DescentBB

Though I don't agree with mister Prager on many points- including the question of whether a god of any kind exists; this is a great video about human nature:

What a hilariously stupid video. Doesn't hold up to even the slightest intellectual scrutiny. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks like this guy.

Anti-intellectual video. The guy put his conclusion first, making it biased. he also doesn't acknowledge that people are usually empathic and doesn't consider the fact that laws are what society in general wants out of itself.

vision wrote:What a hilariously stupid video. Doesn't hold up to even the slightest intellectual scrutiny. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks like this guy.

Well, what's your take? Are people born 'good?'

And yes- the notion of 'good' and 'bad' are purely human and societal constructs based upon the social order and morality practiced.
Our own individual morals may also vary depending upon a number of internal and external factors.

But if you don't believe people are basically good, you're far more likely to blame the criminals themselves, not outside forces for their actions

This seems contradictory. If you believe "outside forces" help define "good," why would you not believe "outside forces" help define "bad?"

Precisely, vander. Society (the outside force) defines good and bad through laws. Seems to be a case of having ones cake and eating it too.

yes, the video is idiotic. That said, the thinking about the inherent nature of 'man' is at the crux of the Classical views of Political Science, developed in the late 18th century. Those that hold man to be inherently good as a rule, and design governance to reflect that, are Classical Liberals(Rousseau and others). Those that hold man to be inherently evil were the Classical Conservatives(Hobbes, et al).

To bad both sides were wrong, man is born with both capacities.

Ha Ha Ha logic fail, if people are basically bad, then that guy is probably lying.

(yes I know)

your logic IS consistent, Spidey.

I'm failing to understand why this video is such a farce... The guy might not be completely correct, but I'm really failing to see how the video is simply "anti-intellectual" or "stupid." I, for one, don't require intellectual statements to be unbiased.

Vander wrote:

But if you don't believe people are basically good, you're far more likely to blame the criminals themselves, not outside forces for their actions

This seems contradictory. If you believe "outside forces" help define "good," why would you not believe "outside forces" help define "bad?"

The question isn't about how criminals came to understand what was "good" and what was "bad" (the law does a pretty good job of that) - the question is why do criminals proceed to do bad things despite their knowledge of what is and isn't supposed to be allowed. So, if you think people are naturally "bad" you tend to say their true self was coming out, if you think people are naturally "good" you tend to say that something must have driven them to violate their nature.

Now, if you want to address the issue of how we come to understand what "good" and "bad" are: (and the idea that they are human constructs) - in one tact you could simply substitute "compliant" and "non-compliant" in to answer why some follow the rules and others don't, but I think that's an over-simplification - why do the basics of "right" and "wrong" have almost universal acceptance? If you want to say that we've evolved our sense of "right" and "wrong" you're back to the question of why do people do what they know is wrong, despite that knowledge.

snoopy wrote:the question is why do criminals proceed to do bad things despite their knowledge of what is and isn't supposed to be allowed. So, if you think people are naturally "bad" you tend to say their true self was coming out, if you think people are naturally "good" you tend to say that something must have driven them to violate their nature.

If I answer the video's question, no, I don't believe people are "born good." The video doesn't present it, and I don't believe there is a binary choice of naturally "good" and "bad." I believe we are born with potential, and that "outside forces" play a great role in the outcome.

If people are not born "good," but rather created as the video suggests, why does it also suggest that people with this perception don't look to "outside forces" when viewing criminal outcome?

Vander wrote:If people are not born "good," but rather created as the video suggests, why does it also suggest that people with this perception don't look to "outside forces" when viewing criminal outcome?

If you hypothesize that people have an internal natural bent toward doing "bad" things (never mind at least for the moment how they got there) - then the simplest explanation for why people do bad things is to say that they are simply following that natural bent.

You comment something about the video suggesting that people are created - I guess I missed that assertion in the video (although I don't doubt that the guy would probably argue for that premise.) - but it leads into what I think is the root of your question: If we are what and where we are because of some causative force (in the greater sense of our natural tendencies and instinctual behaviour), shouldn't we look to that force as a cause for criminal behaviour? I think the immediate answer that's relevant to the video's comment is that we're not talking about the larger, philosophical scope, we're talking about people's individualized responsibility for specific behaviour. If you want to want to ask about the larger philosophical scope, then I think it's relevant to ask if you (or anyone you have spoken to) ever felt compelled by a higher force, against your will, to do "bad" things.

snoopy wrote:...If we are what and where we are because of some causative force (in the greater sense of our natural tendencies and instinctual behaviour), shouldn't we look to that force as a cause for criminal behaviour?

This is something civilization will have to deal with by the end of the century as more and more evidence for a material cause of behavior erodes the notion of free will.

snoopy wrote:You comment something about the video suggesting that people are created - I guess I missed that assertion in the video (although I don't doubt that the guy would probably argue for that premise.)

The guy in the video wrote:...figuring out how to make good people is the single most important project in all of human life"

The entire premise of the video is that people aren't born good, good people are created.

snoopy wrote:If we are what and where we are because of some causative force (in the greater sense of our natural tendencies and instinctual behaviour), shouldn't we look to that force as a cause for criminal behaviour?

All I'm saying is that someone who believes good people are created shouldn't completely disregard the suggestion that bad people are also created.

I will leave a discussion of divine intervention for others.

I understand now, Vander.

I guess I've been approaching the whole conversion (and watching the video) through the assumption that a person's essence doesn't really change - and that the only changes in scope are those of trained behaviour. Through that lens, if people are in their essence bad, then behavioural training can make people act worse - but it's also moving them more toward their "natural" (untrained) state.

On a causative force shaping our natural tenancies and instinctual behaviour (maybe another way of describing our "essence"): For purposes of this discussion, the force doesn't have to be divine, it just has to be pre-existing. In a naturalistic view, I guess the primary target would be our genetic code (since it's static and pre-existing).