Humans are bastards. But so is all life on Earth, so that's OK

@Alex: I dunno, I had a major crush on Darth Vader when I was a kid.

Edit: Aaaaaand pagetopper.

edited 28th Dec '11 1:03:09 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Humans are many things. Petty, short-sighted, selfish, irrational, spiteful, illogical. But bastardly (or, more generally, evil)? No. Our situational evilness comes from the aforementioned bad traits, and is not an inherent trait in and of itself.

Evilness is the product of other character faults, not a character fault all by its lonesome.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

Don't forget arrogant. :p

ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ ᓈᒻᒪᔪᐃᑦᑐᖅ

@Zersk The default of humanity, as has been implied in this thread previously, is self-interest which gives much more leeway to being a bastard than it does to someone who sincerely commits good actions.

There's no justice in the world and there never was~

I understand that. :3 But that doesn't really mean that humans are inherently bastards then, does it? :/

ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ ᓈᒻᒪᔪᐃᑦᑐᖅ

@Zersk No, but they're not inherently "good" either.

There's no justice in the world and there never was~

Well, yeah. :o Humans are humans. :3

ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᖅ ᓈᒻᒪᔪᐃᑦᑐᖅ

Morality is a product of socialization.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

And humans suck.

There's no justice in the world and there never was~

Yes, but does it really matter, if the end result is still that in certain situations we are predisposed to act like bastards?

Some of the traits that make us bastards are inherent. So, yes, inherent bastards is what we are

edited 28th Dec '11 1:16:25 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Certainly. If we were inherently bastardly, there would be no fixing the problem. However, we are not. We are inherently selfish. And selfishness can be manipulated for good things, and thus "fixed," or rather, neutralized.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

It can. If humans weren't fixable, they wouldn't be bastards.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

It was an example. The point is that we remember and love the heroes of stories, especially the selfless.

As for actions, I hardly think anyone here has the raw data to suggest some kind of default moral status for humanity as a whole. This is what always irks me about discussions on human nature. Everyone takes their own biased observations as a legitimate sample rather than as the unfocused experience it is.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

As an eventual sociologist, I laugh at everyone who thinks they can prove an inherent moral disposition in humanity.

Morality is situational and a product of socialization.

The only things that are objectively provable with regards to human nature are altruism versus selfishness, and so far, most data points to humanity being much more selfish than it is altruistic.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

I am not claiming that humans as a whole are bastards because someone acted like a bastard to me, so it's not a claim based on personal experience. It is as OP said - humans have an inherent, natural and perfectly understandable tendency to act like bastards in certain circumstances, just like all other animals. However, humans know better, so when they act of these perfectly natural tendencies, they do not have an excuse other animals have

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Such tendencies only exist when there's a lack of resources, however. Put us in post-scarcity and I guarantee you that moral standards will skyrocket, although not all conflict will be removed.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

Highly unlikely. Those with power when the technology for post-scarcity is invented will attempt to hoard it for their own gain. Those without power will revolt over it. Things will be unlikely to go well.

Technology ultimately will not change baseline human tendencies. Your sociology doesn't hold up, buddy.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

What you say is true; already, large companies are investing in renewable energy sources so they can impose artificial scarcity.

I wasn't talking about that, however. I was talking about free post-scarcity to illustrate how most human conflict is derived from scarcity of resources.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

You are correct in that, historically, much human conflict is derived from economic issues, from scarcity (resource wars) to wealth imbalances (revolutions) to ideological conflicts (the Cold War).

However, even if you were to remove materialism, humanity would simply shift to ideals and principles as a source for conflict.

Four of the biggest influences on society—technology, economic systems, ideals and principles, and tradition—are also the four biggest causes for conflict. Take away the most important for any given society, and they will default to the next most important one to derive conflict from.

An analogy can be drawn to gun control. You can take away all the guns in a country and people will still kill each other. They will simply move on to the second most efficient method of doing so, with guns as the most efficient method of doing so.

edited 28th Dec '11 1:56:14 AM by Flyboy

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

True, again, but that's still a reduction in conflict. Ideology would be the biggest one remaining, but resources and economics strike me as by far the biggest causes of strife between peoples. Ideological disputes needn't end in violence or general bastardry (after all, nothing is gained from such things unless all members of an ideological group are eliminated), but economic and resource-based conflicts are a direct matter of technological progression and survival — well worth fighting over, even to the death.

edited 28th Dec '11 2:01:13 AM by MadassAlex

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

That assumes that post-scarcity is a permanent thing.

We could always fuck it up. Humanity has long held the capacity to destroy ourselves. Hell, since 1948, we've had it at the touch of a button (well... actually, several buttons; I think keys are involved somewhere in there as well).

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

Possible, but the West has continued to progress socially and technologically at a steady pace since the establishment of Charlemagne as Emperor in the late 8th century. There have been arguable slumps, but we've been doing well — and so has much of the world. I don't recall a failure that could compare to wasting an established post-scarcity world.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

We currently, and have for a very long time, teeter on the brink of total collapse, as well.

Humanity is very much so "one step forward, two steps back" about things, and all the West's advancement has come at the unacceptably horrendous cost of development everywhere else, most markedly in Africa.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

Value judgements are meaningless without a more universal reference point. Thus, the general morality of humans, as a species, cannot be judged. Humans (as an abstract concept) are just that - humans, not "good" or "evil".

All in all, humans are fundamentally self-interested, and morals are taught. Empathy, however, is innate, and its strength varies from person to person.

The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.

^^ Only from the 17th century onwards. Before that, colonialism doesn't exist and conflicts external to Europe were limited to the Middle East and North Africa — plenty advanced enough to defend themselves on a fair playing field. That's near enough one thousand years of progression unrelated to stepping on minority peoples.

Furthermore, the world has been on the brink since forever. Rome fell, medieval Christians thought they were living in the end times, so on and so forth. Chances are that the world will not fail. Current constructs we rely on might, but ultimately our lives are built on efficient food production and access to clean water. As long as industrial technology remains in tact, we can't get blasted further back than the 19th century. Even if it does, we don't have to revert to Stone Age methods.

Calamities might happen and things might change, but to destroy all this progression would require simultaneous destruction of the majority of the human population.

Also, ^.

edited 28th Dec '11 2:17:19 AM by MadassAlex

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch