Most people are fundamentally decent

[DJKillaQueen]

Anne Frank was fourteen when she wrote that and I think it's written from a place of maturity. Yes most of us understand universal bad from good. But I think most people (apart from the selfish and bad themselves) would know selfishness for example, when they saw it. And alos how perfect does a person have to be to be good? That's a good question too.

[KalamityKel]

citizenED Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Are you mixing in the wrong company, KK?

I have considered this on various occassions... ;-)

[????]

Fuck me is everything so black and white? - most people want to be loved and admired and secure and needed, and a reasonable part of that is a selfish need but enlightened self-interest shouldn't be knocked and is the reason most people are decent. Other stuff from our our own compulsions to how we deal with ther crap and great bits life throws at us, how much responsibility we take on for our own situation (either too much or too little in most cases IMO) etc get in the way of all of this. If you divide people into good/bad, selfish/unselfish you're being very simplistic. Most peoople have a bit of all of them but the majority realise that trying our best to be decent is broadly in their self interest..

[Ridgley]

Peckhamrose you made a very interesting point regarding your mum?s having racist points of view I think a lot of people especially from the older generation due to there up bring and ignorance were like that and some are still like that.

I found when I was growing up mum had a dislike for Africans which I think this is a common thing between West Indians and Africans in general but when she started a new job a few years back she was working with a Ghanaian lady and know they are the best of friends

[Brendan]

Me, I am currently indecent.

[????]

My grandad read the Sun most of his life and I never heard him say anything racist, so simplistic stereotypes work in many ways....

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Ooh, glad to hear it Brendan!

[Fabricio the Guido]

Interesting post. I could talk rubbish as well all day but I like to know what I am talking about. Or, at least, pretend. Curious thought about Anne Frank, would she have changed her view if she had survived the camp? Remember that the view she held was when she was still in hiding and most of her family, still alive. How wouldher view of of human nature have changed?

My own conclusion is rather like this - I think you can be nice to strangers. It makes you a better person.

"Consequently, personal relationships and morality are not at odds in the ways many philosophers have supposed. Rather, they are mutually supportive. Experience and involvement in close relationships will enhance our interest in and sympathy for the plight of others. Conversely, concern about the plight of the stranger will help us develop the traits necessary for close personal relationships."

http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/morality.htm

Here is the Hobbesian view of human nature. Some nasty poeple subscribe to this view. I tend to think otherwise.

Human Nature

Human beings are physical objects, according to Hobbes, sophisticated machines all of whose functions and activities can be described and explained in purely mechanistic terms. Even thought itself, therefore, must be understood as an instance of the physical operation of the human body. Sensation, for example, involves a series of mechanical processes operating within the human nervous system, by means of which the sensible features of material things produce ideas in the brains of the human beings who perceive them. (Leviathan I 1)

Human action is similarly to be explained on Hobbes's view. Specific desires and appetites arise in the human body and are experienced as discomforts or pains which must be overcome. Thus, each of us is motivated to act in such ways as we believe likely to relieve our discomfort, to preserve and promote our own well-being. (Leviathan I 6) Everything we choose to do is strictly determined by this natural inclination to relieve the physical pressures that impinge upon our bodies. Human volition is nothing but the determination of the will by the strongest present desire.

Hobbes nevertheless supposed that human agents are free in the sense that their activities are not under constraint from anyone else. On this compatibilist view, we have no reason to complain about the strict determination of the will so long as we are not subject to interference from outside ourselves. (Leviathan II 21)

As Hobbes acknowledged, this account of human nature emphasizes our animal nature, leaving each of us to live independently of everyone else, acting only in his or her own self-interest, without regard for others. This produces what he called the "state of war," a way of life that is certain to prove "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (Leviathan I 13) The only escape is by entering into contracts with each other?mutually beneficial agreements to surrender our individual interests in order to achieve the advantages of security that only a social existence can provide. (Leviathan I 14) "

But notice the role that the social contract plays for Hobbes? People still have to come together. Their motives might be suspect but the need for others cannot be denied. But who are these others? How do we select and distinguish between them? How can we justify differences in treatment?

PS: is it always necessary to quotes one's sources when posting on here? In theory, can I make up any old farrago of nonsense and pass it off as "commonsense" "opinion" "fact"? it does make for a very laborious conversation if I have to have a reference for every comment I make. Just saying.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Haha, you can't go expecting people to actually write sourcable facts on here Fabrico, how will the ED parvenus ever manage to justify their views?

[Ridgley]

It is Friday afternoon, give me a black and white world please not treki talk

[DJKillaQueen]

Loving your post Fabricio.

[Keef]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Anne Frank was fourteen when she wrote that

Exactly my point. Plus, 14 then was not like 14 today.

[DJKillaQueen]

How do you know? Some teenagers are extremely bright and sharp. Utter nonsense to suggest that ALL 14 years olds are too 'young' to say/ write anything of worth.

[*Bob*]

But let's face it, most* of them are just locked in the bathroom cracking one off 24/7

*Anne Frank excepted, possibly..

[Keef]

Fuck me DJ, you do take everything seriously don't you. Besides, I never ever said a 14 year old couldn't write anything of worth. Those are your words, that you're trying to shove in to my mouth.

[Belle]

I don't think anybody would suggest Anne Frank didn't say anything of worth - I read what Keef said (though not wanting to put words in other posters' mouths obviously) as being more that children have a different, perhaps more simplistic, view of the world, even those in captivity. The really interesting (and terribly poignant)thing about her diary is how much of it is normal teenage preoccupations: family tensions, dreams of the future, the boy next door.

ETA cross posted with Keef.

[Keef]

That was basically my point. Admittedly you put it a lot better.

[Dickensman]

Several years ago when the petrol shortage was going on, people were fighting in the forecourts.

Over petrol.

I think we seem to be civil only when it suits us. wrote PeckhamRose

When Ikea opened a new branch in Edmonton,

a number of the people queueing resorted to fighting and stabbing one another, because they thought someone was pushing in front of them.

We are civil when things are going well for us,

but if there wasn't any food in the shops for a week or two you would soon see the savagery of desperate people.

Civilization is a very thin veneer.

[*Bob*]

How many number of people in the queue for Ikea stabbed each other?

Was it 'one', by any chance?

[Atticus]

it only takes the likes of big freeze similar to what we had the other week to witness the real human condition come to the fore.

All queueing etiquette for buses and trains, out the window, every man, woman for themselves, quite Darwinesque.

[Belle]

Equally, I remember being in King's during the snowstorm of Jan/Feb 2009 with my newborn son. Many people were unable to travel yet I met doctors and nurses who walked miles to get to work, and helped each other out with everything (e.g. consultants doing jobs they wouldn't normally do) because they were having to operate on a skeletal staff.

[*Bob*]

I'm sure there must be better examples out there of man's inhumanity to man than light scuffles over flat-pack furniture and a seat on the 37.

[Keef]

During the snow, a neighbour who I'd never spoken to, offered me use of his shovel, when he saw me struggling to clear the front of the house. I then did the 2 houses next door, both having older people living in them. Unfortunately, the woman one side took this as permission to start knocking on my door asking me to do things. You give an inch...

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Lol, that's why we leave em to it!

[citizenED]

Fundamentally decent suggests that, at heart, people are good. It doesn't mean that they are saint-like at all times. I'd say that in extreme conditions you might get very poor behaviour, but also very good behaviour. Think of the people who helped to hide the Frank family.