My Theory of Human Nature

[bdawson72 5,000+ posts]

Ahh intellegent conversation on ca.com

 

[BoomBoomBoy 10+ year member]

I may have to keep in mind not to post on here anymore at the very least.
But its only the internetz and I provided myself a good source of entertainment for 5+ hours while I write a couple papers.

You're going to hurt yourself......

 

[jimmclrk1 10+ year member]

Neggar.

 

[sue bee 10+ year member]

Subjective conclusion.

 

[sue bee 10+ year member]

Retort.

 

[MikeofTulsa Moderator]

Basically, I believe that it is human nature to be self motivated. In that, all the actions made by someone are done in their own best interest.Whenever a person decides to do something, they go through a list of the possible actions and the consequences that will result from each one respectively. After they have valued each action, they will commence with the one that appears most ideal, beneficial, and will provide the greatest amount of pleasure to them at that time.

One example of this would be when someone tries to decide whether or not they should stop smoking cigarettes. They know if they stop smoking, they will increase their life expectancy and live a much healthier life in the long run. However, they also realize that it means giving up something that provides them instant satisfaction and that it may not be ideal for them to go through the withdrawal symptoms.

So since the level of pleasure and satisfaction gained are part of the decision towards selfish acts, I do not believe that even "Good Samaritans" are selfless. These people find pleasure by helping other people in distress or simply find the consequences of not helping less desirable, such as guilt or nagging from their spouse. They may also choose to help someone in distress because they think it will improve their chances to get into heaven or provide good karma. If they did not gain any sort of pleasure or sense of accomplishment that is greater than the consequences of not helping the person in need, they simply would not do it.

Even a father sacrificing his life to save his son is selfish. At the moment that the father decides to make the decision, the happiness he gains from knowing that his son will get to live out his life is greater than him living out the rest of his own.

Kind of curious as to what you guys think about this. Want to hear some of yalls thoughts if you've ever gave any consideration to this.

And here's to hoping for a semi-intelligent conversation out of this.

I reread it and I see what you mean Hundreth. My original point was that all people are generally "bad" and that they will always respond in the manner that gives them the most self satisfaction.

1st off, your theory is horribly flawed. especially the father sacrificing his life to save his son example. if my son were in danger, i would do whatever i could to get him out of danger, not because i would take pleasure in knowing he would survive(i would take no pleasure in dying //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif), but because he is my son. and as a good father i want whats best for him. and him dying is not the best for him.

Well, my "theory" has been proven pointless, literally, but I am still curious what other people think about the topic

your logic is horribly flawed. i do selfless things all the time and not because i'd feel guilty or that im getting to heaven for doing them. i do it because as said before, its the right thing to do. your theory has nothing to do w/ logic but more to do with the moral fortitude of people as a whole. while most people tend to have less and less morals that does not mean that there is no one in the world that is selfless.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

1st off, your theory is horribly flawed. especially the father sacrificing his life to save his son example. if my son were in danger, i would do whatever i could to get him out of danger, not because i would take pleasure in knowing he would survive(i would take no pleasure in dying //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif), but because he is my son. and as a good father i want whats best for him. and him dying is not the best for him.

your logic is horribly flawed. i do selfless things all the time and not because i'd feel guilty or that im getting to heaven for doing them. i do it because as said before, its the right thing to do. your theory has nothing to do w/ logic but more to do with the moral fortitude of people as a whole. while most people tend to have less and less morals that does not mean that there is no one in the world that is selfless.

Perhaps morality and right/wrong, are just socially learned phenomena instrumental in the risk/reward process? You must concede that it is beneficial to conform to the values and norms (including morality) of a given society and that the inverse, nonconformity being detrimental, is also true.

Who is to say that there is some universal set of guiding principals intrinsic to humanity? Isn't it also at least possible that all behavior is interrelated and of a dialectical relationship?

