The Nature of Humans

[Lost In Translation]

This could be an epic thread, or an opportunity for people to flame others (or me).

In order for Marxism to work, we must believe that people are inherently good (says my history textbook). In Lord of the Flies, one of William Golding's main message is that the nature of human beings is to be rebellious and bad.

So, the question remains: are human beings inherently good, or inherently bad? Is there even a definitive answer?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Lord of the Flies' is fictional, and so should not feature in philosophical or scientifc discussion of 'human nature'.

There are in fact several threads on human nature here; for example:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/human-nature-t68061/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/human-nature-t72437/index.html

[trivas7]

'Lord of the Flies' is fictional, and so should not feature in philosophical or scientifc discussion of 'human nature'.

Fiction has been used in philosophic discussion since the time of Plato. Marx loved fiction -- Shakespeare, Defoe, etc.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Fiction has been used in philosophic discussion since the time of Plato. Marx loved fiction -- Shakespeare, Defoe, etc.

Which is, of course, just one more reason to throw the lot on Hume's bonfire.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I had to take out my 10-year-old philosophy text-book for this one (with the original doodles left by whoever I bought it used from.)



Glaucon (to Socrates): They say that to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer injustice, evil; but that the evil is greater than the good. And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think that they had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is termed by them lawful and just. This they affirm to be the origin and nature of justice;--it is a mean or compromise, between the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation; and justice, being at a middle point between the two, is tolerated as not good, but the lesser evil, and honoured by reason the inability of men to do injustice. For no man who is worthy to be called a man would ever submit to such an agreement if he were able to resist; he would be mad if he did. Such is the received account, Socrates, of the nature and origin of justice.

Now that those who practise justice do so involuntarily and because they have not the power to be unjust will best appear if we imagine something of this kind: having given both to the just and the unjust the power to do what they will, let us watch and see whither desire will lead them; then we shall discover in the very act the just and unjust man to be proceeding along the same road, following their interest, which all natures deem to be their good, and are only diverted into the path of justice by the force of law. The liberty which we are supposing may be most completely given to them in the form of such a power as is said to have been possessed by Gyges the ancestor of Croesis the Lydian. According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him, more then human, and having nothing on but a golden ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and reascended. Now the shepherds met together, according to their custom, that they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king; into their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring, he turned the collet outwards and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result--when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; where as soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired against the king ans slew him, and took the kingdom. Suppose now that there were two such rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into the housed and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; the would both come at last at the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for whenever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual then justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imaging any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought be the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice. Enough of this.

Now, if we are to form a real judgment of the life of the just and unjust, we must isolate them; there is no other way, and how is the isolation to be effected? I answer: Let the unjust man be entirely unjust, and the just man entirely just; nothing is to be taken away from either of them, and both are to be perfectly furnished for the work of their respective lives. First let the unjust be like other distinguished masters of craft; like the skillful pilot or physician, who knows intuitively his own powers and keeps withing their limits, and who, if he fails at any point is able to recover himself. So let the unjust make his unjust attempts in the right way, and lie hidden if he means to be great in his injustice (he who is found out is nobody): for the highest reach of injustice is, to be deemed just when you are not. Therefore I say that in the perfectly unjust man we must assume the most imperfect injustice; there is to be no deduction, but we must allow him, while doing the most unjust acts, to have acquired the greatest reputation for justice. If he have taken false step he must be able to recover himself; he must be one who can speak with effect, if any of his deeds come to light, and who can force his way where force is required by his courage and strength, and command of money and friends. And at his side let us place the just man in his nobleness and simplicity, wishing, as Aeschylus says, to be and not to seem good. There must be no seeming, for if he seem to be just he will be honoured and rewarded, and then we shall not know whether he is just for the sake of justice or for the sake of honours and rewards; therefore, let him be clothed in justice only, and have no other covering; and he mist be imagined in a state of life the opposite of the former. Let him be the best of men, and let him be thought the worst; then he been put to proof; an we shall see whether he will be affected by the fear of infamy and it's consequences. And let him continue thus to the hour of death, being just and seeming to be unjust. When both have reached the uttermost extreme, the one justice and the other of injustice, let judgment be given which of them is the happier of the two.

Socrates: Heavens! my dear Glaucon, I said, how energetically you polish them up for the decision, first one and the the other, as if they were two statues.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that, but I fail to see its relevance.

[communard resolution]

I think every human being has a great potential to be egoistic and 'bad', and an equally great potential to be solidaric and 'good'. Depending on our upbringing, our experiences, and the values society teaches us, we turn out one way or another. But of course, nobody's 100% good or bad.

