Human Nature

[Misodoctakleidist]

The concept of 'human nature' is often used as an argument against communism but what is human nature?

What is the definition of human nature? What characteristics are, as some would say, 'inherent in human nature' and why?

[Inter arma, enim silent leges]

Human nature, as I understand it:

Survival/Reproduction. It all comes down to these 2 things for me. Our most basic instinct is to survive and pass on our seed. The strongest tend to survive, so this could have our general want for power assigned to it. From here you can trace it all.

[commie kg]

Ask yourself: does human nature, in the way that the capitalists define it, really exist?

No.

"Human nature" evolves around changing material conditions. It is not a constant force.

[cubist]

human nature survival of yourself and your kin and of your species, certainly not GREED as there are many selfless individuals in the world

[Dune Dx]

Human nature is not some rule that every one follows. The argument that keeps coming up that humans are inherantly greedy this isnt the case their are people in the world that arnt greedy so clearly greed is not in human nature!

[Inter arma, enim silent leges]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 02:40 PM
human nature survival of yourself and your kin and of your species, certainly not GREED as there are many selfless individuals in the world
But for every selfless person/act, how many are selfish?

[Misodoctakleidist]

So is there anyone who defines 'human nature' as something other than human instinct?

[Hate Is Art]

There is no such thing as Human Nature, it is most commonly used as rightist rhetoric to try and prove that Communism can't work.

It is in fact Capitilism that makes people greedy and selfish, not people want Capitilism because they are selfish and greedy.

Ask yourself, why do teachers teach? To get sexy women, to become millionaires, to live a rock 'n' roll lifestlye?

Teachers are living proof that "human nature" is dead.

[cubist]

Originally posted by Inter arma+ enim silent leges,Apr 15 2004, 02:44 PM--> (Inter arma @ enim silent leges,Apr 15 2004, 02:44 PM)
[email protected] 15 2004, 02:40 PM
human nature survival of yourself and your kin and of your species, certainly not GREED as there are many selfless individuals in the world
But for every selfless person/act, how many are selfish? [/b]
i am sure many are selfish to each selfless, but if it was inherent then why have these people not inhereted it? and if they haven't inhereted greed then something in there genetic structure would be different and there would be two species of human say homsapien-greedious and homosapien-socialilius (i made them up before you say anything) its this lack of evidence which suggests greed is a psycological state of mind which is taught and encouraged rather than inherent

[Capitalist Imperial]

Greed, as leftists call it, is merely the acquisition of additional resources as a function of (and driven by) of the survival instinct. Money is merely the representation of resources. Thus, money is in fact units of additional survival, so the accumulation of money makes sense.

Communism and human nature are incompatible, as the multiple attempts and subsequent failures of communism has demonstrated over and over.

Capitalism and human nature reconcile well, as the multiple attempts and subsequent successes of capitalism has demonstrated over and over, and is still demonstrating with countless emerging markets today.

And that is the bottom line, straight up, fellas.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15 2004, 05:35 PM
Greed, as leftists call it, is merely the acquisition of additional resources as a function of (and driven by) of the survival instinct.
Greed is by definition; to take more than you need, taking something that you don't need can't possibly aid survival otherwise you would need it. I think what you meant to say is 'selfishness' not 'greed.'

If we substitute selfishness for greed in your argument then you make a good point; selfishness is driven by the survival instinct, it is, however, not an instinct in it's self. When being selfish makes survival easier then the instinct to survive will drive you to selfishness, this would also imply that if selfishness was of no benifit then the survival instinct would not drive you to selfishness, surely it sands to reason that if a society makes selfishness unbenficial, or, indeed, counter-productive, then selfish would not exist. I would make the argument that a communist society would render selfishness a hazard to survival so it would therefor not be prevailent.


Money is merely the representation of resources. Thus, money is in fact units of additional survival, so the accumulation of money makes sense.

This is true for capitaism but in a communist society there would be no money. Hoarding resources would be damaging to your chances of survival becuase people generaly wouldn't be very happy about it.


Communism and human nature are incompatible, as the multiple attempts and subsequent failures of communism has demonstrated over and over.

Communism and human instinct are perfectly compatible, communism is the system by which the most people find it easiest to survive.

