Alice, could you tell us what you think an objective condition is? I get
the impression that you do not know what the phrase means, but I don't
quite see what you do think it is.
On 8/1/2016 6:41 AM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