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Perhaps morality and right/wrong, are just socially learned phenomena instrumental in the risk/reward process? You must concede that it is beneficial to conform to the values and norms (including morality) of a given society and that the inverse, nonconformity being detrimental, is also true.
Who is to say that there is some universal set of guiding principals intrinsic to humanity? Isn't it also at least possible that all behavior is interrelated and of a dialectical relationship?

There is only one I know of, that is survival.

 

[samson 10+ year member]

Perhaps morality and right/wrong, are just socially learned phenomena

I'd agree with that. I think we start out as greedy little selfish me-people and as we grow and learn the value of others and seek our spiritual side, we alter our thinking and behavior. We can go from what benefits us to what benefits others, even if we expect no reward.

You can argue whether morality was created by man or God but I do not personally believe it is inherent. Different people from different cultures hold to different values.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

What Locke, don't tell me it was the Treatises on Government
How do they compare to machiavelli?

I mean, I am just not that linear. There are gray areas of life and people should be given some lee-way. Not the prince does x and only x. Next the prince does y and only y. I mean c'mon.

I wasn't the intended audience for the prince and wasn't really looking for an implementable guide to becoming prince of America, so i wasnt too upset by its linearity. I just foudn it interesting in terms of evolving political thought and governance.

Yes, of course it was two treatises of government. It wasn't really comparable to Machiavelli. Machiavelli calls for one commanding leader, who takes power.

Hobbes calls for transfer of legitimate authority from individuals to the leviathan in an unbreakable covenant..for Hobbes the leviathans power must necessarily be absolute.

Locke refutes Hobbes and thinks that the social contract between ruler and citizen can be revoked... and should be if the state oversteps its bounds.

The whole state of nature, and how we got out of it, is good from both Locke and Hobbes.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

You can argue whether morality was created by man or God but I do not personally believe it is inherent. Different people from different cultures hold to different values.

a quick glance at the history books would certainly agree with you //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[MikeofTulsa Moderator]

Perhaps morality and right/wrong, are just socially learned phenomena instrumental in the risk/reward process? You must concede that it is beneficial to conform to the values and norms (including morality) of a given society and that the inverse, nonconformity being detrimental, is also true.
Who is to say that there is some universal set of guiding principals intrinsic to humanity? Isn't it also at least possible that all behavior is interrelated and of a dialectical relationship?

yes i do understand what you mean, and yes moralit and right/wrong are a learned behavior, morality however these days is on the decline, so therefore being a moral person and doing the right thing puts you in the non conformist and detrimental category which goes agains what the op was implying.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

yes i do understand what you mean, and yes moralit and right/wrong are a learned behavior, morality however these days is on the decline, so therefore being a moral person and doing the right thing puts you in the non conformist and detrimental category which goes agains what the op was implying.

You just said that morality is a learned behavior, and being so also implies relative, so how could it be in decline? Have people stopped learning? You are failing to differentiate between your morality and morality as a concept. If morality is learned and fluid, not intrinsic and rigid, than consequentially it can not possibly be in decline; it can only change to better fit the needs of the society.

I also don't think that even those sharing your morality can be classified as nonconformists... unless you are Amish? This country is still pretty friggen WASP'ish.

 

[Hundreth 10+ year member]

Perhaps morality and right/wrong, are just socially learned phenomena instrumental in the risk/reward process? You must concede that it is beneficial to conform to the values and norms (including morality) of a given society and that the inverse, nonconformity being detrimental, is also true.

That is a tremendous claim to make in one sentence. You can't just call conformity beneficial and nonconformity detrimental without defining good/bad. Your argument is just as empty as the OP's.

Who is to say that there is some universal set of guiding principals intrinsic to humanity? Isn't it also at least possible that all behavior is interrelated and of a dialectical relationship?

It is possible, but that still doesn't prove your previous statement.

 

[samson 10+ year member]

My question is will a complete lack of agreement regarding moral standards within a given society eventually lead to dissention, chaos and perhaps that society's eventual downfall?