In your opinion, are people basically
- Thread starter tlatchaw
- Start date
Oh I get it. I just don't see the point in quibbling over whether "99.9" is a precise number or not, since it's usually just a colloquialism for "just about everybody".Hello6 said:
I also think a substantial number of that 3% are still "good" by the generic standard everyone else seems to apply, meaning "not bad". I like to think of MYSELF as a 'good person', but I *have* done things that would have landed my butt in jail had I been caught.
I think Gary Hull has never had a date in his life. I can barely find a nugget of useful info in there.
I can't tell you why I rub my wife's sore feet except that it relieves the pain there. It hurts the hell out of the joints in my hands. But I do it most times without thinking. Same for getting her a drink from the fridge. I can't think of a good reason why I do it, because it's not as though I pat myself on the back for it, or there's the slightest evidence I'll get anything 'back' from it.
I'm firmly in the camp of the shortened version of Occam's Razor - "The simplest explanation is usually the right one". If I massively overanalyze, I'm sure I could find SOME self-centered reason why I show courtesy to strangers or do things for those I love. I think the simple answer is, I think you should show courtesy, and I do nice things for those I love, because I love them. No further explanation needed.
I used to know this guy who would probably distill virtually all human interaction to neurons and chemicals in the brain such that all human interaction is predictable based on massive (and theoretically, impossible) analysis of their states. He'd probably say that selfishness and unselfishness is irrelevant - it's just hormones and neurons. Choice is an illusion.
I'd really like to pick apart that article from the start (but I don't have time). How about if the Valentine's Day card said, instead "My love for you is predicated totally on your loving me back, or, at least, the appearance of such love. I love you because the sex is good - when it starts to suck even a little, I am SO outta here. And God help you if you should need me more than I need you, like, if you get sick or hospitalized. I'll just wait till you get out, but I won't hold my breath. If you bore me or I find a better deal than you, you're dumpsville, baby." There's selfish, conditional love for you, in a nutshell. I find the rest of his remarks to be hyperbole and exaggerration.
You might guess I've spent a huge portion of my life around intellectual, holier-than-thou effete snobs, and you'd be right. But just 'cause they know how to intellectualize a stupid premise doesn't mean it ain't bull. BS artists come in all sizes.
I can't tell you why I rub my wife's sore feet except that it relieves the pain there. It hurts the hell out of the joints in my hands. But I do it most times without thinking. Same for getting her a drink from the fridge. I can't think of a good reason why I do it, because it's not as though I pat myself on the back for it, or there's the slightest evidence I'll get anything 'back' from it.
I'm firmly in the camp of the shortened version of Occam's Razor - "The simplest explanation is usually the right one". If I massively overanalyze, I'm sure I could find SOME self-centered reason why I show courtesy to strangers or do things for those I love. I think the simple answer is, I think you should show courtesy, and I do nice things for those I love, because I love them. No further explanation needed.
I used to know this guy who would probably distill virtually all human interaction to neurons and chemicals in the brain such that all human interaction is predictable based on massive (and theoretically, impossible) analysis of their states. He'd probably say that selfishness and unselfishness is irrelevant - it's just hormones and neurons. Choice is an illusion.
I'd really like to pick apart that article from the start (but I don't have time). How about if the Valentine's Day card said, instead "My love for you is predicated totally on your loving me back, or, at least, the appearance of such love. I love you because the sex is good - when it starts to suck even a little, I am SO outta here. And God help you if you should need me more than I need you, like, if you get sick or hospitalized. I'll just wait till you get out, but I won't hold my breath. If you bore me or I find a better deal than you, you're dumpsville, baby." There's selfish, conditional love for you, in a nutshell. I find the rest of his remarks to be hyperbole and exaggerration.
You might guess I've spent a huge portion of my life around intellectual, holier-than-thou effete snobs, and you'd be right. But just 'cause they know how to intellectualize a stupid premise doesn't mean it ain't bull. BS artists come in all sizes.