[mysticofthewest]

Human Nature in a non Biological sense doesn't exist when a capitalist uses the term human nature he uses it to justify his own greedy system saying survival of the fittest thats why im rich and your poor its only natural. he can also use it to atemp to debunk the left saying it goes aginist this concept of human nature( in a non biological sense) that doesn't even exist.

[cubist]

apitalism and human nature reconcile well, as the multiple attempts and subsequent successes of capitalism has demonstrated over and over, and is still demonstrating with countless emerging markets today.

yes humans reconcile so well with capiatlism the love being exploited and decieved, they love having to trust a handfull of fat cats with there lives, sadly they have a choice to choose which fat cats exploit, not to be exploited or not



bottom line is that there are no emerging markets capitalism is the only market in the scenario,

the subsequent success is what you keep overseaing, for capitalism "that nobodys likes yourself, just meaningless tools used by the system believe your not being used"

other successes for capitalism is that you think exploiting 3rd world coutries is a sucess, and using your mates as tools to make them richer that is a sucess for them becuase you think its normal, and making people choose death or capitalism thats another sucess if your a fat cat capitalist. if your just a normal joe its not a success and you are a fool for thinking your own exploitation is a good thing.

the only success is succesful indoctrination, so much so that people who aren't even bourgeoise preach that its a good thing

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 06:10 PM

apitalism and human nature reconcile well, as the multiple attempts and subsequent successes of capitalism has demonstrated over and over, and is still demonstrating with countless emerging markets today.

yes humans reconcile so well with capiatlism the love being exploited and decieved, they love having to trust a handfull of fat cats with there lives, sadly they have a choice to choose which fat cats exploit, not to be exploited or not



bottom line is that there are no emerging markets capitalism is the only market in the scenario,

the subsequent success is what you keep overseaing, for capitalism "that nobodys likes yourself, just meaningless tools used by the system believe your not being used"

other successes for capitalism is that you think exploiting 3rd world coutries is a sucess, and using your mates as tools to make them richer that is a sucess for them becuase you think its normal, and making people choose death or capitalism thats another sucess if your a fat cat capitalist. if your just a normal joe its not a success and you are a fool for thinking your own exploitation is a good thing.

the only success is succesful indoctrination, so much so that people who aren't even bourgeoise preach that its a good thing
THIS ENTIRE QUOTE AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN DEFEATIST THINKING.

You forget to mention that you have every opportunity to be a "fat cat" yourself, instead of player-hating from the sidelines on those who have had success.

I am hardly being exploited. I have received exactly what I have put into the system, and my life is comfortable and rewarding. Would you consider working 12 hours at a steel mill in St. Petersburg just go and wait 4 hours for a damn loaf of bread bread an then going home to a crappy government assigned apartment being "free from exploitation" and a benefacto of the system? LOL, LOL, stupid idiot, just think about what you are saying!!!

Hardly a "tool for the system, I have countless opportunities to use resources in the capitalist system for growth. I dont sit back like you leftist pukes and complain about the successful. Instead, I join the team and get in on the enjoyment. Unlike in communism, there are no barriers between the classes.

If you leftists spent a little more time working to earn, and less time player-hating from the sidelines, well them maybe you would have a lot less to complain about.

However, as communists, you naturally want to limit one's potential, as well as freedom.

It is no wonder that the USA contributed 10 times the revolutionary inventions and innovations in the world compared to every communist nation combined, and created the most revolutionary inventions in the entire world in the last 150 years.

All communism does is hinder individuality, healthy competition, and the drive to succeed, thus incentive to originate and go"above and beyond" is not there.

And that is why you pukes are stuck in the same vicious cycle of misery and apathy. I feel sorry for you guys.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I see you've abandoned the human nauture argument then, CI?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 06:54 PM
I see you've abandoned the human nauture argument then, CI?
How do you figure? I was merely responding to a post. My stance remains.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Well then why didn't you respond to my post in which i dismantled your stance?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 07:02 PM
Well then why didn't you respond to my post in which i dismantled your stance?
you didn't dismantle my stance. You boggled yourself down in semantics, but didn't really disprove my point at all.

Your argument that "in communism unselfishness is a bad thing and gets punished" is easily refuted by the history of corruption by party elite within real-world communist systems.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Your argument that "in communism unselfishness is a bad thing and gets punished" is easily refuted by the history of corruption by party elite within real-world communist systems.

