The fundamental problem is that most people view "lying" as a simple concept when it's anything but. There's a great book about childhood development called Brain Rules for Baby. In it, the author explains that a "lie" to a small child is any outcome that does not meet predictions, not just a willful deception. If you tell your daughter that you'll take her to the park but then it rains or the car breaks down, you "lied." You told her something and it turned out to be untrue. The extenuating circumstances that lead to disappointment, rather than betrayal, develop with time. However, the ability to lie is inherent in people. Children lie regularly and without motive. There is something in our psychology that gets us to practice lying early and often. More than that, the better a liar you are the more likely you are to succeed in the future- those who can lie generally have a great deal of empathy, and empathy is even more positively correlated with success than intelligence. In this instance, a "lie" is a deliberate mistruth. The distinction is important because a "deliberate mistruth" is very different from a "malicious deception." Intent matters in any interpersonal interaction, and a "lie" is more than a mistranscribed fact, a lie is a deliberate choice to cloak the truth. Behind that deliberation is any number of motivations, some pure, some impure. And that's why these conversations ultimately lead nowhere - it isn't the act of lying that people get upset about, it's the motivation behind the lie that fucks people up. Besides mine, there are five responses (and a joke). Each one of them is a debate about motivation. The "lie" itself is fundamentally irrelevant to the discussion - nobody likes to wrap their head around it, but there it is. The brighter your kid is, the more your kid lies. The better your kid relates to other kids, the better your kid lies. Success in society is directly, positively correlated with your ability to lie. If you wish to consider "lying" to be relevant then you are forced to acknowledge that every leading light in our society is morally aberrant, and statistically that doesn't work, therefore the people telling the truth are the deviant weirdos. So forget about the lying. Don't get hung up on it. Focus on the intent. People lie. They lie all the time, and they lie for a gajillion reasons, most of them harmless, some of them altruistic, a modicum of them sinister. There has been a continuous line of human civilization for twelve thousand years now, which is a pretty convincing argument that our better natures win out most of the time… which in turn makes the argument that most people are basically good. And if most people are basically good and if all people lie, "lying" cannot be that bad. A crude syllogism, but a compelling one.
The problem is, that "if" is pretty big. In fact, I'm not sure I buy it, or the "well, we're here, so we must be doing something right" reasoning behind it. Survival and morality differ. The two end up on opposing teams far more often than otherwise, and examples of this are plentiful. This is especially noticeable in the event of a disaster, like, say, the Philippines, circa right now... where formerly good, upstanding people are resorting to stealing and violence just to get by. The people who are surviving the best over there are the ones most willing and/or able (via desperation) to commit immoral acts. I don't disagree that most of the time, people mean well (or, at least, don't willingly intend any harm) when they lie, but there's an old saying in a box behind me... something about the road to hell and good intentions.if most people are basically good
Whose survival are we talking about? I'll warn you - "people are basically good" is a fundamental tenet of my life, and one that I have arrived at through extensive research and deep introspection. It informs most everything I do. Just letting you know - don't bring a knife to a gunfight. I can tangle on this one. Individual survival doesn't much matter because, genetically speaking, selfish individuals remove themselves from the gene pool automagically. This extends on down to paramecia - don't breed, don't matter. Further, one of the most compelling reasons for human survival is "grandparents" - the act of caring for your progeny's progeny. You could still argue that's "selfish" but then I'd pull out The Ultimatum Game and demonstrate that humans "punish" unfair treatment even when they harm their own results in doing so. For that matter, so do macaques. So societal egalitarianism isn't even unique to humans - it's common in primates. So: That's because you don't know enough about it. Locke didn't invent the social contract, he codified it. "Every man for himself" is not now, has not been and never shall be how societies function. "Social Darwinism" only applies when "survival of the fittest" extends to clans, rather than individuals. Which is not the same thing as families - humans and most primates organize based on a structure that is macroscopically beneficial at an individually-punitive level. Where society has, ipso facto, broken down. The immediate response from any corner with surviving society is to clamp down on the lawlessness and provide for the indigent. No one is saying "people never fight." The argument is that the natural state of humanity is one of cooperation. Cherry picking unnatural states that are acknowledged on all sides to be abnormal does not defeat this argument. A bald assertion with no supporting evidence wholly outside of the argument at hand. Not only is your statement unverifiable, it's irrelevant to the discussion and primarily serves to illustrate your unfounded pessimism. Platitudes are not argument. Don't waste my time.Survival and morality differ, in my mind.