I think you're right. I thought the Hull article was crystal clear.sleuth said:
SamSpade, if you really want to love selflessly, love somone who is mean to you, selfish and spends all your money on drugs for her lover. THEN you will truly be getting NOTHING out of the deal. <--There are a lot of people who do that, btw. We call them "masochists". And they like being martyrs or they wouldn't hang with someone who treats them so poorly, so even THEY are getting something out of the relationship.
Why do you rub M's feet when it makes your hands sore? Because it pleases you to please her. Why do you get her a drink from the fridge? Because it feels good to be considerate of your wife. Maybe you don't consciously think about it anymore BUT at some point, she had to tell you that she enjoys getting her feet rubbed or what kind of beverages she prefers. Unless you are psychic and intuitively knew these things, which is possible but not probable.
I just don't see how feeling good about doing good makes me "cynical".
SamSpade said:
Talk about truth in advertising!Actually, for some people love probably is like that. It explains a 50% divorce rate across multiple demographics (yes, even the born again have a divorce rate close to 50%).
What sense does it make then when my heart breaks when my wife is in emotional pain? Why does it affect me so deeply when she is depressed over the loss of a loved one? I think reactions like that show the "love connection" that people feel.
Last edited:
Well, maybe I'm never going to make my point clear. Part of my premise is that, since you already believe that a person's actions always stem from a desire to do something for one's self, it is *impossible* for you to manufacture a "selfless" act. You've already defined the behavior before you describe it.vraiblonde said:
Example - the classic "Can God create a rock too big for him to lift?" or the more famous "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?". The premise ITSELF is ridiculous, because the very definition of an immovable object nullifies the concept of an unstoppable force. (The God example is more subtle, but perhaps more pertinent. It deals with God's omnipotency; on either side of the dilemma, the choice is, there's something God can't do. But omnipotency doesn't include the ability to do illogical things, like, can God exist, and NOT exist? The Bible says it's impossible for God to lie, for the simple reason that God is truth itself. If he told a lie, it becomes truth. Circular arguments are amusing, but not very useful outside philosophy class).
I think you may be of the idea I don't get the concept. I absolutely do. I wrote about twenty pages on the concept back in the 70's. I wrote a lot of stuff then.
But I submit THIS challenge, then. If you don't believe people can act selflessly, there MUST BE AT LEAST ONE example of selflessness in order to prove it. If there isn't one, then my argument is with your terms, and not your argument. You've defined *behavior* itself as "people serving the benefit of their own desires". I don't.
This is why I used the parallel of perspective in politics. You give an example of some 'good' thing the Republicans have done. I turn around and find the "real" EVIL reason for it. You counter with how effective it will be. I counter with the bigoted, homophobic, serving-the-rich argument. It is perspective.
You see behavior as inherently selfish. I see it as neutral, and subject to judgment either way. When I put gas in my car or go pick up the mail, these aren't selfless OR selfish acts, but a case could be made either way for each. The difference is solely in the mind of the person doing it, and you can't know that. The problem with your approach is, it judges the actions BEFORE they even *occur*. And I can't do that and still be honest with what I actually know.
As I mentioned previously, I know this guy who looks at all human behavior as biochemical. Therefore, morality, choice, love - they are an illusion. He would fit in perfectly with "The Architect" and "Agent Smith" from "The Matrix". They attribute all human action within the Matrix as simple, biochemical reactions, all a part of a very complex and precise mathematical ideal of perfection.tlatchaw said:
Actually, for some people love probably is like that. It explains a 50% divorce rate across multiple demographics (yes, even the born again have a divorce rate close to 50%).
What sense does it make then when my heart breaks when my wife is in emotional pain? Why does it affect me so deeply when she is depressed over the loss of a loved one? I think reactions like that show the "love connection" that people feel.
The very amusing part of the whole story was that, as precise as their math became, it still couldn't do the job. The Architect was unable to ever see beyond his mathematical model. He had to rely on an 'intuitive' program - a program which based its conclusions on incomplete information - and a little faith. His own viewpoint of the universe made it impossible for him to have faith, and thus, he couldn't see beyond his own perspective.
My friend loves this perspective - but fundamentally, I think it's because deep down, he wants to believe he has no real choice in life, so if life screws him over, it's basically his "fate".
