Are people good or bad?

[Armin]

Yep, the age old question in philosphy. What do you think, do people generally have good or bad instinct?

[Newby]

Bad instincts.

That is why we have laws.

[Armin]

I think that it'd be neutral instincts. Your character and personality is shaped by either morals, or the lack of morals; if you grow up in a system with laws and good morals, you'll end up being a good person, but if you get raised in a chaos without any laws, your animal instincts would kick in.

[Newby]

Not true. Society today is RUN by laws and promotion of good morals, and how many drunk teenagers do you see stumbling around on a Friday evening at the movies?

[Armin]

Our morals aren't as strong as they used to be, but some are still there, which is why you don't see any 12 year old crack whores. Also, this happens when you throw education in the picture as well, so let's keep that out for now, we'll throw it in later on in the discussion.

[Newby]

How about 12 year old alcoholics? (Mangix )

I say that laws attempt to shape human nature from being bad to being good by inspiring fear that punishment will occur if you do something bad, but some kids aren't scared by idle threats until something happens.

[iago]

If people are naturally bad, where did law/society come from?

I don't think people are good, or bad.  They're (we're) jus selfish.  We want what's best for ourselves, and we'll do whatever we can to get it.  Some of us do what's best in the long term (studying, religion), and some do what's best in the short term (drinking, drugs, crime).  But in either case, they're doing what they perceive to be the action that benefits themselves the most. 

What about charity?  Or helping others? People give to charity and help others because it makes them feel good.  That's still selfish. 

Read: The Prince by Nicholas Machievelli.  I believe that it deals with this issue in depth. 

[Armin]

If people are naturally bad, where did law/society come from?

I don't think people are good, or bad.  They're (we're) jus selfish.  We want what's best for ourselves, and we'll do whatever we can to get it.  Some of us do what's best in the long term (studying, religion), and some do what's best in the short term (drinking, drugs, crime).  But in either case, they're doing what they perceive to be the action that benefits themselves the most. 

What about charity?  Or helping others? People give to charity and help others because it makes them feel good.  That's still selfish. 

That's a great point, which leads me to a topic a bit more in-depth: If people are neither good nor bad, yet selfish, what would be the best type of government to fit people? Be creative, mess with already made governments, or just totally make up your own. This is also where education comes into the picture; should it be a part of your government?

[Ergot]

OOO... World History stuff... Tubula Rasa !

[MyndFyre]

Our morals aren't as strong as they used to be, but some are still there, which is why you don't see any 12 year old crack whores. Also, this happens when you throw education in the picture as well, so let's keep that out for now, we'll throw it in later on in the discussion.

Sarge: I represent the past, where things cost less and people knew the value of a hard day's work, but they only lived to be 28 years old.
Simmons: And I am the future, where people have no morals and no emotions, but we have a bunch of kick-ass gadgets.
Grif: And I'm the future, which sucks; we have nothing cool, and also no morals.

Thomas Hobbes:
Everyone is self-interested.  Prior to forming society, we exist in a "state of nature," where all individuals are at war with all other individuals over scarce resources such as food, water, and shelter.  Anything goes.  However, being reasonable people, we realize that, if we are self-interested, we can achieve more as individuals if our right to life is guaranteed; thus, we enter into a social contract with everyone else and invest all our rights into one leader, the Leviathan, who guarantees our safety from others.

John Locke:
Everyone is self-interested, but in the "state of nature," people have fundamental rights: life, property, self-defense, punishment, and reparation.  As with Hobbesian SoN, we compete over scarce resources, although we generally exist in a peaceful state (because there are not too many people such that competition causes war).  Being reasonable people, we realize that, as self-interested individuals, we can achieve more as individuals if we work together.  By giving up their rights to be judge, jury, and executioner should they be wronged by someone else, everyone retains all their own other rights and invest in a minimalist government that protects them.

Both of these are very much simplified. 

I tend to subscribe to Locke.

[Ergot]

Yarg, Locke was badass. I'm learning about them in World History right now Great stuff!

[trust]

We learned about them Freshmen year in AP Government, and I even chose to read the first chapter or so of Leviathan. Anyway, I definitely agree that man is (in its natural state) warlike and brutish, and it's required for us to have laws and a government. Just look at the few examples of where a country tried to practice Anarchy, mass riots and raping/murdering/pillaging/etc. resulted. That's not to say that you don't have those things with a civilized government, but at least it can be controlled and a cap placed on it.

Natural Selection and other Orgin of Species theories provide theoretical evidence to support Hobbes as well.

[iago]

If people are naturally bad, where did law/society come from?

I don't think people are good, or bad.  They're (we're) jus selfish.  We want what's best for ourselves, and we'll do whatever we can to get it.  Some of us do what's best in the long term (studying, religion), and some do what's best in the short term (drinking, drugs, crime).  But in either case, they're doing what they perceive to be the action that benefits themselves the most. 

What about charity?  Or helping others? People give to charity and help others because it makes them feel good.  That's still selfish. 

