people take the risk for the huge reward. So i would come to the conclusion that the one form of selfishness rules over the other.
Ilovegames1992
Okay, I was wrong about the banks. It's still selfishness though, it all comes down to risk and reward like you said. I believe it also ties in with empathy, hence a feeling of guilt, which is part of the "risk".
Yup, its an interesting theory. One that would apply to all the animal kingdom.
hmm? not sure if i'm getting this. but animals don't feel guilt? and in fact their "risk" is so consistent between all members of the species it could be replaced by a simple program. i don't think all this applies to animals
[QUOTE="Tylendal"] Okay, I was wrong about the banks. It's still selfishness though, it all comes down to risk and reward like you said. I believe it also ties in with empathy, hence a feeling of guilt, which is part of the "risk".Kh1ndjal
Yup, its an interesting theory. One that would apply to all the animal kingdom.
hmm? not sure if i'm getting this. but animals don't feel guilt? and in fact their "risk" is so consistent between all members of the species it could be replaced by a simple program. i don't think all this applies to animals
The idea of the selfish gene? They do whatever they can to benefit themselves so as they can pass on genes? Some truth to that.
Conscience and morality or societal customs and laws? Basically, are we inherently good or inherently bad.
GO!!
Ilovegames1992
Dont conscience and morality lead to societal customs and laws?
Did not societal behaviour form before conscience and morality? Look at pack animals.
But thats not the issue. What individually would you say affected and affects you more?
I'm not saying that conscious and morality are what "gave birth" to societal customs and laws in the first place.
I thought you were referring to current societal customs and laws in human society. In that case I think that what I said earlier happens.
I think what keeps us in check is the active involvement in a society with complex relations which immediately teaches us that we need each other in order to achieve what we want.
Societal customs and laws. Although there are quite a few people who would act in a moral way in the absence of those things, all it takes is about 1% of the population running around acting like bloodthirsty savages and civilization is destroyed. If you look at the Dark Ages and the barbarians and all that, way less than 1% of the population was actually involved in fighting.
I believe its morals, and I also believe morals are instilled within humans from birth, be it a divine source or whatever. I don't think its correct to say people acquire morals from laws and customs and whatnot, to me its the reverse. We create laws that are based on our morals. By morals I'm talking about the simple things that all humans agree on, for example its wrong to kill an innocent person, its wrong to lie etc.
Obviously cultural morals are acquired by location, but the basic fundamentals beliefs are universal and shared by all people. Those to me come from something divine.
Well our ancestors believed humanity was a virus and it isn't until modern times that we believe in progress. I personally believe humanity has already hit the self-destruct button back in the 1940s and now we are in uncharted territory in that we know we wanted the self-destruct button.
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]Humanity is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. As for what keeps humans in check, I'll go with conscience and morality; laws by themselves don't make people morally-committed.lonewolf604
Correct, I mean, if animals know what to do and what not to do how would it be any different for us? Animals have also been known to eat their young and cannibalise each other.
Conformity keeps us in line. "Morality" is governed by social constructs that develop dependent of the society that you grow up in. The only reason people follow these social "norms" called morals is so avoid the social backlash and repercussions of breaking them. If we grow up in a society that praised killing people and bestiality and moral correct, guess what most people would be doing...
Log in to comment