Human Nature

[Ivan Denisovich]

If we were naturally good there would be no prisons. If we were naturally good there would be no addiction. If we were naturally good there would be no infidelity. If we were naturally good there would be no word for lies.

More examples of statements I would say were even less than wrong.

It might be that these statements are less than wrong but it's you who made them. Hardly my fault that you write something facile.

Being wrong-in-fact is, as it happens, one of the major ways I believe that we're fundamentally compromised moral agents. Not just in our behaviors, but in how we think about morality and how we construct our moral demands and appraisals. Granted, this has to do with my view that morality is fact alike...but if it isn't, then people aren't really morally good, or morally bad..none of these things we're discussing is actually bad...it's just against some opinion or some counties rules.

I think that people are product of their circumstances and since circumstances of most are not great it follows that people aren't too. As for human nature I disagree with goodness of it but mostly I see it as a vehicle for flawed arguments. Human nature is just some reductive crap with explanatory power of God did it.

[The Grand Nudger]

I would have thought the comparison was obvious. You suggested that if we had an ounce of good in us there wouldn't be genocides or even a word for it. I disagree. I think that statement is factually wrong for the same reason and in the same way as the others I offered. I think we can effect genocides..or make a damned good try at them at least, entirely by accident, utterly in ignorance, when we try to help..and..sometimes...for reasons not knowable by us. That all of these ways to effect those types of outcomes vastly outweigh the singular claim of strong misanthropy.

You keep returning to the idea of this being god-alike..which I guess is a code word for wrongbad.....but again, as factually wrong as it may in fact be, the idea that human beings are generally good natured but deeply compromised along predictable lines beyond their control or remit is the opposite of the christian view of mans nature or the moral view of christian ethics. It has quite a bit of explanatory power. We could run an experiment (which would be wildly unethical) by starving one group of people, leaving one group of people completely alone, showering another with cash...and then observing outcomes and decisionmaking ability between the groups. None of us will be surprised when the people we shower with cash are more charitable, when the people left alone are more or less us, and the ones starving start loading rifles. In fact we have run much less ambitious versions of this. The results do seem to imply that we're genuinely compelled to do what passes for good to us, and that this behavior becomes less pronounced and eventually inverts as duress increases.

If I were to say that hurt people hurt people...that has more explanatory power than "god" or "people are shitty" don't you think?

[Ivan Denisovich]

I would have thought the comparison was obvious. You suggested that if we had an ounce of good in us there wouldn't be genocides or even a word for it. I disagree. I think that statement is factually wrong for the same reason and in the same way as the others I offered. I think we can effect genocides..or make a damned good try at them at least, entirely by accident, utterly in ignorance, when we try to help..and..sometimes...for reasons not knowable by us. That all of these ways to effect those types of outcomes vastly outweigh the singular claim of strong misanthropy.

You keep returning to the idea of this being god-alike..which I guess is a code word for wrongbad.....but again, as factually wrong as it may in fact be, the idea that human beings are generally good natured but deeply compromised along predictable lines beyond their control or remit is the opposite of the christian view of mans nature or the moral view of christian ethics. It has quite a bit of explanatory power. We could run an experiment (which would be wildly unethical) by starving one group of people, leaving one group of people completely alone, showering another with cash...and then observing outcomes and decisionmaking ability between the groups. None of us will be surprised when the people we shower with cash are more charitable, when the people left alone are more or less us, and the ones starving start loading rifles. In fact we have run much less ambitious versions of this. The results do seem to imply that we're genuinely compelled to do what passes for good to us, and that this behavior becomes less pronounced and eventually inverts as duress increases.

Genocide by accident. Go troll someone else, I'm not interested in further (or fuhrer) "discussion".

[Alan V]

I just gotta say -- the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

...

Sometimes I think our worst inclinations are hampered too by our incompetence.

The world we actually live in, the one which careful science and scholarship have uncovered, is often so counter-intuitive to human preferences that many social groups operate by assumptions which have been proven incorrect. That disconnect between the facts and people's various worldviews is more than enough to account for our general incompetence, as well as for the many problems and even disasters which are the result.

And we keep doubling down, so I'm not convinced we will actually learn, even the hard way. Humans have a remarkable capacity to rationalize because of our "good intentions."

[Belacqua]

I would have thought the comparison was obvious.  You suggested that if we had an ounce of good in us there wouldn't be genocides or even a word for it.  I disagree.  I think that statement is factually wrong for the same reason and in the same way as the others I offered.  I think we can effect genocides..or make a damned good try at them at least, entirely by accident, utterly in ignorance, when we try to help..and..sometimes...for reasons not knowable by us.  That all of these ways to effect those types of outcomes vastly outweigh the singular claim of strong misanthropy.  

You keep returning to the idea of this being god-alike..which I guess is a code word for wrongbad.....but again, as factually wrong as it may in fact be, the idea that human beings are generally good natured but deeply compromised along predictable lines beyond their control or remit is the opposite of the christian view of mans nature or the moral view of christian ethics.  It has quite a bit of explanatory power.  We could run an experiment (which would be wildly unethical) by starving one group of people, leaving one group of people completely alone, showering another with cash...and then observing outcomes and decisionmaking ability between the groups.  None of us will be surprised when the people we shower with cash are more charitable, when the people left alone are more or less us, and the ones starving start loading rifles.  In fact we have run much less ambitious versions of this.  The results do seem to imply that we're genuinely compelled to do what passes for good to us, and that this behavior becomes less pronounced and eventually inverts as duress increases.

Genocide by accident. Go troll someone else, I'm not interested in further (or fuhrer) "discussion".

It seems to me that the question is being framed very strangely. 

If we ask "is there good in human nature," it almost sounds as if "good" is some kind of element we can isolate and identify. Then we could check whether the elements of a standard human being includes this element. 

But "is there good in human nature" is just not the same kind of question as "is there potassium in bananas"? 

So there are two ways I can think of offhand to decide what "good" means. The first way is Aristotelian: a thing is good if it does well what it is intended to do. [arete] A good hammer does well the things a hammer is supposed to do. A good computer does what computers are supposed to do. So the term "good" for a hammer and "good" for a computer denote different activities or qualities. 

So we can speak of hammer-nature and computer-nature, as being the ends toward which those things aim. The question "is there good in hammer-nature" makes no sense. We can only ask "does this hammer do effectively what hammers are supposed to do?" 

By this way of thinking, if we were going to claim that there is such a thing as human nature, we would have to say that the way people are points to certain ends. Human flourishing. The goals toward which humans aim are "baked in" to what they are. Not "is there good in human nature?" but "are humans capable of accomplishing those things which their condition aims for?" 

The natures of things are not like divine commandments, but simply the parameters of what it is natural for that kind of thing to do.  

I suspect that our colleagues here will not want to agree with Aristotle that human anatomy and human ways of thinking point to certain pre-determined ends. So we probably won't get anybody to agree that the term "good," in relation to people, is a judgment related to how well people are managing to do what personhood aims for. 

That simply leaves "good" (in relation to human nature) to mean a judgment we make concerning what people are apt to do. We could name some actions we consider to be good (according to whatever criteria we have learned) and judge whether people are apt to do those things. Rather than asking "Is there good in human nature," we could ask "are people likely to do those things which I consider to be good?" 

So the more important question, it seems to me, is "how can we organize our society so that it is easy for people to prefer doing those good things?"

[Alan V]

So there are two ways I can think of offhand to decide what "good" means. The first way is Aristotelian: a thing is good if it does well what it is intended to do. [arete] A good hammer does well the things a hammer is supposed to do. A good computer does what computers are supposed to do. So the term "good" for a hammer and "good" for a computer denote different activities or qualities. 

