Are humans hardwired to hurt?

[Sarkhaan]

Gotta go with my boy de Waal on this and say we are innately altruistic.

If, then, we are altruistic, then a Republican form of very limited Government is best, right? The only reason to have large government nanny states like we have now is to keep people in line.

That would assume that the fact that we are innately altruistic means that we are innately altruistic towards every other human being, and not just a select group.

And Republican is hardly encouraging of altruism.

[Ryadn]

Gotta go with my boy de Waal on this and say we are innately altruistic.

If, then, we are altruistic, then a Republican form of very limited Government is best, right? The only reason to have large government nanny states like we have now is to keep people in line.

I should have said the majority of people are innately altruistic, because it's necessary for survival.

However, because we innately empathic (perhaps that's a better term), it does not necessarily follow that we always act on our instincts and feelings. We are capable of terrible things. No denial there. However, I would submit that much of what we do to each other that causes harm is learned behavior. We can suppress our instincts, our feelings, our morals---we do it every day. Most people are capable of feeling guilt, and feel it because they knowingly did something which violated their ethics.

Look at it this way: you stated that brutality was our animal nature, and it could be overcome in good times (or something to that effect). I believe empathy and altruism is our animal nature (as evidenced by the fact that few higher-order primates commit the atrocities against one another that we do, and in such numbers), but it can be overcome, too.

[Greed and Death]

yes i prick you, and you hurt. feeling pain is hard wired.

[Arumdaum]

Look! It finally got a title.

[The Parkus Empire]

Gotta go with my boy de Waal on this and say we are innately altruistic.

If, then, we are altruistic, then a Republican form of very limited Government is best, right? The only reason to have large government nanny states like we have now is to keep people in line.

Anarchy would best, actually.

[Greed and Death]

Gotta go with my boy de Waal on this and say we are innately altruistic.

If, then, we are altruistic, then a Republican form of very limited Government is best, right? The only reason to have large government nanny states like we have now is to keep people in line.

Anarchy would best, actually.

Corporate anarchy.

[The Parkus Empire]

Corporate anarchy.

*looks at book NS was based-on* Hm, yes.

[GetBert]

Yes, we are programmed to love Johnny Cash in our DNA.

[FreeAgency]

Are humans innately violent or altruistic

False dichotomy is false.

[Urstania]

I believe all problems and conflict stem from intolerance and ignorance which is conditioned into us.

The problem stems from one individual imposing his will upon another individual who are we to decide what right or wrong is.

Make your OWN right or wrong and make your own boundaries and dont force another human do live by your boundaries.
It would be beneficial to all humans to work together in peace without judging the character of the person without even knowing them

There is a fetish for EVERYTHING so why do we live life enforcing sommebody elses perception of what fetish to ban or allow and talk of all things as wrong and right. We all have to realize to just "Live and let live"

No one is more qualified then YOU are to decide how you live your life.
Get to know the character of the person before you judge if you dont agree with the way they live dont impose your right or wrongsw onto them. Its like people trying to quite smoking. they cant do it for other people they can only do it for themselves.

Once upon a time almost everyone believed in the existence of god. This god ruled over the world, he had absolute power over everything in it. and he had set down laws which all human beings had to obey. If they did not they would suffer the most terrible punishments at his hands. Naturally most people obeyed the laws as well as they could, their fear of external suffering being stronger than thier desire for anything 'forbidden'. Because everyone lived according to the same laws they agreed upon what "morality" was: it was the set of values decreed by god's laws. Thus, good and evil, right and wrong, were decided by the authority of god which everyonbe accepted out of fear.
One day people began to wake up and realise that there was no such thing as god. There was no hard evidence to demonstrate his existence and few people could see any point in having faith in the irrational anylonger. God pretty much dissapeared from the world and nobody feared him or his punishments anymore. But a strange thing happened. Though these people had the courage to question god's existence and even they deny it to the ones that still believe in it they didnt dare question the morality that HIS laws had mandated. Perhaps it just didnt occur to them. Everyone had been raised to hold the same beliefs about what was moral, normal and had come to speak about right and wrong. Weather god was there to enforce it or not something external still dicated to the people about how they should live thier lives. They were afraid to even consider the possability that the laws didnt exist any more then god did.
This has left humanity at an unusual possition.... Im hoping people come to this realization and begin to take thier life into thier own hands


That story is from an athiest point of view but this way of thinking can be applied to any religious person. Religions arent for conflict or war are they? havent you heard of the Islamic Imam, christian priest and thejewish Rabi in israel who are trying to advocate this approach of learning about the other instead of judging the other and all three of them are good friends.

If you make an effort to get to know the character of the indidvidual you will most probably learn new things you never would of known thus expanding your knowledge of the bodily experience of life.

There is no such thing as right or wrong only your unique individual position so why allow another human's perseption to have more dominance then your own?