My impression is that capitalist societies nurture our egoistic, 'bad' side. The message is the same in every advertisement we see: be different, stand out, be better than others, think only of yourself. Individualism is equated with egotism. You may call it 'bourgeois individualism' if you insist.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Thanks for that, but I fail to see its relevance.
It is the single most recognized and important contribution to the philosophical question of human nature in western history, that's all.

[Dystisis]

I'd say that humans have a nature so far only as we act/react a certain way. Material conditions determines consciousness, etc...

Communism does not need humans to be "good". It is a silly thought. We wish to change material conditions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Krazyetc:


It is the single most recognized and important contribution to the philosophical question of human nature in western history, that's all.

And why on earth would you want to say that?

The Ring of Gyges? The most important contribution? From a notoriously aristocratic, bigotted, ruling-class, semi-Nazi hack like Plato? Give me a break!

And, 'recognised' by whom?

[Mersault]

So, the question remains: are human beings inherently good, or inherently bad? Is there even a definitive answer?

They're inherently nothing. They're neither good nor bad.

[professorchaos]

And even if we could prove humans are inherently anything, any judgement of these qualities would be subjective, and moreover useless, as they would be largely immutable.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

And why on earth would you want to say that?

The Ring of Gyges? The most important contribution?

In western culture, all (each and every) philosophical contribution since Plato about human nature, whether they agree or disagree with the Ring of Gyres, are influenced by it. No western philosopher can ignore it; and whether directly or indirectly, are influenced by it.

Plato's story here is among the oldest recorded in western history based entirely on human nature (others, newer and especially older, are typically religious in nature, which introduce inherent biases), and the one of the most complete of the early attempts.

Furthermore, it follows modern philosophical logic theory; that is, it still works with today's philosophy over 2,350 years later.

Plato's works are among the most prolific in philosophy, and that is why he is still taught in even the most basic philosophy, ethics, and logic classes.


From a notoriously aristocratic, bigotted, ruling-class, semi-Nazi hack like Plato? Give me a break!
Philosophy is point and counterpoint, so you cannot ignore your detractors. A philosophical debate (including timeless, on-going debates) would be rather boring and quite pointless if every side (in the case of human nature, thousands) took the same stance.

It is hard to argue when there is a consensus, and without an argument, there is no philosophy (it then becomes "fact" rather then "opinion".)

In the philosophical world, you cannot shrug somebody off simply because you don't like them. You use logic and create a counterpoint. If you disagree whole-heartedly with a past philosopher, then they are perhaps a greater influence upon you then a philosopher you like.


And, 'recognised' by whom?
The entire philosophical world (especially in the West). Recognized as readily in whatever language you prefer.

It is as recognized in English as John Stuart Mill, as recognized in French as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as recognized in German as Immanuel Kant, etc. Plato has been translated into every single language spoken on the planet.

Surely you have taken at least one philosophy class? I will assume so since you have obviously taken enough interest in philosophy to post in this thread. (However, if you haven't taken a Logic course, I suggest you do so since your argument lacks philosophical logic; it relies instead on ad-hominems and fallacies: dirty words in the world of philosophy).

Did the curriculum not include Plato? Even if it focused on recent philosophy, Plato should be brought up in brief since older philosophy always influences modern philosophy.

If and when Plato is discussed, some of his works are unavoidable. "The Republic" and "Metaphysics" are at least mentioned, while the "Allegory of the Cave" and the "Ring of Gyres" are short enough to fit comfortably in even the most modest of textbooks.

[Hyacinth]

If and when Plato is discussed, some of his works are unavoidable. "The Republic" and "Metaphysics" are at least mentioned, while the "Allegory of the Cave" and the "Ring of Gyres" are short enough to fit comfortably in even the most modest of textbooks.
Actually, Metaphysics is Aristotle's.

Regardless; the ring of Gyges except form the Republic is about the question "why be moral?" (the question which the entire Republic is about). I fair to see what this has to do with human nature. Plato’s later discussion in the Republic regarding the tripartite division of the soul directly addressed the question of human nature. (On a side note, Plato actually goes on to argue against Glaucon and spends the rest of the Republic trying to refute Glaucon’s argument).

Also, as for Rosa’s mention of Plato’s aristocratic background, etc. I think that was to point out that, given that ideas don’t exist in a vacuum, certain philosophical theories are not neutral with respect to class struggle. For instance, Plato’s discussion of the philosopher kings is very much attractive to those who would wish to set themselves up as rulers. Their continued prevalence and prestige throughout history is hardly surprising given that we have throughout recorded history lived in class societies. And the ruling classes have always looked to intellectuals which provide justifications for their rule.