In fact, I'm not sure I buy it, or the "well, we're here, so we must be doing something right" reasoning behind it.
This is especially noticeable in the event of a disaster, like the one in the Philippines, where formerly good, upstanding people are resorting to stealing and violence just to get by.
The people who are surviving the best over there, right now, are the ones most willing and/or able (via desperation) to commit immoral acts.
something about the road to hell and good intentions.
Why does this have to be a fight at all? o.O Who was talking about society? But while we're on the topic, if it takes a social construct to keep people in line, and they "go bad" when that construct (enforced via implied threat of violence, no less) fails... doesn't that strike you as argument against people being "basically good"? (Note, I do not claim that people are "basically bad," nor will I.) The supporting evidence was a quote from one of the survivors admitting exactly as much to a reporter. I chose to believe him, but it just occurred to me (given this thread) that he may have been lying. I don't think so, but its food for thought. You seem unnecessarily grumpy today. Is that part of being "basically good" too? Something else I just "don't understand"? ;-) EDIT: Or are you genuinely annoyed that someone doesn't buy into the idea that people, on the whole, are "basically good"? If so... I sincerely apologize for that. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers.don't bring a knife to a gunfight. I can tangle on this one.
Where society has, ipso facto, broken down.
A bald assertion with no supporting evidence
Platitudes are not argument. Don't waste my time.
Because you're attacking a maxim: "There has been a continuous line of human civilization for twelve thousand years now, which is a pretty convincing argument that our better natures win out most of the time… which in turn makes the argument that most people are basically good." Your words: I was. You were arguing with me. You were directly contradicting the statement that 'if society >12,000 years, then people = basically good' in as many words. Not sure what you're saying here. "it takes a social construct to keep people in line" is a tautology. "in line" is the social construct. People outside of society are an identity. You're essentially saying "it takes society to make society therefore society = bad." Anecdotal evidence with an n of 1 does not a trend make. It's not food for thought, it's irrelevant to the discussion for every reason listed above. You're elevating your hand-wavey gut feelings to the logical equivalent of scholarly evidence and arguing that they're comparable. You are further doing so in pursuit of casting aspersions on my conclusions. Essentially, you're saying "you're wrong because I think you're wrong." That doesn't fly with anybody. Ever.Why does this have to be a fight at all? o.O
The problem is, that "if" is pretty big. In fact, I'm not sure I buy it, or the "well, we're here, so we must be doing something right" reasoning behind it.
Who was talking about society?
But while we're on the topic, if it takes a social construct to keep people in line, and they "go bad" when that construct (enforced via implied threat of violence, no less) fails... doesn't that strike you as argument against people being "basically good"?
The supporting evidence was a quote from one of the survivors admitting exactly as much to a reporter.
You seem unnecessarily grumpy today. Is that part of being "basically good" too? Something else I just "don't understand"? ;-)
And I'm "attacking" it... ...actually, no, I'm not. I'm disagreeing with it, and refuse to let you paint it otherwise. ...and I'm disagreeing with it because it is not a convincing argument about our better natures. In fact, it isn't even AN argument to that end at all, as you don't even attempt to support the connection between "being here a real long time" and "because of our morally good cores". For that matter, you take it as a given that our continued existence is, in itself, "good" in some kind of objective way, and that's something else you don't support. Immorality (such as violence, thievery, selfishness-at-the-expense-of-others, etc.) has as much to do with our continued presence as a race as "our good sides shining through". Depending on how you view history, it is even arguable -- convincingly so -- that our "bad" traits have more to do with us still being here than otherwise (though I don't entirely buy that, either). I think that's a very poor interpretation, and I'm trying to keep in check the feeling that it was done purposefully. I am actually "essentially" saying the same thing I've been saying all along: that I disagree with the idea that people are "basically good", because it is unsupported by the weight of the evidence you've presented, and because there is evidence that seems to indicate exactly otherwise. Such as in situations where people act differently when their wants and needs are not met and they no longer fear the societal counterweight of physical punishment for a "bad" act. I don't see how you can paint that as a nonsensical tautology, but... shrug. "You can't prove that!" "The guy admitted as much." "Well now its irrelevant!" ...really? earlier Pot, Kettle wants a word. Then you understand the source of my disagreement. We agree on something, at least.Because you're attacking a maxim: "There has been a continuous line of human civilization for twelve thousand years now, which is a pretty convincing argument that our better natures win out most of the time… which in turn makes the argument that most people are basically good."
