Welcome to Gaia! ::

I personally disagree LYKWOH to meru and fortenra's ideas. Oh the wonders of philisophy.

Alot of philisophical ideas depend on how you were raised, and your beliefs/ethics/religion. I'm athiest, and believe that the very most basic idea is to live, and live good, try to get everything but with no sacrifice.

1. statements of my beliefs:

- That about 3/4 or maybe more, of society's actions stem from psychological egoism
- That most of the remaining 1/4 of our actions is from a combination of ideal and reciprocal altruism
- That egoism is by no means ideal, and is not always ethical, but can be at times
- That human nature carries both "evil" and "good" aspects, and we as individuals choose between them with free will
- That on the whole, society has a tendency to slowly get better, maybe with up and down periods, but generally we're becoming better
- That the majority of people act in self-interest the majority of the time, but human nature is capable of, and people do at times, performing true selfless acts

2. Explanation and defense of my beliefs:

-It can almost go without saying that humanity has at least a part of it's nature derived from evil. My reasoning is that this is a result of our animalistic nature. We want everything for ourselves, we only care about ourselves. That sort of reasoning stems from a survival instinct to ensure that we take care of ourselves in the wild, and is a result of either a) us coming from animals (evolution) b) us being forced to live with our sins as animals live in the wild (creationism) But the fact remains that humanity is at least, in part, evil.

- The harder part, though, is the "good" side of human nature. But, it does exist. The very fact that we do not engage in "evil" acts all the time is and outward example, or people saving one another in dire circumstances. The evidence IS there. But, just where would our good nature come from? There are a couple of ideas, the main belief being God/divine intervention into our lives. I personally don't believe that. I believe that our cogniscence coupled with our emotional ability (either together or even separately in cases) give rise to empathy. Thus, through empathy, we are capable of understanding how and why we should do good. Thus, our "good" facet of our nature. (I would also like to note here that I've reasoned that empathy = golden rule = natural law... and I'll post a paper up that I did in my philosophy class last semester on it later... if I can find it)

-Having said all of that, as close to the classical "devil on one shoulder, angel on the other" situation as that sounds, I feel that human nature encompasses both good and evil aspects. But, it is us that choose to heed the voice that we want to. It is ultimately our own will that determines our actions. Yes, we slip up here and now, and we do good things that we might not have if we had given it some consideration, but in the end, our character is of our own making. And an added note, if you don't feel that we are free to choose, then we are not capable of choosing good or evil. Thus, we are not to blame for our bad actions, and should not be held in esteem for our good actions. So, morals and ethics would then be completely and utterly meaningless. Morality and ethics are both founded on the notion that we are free to choose, and are not capable of existing otherwise. (sorry if it seemed like I went off on a tangent, but I wanted to say that here, where it made the most sense)

-As for society... *for this, I'm going to base my reasoning on my own thoughts and actions, and those whom I can directly see, (family, friends, leaders... etc.)* My beliefs are such that the majority of our actions are based on consequences. We go to school so we can become smart, or so that we please, or don't displease, our parents. We go to work so we can earn money. We volunteer because it brings us and others happiness. We play because it entertains us. We work out because it makes us stronger. Those kinds of decisions are made for ourselves, right? And those type of decisions make up the majority, if not all, of our actions, correct? So, the majority of society's actions are akin to the logic of psychological egoism. Those decisions aren't necessarily unethical or ethical, but can fall into either category. Ex. Why doesn't a nurse work him/herself sick? Because a sick nurse can't help others. So, it is ethical for a nurse to make sure they don't do too much to help others initially, or they won't be able to help others in the future. Why doesn't a shoplifter steal more often? Because, they don't want to be caught. Such actions are unethical, since stealing, which harms another individual, is "evil." (reasoning by natural law/empathy)

-However, I cannot say that all of our actions are akin to psychological egoism. First, to impail the notion that all of our actions are egoistic: If we get a warm fuzzy feeling (joy) from our actions, and it's really the only thing we get, and can expect to get... Why? Religion can only do so much, if anything at all... Our "instilled values" that would give us this feeling are merely a result of our own will. Thus, that "good feeling" we get isn't just a reward, it's an indication that our act was truly selfless. Second, to add some fuel to the fire... Let's compare two "heroes" here (I'm not saying that either one is less than the other, I'm just using them for the argument) A member of our honorable armed forces in Iraq and a police officer in a small town. The risks the soldier faces are much higher than the officer. Yet, both are highly respected. So, if our actions are only for the reward, then why aren't there much more officers than soldiers? If we can get the same reward for less work, then why do otherwise? There is where psychological egoism as an end-all explanation to human behavior breaks down. Thus, the only thing that can explain that behavior is altruism of some sort. A selfless act or actions by an individual for the rest of society. (and yes, I know this is hard for most people to accept, psy. egoism is really appealing because of our cynical reasoning...)