As for the continued use of Plato (and other ancient philosophers) in education, it doesn’t follow from the fact that they are useful educational tools that the ideas themselves have much merit. Most contemporary philosophers, those who don’t study classical philosophy that is, while they might consider pondering the mistakes that Plato made to be a good educational exercise for students, his ideas aren’t taken seriously (if you’ll excuse mathematical Platonism, which is bizarrely popular in philosophy of mathematics, though, despite the namesake, the doctrine of mathematical Platonism is not to be found anywhere in the works of Plato).

Though, to Plato’s credit, he is still a much more lucid thinker, and clearer writer, than the likes of Hegel (which really isn’t saying much).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KrazyEtc:

All that I will add to Hyacinth's comment is that a fable from Plato about a Ring that is supposed to make its owner invisible is no way to investigate 'human nature', even if that is what Plato wanted to do.

To suppose that one could make a human being invisible by means of a ring would be to entrer into a world of make-believe that would itself be predicated on a radical alteration to our undertstanding of our own physical make-up and the laws of physics. [Even the first would have been the case in Plato's day.]

Under such special conditions no general or specific conclusions may safely be drawn about anything, let alone about the 'nature' of human beings.


Surely you have taken at least one philosophy class?

I have a degree in Philosophy, and my PhD was on Wittgenstein, so yes I am aware of Plato's vastly over-inflated reputation.

But that does not mean this passage is rated by anyone as the most important statement in the last 2400 years on the subject of the 'nature of human beings'. [In the 'West', I would have thought that the Bible is alas the most influential book in this area -- in that it tells us we are all 'sinners'.]

Anyway, Plato's allegory is arguably not even about this, as Hyacinth noted.

[Rood Boi]

It is the conservative nature of man that propels him into revolution. When people cannot continue living the way things are, they attempt to revert to a more normal way of life by searching for every possible method for change and finally through revolution. If it was not for the conservative nature of man there would not be revolution.

This flies directly in the face of all the idealists who say that revolution begins with the individual.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Doesn't sound very 'conservative' to me.

[trivas7]

It is the conservative nature of man that propels him into revolution. When people cannot continue living the way things are, they attempt to revert to a more normal way of life by searching for every possible method for change and finally through revolution. If it was not for the conservative nature of man there would not be revolution.

I tried to say something like this in Learning --

http://www.revleft.com/vb/conservative-temperment-anarchism-t82056/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/conservative-temperment-anarchism-t82056/index.htmland)

and was pounded upon. Nevertheless I think there is a deep truth to what you have to say.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Nevertheless I think there is a deep truth to what you have to say.

So deep that no one else can see it, except you (who "does not think about things he doesn't think about") and the equally confused Rood Boi.

[Luís Henrique]

So, the question remains: are human beings inherently good, or inherently bad? Is there even a definitive answer?

Since the concepts of "good" and "bad" are human creations, what sence does it make to ask if "human nature" is good or bad?

It seems vaguely analogous to asking if a proton is "solid" or "liquid"...

Luís Henrique

[communard resolution]

Since the concepts of "good" and "bad" are human creations, what sence does it make to ask if "human nature" is good or bad?

It seems vaguely analogous to asking if a proton is "solid" or "liquid"...

Luís Henrique

The words are human creations that mean different things in different societies at different times. But to us socialists, 'good' would mean social/solidaric while 'bad' would mean anti-social/egoistic, no? I think that's what people mean.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH, there are objective criteria for 'good' and 'bad' -- or rather, the use of these terms is not always 'subjective'.

E.g.

1) A good way to get skin cancer is to sit in the sun, days on end, for many years without sun block on.

2) A bad apple left with good ones will only rot the lot.

3) A good way to douse a paper fire is to use water.

4) If you want to fly to the USA, it is a bad idea to carry a bomb.

5) That was a bad pass.

6) What a good idea -- let's go out tonight.

There are countless others.

May I suggest you read 'The Varieties of Goodness' by Georg Henrik von Wright?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Henrik_von_Wright

Now, whether it makes sense to say that human characteristics/nature are/is good or bad will depend on the examples chosen.

E.g.

1) Anger is bad for your heart.

2) Curiosity is a good trait for scientists to have.

Now, if we want to apply these terms to an abstraction like 'human nature' we might face problems, but that is not because of the terms 'good' and 'bad', but becasue of the problems attributing such things to abstractions to begin with.