I think you meant 'selfishness.' Anyway, i presume that means you admit that in a society in which selfishness was not benificial it wouldn't be prevailent. Please give me an example to support your assertion that such a society isn't possible.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 07:12 PM

Your argument that "in communism unselfishness is a bad thing and gets punished" is easily refuted by the history of corruption by party elite within real-world communist systems.

I think you meant 'selfishness.' Anyway, i presume that means you admit that in a society in which selfishness was not benificial it wouldn't be prevailent. Please give me an example to support your assertion that such a society isn't possible.
The fundamental rule of economics: We as humans have limited resources, but unlimited desires.

This rule itself makes such a society impossible.

[Misodoctakleidist]

You've just completely abandoned your line of argument and used the premise under discussion to "prove" your point.

I'll take this as a sign of surrender, i'm not going to waste anymore time debating with you unless you decide to make an actual argument.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 07:20 PM
You've just completely abandoned your line of argument and used the premise under discussion to "prove" your point.

I'll take this as a sign of surrender, i'm not going to waste anymore time debating with you unless you decide to make an actual argument.
Take it however you want, but it will only be in your little world. My responses and arguments have been logically formulated and have followed the original theme of the thread. Perhaps you lack the analytical skills to understand them.

I surrender nothing. Your responses are convoluted and amount to nothing more than trite rhetoric.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Let me see, you argued that selfishness was human nature, i refuted it. You then argued that a society in which selfishness was not benificial was impossible becuase people are 'naturaly selfish.'

I feel no need to continue arguing with you.

[elijahcraig]

The concept of 'human nature' is often used as an argument against communism but what is human nature?

What is the definition of human nature? What characteristics are, as some would say, 'inherent in human nature' and why?

Human nature is commonly recognized as existent by scientists, but what the nature of the initial state is, is something we do not know.


Greed, as leftists call it, is merely the acquisition of additional resources as a function of (and driven by) of the survival instinct. Money is merely the representation of resources. Thus, money is in fact units of additional survival, so the accumulation of money makes sense.

Greed is not existent among people with some pity for others. For example, if someone saw a child starving in their proximity, they most likely will attempt to feed that child. Just as someone will loan money to someone in need. Of course, YOU come first in most cases, but that is not greed, it is mere common sense.


You forget to mention that you have every opportunity to be a "fat cat" yourself, instead of player-hating from the sidelines on those who have had success.

You live in the richest Imperial nation to ever exist—in other words, what you say does not surprise me.

What about those in Columbia or Palestine, or Haiti?


All communism does is hinder individuality, healthy competition, and the drive to succeed, thus incentive to originate and go"above and beyond" is not there.

Have you ever read Oscar Wilde’s “The Soul of Man Under Socialism”?


The fundamental rule of economics: We as humans have limited resources, but unlimited desires.

This is a mode of thought bred by Capitalist ideology.

MANY live without this principle ruling their lives.

[Negrillon]

It is in fact Capitilism that makes people greedy and selfish, not people want Capitilism because they are selfish and greedy. then why was capitalism implemented in the first place? are you saying that people did not want posessions before capitalism developed? such a notion is beyond absurd.

[STI]

We can yell until we're blue in the face that human nature is or is not 'selfish', but there is really no evidence supporting either side. Using it as an argument for or against something is really just as valid as using, say, fairies as an argument against cutting down old-growth forests (not that I'm for cutting them down, it's just an irrelivant statement).

[elijahcraig]

then why was capitalism implemented in the first place? are you saying that people did not want posessions before capitalism developed? such a notion is beyond absurd.

“Want of possessions” and “Greed” are two separate concepts.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I think the fact that there is no such thing as human nature is evidence enough.

As for human instinct, selishness is dependant of social conditions making it benificial for survival, as CI pointed out, the fact that not everyone is not selfish is testement to that.

[elijahcraig]

You haven't proved that human nature does not exist; you have proved that capitalists have used it to their advantage.

Can something know the nature of itself? I don't think so. As Nietzsche said, we have been cut off "by nature."

Human nature is something absolute: we simply don't know its contents. It is an unknown for the most part.

Read "Language and Responsibility" by CHomsky, he talks about the result of people on the left seeing mythologized human nature being used by the right. They said, "it doesn't exist" as a result. It was a reaction to a myth and a wrong reaction to a myth.

