Nature of Man vs Liberal do-gooder, WTF?

Man by his nature is a savage and evil beast. When his back is against the wall he will kill. He might even kill for pleasure, or an unessential material gain, such as a TV. To coin a phrase this is "the nature of the beast".

However, we have a growing and ever vocal section of the human population that have become known as the 'liberal do-gooders'. These people want equality and fairness for everyone. These people believe that equality extends to everyone without exception, so prisoners, have the same rights as the law abiding (to a large degree), i.e right to vote, right to a modern plumbing system in their cell etc. There are a vast number of other do-gooder examples.......

So on the one hand, man is a savage beast, yet we have the liberal do-gooder, who appear to be the total opposite of the savage beast.

What is happening here?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Um civilisation, ethics, morality

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Although you seem to want to portray it as a simple matter of polar extremes, it is not. There is a continuum between those extremes, along which the vast majority of humankind is located. Some are further towards one side than the other.

Most people, if they think about it at all, would favor equality of opportunity - even if that is almost never realized in practical terms. At one polar extreme on that issue are those who beleive in absolute equality of outcome - which is only obtainable at the cost of dragging everyone down to the same least common denominator. Others, on the other extreme, would argue that society, in all its manifestations, must operate under a (misapplied) Darwinian paradigm of the survival of the fittest - at the expense of the less fit.

Fortunately, most people are somewhere in the middle.

Rich

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Rich, indeed most are in-between. But are we all the same deep-down? Evolution at its most basic is a very simple formula. However, society bring into play many social constructs that appear to govern or even dictate who the modern human is.

However, if we take away the rules (whatever they are) that have transformed the so called animals instinct, into the liberal do-gooder, would we all be the same?

Is the the raw animal instinct still within us, or has it be socialised out of us?

 

I think people are generally pretty good, but also incredibly selfish and lazy.

It should be noted that liberal do-gooders actually like to use violence, the violence of the State. Being incredibly selfish and lazy, they see no inherent incoherency in using force to take from one person and give to another person. Which I find somewhat childish TTYTT.

 

Prisoners don't get to vote, they don't have freedom, indoor plumbing isn't really a problem for a modern society, is it? All the prisoners would die from disease before their terms were up if we made them use buckets or something.

 

I think that humans, all humans(and all life on this planet in general), are extremely selfish, but that this selfishness can oftentimes lead to the most altruistic actions imaginable.

 

We all have similar drives. But those drives are not the same strength in everyone and we do not express them in the same way.

I mean, you could claim that all cars are the same deep down - they have wheels, you can steer them etc. But there's a tremendous variation in the details.

 

Hmm. I think that, historically, the greatest of those "liberal do-gooders" (i.e. those who preach an end to violence, love for one's neighbor, equality, human rights etc) traditionally _oppose_ state violence. Look at Jesus, Locke, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Mandela etc. Indeed, they are often rejected, ridiculed, imprisoned or even killed by the governments for their anti-government positions. Hard to claim they are supporters of the violence used against them.

 

That statement might have been applicable when humans were still "uncivilized" but once they became civilized they tried their best to be more tolerant of each other. Humans had to band together to track down food, grow food and build things in which to live. You can't be a savage and work with each other because you'd lose the trust of each other and soon your civilization would decay away. Only with cooperation and understanding can humans try to evolve and have evolved into a civilization which helps each other in order for everyone to benefit from their endeavors.

 

Cosmic, I agree with you, society has manipulated man to become civilised for his own good.

As you state banding together to gather food has been vital. But what happens when there isn't enough food to go around? What happens when cooperation is no longer the best option? Or when people no longer believe its the best option? Will we revert back to the savage animal we can be? Remember WWII was only 60 years ago.

 

You teach a child to kill from a young age, and I believe the child will revel in it. The power of (hu)man is adaptability. We can be programmed. There will always be variety, sure. But if one needs to kill, one will.

Most higher-concepts are learnt through lingual exchanges' interactivity with the physical? (I know this is vague).

The pressures of the world are in constant flux. Create conditions where people can be at peace, and they will generally do so. Create conditions where survival is hard, then conflict will assuredly follow.

We adapt to the ecosystem at large.

 

Uni thats my thinking as well. I think we have been lured into a false sense of security by the heavily manipulated society in which we currently live. The pinnacle of this situation being the do-gooder.

So we now have a world in which we have forgotten the true nature of man. But this comfortable world has all been false. Its been created by money that doesn't exist. But the money has run-out, will this trip man back into his savage ways? Remember expectation are extremely high in modern society.

 

I do not agree. The nature of man is all around us. Every concept invented IS the nature of man. The story is not fixed to its beginnings, middles or ends. The beauty of man is adaptability to not be fixed to one certain nature. Man's nature is to adapt to the environment. An island without predators suited floriensis, and it was a natural environment.

I could reverse and say that the TRUE nature of man will only be realised once he removes starvation and violence from the world, or when he starts to genetically reengineer himself.

The money will never run out. The world is full of resource. Atoms are the token of the future. And we aren't going to run out in a hurry.

I would recommend a reduction in one's pessimism, for then we all as part of the wave will be able to build a future that has legs.

 

You have the liberal viewpoint all wrong. The intent is not to provide a society in which one doesn't take responsibility for one's actions, but to hold back the forces of corruption that would keep one from making an honest living. We already know that people can be bad, and we have a justice system to take care of that. But most people don't want to be a criminal, most people want to be able to provide for themselves and their families by working hard.

 

Those people are in no way representative of a liberal do-gooder**. One could just as easily say they are Libertarians because they fought for freedom from the State. Your average liberal do-gooder, say someone who supports welfare, medicare, social security, etc... MUST use the power of the State against the Citizens because that's the only way for them to achieve their ends.

None of those people you listed did this.


** Think about what a 'liberal do-gooder" is.
* Jesus didn't even exist for Christ's sake

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That can be done through Law. No one is advocating anarchy. What's important is freedom. To freely exchange services with one another. State run programs use the violence of the State as force against the individual.

A speed limit is the Law. No one is forcing you to drive on the road, but, if you choose to do so, then you'll have to obey the speed limit. That's a lot different from forcing YOU to pay for the roads to be built in the first place - even if you do not use them, THAT is State violence. IF you choose to build and use them, then you can get together and build them and charge for their use (say 1 penny a mile) and enforce the proper speed limit on your roads that people freely choose to do business on. At the end of the day we have roads. One through volunteerism and another through State violence.

 

There is no one that doesn't benefit from the roads.

 

The same could be argued about trains, shipping, airlines, airports, ports, railroads, television, internet provision, etc.. etc.. etc.. smartphones, computes, agriculture, etc...

 

Sure, go ask the homeless, the beggars and the bums. Ask the starving and neglected children. Go ask the Inuit fishermen in Alaska.

I sure would love to live in your sheltered world.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!