What's new

Is human nature inherently good or evil? (1 Viewer)

Philip Hamm

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 23, 1999
Messages
6,874
For many of us, it will be very difficult to delve into this conversation without introducing religion. This is one of the fundamental questions of most every religion on earth. Due to the rules of this forum only non-religious based conversation can be forwarded here.

I respectfully suggest that this thread be closed.
 

Rob_J

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
136
Good!
...at least from one's own point of view. Someone else's view of your nature might be that of evil, but it's only how you perceive it. But that's just my opinion :)
 

Max Leung

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2000
Messages
4,611
Well, before this thread gets closed, I would like to point out significant findings in the scientific study of human nature:

Neuroscience has made some very important discoveries in the study of the chemical processes and the neural layout of the human mind. (A few months ago, Scientific American had a very nice Special Issue exclusively on the latest research into the human mind). The introduction of very powerful mind-altering drugs, prescribed for the treatment of mental illness, have provided us with incredible insight into how the mind works.

Advancements in brain-scanning technology (smaller, more powerful, more comfortable for the subject under study) have shown that most humans process input and perform problem-solving in specific regions of the brain. For example, men perform 3D manipulations in their head in a different region in the brain than women, who have processing dispersed in a wider area, implying that women have to work harder at the problem. And of course, men have a harder time at problems that women have been known to be superior at (multitasking during conversations is one example).

Interestingly, men and women both possess equivalent "cheat-detecting" skills. Humans seem to have evolved specific moral and ethical neural machinery. When a problem is expressed as a simple mathematical problem (abstract), subjects have a more difficult time than if the problem is expressed as a moral dilemma, very much akin to haggling with a merchant over the price of an expensive carpet. And if I recall correctly, this neural machinery has been isolated to a particular region in the brain. Is it possible that sociopaths may have a "defective" moral machinery?

So, if our ability to make moral and ethical judgements are indeed innate, then it would go a long ways in explaining why certain taboos are universal in all human societies. Incest is one excellent example. There are NO societies in all of recorded history that have practiced widespread incest. If any ever tried, they did not survive for the obvious reasons of genetic self-destruction!

The tribal nature of humanity is another universal human nature. Humans have this amazing ability to associate with a nearly infinite number of groups: Home theater member, Canadian citizen, avid sushi fan, industrial music lover, Canadian patriot (part-time), political party supporter, OAR supporter, home-owner, card-carrying beer drinker and number one fan, supporter of science, human being, and inhabitant of Earth. A person can be all of these at the same time, with a specific set of affiliations active at any one particular time. Witness the banding together of people across the world after the September 11 attacks.
 

Max Leung

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2000
Messages
4,611
(I'm not done yet. ;) )
Now the ultimate question:
Why sex?
George Michael aside, there is compelling evidence for the reason why most of the larger lifeforms on this planet practice it. To quote the back cover of Matt Ridley's The Red Queen:
Why Sex? Dandelions don't it; top minnows don't do it; and the tiny freshwater creature called a bdelloid rotifer definitely doesn't do it, since there are no males in the species. But human beings come in two sexes, which mate in spite of all the trouble that goes along with it.
...sex is humanity's best strategy for outwitting its constantly mutating internal predators.
We have sex in a bid to hold the parasites at bay. To keep the parasites, like viruses, malaria, bacteria, and other nasties from killing us off before we can successfully mate and raise our offspring again.
It has been shown that organisms fare better in a highly parasitic environment if they practice sex. Organisms that reproduce merely by asexual reproduction are at a serious disadvantage in such environments, as they cannot quickly evolve (or exchange DNA with a more hardy fellow organism, if you prefer) the ability to fight off these parasites. Now, it is true that asexual organisms can reproduce much faster, as they don't have to wait around for a suitable partner to come around, and they also have full control over WHEN they reproduce.
So, what does this have to do with human nature? Everything.
In an animal as large as a human being, it must fend off a huge host of parasites: that want to burrow into our skin and lodge themselves into our organs siphoning nutrients; that want to chase us down and suck our blood (infecting us with a parasite of its own! West Nile anyone?); that want to kill us quickly and simultaneously liquifying are organs to help spread to other hapless humans (Ebola!). Sex is our only natural long-term defense against parasites. Consider sickle-cell anemia: A person who carries this gene along with another 'normal' gene from a parent will not be susceptible to malaria! A very advantageous attribute that will guarantee the spread of the gene in malaria-infested regions (with the unfortunate but "acceptable" side-effect of a proportion of offspring carrying a dominant form which gives rise to full-blown sickle cell anemia).
Going back to the original question: Sex has an incredibly powerful effect on human behavior. Both sexes develop an intuitive sense of identifying healthy, parasite-free mates. A man or woman with perfect complexion and toned body free of malformities is likely to be free from parasites (such a person in a hunter/gatherer society would be a rare and sought-after mate, all other things being equal). Such a person likely has a very robust immune system, and would likely live long enough to help raise offspring. But it isn't all about physical perfection...the human mind itself can be an indicator of fitness. A woman that is intelligent enough to apply makeup can make herself just as desirable as the "perfect" woman, by taking advantage of the man's propensity of noticing perfect skin, or perhaps weave fables to keep the youths from taking undue risks. The man himself can demonstrate his parasite-free physique by performing great physical feats (lifting heavy rocks, flexing his bicepts), or alternatively, invent a tool that helps the tribe survive the winter, or take a leadership role (politics!).
The search for the best possible mate for either sex is in itself a vicious race. When men catch on to the fact that all the women wear makeup, they look for other attributes (perfect legs, big breasts). So what do women do in response? Breast implants! :D When women wise up to men's philandering natures, they stop believing in men's promises of fidelity and look deeper ("Is he always kind and considerate to others as well as me?" "Does he look into my eyes when he talks to me?").
(Men's talent for war is another topic that I may revisit later, but not in this post...:) )
Of course, it is a never-ending race against the parasites, like the Red Queen in Through the Looking Glass who keeps running but never goes anywhere. You can never beat the parasites, but you had better not let them beat you! And hence the human invention of science...genetic engineering, vaccines, and unprecedented levels of hygiene have upped the ante in our battle against the parasites. The stakes are extremely high now...vaccine-resistant HIV, prion diseases, antibiotic-resistant microbes, the parasites are catching up. Millions of lives are at stake. Are you ready?
 