~ I would also like to note at this point that ethical egoism (that psychological egoism is the right thing) is actually the founding nature of democracy. That if everyone takes care of themselves, then everyone's taken care of. Makes sense, right? But to leave you thinking... What about the people that can't take care of themselves? Children? Disabled?

-*Checks list* Well, if I'm not mistaken, the only point I haven't hit so far is that I believe that society is getting better, albeit slowly, and with it's ups and downs. Used to be that slavery was acceptable in all the world, now, it's restricted to SOME 3rd world countries. Used to be that we all believed the earth was flat...right? We've come together for the furtherment of humanity. However, this is not to say we haven't had our bad points... medieval times/dark ages for example. Anyone here remember the spanish inquisition? How about the crusades? We've had our ups and downs, but I see an upward trend over the period of time we call our history.

Well, that's about it, really.. I think I got everything... If not, lemme know! ^_^

ps. And I added two new definitions in the first post... just to clarify a distinction between something... o.o

pps. I'll throw that natural law paper of mine up as soon as I can find it!

ppps. And for everyone who read that, THANK YOU! I know it was alot... >_>

pppps. I just want to let everyone know that, as can be seen, many of my ideas coincide with Phoe's... And I'd like to thank her, and Meru, especially, for sitting here and thinking and posting... I'm starting to fall for them both x_x but I'm leaning to Phoe, since I like her view of things... >_>( ) And I'd like to thank Phoe again for some of her statements, it helped me with some of the articulation of the points above. And of course, thanks to everyone else who posted and read. n_n

ppppps. Too many p's? I forgot what I was going to say... x_x

~Sib

Err, maybe I said something wrong, but I don't care about the sins. XD
I think most of the sins are just part of human nature, and should be done.
I.E- Sex makes you reproduce, something you're supposed to do. Stealing helps you survive. And other things I don't feel like thinking about. XP

I think that that feeling of "good or bad" is being punished or rewarded. Animals can be trained to think in that way, a bad thing will get them punished. Same as morals and beliefs. If you do a bad thing, you get punished, or sent to Hell in religions, and are rewarded when you are doing good. Someone who grows up without knowlage of religions, crime, laws, "good or bad" won't grow up with the same feeling of moral that people have. They would behave in what ever way helps them.



Okay, I just have to say this: Dolphins have sex for pleasure. Google it!

Anyways, sex brings pleasure because sex brings reproduction, same with love (to an extent), and is natures way to trick us into to making babies. Also, who says such things are "bad" things? I don't, but many people due, for some reason. Infact, what the hell is morally wrong with having sex? Whatever. I mean, there isn't a defining law on what's good or bad, just people's opinions.




...I have an aguement for this, but I don't know how to express it. D: I'll see if I can think of a way to say it later.

Again, I'm going to leave religion out of the equation.

Let me put it this way: both humans and animals are capable of killing, but most average humans feel regret when they do this (if they don't, then they're probably sociopathic >_>). Animals kill and are killed because it's the way nature works; animals are food for other animals. Although humans kill, there are times when it's justified (such as in war or in self-defense) and there are times when it's not. Humans also hesitate to perform an action such as killing another human. Why? Empathy, plain and simple. All humans feel empathy to some degree and influences their actions REGARDLESS of beliefs. If killing a random rich person would benefit you, would you still do it if there was no law stating you couldn't? If you had no empathy or compassion, you'd kill them without a second thought simply because you'll be benefitting from their death. Similarly, in the animal kingdom, an animal will kill another animal if the other's death will benefit itself. With empathy, a person can relate to another person's fear or pain; those feelings would cause conflict and cause hesitation.

Sociopaths lack empathy and are incapable of understanding another's pain or suffering, do not care about the consequences of their actions, and are unable to feel remorse. They lie, lack responsibility, and show blatant disregard for their own safety or the safety of others. Remove all these traits from humans and we reduce ourselves to mere animals.



Yes, I do know the thing about dolphins (how the heck did I learn that in psychology?), but MOST animals don't. Sex in itself isn't 'bad'. It's just that having intercourse with a person without knowing if they have an STD or some other disease, for example. As far as I know, animals don't suffer from STDs (not naturally, anyway). STDs can threaten a human's chances for survival. From a medical standpoint, it doesn't make sense. If someone had smallpox or the plague, you'd naturally avoid them so you wouldn't catch it, wouldn't you? Self-preservation. Another example I can use is this: anyone can have a cold. You don't want to catch it so you try to protect yourself as much as possible (hand-washing, avoiding close contact with someone who has a cold, etc.). Not doing so could go against the idea of self-preservation.