"You're essentially saying "it takes society to make society therefore society = bad."
Anecdotal evidence with an n of 1 does not a trend make. It's not food for thought, it's irrelevant to the discussion for every reason listed above.
You're elevating your hand-wavey gut feelings to the logical equivalent of scholarly evidence
There has been a continuous line of human civilization for twelve thousand years now, which is a pretty convincing argument that our better natures win out most of the time
That doesn't fly with anybody. Ever.
I find that people with inadequate debate skills tend to skirt the central argument when they've lost. Rather than graciously bow out and acknowledge their defeat, they will willfully disregard the central point of discussion and hammer at the margins in hopes that a thousand skirmishes will somehow outweigh a unitary defeat. These skirmishes are usually accompanied by ad-hominem attacks ("Pot, Kettle wants a word") which, in the words of a mentor of mine, are the angry flailings of someone who knows he's lost. In that spirit, know that my further participation does not in any way indicate that you have an argument. To the contrary, you've got nothing left to say. I'm only here for cautery so that the wound doesn't fester. Shall we begin? My statement was that "there has been a continuous line of human civilization for twelve thousand years now, which is a pretty convincing argument that our better natures win out most of the time." It was a flippant statement meant to nullify the argument that "lying is bad" but, upon challenge, I backed it up with a Scientific American article and a link to the broad science of social economics. I further asserted that, flippant statement aside, the fundamental makeup of society was not something I felt particularly flippant about and that if you treated it flippantly, there would be blood. You countered by arguing that you "feel" my facts and scientifically rigorous theories are invalid and used as evidence a stranger you saw on TV saying something. When I pointed out that the stranger you saw on TV does not have the factual weight of an entire branch of science, you argued (insultingly) that somehow, "science of behavioral economics" and "guy you saw on TV" are so similar that my refusal to acknowledge their parity demonstrates my hypocrisy. With your assertions now completely discredited, you argue that they aren't really assertions - you're not "attacking" my statements, you're " disagreeing " with them (emphasis yours) in yet another attempt to put your emotions and my scientifically rigorous theories at parity. Doubling down, you put forth the gambit that, well, maybe the continued existence of society is not a good thing because you - "feel" - that people are bad. Let's be clear about something: There is literally nothing in your life that is not societally circumscribed. You eat, sleep, shit, piss and fuck to the tune of society's rules. Everyone on the planet does, including hermits in the mountains and uncontacteds in the Amazon. You have never done a single thing in your life that does not fall within the social contract. When I argue that "lying" is a vital part of the social contract as evidence of its good, the counterargument is not "society is bad" the counter-argument is "oblivion." In order to make your argument, you must advance beyond nihilism and into the pokey fires of apocalypticism, at which point "good" and "bad" become moot. But not even that matters, as you started out our debate with this: So if "formerly" good people "resort to stealing and violence" that implies that "good" people do not normally partake in stealing and violence. Your own baseline argument is that "society" is good in order to assert that "people" are not necessarily good. * * * I warned you. I told you that "people are fundamentally good" is an assertion I feel strongly about and that I am well-prepared to defend. You have continued on, all the while taking as baseline that your "feelings" are a match for my evidence. To put it in perspective, it's as if I'd said "I feel pretty strongly that the world is round and have spent no small amount of time researching the earth's roundness" and you'd chosen to respond with "yeah, but you're wrong because it feels pretty flat to me." When I whip out a picture of the Earth from the moon you respond with "but lots of people think the world's flat - what's your point?" You're wrong. It's that simple. I suspect you aren't used to being wrong - in your cohort of friends you're probably the clever one. On the Internet, however, there's always somebody smarter than you. Which gives you two choices - double down with your wrongness and think you're right (and that the other guy is an asshole for bursting your bubble) or learn to be wrong in a constructive way so that you can learn something and, as a consequence, be wrong less often. The choice is yours.This is especially noticeable in the event of a disaster, like, say, the Philippines, circa right now... where formerly good, upstanding people are resorting to stealing and violence just to get by.