We humans evolved our characteristics in environments which no longer exist as such. No doubt they served us well in those earlier environments, but the question then becomes "Are evolved human characteristics now best serving human ends in our modern, changed environments?"

We are most certainly flourishing in many cases, but not doing so well in others. Overall, with our explosive increases in population, you could say we are doing what we were evolved to do. But with looming climate change, that picture also changes dramatically. We are no longer adaptive in the long run.

What is good in one environment can be bad in others.

Not only that, considering common moral perspectives and not just our evolution, we are failing in the present in many ways. Our hypocrisy in this regard has become quite pronounced.

[Belacqua]

So there are two ways I can think of offhand to decide what "good" means. The first way is Aristotelian: a thing is good if it does well what it is intended to do. [arete] A good hammer does well the things a hammer is supposed to do. A good computer does what computers are supposed to do. So the term "good" for a hammer and "good" for a computer denote different activities or qualities. 

We humans evolved our characteristics in environments which no longer exist as such.  No doubt they served us well in those earlier environments, but the question then becomes "Are evolved human characteristics now best serving human ends in our modern, changed environments?"  

We are most certainly flourishing in many cases, but not doing so well in others.  Overall, with our explosive increases in population, you could say we are doing what we were evolved to do.  But with looming climate change, that picture also changes dramatically.  We are no longer adaptive in the long run.

What is good in one environment can be bad in others.

Not only that, considering common moral perspectives and not just our evolution, we are failing in the present in many ways.  Our hypocrisy in this regard has become quite pronounced.

You're right, I would never want to say that "we evolved that way" equals "and therefore it's good." 

At some point we did evolve the ability to reflect on our actions, at least a little. I mean to some extent we can understand that it's good to control our urges, natural as they are. At least in theory we know that spreading one's DNA around as much as possible isn't the recipe for a good society.

And if we did evolve this reasoning ability, then it's also natural. A part of human nature. So we can't say that human nature is ALL bad. Only that it contains contradictions and opposing forces within ourselves which, at best, we can manage rather than overcome. 

But of course you're right about the hypocrisy -- our reasoning ability often seems strongest when we're inventing justifications for what we wanted to do anyway. 

I suppose there is a never-ending debate about what constitutes "flourishing," under 21st century conditions. Surely there is a part of human nature which makes it normal to care for the weak, or feel empathy for the unfortunate -- at least to some extent. Although these things are shockingly easy to switch off. I still think that these better parts of our nature could be encouraged under different economic conditions. 

Particularly, I wonder about a sort of automatic adversarial mindset that one sees so often. Like, people will say that not only is my tribe best for me, but all the others must be defeated. How deeply is this ingrained in humanity, I wonder?

[Alan V]

At some point we did evolve the ability to reflect on our actions, at least a little. I mean to some extent we can understand that it's good to control our urges, natural as they are. At least in theory we know that spreading one's DNA around as much as possible isn't the recipe for a good society.

And if we did evolve this reasoning ability, then it's also natural. A part of human nature. So we can't say that human nature is ALL bad. Only that it contains contradictions and opposing forces within ourselves which, at best, we can manage rather than overcome. 

But of course you're right about the hypocrisy -- our reasoning ability often seems strongest when we're inventing justifications for what we wanted to do anyway. 

I suppose there is a never-ending debate about what constitutes "flourishing," under 21st century conditions. Surely there is a part of human nature which makes it normal to care for the weak, or feel empathy for the unfortunate -- at least to some extent. Although these things are shockingly easy to switch off. I still think that these better parts of our nature could be encouraged under different economic conditions. 

Particularly, I wonder about a sort of automatic adversarial mindset that one sees so often. Like, people will say that not only is my tribe best for me, but all the others must be defeated. How deeply is this ingrained in humanity, I wonder?

We evolved to be social creatures, which includes inhibitions of some of our more selfish impulses.