And when you say that pleasure is nature's way of tricking humans into reproducing, weeeell, it depends. People still feel the need to reproduce and could care less about the pleasure; pleasure is just an added bonus. Some couples, erm, 'do it' like crazy just to get pregnant. Besides, from a biological standpoint, intercourse was initially meant for PROCREATION ONLY. *Pleasure could be said to be an excuse people use to have sex just like some girls say guys use love to get into a girl's pants (*I don't sincerely believe that, I'm just using that for comparison).

In short: humans have empathy and the ability of self-reflection, animals don't (or they do, just not to the same degree as humans). An animal can't feel regret like a human can. An animal can't 'feel for' another animal like a human can sympathize with another human.

To say that emotion does not exist, empathy does not exist; humans are basically fleshy, emotionless machines that do nothing more than react to stimuli and act on the most basic instincts. That way of thinking reduces humans to beasts. Humans and animals may have many similarities, but there are things that make humans fundamentally different from animals and what make humans capable to doing 'good' deeds.

And on the basis of 'good' and 'bad', on an individual level, people act according to their own beliefs. But 'good' and 'bad' is defined by society as a whole based on what will benefit the most people with the least negative impact.

Ok I'm gonna leave the definitions in this post to help me plus make it kinda look like what I'm talking about.

psycholocial egoism - we only do good because of a reward, or to not be punished
I can see an argument here but I'm not sure its the whole answer. When we are children we do things for some kind of tangible reward. weather it be we get a sticker or candy for using the bathroom when we are potty training or when we get a bit older a pizza party for getting good grades. for the most part in normal non-extreme households children are rewarded for doing the right thing and punished in some way for doing the bad thing.
As we become more self aware and adult like our rewards and punishments become less tangable. When you get all the work done on time at college or at your work you get the good feeling of accomplishment which is an intagable reward. Where as if you slack off you get yelled demoted and maybe even fired. Which again leeds to an intangable punishment.
So yes in the end I can see why this can be an argument for whay humans want to do good,the want rewards and fear the punishment.

ethical egoism - that egoism (desc. above) is not only human nature, but it is actually ethical, and is what should be done.I don't think its an ethical thing. Sometimes human nature outways ethics and therefore ethics should be tossed out the window in regards to good and evil for I think that in order to come up with ethics we must understand "good and Evil" so therefore "good and evil" superceeds ethics.


reciprocal altruism - I do good to you, you do good to me, and we all live in harmony
ok this is the hippie view of it all. Yes in theory it would be nice but hey also in theory Communism was good but that didn't work out. As I am sure even in this guild we can find examples to the contrary. Like person A is being an a** and person B will be civil to them and kind. Person A continues to be an a** saying horrible personal things to person B but person B continues to be nice and not be an a** back. This action in no way will turn the additude of person A around. proven fact.

ideal altruism - regardless whether you love me, don't care, or hate me, I'm still going to do good to you
This is also the hippie view. I know for at least me you do s**t to me I'm not gonna still do good to you. Time for a very personal example. So I was nearly killed when I was a baby by my babysitter and we wnet to court and she got away with it. I will never forgive her. I will never ever ever do a good thing for her. This whole thing is the notion that a small amount of people can be good and that will make everything else good. It just doesn't work that way.

In conclusion I guess I'm gonna have to go with psycholocial egoism as the answer for good an evil. We need rewards,its human and animal nature, you make the right choice and pick the right berries to eat you live another day if not you die of posining. If rewards can work on a simple survival level why not on a more emotional/moral level of good and evil.

now lets move onto the next 2 definitions you have offered.

selfish - wanting everything for oneself, and for everyone else to have nothing; will not help anyone else, regardless of the effect on yourselfI think I have to agree with this. since we are(may were since we do seem to be becoming more of an individulaized society)a tightknitt society depending on each other. Being on the whole selfish will not help the whole. keeping all the money and food and clothes and other resouces will undermind those around you and in the end it will all crummble. the people who you counted on to give you the things and ideas and stuff to be selfish about will be gone and soon you ill have nothing to be selfish about.

self interested (self centered) - making sure that you are taken care of before you take care of others, but are willing to help others if needed I think in places like America this is true. In societies that have imbraced a high value of individualism and consumerism self intrest is prevalent. For example if you look at people who give to charity a vast magority will first off make sure they have the money they need to pay the bills and maintain the life they have and than will think about giving to charity.

Here comes the big qiestion though,do I think human nature is basically good or evil? I think its very delicate balancing act between the two. Everyone at some point has been "evil" and the same goes for "good". For the most part though I don't think humanity is either all the time. We balance between the two some days are just more "evil" than other and some are just more "good".
As for weather human civilization is in an "downward spiral" or is humanity "getting better"? I have to say its a juggling act and is very subjective. One could say that the internet makes us to dependant on technology and that civilization is going downhill but someone else could see that the internet helps ideas flow better and information atainable by all and that will make cilvilization better. So its bith I guess.