What do you guys think of human nature? Is it naturally good or naturally bad? Explain

What do you guys think of human nature? Is it naturally good or naturally bad? Explain

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/playlist?list=PL45A5E21ECA5FA850
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

neutral leaning towards cunty

most people are only looking out for themselves. Which is fair, I am too, but it does kind of make the world a slightly worse place to exist.

Naturally selfish.

So I guess you could say naturally evil, but because of how much society and working together benefits us you at least have to pretend not to be.

these

also, there's a sort of feedback loop of shittyness going on... someone does something that makes you feel bad, so you get upset and maybe while you're grumpy you do something that ruins someone else's day. It's a wonder society hasn't collapsed yet.

e.g. the other week I tried to ask a woman for directions, but she just said "fuck off", and then later I was still pissed off about it and stuck in my own thoughts so I didn't hear someone asking me to hold the doors on an elevator until it was too late. That kind of thing.

human nature depends on survival, both mean (basic, like food) survival and what is considered normalized for society, like fancy cars and high speed internet access. if our needs are being met, we tend to be a generally civilized, decent people.

if we feel that our needs are NOT being met, however, we are like to devolve into base animal instincts, willing to rob, hurt, and possibly kill to get what we want.

tldr; human nature being bad or good is highly situational.

Define good and bad and then come back to me, OP.

aaaaaaaaaay fuck YOU buddy

Marx wrote that “The nature of individuals…depends on the material conditions determining their production.” This production of individuals means not just their physical production but also as “a definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their part.” This means that what is seen as objective human nature/intuition is really a reflection of dominant economic structures. Angela Davis’ view that prisons (the dominant form of punitive hard treatment in the West) are a reflection of capitalist values supports such an assertion. She notes how ““The computability of state punishment in terms of time---days, months, years----resonates with the role of capitalist labour-time as the basis for computing the value of capitalist monopolies” . Moreover she notes how whilst prisons may now be naturalised, their 18th rise to dominance was because “The conditions of possibility for this new form of punishment were strongly anchored in the historical era during which the working class needed to be constituted as an army of self-disciplined workers”

Nah People viewed duty as the primary thing in feudal times.

People do lots of irrational, sentimental and selfless things all the time despite living under capitalism

> TLDR: Your material conditions determine your nature
> Capitalism encourages greed and individualism
> If you have enough to survive selfishness is not inherent

...

BUT IT'S WRONG U FUCKING RETARD

Consumption society makes us individualist but the selfish homo sapiens dies alone and is not naturally selected.
We are social animals. We colonised the world and created the antropocene by helping each others.

You trying to break the human equation? What I think and what you think could be completely opposite things. You want life I want death. or vice versa. Is that natural?

Neither. Good and evil are human constructs.

It just is. It contains things that you might deem good or bad. But there is no such thing as naturally good or bad.
Being egotistical can be positive too.
Doing stuff that benefits others makes me feel good, it gives me social relationships that gratify me. Looking out for my own interests can tangentially benefit others and since I like how that makes me feel, I try to do it whenever it suits my purposes.

>What do you guys think of human nature? Is it naturally good or naturally bad? Explain

Neither, human "nature" adapts and is affected by all kinds of things from minor anomalies in brain structure or full-blown mental illness to other things that you get from experiencing things.

The thing is that there's a lot more biology going on in the brain and what we perceive is just the end result of the individual's brain, experiences, health etc.

It's a system which is absurdly complex, even too complex to be defined with simple black-and-white terms like "good and bad".

youtube.com/playlist?list=PL45A5E21ECA5FA850

>Hobbes vs Rousseau thread on Sup Forums
It's a big jump in quality from the usual trap threads.

Selfish not necessarily just for ourselves, but for our family and friends too.

Self, Partner, Children
___
Close Family
___
Friends
___
Distant Family
___
Strangers

This is not incongruous with continuing the human race.

Quite possibly, but even if you were living feudally I suspect some of that is making sure the local warlord won't chop your head off from disrespect. I suspect you would still help yourself as much as possible.

Let's keep the discussion alive then, this subject has potential to be interesting.

It IS very interesting but Sup Forums nowadays is just a secondary /gif/, /soc/ or /hc/ at this point. This thread won't survive for long.

we are selfish but inherently good, in any country (except china/Asia in general) if another human is in trouble, complete strangers will come to their aid

I thought my input on mutually beneficial egotism would engage some other people though.
I've thought a great deal about this and wanted to discuss it with others.