You've just described what I think about your last two replies. And "Pot, Kettle wants a word" is not an ad hominem, its pointing out that your posited argument is guilty of that which you accused mine of. I suppose I could have written just that, but I thought you'd understand as much. You do realize you're the only one in this conversation who is attempting to "win" anything, right? And therefore, the only one who has any real fear of "losing"? I'm just trying to have a conversation. Or, I was. If you're trying to fight -- and I suspect you are -- you should have just let me know that, so I could go ahead, "lose", and go do something constructive and fun... like actually have an adult conversation with someone who isn't convinced that "conversation" is only about getting a good one in at every possible turn. --- reads the rest of your post --- ...and yup, it does indeed seem to be the case. You provide an intellectually dishonest -- and that's being generous -- recap of what has occurred, followed with continued assertions that you're using "science" when you have yet to privide any sort of scientific link between "here for a long time" and "morally good cores of human beings". (Still waiting on that, by the way). Heck, you have yet to even realize that whether or not we're here due to our fundamentally "good" natures isn't even a discussion that can adequately be addressed by science... ... and all the while -- this is the funny part! -- you go ahead, accuse ME of being emotionally driven, accuse yourself of being all intellectual all day, while out of the other side of your mouth you flagrantly admit that this is a concept you're so emotionally in bed with that "there will be blood" if anyone treats it "flippantly". Finally, you close with a string of eloquently phrased -- but still base, rude, unnecessary and utterly uncalled-for -- insults about my character, the character of my friends, and how much smaller you think my intellect is in comparison to yours. "I know you are but what am I?", though cheap, is the most succinct way to phrase my reaction to every single complaint you've levied at me. I feel dirty even putting it out there, because of how immature it sounds, but the hypocrisy on display from your side of the discussion is unbelievably conspicuous. There's really nothing other to say; you're projecting so hard that people reading your last salvo must think they're at a drive-in movie. And let us NOT forget, all this -- ALL THIS -- so that you can justify to yourself that it's really OK to be a liar. This is what you do with your self-admitted vast intellect: turn some internet stranger who was disagreeing with you into a whipping post to make yourself feel bigger and better about being a person of willingly dishonest character. And you WONDER why I disagree about the fundamental "good" nature of humanity. That would be the funniest part if it weren't so goddamn sad. --- But hey, whatever. You win, tiger. Have your internet points. I am soundly "defeated". There. ...was it as good for you as I suspect? ...did you get what you needed? ...do you need a tissue now, or perhaps a cigarette? You threw a whole lot of punches here, but one day, I suspect you'll realize you were shadowboxing, and that maybe I'm not the one you're so desperately trying to convince. That's what I'm hoping, anyway.I find that people with inadequate debate skills tend to skirt the central argument when they've lost. Rather than graciously bow out and acknowledge their defeat, they will willfully disregard the central point of discussion and hammer at the margins in hopes that a thousand skirmishes will somehow outweigh a unitary defeat.
the angry flailings of someone who knows he's lost.
Whether people are good or bad is a pretty complex question that has been debated for a long time by philosophers. I find that there is not real objective answer to that question (maybe for now? ) and that opinion and ideology actually ARE an argument in this debate. I'm personally of the opinion that humanity is nor good nor bad. Can't we say that societies of monkeys have existed for a long time, thus they are good? They have pretty complex social constructs and I have trouble with the idea we actually are THAT different from monkeys. But eh, what do I know? I'm sure i haven't spent nearly as much time as you studying the question, so i'll leave it at that.