Reasoning to be rational was a rather late development. I assume reasoning evolved to solve problems relating to surviving and competing.

Also, consciousness evolved so that we could identify when best to employ our apparently contradictory abilities.

Part of our social nature is to be tribal, but that depends on our identifications. These days I identify more with my country than with my family, which I haven't seen in years.

So identifications can change. For instance, part of the present success of Republicans can be attributed to Fox News propaganda teaching them to hate other Americans.

[The Grand Nudger]

Our brains evolved for dinner, not critical thinking or introspective discussion, and yet here we are.  One of our neat little tricks, our adaptations, is large scale environmental engineering.  Hyper social, opposable thumbs, big brain....   We've been doing it since before we had a word for it.  Before it's own architects could conceive of the true scale of their endeavors or their consequences.  We changed the face of this planet before we scribbled down the first word and we haven't exactly let off the gas since.   Humans and livestock are like 95% of the large mammalian biomass.   

Killing people isn't even a drop in the bucket of all the killing we do.  Frankly, I find it remarkable that a creature like us with needs like ours on a planet like this one ever even accidentally manages to do something genuinely good. It's clear we've got our hands full, where do we even find the time?

[Belacqua]

Reasoning to be rational was a rather late development.  I assume reasoning evolved to solve problems relating to surviving and competing.

Also, consciousness evolved so that we could identify when best to employ our apparently contradictory abilities.

I'm going to stand back a bit warily from the evolution talk. Of course, everything we are came about through evolution, but I'm not confident enough to say clearly that "trait X evolved in order to deal with problem Y." We've all heard talk about "spandrels" and been warned not to see intentionality or teleology in evolution, so I don't feel qualified to draw any direct lines explaining how reasoning or consciousness came about. 

That said, I think we can enumerate a number of traits that are common enough in human beings to be called part of human nature. And we can point to a list of things that are necessary for human flourishing. 

Health, obviously, helps one flourish. While handicapped or chronically ill people may also flourish in their way, I think it's fair to say that the sicker one is the less likely one will be to flourish. 

As you mention, we are social animals, so I think that supportive relationships with others are a necessity. Though these may take many forms -- family or friends or lovers or whatever works for you. 

Then if we think sort of like Maslow's hierarchy, I would say that the ability to employ one's own talents is a mark of flourishing. There's a famous quote from Stephen J. Gould: “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” We would all benefit if those people had had the chance to fulfill their potential. 

So if we start with a list like this, we could hold it up against the way our society is working now, and get a clearer picture of how well we're doing at encouraging the kind of flourishing that human nature points to. 

Part of our social nature is to be tribal, but that depends on our identifications. These days I identify more with my country than with my family, which I haven't seen in years.

So identifications can change. For instance, part of the present success of Republicans can be attributed to Fox News propaganda teaching them to hate other Americans.

Yes, I think so too. While we are tribal by nature, which tribe we end up in isn't necessarily fixed from birth. The fact that I moved halfway around the world, and changed which language I speak most, is a sign of that. I  feel more at home here than I would in my original hometown, I'm sure. 

Now here's the part where I get everybody mad at me again: 

Let's say that we are in the tribe of atheist/Democrat/"trust-the-science" types. I am not convinced that this is the very bestest number one tribe, superior to all the others. All the tribes have their good points and bad points, or else nobody would stay in them. From our point of view, given our preferences, ours will of course seem best, because we have chosen a tribe that aligns with our view, and then once we're in the tribe it reinforces and informs further views in line with tribal thinking. 

The fact that our tribe seems so compatible with neoliberalism, which has serious drawbacks, makes me think we could do better.

But I think it is our duty to remain very wary of tribal thinking, and remain open to the qualities in people very unlike ourselves. I mean, it's easy to focus on Fox News, which is of course horrible. But I'm not convinced that people who believe what CNN or MSNBC are telling them are all that much smarter.