Are People Basically Good?

[ST88]

This is suggested by Corvus' Good Deeds topic.

Do humans have a generally decent nature and are sometimes corrupted by circumstance? Or are we influenced by instincts of self-preservation and do good only because it benefits ourselves?

[Cathar1950]

Icarus wrote:

Cathar1950,

The need for survival as a species would mean a collective consience

.

If the goal posts keep moving then what indicates with certainty that we must "grow beyond it". The statement is making a moral clarity to which there is no foundation

It might mean a collective conscience is needed or implied.
There may be one for all I know.
I have to agree there is no moral clarity or foundation to

grow beyond it

.
It was a judgement call.
But the goal posts do keep moving, if there are any.
Does any one know where the goal posts are?
The people in the Plane did they hit the goal post or just hit the inevitable?

[Icarus]

The people in the Plane did they hit the goal post or just hit the inevitable?

They came to the end of the final quarter, now its evaluation by instant replay time.

[QED]

Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Actually this was not too smart a thing for Jesus to say: I don't want some masochist chasing me down the street with a bullwhip

Now, if he had said "Do not do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you" I might find it easier to swallow that he was the big guy everyone claims he was.

Before I get it in the neck, is this an actual quote of his or did Curious make it up?

Yes this is an actual quote and thanks for your suggestion that I might actually invent scripture to make a point.

Sorry for the way that came out, but I really couldn't believe such a thing could have been recorded in the Bible given the obvious flaw it contains. The 'golden rule' is not the panacea many think, my example of a masochist chasing after others with a whip is just one example of the problem of ego that this rule contains. It depends on the ego of the person obeying the rule. This is compounded by the fact that the rule is proactive encouraging people to do unto others, and while this is just the sort of thing we might expect of 'good samaritans' going about their business, it is obvious that it is mired in subjectivity. I won't bother coming up with another example because they only seem to confuse the discussion. But I'm absolutely sure that we can all think of things that others might decide to 'do unto us' in the name of 'goodness' that we would not always appreciate.

I'm not the first to spot the obvious flaw in the golden rule, but what I didn't realise is that it was expounded by Jesus. Nevertheless it is widely held to be a naive philosophy.

The thing is QED, not everyone does claim that Jesus was God, the son of God or anything else. If you were to actually read the words of Jesus (which by your own admission you could not have done), you might be able to form a valid judgement of what he actually was.

If I thought I was reading a contemporary account of an actual person and his thoughts uncontaminated by the fantasy of others I would be interested. From what I can tell no such account exists. So it strikes me that what is available is a collective philosophy draw from many strands of human thought. A reading of general history and art provides a similar perspective without the religio-political agenda.

Your example of a masochist chasing you down the street with a bullwhip, while amusing, does miss the point. A masochist enjoys pain or humiliation and undergoes this by their own choice. If it becomes unpleasant to them they stop or they tell their sadistic counterpart to stop. To continue to chase you despite your obvious distress would not be doing to you that which they would have done to them would it?

I can see that you're not into S&M then But seriously, I've made the point that it is the proactive element of the golden rule that gives rise to the problem. 'Do not do things' to people is far safer than 'Do things to people' unless specifically asked.

[Curious]

Sorry for the way that came out, but I really couldn't believe such a thing could have been recorded in the Bible given the obvious flaw it contains. The 'golden rule' is not the panacea many think, my example of a masochist chasing after others with a whip is just one example of the problem of ego that this rule contains. It depends on the ego of the person obeying the rule. This is compounded by the fact that the rule is proactive encouraging people to do unto others, and while this is just the sort of thing we might expect of 'good samaritans' going about their business, it is obvious that it is mired in subjectivity. I won't bother coming up with another example because they only seem to confuse the discussion. But I'm absolutely sure that we can all think of things that others might decide to 'do unto us' in the name of 'goodness' that we would not always appreciate.
I'm not the first to spot the obvious flaw in the golden rule, but what I didn't realise is that it was expounded by Jesus. Nevertheless it is widely held to be a naive philosophy.

Of course I see your point and if this was the single utterance of Jesus then your point would be well made. If we take it in it's overall context it becomes infinitely more clear what is acceptable and what is not. The main difference with actively encouraging acts of kindness is that instead of minimising acts of "evil" by restriction of action, it teaches that action, not inaction, is the key to improvement of our environment. It does not say let people suffer in this world and let them find peace in the next but tells us to make what we can of this world. It tells us to watch each others backs. If that's naive, then please let me remain naive.

If I thought I was reading a contemporary account of an actual person and his thoughts uncontaminated by the fantasy of others I would be interested. From what I can tell no such account exists. So it strikes me that what is available is a collective philosophy draw from many strands of human thought. A reading of general history and art provides a similar perspective without the religio-political agenda.

I see you point again and this is the problem many have with such teachings. Of course there have been alterations and misrepresentations but it is possible in the most part to separate the wheat from the chaff. One way to overcome such a problem is to regard the teachings as just that, teachings. I don't say believe that Jesus is God or any such nonsense. I do not even say that Jesus was an actual historical figure. If you like, consider the story of Jesus a parable of parables. It is not the teacher that is important but the teaching, everything else is just dressing.

I can see that you're not into S&M then But seriously, I've made the point that it is the proactive element of the golden rule that gives rise to the problem. 'Do not do things' to people is far safer than 'Do things to people' unless specifically asked.