Max Leung

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2000
Messages
4,611
Hence the word "seemed". "Seem" is not equal to "did". Of course, researchers are already studying this phenomenon to be sure. Animals, particularly primates and the great apes, have been observed to display behavior that could be interpreted as evaluating moral/ethical dillemmas (should the youthful chimp attack another chimp's "wife", who is alone foraging, to steal food from her while her "husband" is out with the rest of the boys? Watch as the chimp hesitates, hovering around the area while he decides...should he risk it?).

The interested HTF member should try to pick up the Scientific American Special Edition issue:The Hidden Mind, Volume 12, Number 1. It should be on display until the end of this month. Good stuff in there about the latest discoveries in brain studies, plus good overviews on well-known subjects, such as behavioral differences between men and women, emotions and memory in the brain, speculation on why we dream (based on what we do know occurs in the dream-state), the neurobiology of anxiety and fear, and most important of all: What we do not yet know, and what avenues of research are available to us.
 

Max Leung

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2000
Messages
4,611
Here's an interesting article:
Healthy Eating to Reduce Crime?
An amusing quote from one of the comments:
People with an explosive temper may be suffering from a brain disorder, according to research. US psychologists say violent acts such as wife beating could be caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. Doctors have long known that some types of head injury lead to outbursts of aggression. But this is the first time that uncontrollable anger has been linked to a problem in the way the brain functions.
Once again, I stress how environmental conditions are crucial to our behavioral development. Our DNA may encode how we react to a given situation, but it never has the last word. However, the range of human behavior is bound by limitations encoded in our genes, much like how the functions of a computer are bounded by the size of its internal memory and the speed of its processor.
The research into human nature is a quest to know our limitations.
 

Paul_D

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2001
Messages
2,048
Here's my take:
The soul is good, the body is evil. You do the Math.
Thank you Andrew Marvell. :)
 

Bill Catherall

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 1, 1997
Messages
1,560
All I know is, "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia; and only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against Max Leung, when human nature is the topic of discussion!" :D
 

Jared_B

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
580
Neither. Both.
When the question is viewed externally, it is obvious that there is no good or evil. These terms are ideas created by humans that have no place outside of human society. Nature knows no good, and no evil, only survival. It is a common thing for humans to try and separate themselves from nature. They wish to prove that they are the superior species. Since humans are relatively weak physically, they must do this intellectually, emotionally and spiritually.
Animals, particularly primates and the great apes, have been observed to display behavior that could be interpreted as evaluating moral/ethical dilemmas (should the youthful chimp attack another chimp's "wife", who is alone foraging, to steal food from her while her "husband" is out with the rest of the boys? Watch as the chimp hesitates, hovering around the area while he decides...should he risk it?).
I disagree. What the researchers are observing is the decision-making process, not a moral dilemma. The chimp knows he is hungry. He knows that if he doesn't eat, he will become weak and possibly die. He also knows that the food belongs to the female chimp, who also happens to have an older mate. He knows that if he steals the food and gets caught, the mate will probably kick his ass. If the chimp steals the food, and avoids any conflict with the mate, he will not feel sad. In fact, he will probably be more prone to steal food again knowing he could get away with it. It's the thought of the ass-kicking that has the chimp hesitating.
Since animals can't relate their thoughts to us, we will never be able to settle this discussion. However, I can guarantee you that when my dog pees on the carpet, she does not feel bad for doing it. The only reason why she doesn't do it is because she fears the ass-kicking (being put in her kennel) she'll get if she does. :D
 