That's a great point, which leads me to a topic a bit more in-depth: If people are neither good nor bad, yet selfish, what would be the best type of government to fit people? Be creative, mess with already made governments, or just totally make up your own. This is also where education comes into the picture; should it be a part of your government?

This was discussed in Plato's "The Republic" 2000 years ago.  He gave an interesting argument for a "perfect" government which would never really work, but is neat to think about. 

First of all, we need a leader who can't be corrupted.  What corrupts a leader? Friends, lovers, material possessions, land.  So a perfect leader can't have any of those.  He isn't allowed to have friends, lovers, money, or land.  He is given what he needs to survive, and nothing more.  That prevents him from favortism, or corruption.  You tell everybody that they are born into their jobs.  I believe Plato says something about "metal in their veins".  The ruler is born with gold in his veins, and the commoners with bronze.  Working men can never be a leader, and the leader can never be a worker. 

I forget what else he says.  But this "perfect" government obviously isn't possible, it simply led up to something else that I can't remember.  But most of the book is about how to form a good Republic, so it's worth considering it.  It's probably the most difficult book I ever read, but still really good. 

The other book that examines a perfect government is The Prince, by Machievelli.  I really don't remember what he said about it, thought, so you'd have to look it up. 

[MyndFyre]

The other book that examines a perfect government is The Prince, by Machievelli.  I really don't remember what he said about it, thought, so you'd have to look it up. 

LOL, The Prince HARDLY examines "perfect government," but rather a perfect exploiter.

From Chapter 15, "Concerning Things for which Men, and Especially Princes, are Praised or Blamed":
And I know that every one will confess that it would be most praiseworthy in a prince to exhibit all the above qualities that are considered good; but because they can neither be entirely possessed nor observed, for human conditions do not permit it, it is necessary for him to be sufficiently prudent that he may know how to avoid the reproach of those vices which would lose him his state; and also to keep himself, if it be possible, from those which would not lose him it; but this not being possible, he may with less hesitation abandon himself to them.
And Chapter 17, "Concerning Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether it is Better to be Loved than Feared":
Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you.
Read The Prince online.

[iago]

The other book that examines a perfect government is The Prince, by Machievelli.  I really don't remember what he said about it, thought, so you'd have to look it up. 

LOL, The Prince HARDLY examines "perfect government," but rather a perfect exploiter.

Same thing, really.  Somebody who can control people makes the best ruler

[MyndFyre]

The other book that examines a perfect government is The Prince, by Machievelli.  I really don't remember what he said about it, thought, so you'd have to look it up. 

LOL, The Prince HARDLY examines "perfect government," but rather a perfect exploiter.

Same thing, really.  Somebody who can control people makes the best ruler

Best ruler != perfect government unless you're communist.  Wait, you're from Canada, so eh? 

Best government =IMO= least intrusive.

[iago]

Best government =IMO= least intrusive.

What's the difference between a totall (100%) intrusive government (which sounds like your ideal government) and anarchy?

[rabbit]

This was discussed in Plato's "The Republic" 2000 years ago.  He gave an interesting argument for a "perfect" government which would never really work, but is neat to think about. 

First of all, we need a leader who can't be corrupted.  What corrupts a leader? Friends, lovers, material possessions, land.  So a perfect leader can't have any of those.  He isn't allowed to have friends, lovers, money, or land.  He is given what he needs to survive, and nothing more.  That prevents him from favortism, or corruption.  You tell everybody that they are born into their jobs.  I believe Plato says something about "metal in their veins".  The ruler is born with gold in his veins, and the commoners with bronze.  Working men can never be a leader, and the leader can never be a worker.

IE: The Llama.

[trust]

The other book that examines a perfect government is The Prince, by Machievelli.  I really don't remember what he said about it, thought, so you'd have to look it up. 

LOL, The Prince HARDLY examines "perfect government," but rather a perfect exploiter.

Same thing, really.  Somebody who can control people makes the best ruler

Saddam could control people, by starving them and only allowing them enough food to survive. Then torturing their families.
The Catholic Church could control people, by keeping them ignorant and only telling them what they wanted them to hear.

That doesn't mean they were good rulers.

[MyndFyre]

Best government =IMO= least intrusive.

What's the difference between a totall (100%) intrusive government (which sounds like your ideal government) and anarchy?

A government still needs to be somewhat intrusive.  A government exists to protect the weak from the strong, not to make the weak as powerful as the strong.

A government's primary job is to keep people safe from one another.  To do so, it institutes laws that protect people from physically (assault, rape, murder) or injunctively (slander, theft, intellectual property infringement) harming one another.

A society's economy should be entirely self-regulated by the private sector.  In an entirely self-regulated economy, Microsoft would not be able to survive indefinitely.  Competing companies would start up, and some business owners would refuse to sell out.  Would the majority holders of SCO sell out to Microsoft?  Doubtful.  Furthermore, competition is not only advantageous to the customer, but in the long-term, healthy for businesses and technology.  To compete, companies must continually be innovating their technology.