Which post?

this one

Good and evil are concepts created by humans, so asking about human nature, you ask us to judge ourselves by our own understanding of ourselves. This is a fallacy. There is neither good nor bad, only what we consider it to be.

...

It's sad look at my fat momma making fun of my niece you could see the jealousy in the words someone fat shame my momma she needs to lose weight and fast
>Also gonna post about Wendell

That's an interesting point of view in a "ends justify the means" way. However, it's pretty far from OP asked. A symbiotic egotism can either be fueled by good or bad reasons, it doesn't necessarily imply that you need to be good or bad.

Wendell in red is fucking my other niece the small one down there and the mother is oblivious to it and she's very over protective about her kids she signs into the account of their kids and tracks them
Shes sad and that's why I say human nature is sad its neither good nor bad we try to justify our actions the best we could but we are blind to what is actually going on within family
Human nature is sad
~ cockmouse

Actually there are some biological support of morals stemming from survival strategies in humans. Basically some things can be considered naturally bad within a family or tribe of humans, because they are detrimental to the group.
The same things were suspended or okay to do to out-groups though, because they could potentially endanger your own groups survival.
Well I was thinking more on an individual standpoint, I like the outcome I get from acting in a way that also benefits others. Basically if I see a way of doing something that not only benefits me, I'll go for that action, because the emotional payout is larger in that circumstance.

>Basically if I see a way of doing something that not only benefits me, I'll go for that action, because the emotional payout is larger in that circumstance.
That's just utilitarianism though. Taken to the extreme, in the correct circumstances someone would kill themselves because their death would bring more benefits to the community than their life. For instance, kill myself to donate all the organs since I'm very healthy.

Would that suit your own wellbeing though?
Also wouldn't that potentially influence others badly because the bonds you've created with them?
Letting myself die to donate organs only have short term benefits, as having me alive could help with future problem. Also I don't want to die, I just like doing actions that cost me little while still benefitting others in what I consider a meaningful way.

Good and bad are relative terms human nature is inharently neither of them.

>parroting low tier philosophy arguments
GEE YOU GUYS SURE SHOWED THEM

I suppose you have the keys to everything then?

The weak are good, because it has the highest survival rate among cooperative species.
The strong are who the weak consider bad. They are only bad by rule of majority and because they do what they are naturally capable of doing.

Are you going to contribute or will you just sit there and criticize the rest of us to feel self satisfied in your superiority?

Benefits should be measured on length and future benefits that have a direct cause not just immediate benefits. For instance, donating my organs would increase (hypothetically) 10 years to each person that I donated and I donated to 15 persons. The total benefits from my death would be 10x15=150 years plus all the pollution I didn't cause since I'm dead. of course, this taken to extreme.

The thing is, we're entering selfishness vs altruism territory instead of pure good vs bad discussion.

Anons, if they had the brain cells to formulate an argument instead of shitposting, they would have done so where and when it was convenient (in the original post).
This is bait.

I'm just stating that it's pointless to reply with such meaningless posts. Everyone and their dog can spout the muh human constructs argument. I'm not saying it's wrong or right in itself, I'm just pointing out that it contributes nothing. Entering a thread about good and bad inherently declares that we assume good and bad exists.

Well I'm talking in that direction because I consider good and bad subjective standpoints, that are based on which situation you find yourself in. There are some things I would never do, because I wouldn't want them done to me, but that is still my subjective standpoint.

> People go and get their legs blown off for duty
> People get seppuku etc
> Social pressure/expectation is a powerful thing
> I'm talking beyond mere survival, if you are in a place of scarcity (not false scarcity) then your material conditions create the need to be selfish

> If you're a prole then it's actually in your material interest to unite and fight for control of the means of production but many are kept under control by propaganda

> What Self-interest means is the problem, how you see what is most important to you depends on a lot of cultural and personal factors (i.e. material conditions)

> Sex doesn't equal gender
> Intersex is a category and actually surprisingly common
> XX vs XY is like grade-school simplification there's a lot more to it.

I wasn't baiting. I just got pissed seeing the same shit posted over and over again. It's like entering a pizza thread and posting "gee there's no hamburger here" no shit. It's pointless.

Well satan, I'd recommend you add to the thread, what you think is lacking. If you do that you might encourage deeper thought in others around you.
Challenge our intellects and let us fail or succeed on our own merit.