Sure, some of my examples seem to use abstractions, but they can be re-phrased without them. I do not think that is possible with 'human nature'.

[Mersault]

I am good. Except when I'm bad. Does this make me goad? or Baod? I've always been fascinated in why people feel so compelled to understand themselves by whether they're good or bad. It's probably because they're so utterly confused about everything.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

If so, then that applies to you, and we can thus ignore you...

[Mersault]

That wasn't very nice. I didn't realise I had said anything particularly controversial or are you just rude as a blanket response to anyone that happens to speak? But yes, you're right, I'm terribly confused about most things, especially when it comes to doing good things because I usually do bad things. Well, bad things in the sense that they're probably not very good, although no one told me what doing good things actually was, so for all I know I could be doing good things and just thinking they're bad. Do you think you could help me with that? Unless of course you want to ignore me, in which case that's entirely your prerogative.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I think your rudeness toward humanity in general deserved slapping down.

And, from your last post, I have to agree -- you are confused.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I never thought I'd have to explain the ring, but here goes:

It argues that people will look after their own wellbeing, given an opportunity, at the expense of others. According to Plato, humans are selfish, greedy creatures. The only reason that they follow laws and morals is because they are the lesser of two evils to the individual; it hurts to be wronged more then you derive pleasure from chasing your own ambitions unhindered.

It is only the individuals' self-preservation that keeps them from constant "wrongdoing". Doing wrong results in negative consequences; therefore it is more profitable for the individual to do good. Any person who does a "good" act does so out of his own interest; they are not exposed to punishments, and in addition, there is the praise (and rewards) offered by society.

It goes on to say that given a scenario that is free from consequence, a person would naturally chose the path of injustice. It is only because of punishments, and because of the praise (and depending on your beliefs, the rewards of the afterlife) that you receive from being "good" that keeps people in line.



It was on the last page (and I'm too lazy to find who), but somebody brought up the Bible.

Plato was before the Bible; the Bible was influenced by him. Although they were not given credit, educated people (such as those literate enough to write down the Bible) knew about the Greek philosophers at the time of the Bible.
Anybody who was influenced by the Bible was also (indirectly or directly) influenced by Plato.
It is a snowball effect. If A causes B; and B causes C; then C exists because of A.
Arguing the influence of the Tanakh or Torah would have been a better argument (since it influenced Judaism, and therefore Christianity and Islam.)

Additionally, there are up to 2.1billion Christians in the world. There are up to 1.8billion Muslims, and 13.2million Jews, not to mention the plethora of additional religions (both western and eastern; monotheistic and polytheistic; etc.)

Christians make up to a mere 25% or so of the global population (and that includes non-practicing Christians).
That means that 75% of the global population are non-Christian.

Islam (which is a western religion and it's philosophy is western philosophy) by itself nearly cancels out Christianity. Add in the other religions (both prior and since Christ), and the atheists and the agnostics, and Christian philosophy is a minority among western philosophy.

[Mersault]

I think your rudeness toward humanity in genera deserved slapping down.

And, from your last post, I have to agree -- you are confused.

I didn't realize I was being rude to humanity. I hope humanity can accept my humble apologizes. Nevertheless, good and bad are subjective and human beings are evidently confused about what they mean.

[Rood Boi]

Rosa Lichtenstien is a troll, don't feed the trolls! There is generally not much behind what is said from this poster, it's quite hard to argue with someone who's argument pretty much only consists of disagreeing rudely with everyone!

But the question of morals and what is "good", what is "bad" and what drives people to revolution are very worthwhile questions and I commend the thought-out responses to it.

I think that "essentially" humans are social animals and this dictates to a large extent how their morals form. For we are the most advanced species (that is a fact, I'm not boasting) and it was our ability to work with our hands and produce advanced tools that sparked so many changes in our social make up. We began to speak and interact, co operate and eventually engage in social systems as a means of enhancing our productive capabilities. I would say that man is naturally social and requires being engaged in modern civilization which would make him feel "good", while social isolation is generally a negative and depressing experience.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rood Boi:


Rosa Lichtenstien (sic) is a troll, don't feed the trolls! There is generally not much behind what is said from this poster, it's quite hard to argue with someone who's argument pretty much only consists of disagreeing rudely with everyone!

It is clear that you think I am a 'troll' because you can't answer my objections to your mystical theory.

And, you are the newby here; I have been around for nearly three years. If anyone is the 'troll' around hereit is you with your unfounded assertions and refusal to defend your 'theory'.

--------------------------

KrazyEtc:


Plato was before the Bible; the Bible was influenced by him.