[Misodoctakleidist]

So how do you define human nature? How is it different from human instinct?

[Osman Ghazi]

The fundamental rule of economics: We as humans have limited resources, but unlimited desires.


That is a nice little saying but what does it mean? Does it mean that we as humans will always strive to have more? Are we materially insatiable? I do not believe so. I think that people grow up having a certain amount of wealth and expecting that plus maybe a little more to be quite capable of fulfilling their desires. So, it is then theoretically possible to satisfy every persons material desires.
Also, you assume that everyone's desires are material in nature or that they can be fulfilled only with material wealth.

[dark fairy]

I think it might involve sub-concience... sorry humans but i can't spell
you are programed to do "it" {whatever it is} and you don't realize... certainly you did not even ask to be put here but you are none the less and you do things and aren't really sure of why you do them and what makes them ok... the country you live in may have control over that to a certain extent... but it's beyond that...like what makes us want power and money and beautiful women and handsome men we as humans "can't" control it... at least not right now... maybe later though
it's very debatable

[elijahcraig]

So how do you define human nature? How is it different from human instinct?

If you read my past posts, you can see I distinctly deny that you can “define” it beyond any obvious traits (arms, legs, survival, etc.).

Read Stephen Pinker’s work on those who claim we have no human nature or a “blank slate.”

When we attempt to “define human nature” based on what has occurred in history, we come out with a perspective of the world which is subjectively decided by those who control the resources of communication in the society. Capitalists now claiming “greed” as human nature. It is a, as Chomsky says, “convenient myth” which has developed throughout historical material conditions.

Chomsky's work in linguistics has proved that their is an initial state; it has also proved that we don't know much about it. It is, in a matter of words, "enigmatic" and "unattainable," at least if you want to completely attain the definition.

[cubist]

crapitalist imperial

*edit* no need for that bit *edit*

how can you say i am sitting on the sideline being a defeatist, it is you who is getting on with your life working inside a system which doesn't treat you fairly, which would make you the defeatist.


and yes youre right i am very jealous i would love to be rich and have the oppurtunity to exploit people, i would love it. Thanks fo the psycological profile i now feel complete, unfortunately i don't care for commodities like riches and i am not a little teen drowing his weaknesses, i have a job and do everything you do but that doesn't make me not care for the third world and those less fortunate, it doesn't stop me from wanting to make a difference in those who are less fortunates lives! so it re-inforces the opinion that GREED is not inherent in nature but that it has been nurchered through capitalism

look in my signiture that should also help with an answer to your little "your all just jealous speech"

[DaCuBaN]

Human nature is not some rule that every one follows. The argument that keeps coming up that humans are inherantly greedy this isnt the case their are people in the world that arnt greedy so clearly greed is not in human nature!

The idea that humanity has a 'nature' that can be rigorously(sp?) defined is patently absurd - the fact that we're all clacking away into a talk shop, vehemontly disagreeing with one another is evidence of that.

Either that or it's evidence that human nature can be summarized thusly: argumentative :D


The fundamental rule of economics: We as humans have limited resources, but unlimited desires
Bread, water, maybe milk. Those and conversation - mankind needs no more. Anything else is not inherant(sp?) in our 'nature' but gleaned from our surroundings

cmon folks! listen to Ché!

We are all children of our environment


It is in fact Capitilism that makes people greedy and selfish, not people want Capitilism because they are selfish and greedy

Capitalism is what the greedy developed, so yes whoever refuted that, I think you are correct - people did want to 'own' before the idea of property was truly upon us. However, i was raised to put others before myself at all times and hence what is mine is yours (unless you think whats ours is yours, then you can fuck right off ;) ). But being raised in a capital environment this becomes increasingly difficult :angry:

[monkeydust]

Frankly I find the notion that human nature is non-existant absurd. It's very precautious to argue that we are a 'blank slate' at birth, and that all is learned, if only because such an argument implies that it's human nature to learn from experience.

For me it's an issue of where to 'draw the line' along the nature versus nurture debate.

I land somewhere in the middle on this issue. To me human nature is concerned with survival. This is both at a personal level and in terms of the species as a whole. So what does this 'survival' realistically entail.

It certainly involves such undeniably inherent drives such as that for reproduction and for aquisition of food, water and shelter. Moreover it may involve altruism for the 'greater good'.