Then should we have left the tsunami victims to fend for themselves until each one physically asked for help. What about those who were unconscious, should they have been left to die while we awaited some form of invitation. Taken in context with the whole message, such examples of the whip-snapping pervert thinking he is doing God's will simply don't arise.
The main problem with reading the teachings is that people tend to split into two distinct groups, those who will believe everything and put huge emphasis on everything they hear and those, who before they read a single word, are adamant that there is nothing to learn and treat every utterance with absolute contempt. Try to read it and judge it on it's own merits. Religions come and go but if we are ever to make this world more than the rotting corpse it is at present then these teachings, at least in principle, will be among the foundations.

[QED]

I've made the point that it is the proactive element of the golden rule that gives rise to the problem. 'Do not do things' to people is far safer than 'Do things to people' unless specifically asked.

Then should we have left the tsunami victims to fend for themselves until each one physically asked for help. What about those who were unconscious, should they have been left to die while we awaited some form of invitation.

My bad. I should have left it as 'Do not do things' and not added the caveat 'unless specifically asked' as this has allowed you to interpret it as promoting inaction. The point I am really making is that we shouldn't do things to others that we would not like to have done to ourselves. This allows us to assume that we can give aid to preserve life and while this is still a subjective consideration, it is far more conservative than the liberal form of the statement 'Do unto others'. This latter form implies a proactive, interventionist approach (or even missionary) which is, in my opinion, a bad thing.

Taken in context with the whole message, such examples of the whip-snapping pervert thinking he is doing God's will simply don't arise.

Except for those on a mission?

The main problem with reading the teachings is that people tend to split into two distinct groups, those who will believe everything and put huge emphasis on everything they hear and those, who before they read a single word, are adamant that there is nothing to learn and treat every utterance with absolute contempt. Try to read it and judge it on it's own merits. Religions come and go but if we are ever to make this world more than the rotting corpse it is at present then these teachings, at least in principle, will be among the foundations.

Oh, I quite agree. Which is why I'm constantly on the look-out for ever greater wisdoms. I don't think mankind exhausted the stock of wisdom in the scriptures. That's why I've raised this quote from Jesus as subject matter for improvement. I hope such exercises are not considered to be too audacious.

[ST88]

Cathar1950,
The need for survival as a species would mean a collective consience.

Not necessarily. Each individual of a species has a survival instinct for h/hself & many times h/h offspring. Most times, the individual does not care about the survival of the species as a whole, but because s/he is a member of a particular species, it just so happens that the "gray eminence" of the species gets the benefit when the individual acts for h/h own survival. The way we think of "species" is rather specious in this context, because they are all individuals who happen to share some characteristics.

When we come to humans, we can actually reason out that survival of our species benefits each of us individually. By perpetuating the species, we are perpetuating our personal memories and legacy; having children, producing artworks & monuments, and contributing to scientific knowledge are all convenient ways to cheat death in the minds of others.

[Icarus]

ST88,

Each individual of a species has a survival instinct for h/hself & many times h/h offspring

This can not be backed up by science's demand for empirical proof. It can only be assumed through anamorphic reasoning.

When we come to humans, we can actually reason out...

We can always rationalize. Its what we humans do best.

By perpetuating the species, we are perpetuating our personal memories and legacy; ...

This main thought would mean a transfer of knowledge and experience. Which is denied by science as attainable. The rest of the statement would indicate a desire for an eternal soul. Where would you think that desire comes from? (that takes it a bit off subject though)

[Curious]

My bad. I should have left it as 'Do not do things' and not added the caveat 'unless specifically asked' as this has allowed you to interpret it as promoting inaction. The point I am really making is that we shouldn't do things to others that we would not like to have done to ourselves. This allows us to assume that we can give aid to preserve life and while this is still a subjective consideration, it is far more conservative than the liberal form of the statement 'Do unto others'. This latter form implies a proactive, interventionist approach (or even missionary) which is, in my opinion, a bad thing.

I suppose you could make a biased interpretation of anything if you were dumb enough. If you use the "don't do to others" rule you could have a surgeon who refuses to operate on others because he is scared of being operated on himself.
You might like to be left alone sometimes so by following this rule you should also respect the desires of others to be left alone. It doesn't mean harrass people for no good reason. It's meant as a moral guideline for thinking people not a program for mindless robots.

[ST88]

Each individual of a species has a survival instinct for h/hself & many times h/h offspring

This can not be backed up by science's demand for empirical proof. It can only be assumed through anamorphic reasoning.

Forgive me if I assumed that self-preservation was a given. You were arguing for a collective conscience in order for a species to survive. If such a style of "good" existed in the world then each individual would be promoting the species over itself. The good of the many, etc. But this isn't the case.

When we come to humans, we can actually reason out...

We can always rationalize. Its what we humans do best.

If you mean to equate "reason out" with "rationalize" then I'm afraid we will get nowhere. Especially because this was a part of your argument that I was agreeing with. Because many humans see the need for survival of humans -- in general -- as a "good", they actively try to make this a better world for their children. I would argue that this is not an instinct, but an approach that requires reason.

By perpetuating the species, we are perpetuating our personal memories and legacy; ...

This main thought would mean a transfer of knowledge and experience. Which is denied by science as attainable. The rest of the statement would indicate a desire for an eternal soul. Where would you think that desire comes from? (that takes it a bit off subject though)

It is only those who believe in a soul that could make such a statement. I was talking about legacy, not actual eternal life. I'm trying to show that individual action can contribute to the collective, even though there is no collective action that spurs on the individual.

[Icarus]

ST88,
I think we missed each other somewhere a post of two back.