I'd like proof of that.

Krazy before he was rumbled:


In western culture, all (each and every) philosophical contribution since Plato about human nature, whether they agree or disagree with the Ring of Gyres, are influenced by it. No western philosopher can ignore it; and whether directly or indirectly, are influenced by it.

Bold added.

Krazy after:


Christians make up to a mere 25% or so of the global population (and that includes non-practicing Christians).
That means that 75% of the global population are non-Christian.

My remarks were aimed at your comments on 'western culture', that is all.


Islam (which is a western religion and it's philosophy is western philosophy) by itself nearly cancels out Christianity. Add in the other religions (both prior and since Christ), and the atheists and the agnostics, and Christian philosophy is a minority among western philosophy.

Is Plato influential here too? If so, let's see your proof. Assertion is easy.

And thanks for this undergraduate summary of Plato:


It argues that people will look after their own wellbeing, given an opportunity, at the expense of others. According to Plato, humans are selfish, greedy creatures. The only reason that they follow laws and morals is because they are the lesser of two evils to the individual; it hurts to be wronged more then you derive pleasure from chasing your own ambitions unhindered.

It is only the individuals' self-preservation that keeps them from constant "wrongdoing". Doing wrong results in negative consequences; therefore it is more profitable for the individual to do good. Any person who does a "good" act does so out of his own interest; they are not exposed to punishments, and in addition, there is the praise (and rewards) offered by society.

It goes on to say that given a scenario that is free from consequence, a person would naturally chose the path of injustice. It is only because of punishments, and because of the praise (and depending on your beliefs, the rewards of the afterlife) that you receive from being "good" that keeps people in line.

This is not an argument, but a series of assertions (even in the Republic) based on an ancient equivalent of science fiction.

What you need to show is that, despite it being one of the weakest of Plato's many weak 'arguments', this allegory is quite as influential as you say.

We all know Plato is a dominant figure in 'western thought', but not everything he said was part of that dominance. You need to show that this is quite the dominant view you alleged. You have yet to do that.

--------------------------
Mersault:


I didn't realize I was being rude to humanity. I hope humanity can accept my humble apologizes. Nevertheless, good and bad are subjective and human beings are evidently confused about what they mean.

My apologies to you, too! :)

However, the examples I gave in reply to Louis Henrique show that 'good' and 'bad' are not always, or even typically, 'subjective.'

[Chapter 24]

I am of the opinion that whatever "human nature" exists depends on the material conditions that surround that person from day-to-day life, including their upbringing, experiences, environment, values, et. al. Humans being more complex than other species are not as easy to categorize and cannot be placed under a microscope by scientists hoping to discover typical human nature. True though there may be certain qualities that define humans and humanity one cannot forget that it's not as simple as everyone adapting to some form of "human nature". It depends on the material conditions, as said before, and as we are no longer knuckle-dragging primitive men of ages past, so we no longer exist in a hunter-gatherer society.
The very concept of there being a simple explanation toward human emotion and action, both positive and negative, is simply non-existant, it will never be as simple as a "human nature". This flawed way of viewing humanity is not only overly pessimitic but is used to justify war, poverty, et. al. And of course the idea of there being a "human nature" which can justify the 'failure' of 'socialism' - i.e., greed - is also flawed. It is the material conditions that define how humans behave.

[Dean]

This could be an epic thread, or an opportunity for people to flame others (or me).

In order for Marxism to work, we must believe that people are inherently good (says my history textbook). In Lord of the Flies, one of William Golding's main message is that the nature of human beings is to be rebellious and bad.

So, the question remains: are human beings inherently good, or inherently bad? Is there even a definitive answer?

No, we must believe that man is potentially good. I think we are, but its an important distinction.

[trivas7]

The very concept of there being a simple explanation toward human emotion and action, both positive and negative, is simply non-existant, it will never be as simple as a "human nature". This flawed way of viewing humanity is not only overly pessimitic but is used to justify war, poverty, et. al. And of course the idea of there being a "human nature" which can justify the 'failure' of 'socialism' - i.e., greed - is also flawed. It is the material conditions that define how humans behave.
Indeed, there is something unMarxian re the question. There is no human nature in the abstract, there is only the species-being of historically conditioned human beings.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think Plato has anything to offer to marxists. Plato believed that there was some ethereal world with "molds" of different things and that "good" things in our plane of existence approach those molds in the ethereal world. Plato hated people relying on their senses and therefore thought that scientists only studied the "world of appearances". However he thought the philosophers were above scientists because they studied "truth". :rolleyes:

Reminds me of dialecticians who think they know better than physicists because they "understand" the apriori laws of their own wonderland.