>planned obsolescence is the same as being designed to fail
Holy shit; go outside, read a book.
Damn you're dumb.
I couldn't even read what you wrote. The sheer stupidity of that image acted like an atmosphere that my spacecraft of thought doesn't have enough velocity to penetrate. I just bounced right off the stupidity and hurtled through space, end over end. Thanks for killing me.

...

This thread is probably one of the best threads I've seen on Sup Forums in months. Maybe years. The problem isn't the content per se. I' actually surprised how people are actually giving thought to their positions here.

> Doesn't defeat the actual point tho
> Wasting tonnes of rare minerals on Ipods that break after 3 years
> Clothes that break quick af so you have to buy more
> The point is the inefficiency and exploitative nature of capitalism
> Some people don't know what planned obsolescence is, 2x explanation is accessible

It happens from time to time, it's why I'm here really.

>There are some things I would never do, because I wouldn't want them done to me, but that is still my subjective standpoint.
But that's outside of doing bad or good. Let's see, I won't kill some guy I hate, for instance, because I don't want to get killed in return. That's giving up on a "bad" action because I'm afraid or the consequences,not because I'm conscious of the "badness" of my action.
I find that type of thinking to be really useful and maybe one that could uphold peace the longest but it's no more than a coward's plan. Although, is it to blame a coward that wants to live, as in, wants to survive?

The reason why I act like that is the tit for tat game theory. If I start out with a cooperative action, I invite the same from the other person. If they don't prove cooperative, I stop trying to cooperate and ignore them. If they later on act in a cooperative manner to me, I reciprocate since our ends seem to align in that situation. If someone attacks me, I protect myself, but I would never instigate violence myself, since I find it a detrimental means to reach my ends.
You might call me a coward for it, but it brings me to my ends with the most efficiency I can see.

I admit it's efficient in terms of time, resources and whatnot, but that also invites future seemingly cooperative people to trick or take advantage of you because they know how you work. I'm not saying it's a naive way of thinking mind you, but it's a rather simple way of thinking that may lead to being tricked or taken advantage of or even stagnancy if you never find people or enough people to cooperate with in the future.

Well you know the adage "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me". It's accounted for in the tit for tat game theory. You can refuse cooperation with someone who fooled you once, without actually taking violent action against them. Just a non-aggression, noncooperative stance.
To avoid stagnancy, I have to do networking and contact other interest groups that has goals that partially aligns with mine. Offering them cooperation could prove beneficiary for both my group and theirs, or on an individual basis myself and the other person.

>Just a non-aggression, noncooperative stance.
But what if the other party doesn't want that? If you get tricked but don't want to waste resources in a meaningless war/conflict/whatever but the other party won't give up until they see you destroyed? Even if that in the long run doesn't cause any benefits for them? The problem is that many people are really rancorous and will never take a no for an answer and they'll easily take up arms so others will listen to them.

>Offering them cooperation could prove beneficiary for both my group and theirs, or on an individual basis myself and the other person.
But see this: we have group A, B and C. A and B have a long term co-beneficial peaceful relationship. One day, C comes over and presents a pact with B that is very beneficial to both B and C BUT C demands that B should cut relationships with A because they're enemies.
If B accepts, they'll lose A but will stay on C's side.
If B refuses (for instance, if B prefers a steadier and solid relationship with A or as a proof of trust to A), it loses benefits and gains a adversary/enemy (C).

In this case, what's more important? The cooperation that already existed but is less beneficial or the new one that is more beneficial but newer and so less trustworthy?

In the case of a group who wants to go to war, talking with other groups the cooperate with could be useful. Convincing them that if one group is allowed to act warlike, with no opposition by groups it cooperates with, could turn on said groups when one war campaign had proved successful. Getting them to withhold resources until the aggressor agrees to bury the axe, would be my course of action really.

In the case of groups A, B and C. Group A and group B would have agreements on how to react in the case of another group trying to play them against each other. The first action would be to dissuade the violent action on the part of group C.
If they prove persistent, there would a mutual protection agreement between group A and B.
If the new cooperation between B and C proved to benefit B so much that it removed the merit of the cooperation between A and B. There could be an agreement on a parting of ways, provided that they did not go into cahoots with group C to attack group A. B could make that a counter demand to C, in order to agree on cooperation.