I'm curious

I have a chemistry test tomorrow, and must be studying. So expect a longer response sometime later, because this discussion is highly enjoyable.

We have the philosophers in the thread, from which I argue good man Locke's tabula rasa. It is the most logically consistent and sound viewpoint to take on the issue of human morality when considering it from a nurture-focus standpoint, and as us solely through the view of humans being creatures of consciousness and intellectual growth. This is especially the case when, as was said previously, the nature of "good" and "bad" is highly subjective. I have to say the question itself seemed a bit overly simplistic!

We also have the psychologists in the thread, who argue more in turn for the factor of childhood trauma and the associated responsibility. Childhood trauma or events heavily influence the development of a person to be more or less "good" if taking tabula rasa as the assumed premises (which means taking out of account the two other opinions of inherent good or inherent evil). Although I do find the model a bit overly simplistic in its approach myself, Erikson's eight stages of development lay a basic groundwork for what we can consider a socially acceptable level of achieving "goodness" while attempting not to stray onto the path of a lack of self-fulfillment. This, due to the very nature of our society, is what we associate with "good" generally -- that is, an idea of altruism or selflessness. At the same time, this childhood (and really, entire adult influence) is indeed what helps influence decisions and experiences through cause-and-effect determinism. That being said, this does not remove the onus of responsibility away from the individual who can understand what may be wrong with whatever temperament may be affecting them, as Plums said.

My original tuppence in this thread come from scientific and historical literacy, which really only depend on the natural philosophy axioms to verify their degree of "sufficient truth", or what we know about ourselves so far, with enough supporting evidence, before it may either continue to be supported, denied, or waltz around as a combination of the two. Such is science. To take a mark at the Hobbesians who believe people are inherently evil and selfish, let it be noted that cooperation strategies were inherently necessary for society to develop as a whole. Is that acceptable on an individual basis? Well, individuals differ among each other. Is that "good"? I do not know, but the thread's idea of good seems to point towards cooperation with the fellow human. We continue to see this in children, and we continue to see this with the social aspects of humans as a whole. To gain what gains we have so far required some degree of putting the group before selfish desires. Let it also be noted that "civilization" or "society" are intensely subjective concepts tied to our viewpoints as citizens in an aforementioned society. Do we define anarchy as a lack of society, or civilization? Do we define tribal societies as a lack of society, or civilization? Hunter-gatherer parties have been famously egalitarian, and it is really the resource-distribution of early societies that caused the first inequalities we may have seen.

Civilization does not necessarily temper us away from "selfish ideals" in that very manner: it would be equally viable to argue that they have the ability to develop it from our history, but we then see how civilization has progressed to discourage us from such ideals. Human social consciousness is something that perpetually evolves and in this way it would thus be hard to pinpoint certain aspects as inherently bad or inherently good. We could call humans biologically cooperative as our nature being a social species. Does that make us good? Well, it depends, because morality is an intensely conscience-based thing not tied to simple natural sciences! Tabula rasa still stands, but with the plot skewed towards the imperative of biological cooperation. Does that make us inherently good? It makes us inherently cooperative, and it might even be why it causes us to feel compassion, empathy, and what have you (let it also be noted that many animals feel compassion and empathy, we are not unique). But even this can be changed or influenced by aspects in our environment.

poster's note: I wanted to link to the actual scientific journal papers instead of the popular science articles but I felt the latter would be more appropriate for everyone to understand what exactly the above concepts were in common-person-ese

 

I suppose I'd like to ask for what you mean by "the means". I suppose if it's getting to a better place financially and nobody will hire them, yes. But when it comes to things like mentality, unless someone has an actual mental disorder, and even then, one of the more debilitating ones, I honestly believe that people are capable of overcoming a lot on their own without the need of help.

they just...don't. I suppose you could say they're "lucky enough to get over it themselves" but that's just getting a little absurd at that point. Sometimes you make your own luck.

//thread

@What? I'll read your post in a bit, but if you would be so kind as to also link to the academic versions, I'd be ever so grateful.

 

No one chooses to be bad...
Life just kinda breaks them...

 

I like to think all humans are born True Neutral and just change alignment later on.

 

That is true: in order for someone to deal with their deficiencies, they do not necessarily need the help of others. Some people are completely capable of coping on their own, whether it be due to their natural disposition or something in their lives that has taught them healthy coping mechanisms.

Others may not have that advantageous disposition, nor those healthy coping mechanisms to rely on. The former person--the one who can cope and overcome on their own--is not superior to the latter. They simply deal with and overcome their problems in a different way (by themselves). For the latter person, all they might need is some therapy sessions.