What my idea of 'human nature' does not entail is greed or hoarding of unnecessary resources, whether that be excessive riches, land or material goods.

To me, it is utterly absurd to assume that greed is 'natural'. It's quite outrageous to assume that humans are 'programmed' to look out for themselves alone and not the race as a whole. It is not 'beneficial' to the species for humans to hoard property disproportionate their needs.

Anyone agree?

[Misodoctakleidist]

I don't really know enough to speculate about whether we are born 'a blank slate' but this isn't what is being refered to when capitalists talk about 'numan nature.'

The fictional concept of 'human nature' refers to something which is inherent and identical in everyone usually greed. It's hard to see how this concept can go any futher than human instint.

[Fidelbrand]

I agree with you, Comrade Left.

The notion of "greed" as embedded in human nature is well counter-argued by the arguments of other comrades too. Classmates and even professors have confronted me with the "greed as natural" crap before, now I know some ways of answering back and supporting my ground.

Gracias~~~

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 08:06 PM
I don't really know enough to speculate about whether we are born 'a blank slate' but this isn't what is being refered to when capitalists talk about 'numan nature.'

The fictional concept of 'human nature' refers to something which is inherent and identical in everyone usually greed. It's hard to see how this concept can go any futher than human instint.
Indeed, the 'human nature' argument is normally used in conjunction with ideals suchas greed and selfishness. This need not mean however, that we should dismiss human nature arguments entirely.

In fact, such Socialists have considered human nature to have an even greater importance than capitalists believe, though Socialists tend to emphasise altruism and selflesness as 'natural' qualities of the human being.

[mysticofthewest]

comrade left i so agree with you on that

[Nyder]

Altruism?

You mean whatever is good for the collective despite the individual? The only problem is, the collective is not a singular mind, it is just a concept. So obviously someone is going to make those decisions for us.

Of course altruism couldn't ever exist without the use of force. No one will do anything unless it has a particular value to them. People who voluntarily give to others always do it out of their interest. Businesses pour millions into charities, people volunteer to work for charitable organisations, etc.

Altruism that does not concern the wishes of the individual is what I'd call exploitation. Rape is altruism, as it is unwarranted, yet it is an unselfish sacrifice. The same thing with murder, robbery and assualt - all of which can be justified with altruism.

No I don't support altruism, because I know the only way to achieve true altruism is with the barrel of a gun.

[DaCuBaN]

For me it's an issue of where to 'draw the line' along the nature versus nurture debate

:) I'm fighting the devils advocate on this one - you are quite accurate though it's like trying to punch fog.


Indeed, the 'human nature' argument is normally used in conjunction with ideals suchas greed and selfishness. This need not mean however, that we should dismiss human nature arguments entirely.

In fact, such Socialists have considered human nature to have an even greater importance than capitalists believe, though Socialists tend to emphasise altruism and selflesness as 'natural' qualities of the human being

Indeed - the two statements need not be mutually exclusive. As a pack animal we are (supposedly) team players. The only place this argument falls down is the fact that humans haven't always been under a capital economy yet the greed is still there. But again just look at the people standing on the West Bank in front of the terror of a rogue state to see true selflessness. This is where, for me, the whole nature argument hits a bump - we are all so different - there are a lot of greedy and otherwise in this world and hence if nature puts us one way or the other does this mean nurture is the stronger of the two? I don't know... But I think I'm going a little off topic :D

Ramdle end.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Nyder, believe your little randian fantasies about 'collectivism' if you want but don't expect anyone to respond to you untill you actually learn what communism is.

[Hate Is Art]

"Human Nature" in the capitilist sense is that all humans are greedy, selfish batsards who would sell their mothers to get ahead in life.

But Human Nature can also be the urge to teach, to help people who are worse off then you, volunteer work, chairtys.

Capitilists discard the latter and only apply the former to what Human's are, their is no absolute definition of what we should be, we just are.

[DaCuBaN]

IF there's anything we should be, it's merely extinct. As a species we do not deserve to survive imo. Someone asked once if I'd die for communism. The answer to that would be a NO but I'd die to see the end of this disease known as humanity


You mean whatever is good for the collective despite the individual? The only problem is, the collective is not a singular mind, it is just a concept. So obviously someone is going to make those decisions for us...No I don't support altruism, because I know the only way to achieve true altruism is with the barrel of a gun.