[Herman]

I don't think Plato has anything to offer to marxists. Plato believed that there was some ethereal world with "molds" of different things and that "good" things in our plane of existence approach those molds in the ethereal world. Plato hated people relying on their senses and therefore thought that scientists only studied the "world of appearances". However he thought the philosophers were above scientists because they studied "truth".

Actually I was going to say this after I read what Rosa commented on Plato. Well put.


However, the examples I gave in reply to Louis Henrique show that 'good' and 'bad' are not always, or even typically, 'subjective.'

So your examples are based on the assumption that anything detrimental to human life is bad? (not criticizing, if it looks that way, just asking)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Herman:


So your examples are based on the assumption that anything detrimental to human life is bad? (not criticizing, if it looks that way, just asking)

No, I was not advancig a thesis, merely pointing out that not every use of 'good' and 'bad' is necessarily, or even typically, 'subjective'.

[Hit The North]

No, I was not advancig a thesis, merely pointing out that not every use of 'good' and 'bad' is necessarily, or even typically, 'subjective'.

But to what end? It was obvious in Luis' post that he was employing the words as moral values: good = virtuous; bad = malevolent. These are surely human creations.

The op also posed the question in the terms Luis was expounding.

This whole thread, with its excursions into Plato, blah, blah, is indicative of how philosophy get in the way of knowledge.

The question of whether human beings are essentially 'good' or 'bad' is an empirical one, based on observational evidence. So far, the observational evidence from history and contemporary society is that there is no sign of an "essential nature" and that we are capable of acting in ways which could be interpreted as good and bad - but also that those value-laden interpretations ("good" "bad") are also historically contingent.

The real question of importance by the op is whether this has any bearing on the possibility of our species building a rational, humane and equal society free of oppression and external constraint (i.e. communism).

But the question is the wrong way around. It assumes that societies are the product of an essential human nature, but given the lack of evidence for such an essence, and the empirical evidence for the existence of a variety of societies in history, it has no real basis for its premise, except a dogmatic attachment to the philosophical concept of "essence".

Marx, on the other hand, argues:
The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.
The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature. Of course, we cannot here go either into the actual physical nature of man, or into the natural conditions in which man finds himself – geological, hydrographical, climatic and so on. The writing of history must always set out from these natural bases and their modification in the course of history through the action of men.
Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.
The way in which men produce their means of subsistence depends first of all on the nature of the actual means of subsistence they find in existence and have to reproduce. This mode of production must not be considered simply as being the production of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather it is a definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their part. As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production.
This production only makes its appearance with the increase of population. In its turn this presupposes the intercourse [Verkehr] of individuals with one another. The form of this intercourse is again determined by production.
In other words, human beings - in terms of their observed behaviour and the ideational representations they use to interpret that behaviour - are the creations of society.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


But to what end? It was obvious in Luis' post that he was employing the words as moral values: good = virtuous; bad = malevolent. These are surely human creations.

Well, if we can't be clear anout simple words like this, we are never going to get more complex expressions right.


The question of whether human beings are essentially 'good' or 'bad' is an empirical one, based on observational evidence. So far, the observational evidence from history and contemporary society is that there is no sign of an "essential nature" and that we are capable of acting in ways which could be interpreted as good and bad - but also that those value-laden interpretations ("good" "bad") are also historically contingent.

To some extent you are right, but then if we bring to our analysis of the facts a defective understanding of these words, we are not going to get even the facts right.

The point is that the words 'good' and 'bad' are not always 'value-laden' (whetever that means). There is little or nothing 'value-laden' about the use of these terms in the examples I gave.


In other words, human beings - in terms of their observed behaviour and the ideational representations they use to interpret that behaviour - are the creations of society.

I agree, but then 'society' has got to get to work on something. We are not empty shells, with no physical constitution -- a physical constitution that has remained largely static for tens of thousands of years.

[Hit The North]

I agree, but then 'society' has got to get to work on something. We are not empty shells, with no physical constitution -- a physical constitution that has remained largely static for tens of thousands of years.Yes, human beings are objective beings, emboddied in the world, rationally orientated to the world around us - making tactical decisions, plotting strategies, maintaining interests in order to survive within the world as we find it. There is no essence, immune from history and culture, which directs our behaviour. As I'm sure you agree.

[trivas7]

The question of whether human beings are essentially 'good' or 'bad' is an empirical one, based on observational evidence.

