The examples you giving have less to do with human nature and more to do with
mental illness, because they are, dare I say, ridiculous, extremes. The things
you propose as what if’s also have little to do with reality. They’re also, as
you do point out, impossible.
But after proposing these things you restate your position that objective
conditions determine human behavior. Sonow having rejected your proposals as
demonstrating nothing, I’ll restate my position
that objective conditions do not determine human behavior or, more to the point
of the original argument, they don’t determine whether the negative or the
positive sides of human thought that determines behavior will prevail, that in
the same objective conditions, an entire gamut of human nobility and human
cruelty can be observed.
What I offered as substantiation for my position are observations of very
different human behavior existing in the same objective conditions. What wins
out? Cowardice or bravery? Altruism or selfishness? Helping others or helping
one’s self? Working together, sharing available resources or grabbing all one
can get for one’s self? Inviting strangers in to offer them shelter or being
only concerned with one’s self or even only with one’s own family? Giving
things away to those in need or selling them? At a certain point, objective
conditions and/or external, unconnected circumstances might determine who
survives and who dies, or maybe even that everybody dies, no matter which
choices were made, no matter who has behaved in which manner. But those
choices will also have influenced that outcome, at least in certain cases, to a
certain extent. On Jul 31, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Okay, we don't have to go back twenty thousand years. Let's look at right
now. What happens if you decide that you are not going to acquire or spend
money from now on? No matter what your proclivities might be what choice do
you have? Or suppose you decided that methods of electricity production have
a negative effect on the environment and so you will not use it. That means
that you will not consume food that is produced with any use of electricity;
you will not wear clothing that was produced with any use of electricity; you
will not live in a dwelling that was built with any use of electricity. How
far will you get and how long will you survive? Or suppose you decide that it
is your duty to take care of every destitute person. Once you give everything
you have away to them and find that there are plenty of destitute people
left including yourself who is going to take care of you? The point is that
objective conditions have a lot, a whole lot, to do with one's behavior.
There are simply things that one has to do and cannot do under certain
objective conditions and if those conditions are changed the range of
possibilities shift along with them. If there are things that it is desirable
for people to do and other things that it is undesirable for people to do
then by changing the objective conditions they will have no choice but to
change their behavior.
On 7/31/2016 4:22 PM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
My examples did not have anything to do with money per se, but OK, not money
then, but the mentality and behavior described is fairly clear.
And really, how much relevance does 20,000 years ago really have,
particularly given the dearth of records, accounts, and other assorted
evidence that can tell the story in depth?
On Jul 31, 2016, at 3:07 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I would like to see you hoard money twenty thousand years ago when not only
did money not exist but the concept of money did not even exist. The
objective conditions just simply did not allow for the hoarding of money
and not much of anything else either.
On 7/31/2016 2:45 PM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
Both the better and worse sides of human nature prevail in every objective
condition you can name. The objective conditions actually have the least
effect on how people behave. Some people who have every good thing
imaginable and in excess are selfish pricks who wouldn’t throw a life
preserver to a drowning man, even if it cost them nothing, whereas,
although I know you scoff at this, others establish scholarships,
foundations, support scientific research, open settlement schools, that’s
not so common anymore, establish libraries, and while none of these things
significantly diminishes their lives of privilege, it’s still preferable
to keeping it all for themselves and ripping off those less wealthy than
they are. . Some people in the face of unspeakable deprivation and horror
will hoard everything they can get their hands on, and others will share
whatever little they they have with others around them.
On Jul 31, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just believing or not believing that the better sides of human nature
will or will not prevail does nothing to make it prevail or not prevail.
If you really want those better sides to prevail it will be necessary to
work to change the objective conditions under which they operate.
Recently I came up with an example that I kind of like. That is what do
you do if you want a stiff alcoholic drink in Saudi Arabia. I am neither
saying that the consumption of alcohol is good or bad. I am simply saying
that the objective conditions in Saudi Arabia are such that it would be
extremely hard to get drunk no matter how much you wanted to. If you have
lived there all your life it is even likely that you will not want to get
drunk or even think about getting drunk. The trouble with Saudi Arabia is
that the sides of human nature that that society encourages and
discourages are not the sides that I think should be encouraged and
discouraged. The point remains, though, that if you don't want certain
behavior to take place you have to construct the objective conditions
such that it cannot take place and if you want other behaviors to take
place you have to construct the objective conditions such that they will
be inevitable.
On 7/31/2016 10:11 AM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
As I said to Dick, cynic that I am, I can’t quite bring myself to really
believe that the better sides of human nature won’t prevail, experience
notwithstanding. There are many, many examples in which it does, despite
many people’s tendencies to rip even those to shreds because they are
not 100% perfect.
And now, I’m going to do a little of that: you speak of the ethical
humanist movement, but look at how shabbily the New York chapter treated
you and your husband. Where were all their admirable principles of
equality and the positive sides of human nature then?
On Jul 31, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Of course, humann nature is what it is. We have the potential for
altruism
and cooperation, and we have the potential for aggression and
domination. If
we assume that every effort toward making our political and economic
system
will end in failure because the negative aspects of human nature will
win
out, then really, there's no point in trying anything that might
improve
life for all of us. One of the things that I really like about the
Ethical
Culture, or Ethical Humanist movement, is its emphasis on working
toward the
kind of society that will encourage the positive aspects of human
nature.
Miriam