So essentially you're saying that once someone has made their mind up on a matter, no matter what you do short of threatening them with their own demise you won't change anything. Hello my defeatist friend :)


Of course altruism couldn't ever exist without the use of force. No one will do anything unless it has a particular value to them. People who voluntarily give to others always do it out of their interest. Businesses pour millions into charities, people volunteer to work for charitable organisations, etc

I try to remain calm at all times, but I'm out of smokes (and being a nicotine addict I get cranky without my smokes) and that comment just rubbed me up totally the wrong way. Stop thinking like another drone of this horrible society we've been forced to endure - why can't a person do something SIMPLY TO BENEFIT SOMEONE ELSE. Have you never given a gift without receiving thanks?

[monkeydust]

Nyder


You mean whatever is good for the collective despite the individual?

By altruism I mean selflesness, this may well involve doing what is 'good' for the many, not the few, if that is the point you are trying to make.


The only problem is, the collective is not a singular mind, it is just a concept. So obviously someone is going to make those decisions for us.

Of course it's not of a single mind, that's hardly relevant. It's perfectly possible to be selfless, to help others, without even bothering to assess the 'mind' of a collective at all. It's simply 'helping someone out'.


The only problem is, the collective is not a singular mind, it is just a concept. So obviously someone is going to make those decisions for us.

It does today! I've seen many people help others without reward, and without being coerced into doing so. And this is all under a system that promotes greed and "looking out for number 1".


Altruism that does not concern the wishes of the individual is what I'd call exploitation. Rape is altruism, as it is unwarranted, yet it is an unselfish sacrifice. The same thing with murder, robbery and assualt - all of which can be justified with altruism.

What!?!

Sorry, but this paragraph doesn't even make sense.




Interesting how you make so many comments involving 'collectivism'. If however, humans are 'naturally' altruistic and gregarious, Socialism may actually be compatible with individualism. Simply because an individual need may be to 'help others'.

This led the French Socialist, Jean Jaures, to proclaim that "Socialism is the logical completion of individualism".

[Nas]

a lot of people tend to get this 2 confuse :

Survival of the fittest and
Only the strongest survive

this is basic biology ;) , Survival of the fittest means the species most "fit" to the environment will survive.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 18 2004, 09:40 AM
"Human Nature" in the capitilist sense is that all humans are greedy, selfish batsards who would sell their mothers to get ahead in life.

But Human Nature can also be the urge to teach, to help people who are worse off then you, volunteer work, chairtys.

Capitilists discard the latter and only apply the former to what Human's are, their is no absolute definition of what we should be, we just are.
No, a rational person would say that it all depends on the values of an individual. And everyone is different. Some people like to help others a lot. Some people don't. If someone doesn't want to give to charities, does that give me justification to rob them? I don't think so.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 11:36 AM





So essentially you're saying that once someone has made their mind up on a matter, no matter what you do short of threatening them with their own demise you won't change anything. Hello my defeatist friend :)

I wasn't saying that - persuade people anyway you want.



Of course altruism couldn't ever exist without the use of force. No one will do anything unless it has a particular value to them. People who voluntarily give to others always do it out of their interest. Businesses pour millions into charities, people volunteer to work for charitable organisations, etc

I try to remain calm at all times, but I'm out of smokes (and being a nicotine addict I get cranky without my smokes) and that comment just rubbed me up totally the wrong way. Stop thinking like another drone of this horrible society we've been forced to endure - why can't a person do something SIMPLY TO BENEFIT SOMEONE ELSE. Have you never given a gift without receiving thanks?

I have no problem with people doing this. I just don't think it is justifiable to force someone to give to someone else. By 'force' I mean with threat of imprisonment, robbery, physical injury or death.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 01:10 PM









You mean whatever is good for the collective despite the individual?

By altruism I mean selflesness, this may well involve doing what is 'good' for the many, not the few, if that is the point you are trying to make.

How do you determine what is 'good' for the 'many'? Who determines it? Is it enforced?



The only problem is, the collective is not a singular mind, it is just a concept. So obviously someone is going to make those decisions for us.

Of course it's not of a single mind, that's hardly relevant. It's perfectly possible to be selfless, to help others, without even bothering to assess the 'mind' of a collective at all. It's simply 'helping someone out'.