I don't believe in fate (and as was mentioned in the first Matrix movie, neither does Neo).
Hello6
Princess of Mean
SamSpade said:
Just because you consider yourself good doesn't make it so. I bet the priests who molester kids consider themselves good too.
It's all perception. I perceive people who do things that would land them in jail as a bad person, no matter how often they rub their wives' sore feet. It just that your extent of badness isn't that bad.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
This is paraphrased from a column by Harlan Ellison: "Everyone gets a 'fix' from doing good deeds. But people who claim to act on selfless motives are no different from people who try to legislate morality or save us from the devil." I don't know if I would go that far, but I do believe that people who claim to be selfless sound arrogant.
Last edited:
You lost me. I don't believe in selflessness, so I must find an act of selflessness to prove that it doesn't exist? I don't think I understand.
But you DO, in fact, get something out of doing it - you can drive your car and you get your mail.
I think we're stuck on the term "selfish", which has such a negative connotation. I'm not talking about a conscious thought of "what's in it for me". I'm talking about that everything we do has a benefit to ourselves in some form or we typically don't do it. Or there is an intended benefit, because we've all done things that we thought were in our best interest, only to find that they were huge mistakes. And sometimes we do things not to specifically benefit ourselves, but to avoid pain, which is a benefit of it's own.
So I still believe there is no such thing as "selflessness". Or, if there is, I have never seen nor heard of an example of it.
Well, THAT has been my premise since the beginning of the thread. When you say are people basically good, or basically bad, if you don't leave any middle ground, you have to ask "do you mean Mother Theresa good, or my grandma good? Do you mean Hitler bad, or do you mean stealing pens from the office bad?".Hello6 said:
The context has generally been, are people 'basically bad', such that, without laws to constrain them, the whole world would go "Lord of the Flies"? Or are people 'basically good', such that, if you don't bother them, they won't bother you? It's not a question asking if people are saints or devils.
I don't, but then, I've known a number of people who have either wrongly gone to jail, or were sent to jail because of some failing that many of us are guilty of. I've only known a few people that are just 'bad'.
I also believe in the concept of redemption - that no matter how bad a person gets, they can turn it around. I don't believe that if a person is 'bad', they're forever that way. In the third Star Wars movie, I couldn't have been more pleased that Darth Vader escaped the Dark Side and turned to good - my sister, on the other hand, was royally p*ssed. He was a 'bad' man, and deserves a bad end.
This is why I bristled at the idiotic portrayal of the concept of "Hate the sin, love the sinner" that was lampooned in that article posted. For pity's sake, loving the sinner doesn't mean you'd send Godiva chocolates to Hitler while condemning his actions; but it DOES believe you can have faith that a bad man still has time to change. People apply this concept all the time with their own children; you don't hate them, but you sure do hate the bad things they do. On the other hand, 'loving' them doesn't mean rewarding their behavior or ignoring it, either. Either the guy doesn't grasp the concept, or he just used a dreadful example.
My thought about 'good' and 'bad' people is, I'm sure if you go through your mental repertoire and find a good person, a long personal discussion with them almost certainly will reveal that they also have done some very bad things in their life. The most saintly person you know has been a devil at least once. Perhaps even worthy of going to jail. So I'm unwilling to place that label so hastily. It's a very wide brush to paint with.
No, believe me, I get the idea, and the word is not a "button" for me.vraiblonde said:
Here's what I was getting at - "everything we do has a benefit to ourselves in some form or we typically don't do it". Do what? Name an example of something we DON'T do, because it wouldn't result in some form of benefit. The definition of the "selfless" act. Because you can't give an example of it, the problem is in your definition of behavior, and not in "selflessness" or "selfishness".
Does that make more sense? I think if you cannot give an example of the kind of act a person would NOT do, because it would NOT be of benefit to them, then what we have is a problem in logic.
You state "such an action would NOT be of benefit to them, so they don't do it".
I say "But they do it"
You state "Then it is of benefit to them".
Circular logic. Applying the concept AFTER the event has occurred.