The Problem of Evil deals specifically with the paradox of an omnibenevolent god and the existence of evil in a world created by such. "Are people good or evil" isn't one for debate by anyone other than Philosophy 101 students, usually right before diving into qualia. Once more, with feeling: the science says otherwise. There are firm physiological underpinnings for altruism and fair behavior. There are mechanisms that explain their presence and there are biological structures responsible for them. That's fine, so long as you understand that your opinions are contraindicated with fact.Whether people are good or bad is a pretty complex question that has been debated for a long time by philosophers.
I find that there is not real objective answer to that question (maybe for now? ) and that opinion and ideology actually ARE an argument in this debate.
I'm personally of the opinion that humanity is nor good nor bad.
Proof that there is "good" is not proof that there is nothing BUT "good" or even that it is dominant. Can't we just be a mixture of both "good" and "bad"? How about the Milgram experiment? Or Zimbardo? Testing the "bad" is quite hard to do in an ethical manner and what's the incentive anyways? I'm not surprised there is not much evidence. And how to account for all the "evil" in the world then? Is it the product of circumstances and not human nature? Is it just outweight by all the "good"? Or does is simply not exist? And I'm curious, how do sociopaths fit in your worldview? They certainly can't be considered "good". So many questions... :P
Somehow, "people are fundamentally good" gets heard as "all people are all good always." Nowhere did I say that, nowhere would I imply that. On balance, however, "people are fundamentally good." Milgram proves not that people are bad, but that people respect authority over their own moral codes. That, believe it or not, also implies altruism - in other words, the fundamental "good" of people can be used for fundamentally bad ends. Ask yourself - did the Nazis think they were evil? Zimbardo, likewise, proves that people value clan over country - hardly novel. It again illustrates that the altruism of individuals can be used to nefarious ends. Sociopaths are, by definition, mentally ill. As far as "evil in a world full of good" I need only point to Dunbar's Number - the count of relationships a person can maintain with other humans before those humans cease to be human. This does not imply that we are fundamentally bad to people outside Dunbar's number - it implies that we are fundamentally indifferent towards them. So - people within my Monkeysphere - fundamentally good towards. People outside my Monkeysphere - fundamentally indifferent towards. 1+0 = 1. You can NOT get a negative number out of that, no matter how hard you wish there to be one.
Yeah... I guess I was thinking of the big picture, humanity as a whole. I guess that's where my belief of a neutral "fundamentally indifferent" humanity comes from. As for the Monkeysphere, all it really comes down to is empathy. So humans have empathy = humans are good. I'll think on that, you have pretty good arguments when you lay them down nicely :)
Not for any other reason than you beat me too the point, but I'll agree with your position that challenges the "people are basically good". Rather than say that people are basically good or bad, they will tend (slippery slope, i know) to do what is basically good for the collective group. Humans, like their cousins, are social animals. We live together in communities, survive together, and prosper together. We have evolved this way. It is in the best interest of the human race that we do so. 12,000 years of human prosperity isn't as much goodwill as it is instinct. I'm curious how theadvancedapes sees this one...
I don't disagree, but with a caveat that amounts to two single letters: People tend to do what is basically good for their collective group. At best, other groups are useful. A lot of the time, other groups don't matter. At worst, they are dangerous threats that must be defended against or even attacked preemptively. Societies exist because of enlightened self interest like that. This is not a condemnation -- I view it as a given, and morally neutral... the "instinct" you refer to. In my understanding of things, it is actually this -- far more, and far more often -- than fundamental good will that has carried us this far, for this long. And yes, I'll admit: I think "morally neutral" is where most people tend to fall in the spectrum. Who is @theadvancedapes, does he talk about stuff like this often?
I can agree with morally neutral. If you had asked me as a teenager, I would said otherwise, but I have grown--I have evolved. I can't recall seeing much from him on philosophical positions. In fact, just about everything that I have read in posts are backed up by imperical information. My assertion is that we have survived and prospered for millennia because of biological evolution--a topic for which there is no better expert in this forum than @theadvancedapes.Who is @theadvancedapes, does he talk about stuff like this often?