I don't believe this. Like Marx's 'value' or 'social product' in Capital, there is no chemical composition or any material substance re moral value judgments.


The real question of importance by the op is whether this has any bearing on the possibility of our species building a rational, humane and equal society free of oppression and external constraint (i.e. communism).
.
For me the question is did Marx's work, like the socialist utopians', succumb to the "constructivist" impulse which presumes that human beings can achieve godlike control over society, as if from an Archimedean standpoint, F.Hayek's "synoptic delusion":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/constructivist-rationalism-t81999/index.html

[Hit The North]

I don't believe this. Like Marx's 'value' or 'social product' in Capital, there is no chemical composition or any material substance re moral value judgments.


You misunderstand me. My argument is that once definitions of virtuous or malevolent behaviour have been agreed, it is a matter of empirical testing to see which behaviours are most manifest in human behaviour so that we can make a judgment of which behaviour is most likely and therefore truest of our nature. My argument is that the empirical evidence supports neither one over the other. We are neither essentially 'good' or essentially 'bad' (given our agreed operationalisation of those concepts).

Philosophy can perhaps help us to arrive at our definitions of good or bad but cannot answer the question of which one predominates over the other in human affairs.


For me the question is did Marx's work, like the socialist utopians', succumb to the "constructivist" impulse which presumes that human beings can achieve godlike control over society, as if from an Archimedean standpoint, F.Hayek's "synoptic delusion":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/constructivist-rationalism-t81999/index.html
Sure. Part of our answer is that he didn't. In other words, Marxism does not rely on a naive angelic conception of human beings in order to justify its claims; neither does it involve a triumphalist humanism which grants us unlimited power over our affairs.

[trivas7]

Sure. Part of our answer is that he didn't. In other words, Marxism does not rely on a naive angelic conception of human beings in order to justify its claims; neither does it involve a triumphalist humanism which grants us unlimited power over our affairs.
Many would say that the task of society controlling the means of production is beyond its ken. The jury is still out IMHO.

[Hit The North]

Many would say that the task of society controlling the means of production is beyond its ken. The jury is still out IMHO.

What we do know, though, is that 'society' is unable to control the means of production in a mode of production based on private interest. Again, this is one of our central arguments, no?

[trivas7]

What we do know, though, is that 'society' is unable to control the means of production in a mode of production based on private interest. Again, this is one of our central arguments, no?
Agreed. Capitalism has got to go.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Yes, human beings are objective beings, emboddied in the world, rationally orientated to the world around us - making tactical decisions, plotting strategies, maintaining interests in order to survive within the world as we find it. There is no essence, immune from history and culture, which directs our behaviour. As I'm sure you agree.

So, it looks like you do believe we have a nature, since we seem to be able to do these things in any mode of production.

[Hit The North]

BTB:

So, it looks like you do believe we have a nature, since we seem to be able to do these things in any mode of production.

It appears that way. :( Perhaps I need to define what I mean by "human nature".

[trivas7]

My argument is that once definitions of virtuous or malevolent behaviour have been agreed, it is a matter of empirical testing to see which behaviours are most manifest in human behaviour so that we can make a judgment of which behaviour is most likely and therefore truest of our nature.

This project sounds to me like Skinnerian behaviorism. Surely you didn't mean that, no?

Also, it ultimately becomes a political question even what the "definitions of virtuous or malevolent behaviour" are and thus endlessly controversial, no?

[Hit The North]

This project sounds to me like Skinnerian behaviorism. Surely you didn't mean that, no?


No. Observations should be drawn from history and ethnographic study, not from running labrat experiments.


Also, it ultimately becomes a political question even what the "definitions of virtuous or malevolent behaviour" are and thus endlessly controversial, no?Yes, ethics is an ideological battlefield.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Perhaps I need to define what I mean by "human nature".

And good luck there, comrade.

The ideas we inherited from Marx (and other comrades) you will find of little help here, I'm afraid.

[I claim the problem arises from 'abstraction' -- but that we dealt with in another thread.]

As I have often said, we need to re-think the foundations of Marxism, excising every trace of 'traditional thought' (including 'abstractions').

[mikelepore]

In order for Marxism to work, we must believe that people are inherently good (says my history textbook).

I think the opposite is the case. If it were true that we are inherently horrible and evil, that's all the more reason to adopt an economic system that has the cooperative result built into its stucture, since we couldn't get those desired results out of our spontaneous behavior.

Then no one will be able to exploit workers, when the entire practice of hiring people no longer exists. No one will be able to perform corrupt practices on the stock exchange, when the entire practice of investing one's money no longer exists.