Even if they are dealing with the same problem (somehow--entirely hypothetical), if it takes the first person two years to overcome the problem, and the second four years, the first person is no better than the second. They're simply luckier. Likewise, if the first person copes on their own and the second person with the help of another, the first person is no better than the second. They're luckier.

Luck here doesn't really mean something of a gamble, or finding a $20 on the side of the road. It means that your circumstances in life have given you an advantage in dealing with a deficiency that another person may not have; likewise, unluckiness means that your circumstances do not give you an advantage, or even worse, have given you a disadvantage. Because you did not choose your circumstances, they are a matter of luck.

 

Get out.


@Misty, Ah, well when you define luck that way, I suppose so. It seems so silly to get caught up in semantics, but, whatever.

 

"Get out." is not a Valid response please try again.

 

Would you like to send an error report?

 

Unless a valid response is submmited in a formal manner, Yes.

 

So if we're not perfect little angels then we're revolting devil spawn? Whoa bro calm down

HEY NOW HOLD UP NIGGA. THAT'S ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY THE KIND OF VILLAIN I WRITE. YOU SAYIN' I WRITE SINS, NOT TRAGEDIES PARADOXES?

IF I MAY INTERJECT?

I think what she's getting at is that one should always hold oneself accountable for one's actions, but about 90% of the time casting blame on others is poisonous and counter-productive. If so I agree. If not, carry on :x

 

Not anymore than other villains. These are villains every one writes, and they're definitely something people can hate. All people. Because we all hate evil- we just don't ever think we're guilty of it.

 

That's my go-to response for terrible puns.

 

Maybe he just needs to let it SynK in.

 

I personally define morality as a social concept born from biological imperatives. We' d have to agree on a common standard to define good and evil, which is usually easier said than done, but whatever. What bugs me with the claim at hand is that it assumes there is such a thing as choice, but I don' t know that.

I was fascinated by The Matrix depiction of an entirely deterministic existence. When Neo becomes able to grasp enough causal links to extrapolate the future to some degree, though not enough to shatter his illusion of choice, it leads to a couple of interesting dialogues :

Spoiler

Examining as many causal agents as we can to extrapolate the future to some degree is what we do in, say, meteorology. For a good while our scientific discoveries made it look like our whole universe was indeed a slave to causality, though not conclusively, but apparently when it comes to quantum physics all bets are off so ... lol, who the hell knows ?

If there is such a thing as free will then we can stir our morality to some degree, though we' re fairly rigged one way or the other from starters. If on the other hand there is no such thing as choice then I guess destiny is unavoidable and we are indeed born good or evil, so to speak.

 

The pessimist side of me wants to say that it's hard coded into human kind to be evil and that the good ones are anomalies.

The child like side of me wants to say that everything in this world is good and nothing is bad.

The realist in me wants to say that we start out as blank slates. If you leave a newborn in the wilderness, this is going off the possibility it lives, it's going to be wild like the animals. It's about survival and adaptation. We learn, we think, we grow. It is because of this that I'm choosing to go with the unlisted third option, 'none of the above'. We start out neither good or bad. I refer back to an article I read awhile back about how newborns are the most savage creatures on earth, which could allow argument that we don't start out good.

Basically, I agree to disagree. I'll choose the middle ground and start a battlefield. It's three AM in the morning, I'm sleep deprived, and I'm actually making a bit of sense. Who da man!? ... Never saying that again.

 

Pat, can you make a point without linking to YouTube? XD

 

Explain. What makes selfishness inherently bad?

 

Lol, to be fair I used it as a side-note illustration, you don' t have to actually watch it (nor the actual movie) to understand what I said.

 

Yeah, to be fair, your arguments still make sense without watching videos, just an observation on your habits. I mean, I won't watch all of them for too long, I have **** to do, mate, but it is well appreciated, ha.

 

Personally, I don't believe in free will. Consider how the butterfly effect works. You know, how going back in time and making an unimaginably tiny change (say, crushing a butterfly) could cause gigantic changes in your present. As far as I know, that principle works no matter how far you go back, even before the universe started expanding. If, right before the Big Bang, a single electron were in a different place than it actually was, the universe would undoubtedly be completely different from how it is now. Different planets, different life forms (if life ever formed at all, that is), different galaxies, and maybe even different physics (though I kinda doubt that). So even if we make our own choices, the universe was set up from the beginning to cause us to make all of the choices that we do.