Human Nature

First, the definitions.

human - of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people

nature - the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character

evil - morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked

good - morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious

Now my question to you: Is human nature wrong or right? What is your theory on human nature? In my opinion, that human nature is naturally right, as the earliest men had to come together to survive. They held no prejudices, were not immoral, did not steal, and only took what they needed. However, overtime, the knowledge of humans, not intelligence, expanded. Humans used that knowledge to acknowledge delusional superiority and abuse of that superiority. Those who were convinced they were a lower class learned two things: to achieve that rank and to follow. Those who wanted to achieve that rank learn to methods of tyrannizing those in the same class. Over time, the ones being tyrannized learned from the tyrants and thus, the modern human nature is born, which one may or may not define as "evil".

 

i am sorry, but i feel that ur argument is void with this statement:
"the earliest men had to come together to survive. They held no prejudices, were not immoral, did not steal, and only took what they needed"

now, if u dont mine i am going to back up because i do not like to be within 50 feet of any argument about "morals"

 

I have no idea what you said, but I will assume one of two things
1.) There is no true meaning of morals
2.) Everyone has different morals

What I was trying to say with that was due to the lack of intelligence, the earliest men thirsted for survival, not property, funds, etc. that the modern world today prioritizes.

 

and survival, in a world with limited resources, meant that having an overabundance of food was necessary to deal with the uncertainty of the food supply.

this need for an overabundance of food meant that people needed to compete for resources, even when they were just "thirsting for survival"

property, funds are just modern versions of these resources that ppl compete for.

ps.
all morals are subjective, so there is no point in arguing about absolute moral values to pretty much anything.

 

I agree with you

 

In my opinion, at our core we are animals. Can you label an animal good or evil? Not at all. We act to benefit ourselves, which I would argue isn't evil for the same reason lions aren't evil.

 

Yeah we do what's evolutionary beneficial to our species. But why we do that no one knows.

 

Not really. We know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Fitness

The reason we exist as the dominant species and not some other species that died out long ago is because we do what's beneficial to us.

That is to say, originally we existed this way completely by chance. But our tendency to do what's beneficial to us is what kept us thriving and not extinct.

 

Human Nature, humans worst enemy.

I'll just say this.

In society humans like to step on top of each other in order to be better than the next person.
I want his girlfriend, his car, her house, her dog, his job.

This fact combined with this:

A part of human nature is we are like every other species; sheep. Many many many humans 95% of humans would be like this; followers. This is what makes humans easy to control, if you have a leader with the above qualities prevalent in his actions you have a tyrant, you have a democracy, and you have leadership evolve.

I'm not going to talk about morals, however humans will do whatever they can do get more. In certain societies this was very very obvious.

You had a leader of the 'savages' they pillage and looted other tribes for their own personal wealth. They ransacked more than they needed for stockpiling purposes and the valuables were given to the people in the upper hierarchy.

You had a leader in the form of a king. They built castles, and amassed armies loyal to their purpose. They wanted to control more land, own more things and be a better king. Some kings would try think of their people, others would execute them for bad behavior.

You have a democracy. They let the followers do the work, and they sit back and 'lead' us into oblivion. You may ask well who wants to be better than in our democratic society?
Politicians generally go in for their own personal gain, 95% of them are followers to personal wealth and not their municipality. Thieves arise from desperation or the pure fact that they want what they can't get. Arguably taxation leaves little incentive for people to work, government subsidies are handed out which leads to debt. Less incentive for the mass and more debt for the whole is a recipe for disaster.

Recap:

Humans will do what they can to be above.
Humans are followers.

The 2 merged together with a human leader is the fundamental cause of societies unstoppable failures.

 

We know that we evolve, but we don't know the purpose of it.

 

Does a natural process need a "purpose"?

 

wth does there have to be a meaning???

jesus, do you have such a handicap in creating ur own meaning that you need there to be some predetermined one?

 

You're assuming existence is better than non-existence.

 

No, not at all, you're misunderstanding. I'm saying the species that tends to act in ways beneficial to themselves survive, hence us. That is it.

 

Your gonna try to justify to us that Death > Life?

Humans have a survival instinct, you don't assume that it's a physiological process; and it supports the notion that existence is better than non existence.

Any evidence to suggest that non-existence is better than existence?

 

Not that death is better, but equal to life. The only reason I want to be alive is because my body tells me to. When I didn't exist I didn't want to exists.

 

You want to be alive because your body tells you to be.
When you didn't exist you didn't initially want to exist.

Those are your 2 premises.

The first premise can be described by 2 physiological processes, 'Fight or Flight', which encompasses the 'Survival Instinct'. You want to be alive not solely based on the reason that your body tells you to, but the way your physiological processes have evolved to want to survive.
This initial process that the original humans went through has ultimately shaped the way we are now.

Your second premise is completely flawed, because you initially quote out of context.

Your response was to here:

The original context of the word 'exist' is used as a word interchangeable with survive.

So, lets take this word and apply it to your scenario:

You are quoting out of context, and therefore your premise is invalid.

 

Yeah don't you agree with those premises?
Naturally humans want to live, right?
When something isn't alive they don't care that they're not living, right?

Like before you were born you didn't want to exists.

Since there is no desire for the inexistent to exist why is life better than not living.

 

Your assuming that we have a soul.

For to not exist in your case it means we must have thoughts.
How can we have thoughts if we are in eternal nothingness? We can't that leaves a spiritual place like heaven, or a Soul?

Which one is it?

 

Neither, I'm not saying we have a soul. I said someone who doesn't exist can't want to exist. You don't need to have a soul for that.

"For to not exist in your case it means we must have thoughts."
No one who doesn't exist can't have thoughts thus one can't think to want to exist.