If people want to help someone out that's their choice just don't put a gun to my head and say I have to do it or else.



The only problem is, the collective is not a singular mind, it is just a concept. So obviously someone is going to make those decisions for us.

It does today! I've seen many people help others without reward, and without being coerced into doing so. And this is all under a system that promotes greed and "looking out for number 1".

Can you give me an example of 'greed promotion'? Cause honestly I must have missed all of the neon signs telling me to be greedy.

And very astute obervation that people help others without being forced. Maybe it makes them feel good to do so, or maybe like McDonalds they do it as an extra way of advertising. Either way, money is still going to worthy causes.



Altruism that does not concern the wishes of the individual is what I'd call exploitation. Rape is altruism, as it is unwarranted, yet it is an unselfish sacrifice. The same thing with murder, robbery and assualt - all of which can be justified with altruism.

What!?!

Sorry, but this paragraph doesn't even make sense.

Why doesn't it make sense?

Remember I'm not talking about people giving voluntarily, I'm talking about the philosophy behind the notion that individual sacrifice is a good thing. If the individual warrants it, yes, otherwise it is not.


Interesting how you make so many comments involving 'collectivism'. If however, humans are 'naturally' altruistic and gregarious, Socialism may actually be compatible with individualism. Simply because an individual need may be to 'help others'.

This led the French Socialist, Jean Jaures, to proclaim that "Socialism is the logical completion of individualism".

Individualism does not mean being made a dependant slave to the 'collective'.

And that quote is a load of crap and there is no way you can logically justify it.

[DaCuBaN]

Can you give me an example of 'greed promotion'? Cause honestly I must have missed all of the neon signs telling me to be greedy

Well... how about the neon signs advertising various different products that you do not need and are made using exploitative methods that are plastered all over the major cities in the capitalist world. How about the advertising on TV and Radio to persuade you to buy anything and everything that you do not need?


How do you determine what is 'good' for the 'many'? Who determines it? Is it enforced?


I believe it's called a poll


If people want to help someone out that's their choice just don't put a gun to my head and say I have to do it or else.

To be honest I expected that response - I may be assuming and please correct me if I'm wrong, but they never made you a 'restriced member' because you were a nice helpful person now, did they ;)


And very astute obervation that people help others without being forced. Maybe it makes them feel good to do so, or maybe like McDonalds they do it as an extra way of advertising. Either way, money is still going to worthy causes

Fundamental to the 'American Way Of Life' - I wonder how small a percentage of their profits goes to 'good causes' and how many of them are simply more propoganda. Personally I would consider this 'dirty money'.


Remember I'm not talking about people giving voluntarily, I'm talking about the philosophy behind the notion that individual sacrifice is a good thing. If the individual warrants it, yes, otherwise it is not.

Sacrifice - noun - Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.

No mention of being coerced at all...


Individualism does not mean being made a dependant slave to the 'collective'.

I'm interested to hear why you would become a 'slave to the collective' - please expand...

[cubist]

evidence of greed being encourage how about

how about all the adverts saying you will have class if you by ferrari or porsche, or the word executive model encouraging consumers to spend on the off chance of other people being jealous of the status provided by the purchase of such an executive model.



having all lifes luxuries when people in your own town and other parts of the world struggle to feed them selves and protect there toes from frost bite and other things which we would be appalled by if in that scenario

[monkeydust]

How do you determine what is 'good' for the 'many'? Who determines it? Is it enforced?

What is 'good' for the many should be fairly easy to determine. In a broad sense it is anything which satisfies the desires of the vast majority.

Thus being well fed, living in comfortable conditions and having an education may be said to be 'good' things.

It's certainly possible to be selfless without determining exactly what is 'good' for 'the people', simply by 'helping someone out'.


Can you give me an example of 'greed promotion'? Cause honestly I must have missed all of the neon signs telling me to be greedy.

How incredibly witty of you.

In case you haven't noticed during your life, capitalism cultivates or at least accentuates selfishness by actively rewarding and encouraging self striving acts.

Thus the most successful businessmen are often ruthless folk, willing to make any profitable deal without a care as to how many people it will screw over.


Individualism does not mean being made a dependant slave to the 'collective'

Of course it doesn't, that wasn't what I said at all, I posted the Jean Jaures qote to represent a relevant point of view, whilst I don't agree with it myself, such a view is certainly tenable.

