Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.
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..

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

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.

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.

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.

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.
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...
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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...