A government is right to work at regulating this, but only to a certain degree.  That degree is minimal: for example, government should step in and prevent collective individual owners from forming agreements to price-gouge.  While this is generally an unlikely event anyway, because only one owner has to commit to do it and then not do it for the pact to fall apart, in Arizona, the gas station owners have been price gouging.  All the other laws we have, and we don't have something worthwhile on the books.  Arizona didn't even have a shortage of fuel.

[iago]

Saddam could control people, by starving them and only allowing them enough food to survive. Then torturing their families.
The Catholic Church could control people, by keeping them ignorant and only telling them what they wanted them to hear.

That doesn't mean they were good rulers.

Saddam obviously wasn't very good at controlling people, because he was taken out.  I don't mean controlling just your citizens, but it includes other governments and others within your own government, too.  I should have said that. 

The Catholic Church has been a respected ruler for how long?  And is still very strong.  I think that makes them pretty good. 

Best government =IMO= least intrusive.

What's the difference between a totall (100%) intrusive government (which sounds like your ideal government) and anarchy?

A government still needs to be somewhat intrusive. A government exists to protect the weak from the strong, not to make the weak as powerful as the strong.

A government's primary job is to keep people safe from one another. To do so, it institutes laws that protect people from physically (assault, rape, murder) or injunctively (slander, theft, intellectual property infringement) harming one another.

A society's economy should be entirely self-regulated by the private sector. In an entirely self-regulated economy, Microsoft would not be able to survive indefinitely. Competing companies would start up, and some business owners would refuse to sell out. Would the majority holders of SCO sell out to Microsoft? Doubtful. Furthermore, competition is not only advantageous to the customer, but in the long-term, healthy for businesses and technology. To compete, companies must continually be innovating their technology.

A government is right to work at regulating this, but only to a certain degree. That degree is minimal: for example, government should step in and prevent collective individual owners from forming agreements to price-gouge. While this is generally an unlikely event anyway, because only one owner has to commit to do it and then not do it for the pact to fall apart, in Arizona, the gas station owners have been price gouging. All the other laws we have, and we don't have something worthwhile on the books. Arizona didn't even have a shortage of fuel.

What you're saying is extremely objective, it seems.  "The government should intervene in some areas, but not in others" -- are you the one who chooses the proper areas?  If not, who gets to make that call?  It seems to me that somebody already did make the call where the government should intervene, and it does. 

[MyndFyre]

What you're saying is extremely objective, it seems.  "The government should intervene in some areas, but not in others" -- are you the one who chooses the proper areas?  If not, who gets to make that call?  It seems to me that somebody already did make the call where the government should intervene, and it does. 

What I'm really trying to say is that people should be self-determined.  If you succeed it should be of your own accord; if you fail, likewise.  Government should be designed to prevent people from causing others to fail.

[iago]

What you're saying is extremely objective, it seems.  "The government should intervene in some areas, but not in others" -- are you the one who chooses the proper areas?  If not, who gets to make that call?  It seems to me that somebody already did make the call where the government should intervene, and it does. 

What I'm really trying to say is that people should be self-determined.  If you succeed it should be of your own accord; if you fail, likewise.  Government should be designed to prevent people from causing others to fail.

If the government could help 100 people to succeed at the cost of prevending 5 others from succeeding, then should they interfere? 

Note/disclaimer: That's not intended as an argument against you or anybody here, it's intended as a point of dicussion related to what you said.

[trust]

Saddam could control people, by starving them and only allowing them enough food to survive. Then torturing their families.
The Catholic Church could control people, by keeping them ignorant and only telling them what they wanted them to hear.

That doesn't mean they were good rulers.

Saddam obviously wasn't very good at controlling people, because he was taken out.  I don't mean controlling just your citizens, but it includes other governments and others within your own government, too.  I should have said that. 

The Catholic Church has been a respected ruler for how long?  And is still very strong.  I think that makes them pretty good. 

The Catholic Church isn't an accepted ruler, but back in the dark ages they were the only people that could read so they kept their followers ignorant (until invention of the printing press, for which Gutenberg was killed.) And even many years after that leaders would still write to the Pope for permission to do things. I don't see Bush asking the Pope's permission to carry out policy.

[MyndFyre]

If the government could help 100 people to succeed at the cost of prevending 5 others from succeeding, then should they interfere? 

Note/disclaimer: That's not intended as an argument against you or anybody here, it's intended as a point of dicussion related to what you said.

No.  People have wills; governments should not.

The government should be able to go to the 100 people and say, "Look, there are 100 people who can benefit from you if you're willing to give xxx and yyy to them.  In the long term, everyone wins" (which is of course true).  "Will you do so?"  Then the people who are successful will be able to decide.  It's in their best interests for several reasons (a mob of 100 people will be storming to break in their doors if they don't).

[Warrior]

Depends on who you are.

If you are bad someone who views themselves as good sees you as bad while you see them as bad for being good which is really bad but it's good to you but it's bad because you hate good but then you'd like what you don't hate which'd make it good which makes you hate it.....SYSTEM OVERLOAD.