What do we do if people exhibit the drive to abuse others? We deprive them of all opportunities to put that drive into practice.

Think about it -- what is the whole point of having a law against committing murder or rape? It's so that we are NOT relying on anyone's nature. If you are a gentle and conscientious person, great; you won't even have to think about that law existing. But if you are the assailant, you are the only one that the law attempts to hold down. So the more we put the desired result into the institution, the less significance there is to the worst that might be found in anyone's nature.

So your textbook has it backwards. If we are naturally cooperative and altruistic, and the environment has corrupted us, then we need to establish socialism with a considerable degree of urgency. On the other hand, if we are naturally greedy, violent and cruel, and only formal rules and enforcements will hold us back, then we need to establish socialism with the greatest possible urgency.

[Hyacinth]

I’ve never been sure where these claims that the only way communism will work is if everyone were good and altruistic come from. To the best of my knowledge not from anything Marx wrote. I don’t recall Marx ever appealing to people’s alleged altruism or good nature, rather the appeal was always to the self-interest of the working class. A revolution won’t come about because people are altruistic or good, but rather because they, the working class specifically, have an interest in overthrowing the established order and replacing it with a new one.

[Hit The North]

It's the age old conservative mantra about the prospects of social change - that human beings are just to fallible to create anything beyond the current imperfect order. It's a very aristocratic notion and obviously has roots in the Christian determination that human beings are scum.

[Lynx]

This could be an epic thread, or an opportunity for people to flame others (or me).

In order for Marxism to work, we must believe that people are inherently good (says my history textbook).
No we don't. Notions of good or bad are subjective. Human behavior is driven by a number of factors, both internal and as a response to external conditions. I believe that if Marxism can take into account these factors and make the best out of them for the majority of people, then it will provide the desired outcome.

I don't see philosophy as being able to predict what would happen, thus no cause to be pessimistic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx, I have posted several examples to show that what you say is not so:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1181627&postcount=22

Our notions of good and bad are not always 'subjective', nor are they even typically so.

[trivas7]

Lynx, I have posted several examples to show that what you say is not so:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1181627&postcount=22

Our notions of good and bad are not always 'subjective', nor are they even typically so.
None of those examples are examples of moral goodness or evil, which is the concern of the OP.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


None of those examples are examples of moral goodness or evil, which is the concern of the OP.

Ah, but I was addressing the comments of others since, who suggested that these words are always 'subjective'.

So, once more, you need to pay attention.

Moreover, the OP was this:


This could be an epic thread, or an opportunity for people to flame others (or me).

In order for Marxism to work, we must believe that people are inherently good (says my history textbook). In Lord of the Flies, one of William Golding's main message is that the nature of human beings is to be rebellious and bad.

So, the question remains: are human beings inherently good, or inherently bad? Is there even a definitive answer?

Nothing their about 'moral goodness' etc.

[trivas7]

In order for Marxism to work, we must believe that people are inherently good (says my history textbook). In Lord of the Flies, one of William Golding's main message is that the nature of human beings is to be rebellious and bad.

So, the question remains: are human beings inherently good, or inherently bad? Is there even a definitive answer?



Nothing their about 'moral goodness' etc.
OTC, you need to reread the OP.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


OTC, you need to reread the OP.

I went further; I quoted it.

You need new glasses.

[Lynx]

In the wet blanket statement I quoted, the use of 'good' and 'bad' is subjective. That is all I was referring to.

It is my hope that vague, wet blanket statements can be identified, then dismissed.

[Luís Henrique]

This could be an epic thread, or an opportunity for people to flame others (or me).

In order for Marxism to work, we must believe that people are inherently good (says my history textbook). In Lord of the Flies, one of William Golding's main message is that the nature of human beings is to be rebellious and bad.

So, the question remains: are human beings inherently good, or inherently bad? Is there even a definitive answer?

Nothing their about 'moral goodness' etc.

Seems quite obvious that the OP implied moral values, not for instance, if human meat tastes "good" or whether humans make "good" soldiers or welders.

But the problematic point in the OP is "In order for Marxism to work, we must believe that people are inherently good (says my history textbook)." Evidently, some textbooks are inherently wrong, and speal false notions about Marxism (according to which, there is no such thing as a moral "human nature", either good or bad.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Seems quite obvious that the OP implied moral values, not for instance, if human meat tastes "good" or whether humans make "good" soldiers or welders.

On the contrary, it seems to me that the OP was as confused about such matters as others here are.

[Lynx]

So...
Marxism can't work because people are bad
or
Marxism can't work because Marxism is bad

Nice :(