Artur Meinild

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 10, 2000
Messages
1,294
I agree with Dennis: It's not as simple as that.
However, I do think that human nature *in some aspects* is basically egoistic and careless...
One example is attitude towards nature. Couldn't humans care a little more about the nature, and don't just cut down the trees and clear the forest? At least make sure that every cleared area gets replanted...
Another example is war and firearms. It *is* in the human nature to kill each other if it comes to that - but is it really necessary?
 

Max Leung

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2000
Messages
4,611
However, I can guarantee you that when my dog pees on the carpet, she does not feel bad for doing it.
A relative of mine has a dog that, most of the time, is conscious of her misdeeds and acts very guilty when she does something bad. Avoids eye contact, sneaks around the house, tries to keep a low-profile, and (this is hilarious) she will actually attempt to suck up to you! Of course, her deeds are always discovered! It is quite funny to see, she seems so human sometimes. :)
Another thing to consider: Elephants mourn their dead, sometimes for days, with much bellowing in lamentation. They will also periodically visit the bones of their favored dead, in some cases returning every year for several years. It's quite a remarkable scene.
Also, there is the political intrigue played by chimpanzees, jockeying for position to become the alpha male, playing off each other. Befriending a fellow male in the hopes of reciprocation later. And the betrayal afterwards and the inevitable fallout (distrust, shunning by the once-receptive females). And amazingly, the reforging of the alliance when things cool off.
 

Jared_B

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
580
A relative of mine has a dog that, most of the time, is conscious of her misdeeds and acts very guilty when she does something bad. Avoids eye contact, sneaks around the house, tries to keep a low-profile, and (this is hilarious) she will actually attempt to suck up to you! Of course, her deeds are always discovered! It is quite funny to see, she seems so human sometimes.
My dog does the exact same thing! Now, whether or not she actually feels guilty or not, I can't say for sure. It is very possible that dogs/animals do feel guilt when they do something wrong, but it can't really be proven.
 

Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 7, 1999
Messages
901
I second Phil's suggestion that this thread should be closed. The elimination of any spiritual basis for argument on a subject that is inherently spiritual in nature is aggravating to the many members of this Forum who would have a lot to say on the subject--except that our arguments are forbidden here. This thread has me all riled up, and I can't respond to it.

I could also argue that approaching this subject from a purely non-religious perspective is actually espousing the dogma of materialism. I find that incredibly offensive, and there are Forum members who agree with me.
 

John Gates

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 18, 2001
Messages
370
I agree completely with Andrew's post. I have lots to say on the subject, but my answer would be directly opposed to forum rules. I agree it should be closed.

John G
 

Jared_B

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
580
Aside from the Darwin posts, I don't see any reason why this thread should be closed. There are always topics in AH that are highly debatable. It's been shown that SUVs can't even be discussed without getting ugly. I think this thread has done a lot better than some of the car threads.

They key to any thread's survival is showing some restraint when posting if the topic is aggravating or annoying to you. I applaud you guys for not turning this into a religious discussion.

Phylisophy is something that can be discussed without religion or politics, and I personally have enjoyed reading and participating in the discussion. Please don't ruin it for everyone, just because your opinions would bring religion into the discussion.

I have lots to say on the subject, but my answer would be directly opposed to forum rules. I agree it should be closed.
I also think your arguments (referring to Andrew and John) are unfair. If a member can't respond without introducing political and/or religious comments into the thread, then they should simply not respond. That's the way it is with every thread on the HTF.

It sounds very selfish to me that you're asking for a thread to be closed, just because you can't participate.
 

Max Leung

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2000
Messages
4,611
Much can be said about human nature outside the realm of politics and religion (which have had much to say about it over the last few thousand years, so what's a hundred years of scientific inquiry?). I'm merely pointing out an alternative view that most people are not aware of, so that they can decide for themselves. At the very least, I hope to inform.
The non-scientific views of human nature are abundant and available everywhere. Go visit the bookstore, there are thousands of books on that subject, while only a handful take a scientific, evidence-based approach (most bookstores just don't stock these).
I'm sure that many of you (hi there lurkers! ;) ) would disagree with the information I presented here, but I don't mind that, so long as it challenges you to think about what it means to be human.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,796
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top