If it is considered 'natural' for humans to be gregarious and selfless then helping others may actually satisfy an individual emotional need. Someone may feel some satisfaction in giving the poor man benefit for example.

Thus it's arguable that helping others is actually a 'natural' individual trait, and that by acting in collective interest, one satisfies their own individual need.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 10:46 AM
How do you determine what is 'good' for the 'many'? Who determines it? Is it enforced?
It is an interesting question. One I have been debating in my Nihilism thread. There is no set moral. There are only perceptions. We can not say that I am better because I am altruistic than you because you are not. These opinions are simply subjective perceptions on one single fact. We exist.

Nothing can be enforced, especially a perception. You may not believe that being good to others is necessary or desirable. I would ask you why? I do not believe that deep down inside you, you would reject being good for people if it was asked of you.

When you talk about the determined good for the many, I presume you are talking about communism. Communism is a revolutionary theory which needs fundamental change of society in order to exist. This has to come from a mass of people who subscribe to the theory and the philosophy because they believe it is the best way to organize society. Therefore the good is determined by that definition. The theory and philosophy of communism determines what is good, and it is a good which the mass of people would adhere to by their own free will.


If people want to help someone out that's their choice just don't put a gun to my head and say I have to do it or else

Fine. But why are you so adment to defend such an opinion. Why is selfishness so important to you.


Can you give me an example of 'greed promotion?' Cause honestly I must have missed all of the neon signs telling me to be greedy.

Just open any glamour magazine, or turn on your telelvision and the adulation of money will be evident. Walk down the street and it is everywhere. Society worships money. We have game shows to win it, magazines idolizing rich and famous people. We are made to look at beautiful people with expensive designer clothes and we believe that this is desirable. People long to be rich. Society has worshipped money to such a point that people believe that this is the only way to be a good, productive human being.

People's lives are lived in the persuit of wealth, and in turn this leads to competitivness. Human set against human in a quest to be that famous, beautiful designer clothe wearing rich person. This in turn makes us haurd our possessions, because our possessions make us what we are. They define our status, our existence within society. That is greed. That is what we mean by it, and it is wrong.


Either way, money is still going to worthy causes.

Let's be objective about this. Yes money is being given to good causes, but that is some legitimization of society. Billions are spent on military budgets and tax cuts for rich people when many non-goverment organizations who are doing humanitarian work are having to scrape by. Yes money is being given, but no where near the amount that is needed to tackle the problem sufficiently. It cost Tony Blair three billion pounds to wage a war against a third world country for a reason that was false. That three billion pounds could have provided clean running water to the entire population of sub-saharan africa. It costs no more than 5 dollers to make a sustainable well. Imagine how many wells could have been made with three billion pounds, which is about five billion dollors. Thats one billion wells providing fresh clean running water. America's war on drugs has cost them anywhere arouond 200 billion dollors, if not more. Money designed to stop peoples right to choose. 200 billion dollors which could have provided education, health care, clean running water, and sustainable food development for millions of people.

[STI]

No, a rational person would say that it all depends on the values of an individual. And everyone is different. Some people like to help others a lot. Some people don't. If someone doesn't want to give to charities, does that give me justification to rob them? I don't think so.

So then it isn't about nature. Therefore, people are not naturally 'greedy', as you've argued.

[DaCuBaN]

Imagine how many wells could have been made with three billion pounds, which is about five billion dollors

Just thought I'd better say, thats a billion to the yanquis, or a milliad to the rest of us.

1,000,000 = million
1,000,000,000 = milliad
1,000,000,000,000 = billion


either way, that's a lot of money for anything - let alone murder

[The Feral Underclass]

In the UK it's like so...

1,000,000 = Million
1,000,000,000 = Billion
1,000,000,000,000 = Trillion

What is yanquis may I ask?

[STI]

What is yanquis may I ask?

I think it's a different way of spelling 'yankee', which is a term for 'American'

[Xvall]

The concept of 'human nature' is often used as an argument against communism but what is human nature?

Bullshit.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 21 2004, 05:01 AM

The concept of 'human nature' is often used as an argument against communism but what is human nature?

Bullshit.
Human nature is bullshit or it is bullshit that human nature is used as an argument against communism?

[Xvall]

Both, in my opinion.