[Risottia]

To prevent a further threadjack of this, I'm opening this here.
Are humans innately violent or altruistic or do we as a species socialize these behaviours?

I think we're innately egoistic, and we recognize already at an istinctual level the benefits of altruism.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I am not an inherently violent person and anyone who says otherwise is getting punched!

[Non Aligned States]

I am not an inherently violent person and anyone who says otherwise is getting punched!

Of course you aren't. That's why I made off with all those expired pies you kept in the freezer. Very unsanitary you know.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I am not an inherently violent person and anyone who says otherwise is getting punched!

Of course you aren't. That's why I made off with all those expired pies you kept in the freezer. Very unsanitary you know.

...my pies...

[Daistallia 2104]

Are humans innately violent or altruistic

False dichotomy is false.

Hence the poll options for both, neither, and other.

[Lackadaisical2]

To prevent a further threadjack of this, I'm opening this here.
Are humans innately violent or altruistic or do we as a species socialize these behaviours?

I think we're innately egoistic, and we recognize already at an istinctual level the benefits of altruism.

Personally, I don't believe that altruism exists, due to there being benefits to it. But what people generally call altruism, is probably partly instinctual, although I'd guess, by looking at young un's that its far more socialized than instinctual, and that selfishness is closer to man's "natural" state. Violence, most definitely instinct, as its a normal response to anger- although it can also be socialized.

[South Lorenya]

Humans are naturally good; too bad that being evil is a much easier way of making the nightly news.

Also you seem to have some overlap between some of the options. >_>

[Muravyets]

We are both innately altruistic and hurtful.

We are altruistic towards those that are related to us (usually...there are exceptions here) and those whom we consider allies. We are hurtful to those we are indifferent to or consider to be enemies.

This, but I quibble over instinctive reactions to those to whom we are indifferent. I believe that, since both qualities are innate, it's pretty much 50/50 whether we're going to be hurtful or altruistic towards people to whom we have no emotional or social connection. I mean, isn't giving to charity the very essence of being altruistic towards people to whom we are indifferent? Whether we respond to faceless strangers positively or negatively would depend on a combination of our circumstances and our individual personalities, wouldn't it?

Further, I'd say we will never get a solid, reliable answer to this question, because I think there is a third factor at work, another innate quality of human beings -- whether any given individual is inclined to the view the world as a dangerous place, a good place, or neutral. People who see the world as a dangerous place are likely to say that we're all brutal, clawing beasts, regardless of how much altruism they see around them or how altruistic they are themselves. Likewise, people who see the world as inherently good are likely to argue that people are inherently good, kind, generous, and like unto an angel, regardless of the reality around them.

[Muravyets]

Human nature is brutal. When times are good (as they are in most parts of the US) people repress the brutality in them. When times get rough (inner cities, poverty, famines) people turn inward and devolve into basic animals. Animals kill to survive, mate, or protect. Humans kill for fun.

Why is brutality considered an 'animal' trait, but not altruism, when both are evident in many animals?

Of the many humans who have committed homicide, I doubt the majority of them did it for 'fun'.

Quite. Hunting for sport is "killing for fun." Murder very seldom is done for sport but out of a perceived necessity (it's a false perception, but still). Further, humans are not the only animals that kill for fun. Observe any variety of cat, for example. In addition, altruistic behaviors between unrelated animals have been observed many, many times.

[Muravyets]

Gotta go with my boy de Waal on this and say we are innately altruistic.

If, then, we are altruistic, then a Republican form of very limited Government is best, right? The only reason to have large government nanny states like we have now is to keep people in line.

I see people use that word, Republican, I dont think it means what they think it means...

He capitalizes it, meaning he's referring to the US Republican Party of giant intrusive government and unlimited spending for private gain. He's also making a very amateurish attempt at a hijack. Obviously, his heart's not in it, this time.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Gotta go with my boy de Waal on this and say we are innately altruistic.

If, then, we are altruistic, then a Republican form of very limited Government is best, right? The only reason to have large government nanny states like we have now is to keep people in line.

I see people use that word, Republican, I dont think it means what they think it means...

He capitalizes it, meaning he's referring to the US Republican Party of giant intrusive government and unlimited spending for private gain. He's also making a very amateurish attempt at a hijack. Obviously, his heart's not in it, this time.

Take a pill. You are funny. You make me laugh.

[Rumbria]

We hate that which is different, and love what is similar

[Daistallia 2104]

Also you seem to have some overlap between some of the options. >_>

Yes, the poll was intended to have 5 options. The forum hiccuped, and swallowed the original poll, along with the title. After I reposted the poll, the forum seems to have reguritated the original as well....

[The Alma Mater]

To a degree. Contrary to e.g. cats and dogs we do not have a "surrender reflex". We don't stop if the other has become submissive, nor does the submissive one stay submissive.

[Zeppy]

Fight or flight, I say.