All human behavior IS biochemical, but that doesn't mean it's an illusion. It just occurs in the neurons or whatever in your brain and you can't "see" it. But scientists CAN "see" various emotions in a brainscan, which means they are real.SamSpade said:
Most people can't. Everyone always thinks their perception is reality - "So-and-so was rude to me!" Someone else wouldn't have thought so-and-so was being rude at all but to the other person, there is no doubt in their mind. We get reported posts all the time that demonstrate this.
I don't think I've ever known anyone who has no redeeming qualities, no matter how "bad" they were. But I'm the type of person who looks at a stinker and says, "He's not all bad", where I don't look at a nice person and say, "He's not all good". Hence, my vote that people are basically good.
sleuth
Livin' Like Thanksgivin'
SamSpade said:
I think the problem is that people have been ingrained since birth that "selfishness" is evil. For me, I don't see it as being evil, I see it as the way we were created, whether it was by God (which is what I believe) or not.
As I've already said, what makes you "good" or "bad" is not whether you're selfish or selfless. What makes the difference between good and bad is what you value. Some are taught the "good" things to value, and some are taught the "evil" things to value. But as for the premise of this poll, I believe all people are selfish. I believe most people value the good things more than the bad.
We don't stick our hand on a hot stover burner. We don't stay with a man who beats us. We don't commit suicide.SamSpade said:
Sticking your hand on a hot stove burns you. But you deliberately do it anyway. Why? Because you want the attention, which is a benefit in your mind that outweighs the pain of the burn. Or maybe you're one of those crazy people who gets off on self-mutilation, which is a benefit.
Staying with a man who beats you doesn't benefit you. But you stay anyway. Why? Because the fear of being alone outweighs the pain of the beating, therefore you feel you are benefitting yourself by staying.
Suicide does not benefit you. But people do it anyway. Why? Because death is preferable to life, in their mind, and therefore a benefit.
I truly cannot think of one single act that anyone would do that has no benefit to them, even if it's only a perceived benefit.
That's easy. Death. Dying for someone else's sake. It is impossible to reap the slightest benefit once you have given it up for someone else's sake. You might believe it is for the best, but once you're dead, you can't benefit from it any longer. And you haven't actually DONE it, until you are dead.vraiblonde said:
And your post is perfect for what I'm trying to say. In each case, you describe things you yourself would not do. But then you go on to declare them as providing a "benefit", however sordid, for those who DO commit them. Hence, you are applying a form of circular logic.
For example, I now posit that you personally never do a single act unless it is to further to purposes of evil on this planet. You got up early, you had your breakfast, you read the paper - all things done so you can prepare for the cruelty you plan to unleash on the world. You helped a little old lady across the street? Hah! You just did that to make her *trust* you, so you can hurt her later. No matter WHAT you do, I can turn it to the basic fact that you only commit the act to futher your own evil nature.
I could come up with an endless set of premises. I could posit that the reason behind all action is to work AGAINST our benefit - when we DO benefit, we simply fail to accomplish the detriment to ourselves we were seeking. Example: why do people gamble, or do drugs? They want to do things AGAINST their benefit. Eventually, they succeed.
Pretty silly, of course. But it's not the whole "evil" thing that makes it funny. It's the a priori reasoning. It's making declarations about things that haven't even happened, and jumping inside someone's mind.
Because you can't *logically* make those conclusions. You can no more arrive at those conclusions about me than I could about someone's *car*. It doesn't do things because of a 'selfish' motive. It has no motive, it just does them. I have no way of knowing if you brush your hair from your face because it's bothering you, or because it's a nervous habit and you haven't the faintest idea you are doing it. (Just like the car - motiveless actions cannot be judged as 'selfish'. So there are actions that are NOT selfish).
What I've been saying all along is, you can't declare that people do things for their own benefit, and when an obvious contradiction occurs (someone doing something AGAINST their benefit), simply declaring they did it to accomplish some *unknowable* benefit. It's circular reasoning.
I think the best we can claim is that all actions are done to accomplish an anticipated result, for good, or bad. And that's as far as logic will let us go. Because beyond that, I have to make judgments on motives, and I can never know that.
You fit the definition.vraiblonde said:
Last edited: