Appeal to human nature

[Trotskylvania]

Alright people (And Obamacult, I'm looking right at you), the topic is NOT about Communism or if it could work, the topic is changing human nature and if that makes appeals to it worthless.

Get it back on track.

I see we've already started losing track...

[Kilobugya]

I am a human being. My only moral aim is to achieve my own happiness, not other's.

That's a contradiction, humans are social animals, having well-being of others as terminal values. Altruism, love, friendship, compassion are built-in in humans, and they are part of what makes human worthy. Randroids rant on "my only goal is my own happiness" is not backed by any fact, neither neuroscience, nor from social psychology, nor from evolutionary psychology. It's just a lie.

Because I wasn't born to live for other individuals

If today you're writing on Internet forum, it's because of countless of other individuals. Those who domesticated fire, invented agriculture, writing, scientific method, electricity, quantum mechanics, ... in the past. Those who fed you, sheltered you, protected you, educated you when you were a baby. Those who work so you can eat and produce the electricity on which you computer runs. You are not an isolated individual - an isolated new born human would die in a matter of hours. Society allowed you to become the educated, healthy individual you became, who at least knows how to write and has access to Internet. You've contracted a debt to society, that you'll never fully pay off. You have the right to follow your happiness, but only within the limits set by society, and you also have duties towards it.

I'm not a tool they can use to achieve their goals, the same way they aren't tool I can use either.

That's what you're doing. You can't do otherwise. It should be respectful of each human being, allowing the emancipation of all, but in a complex, interconnected system like modern societies are, we are all using the others and being used by the others. And there is nothing wrong in that, as long as it's done fairly and allowing everyone to be emancipated - something capitalism fails at, but communism doesn't.

Communism forces people to work for each others

Because capitalism doesn't ? What forces people to work for each other are the laws of biology that makes us die if we don't eat, drink, get drugs when sick, get clothes when it's cold, ... The economical system (capitalism or communism) only change how the duties and the rewards are shared.

it teaches that self-interest is bad

Well, self-interest at the cost of society as a whole is bad, because at the end we all lose. Defecting in a prisoner's dilemma is bad, because all participants end up in worst situation. But communism doesn't teach that self-interest is always bad. It teaches that we should seek balance between self-interest and common interest, in order to maximize happiness of all.

and that your only purpose is to repress those feelings of selfiness

Communism, unlike you, don't try to reduce humans to have an only purpose. We acknowledge, and embrace, the fact that human values are complicated.

It claims "Don't work in exchange of a reward, work for the sake of your brothers and sisters

And that's a wonderful claim. That's how we got Einstein and Mozart. That's how we got most of progress of humanity - scientists, artists working for the sake of humanity, for the love of discovery, for the love of science. Humanity's progress come from that - from people working primarily because they care for others, for humanity as a whole, not by people motivated by profit and greed. People motivated by profit and greed plunder, destroy, exploit, wage wars. People motivated by compassion, friendship, love of humanity or science make us go forward.

Work without thinking, work without feeling, work because we ask you for.

Actually, that's what the capitalists ask from the workers. Communism and socialism always were about giving more rights and control to the workers on their production, so they are not mindless drones obeying to the capital owner, but they become actually part of the production process, including in defining it.

how in the world a harnessed and starving north-korean is living a human live

North Korea has absolutely nothing of communism - it is in fact what happens when people motivated fully by greed and selfishness take control of a country.

[Person012345]

I would like to address arguments that concern appeals to "human nature". I wish to address, not the fact that such arguments are seldom rigorous, seldom if ever establishing even the barest inkling of a concrete human nature, but a particular fallacy of this argument which is unique to our modern era, and will only become more relevant in the future.

It is a common argument against any speculative political economic system that its basic assumptions run contrary to human nature. It is usually very much like original sin, actually. In say, opposing communism, Alice says in effect that while the communist system appears utopian, building a communist society is impossible because humanity's flawed nature and greed prohibits production being planned for use, and directed democratically by the community.

This is a tacit recognition of the moral worthiness of the communist aim. And once upon a time, this didn't matter so much, if Alice was indeed correct in her assessment of human nature and its possible contradiction to the communist ethos. But we live in a brave new world now, thanks to the immense development of science and technology.

For the sake of argument, let us define human nature as the previously immutable parts of the human condition that are defined by our genes. So, in an era where concepts like genetic engineering have left the realm of science fiction and have indeed become big business in themselves, and when even more radical transhumanist technological practices are looking increasingly possible, the human nature argument is losing its salience. Because human nature is becoming something that we can self-consciously manipulate.

So, given these new possibilities, a new dimension to the appeal to human nature opens up. If our human nature is no longer immutable, can we really say that our biological nature in anyway trumps a moral argument? If by arguing as she does, Alice has tacitly accepted the moral worthiness of the communist vision, and instead has said "Shucks, we can't do it because it's against our nature," it would then follow that if Alice follows her logic to its inexorable conclusion, she must argue that we should change human nature.

Changing human nature is itself more immoral than not-communism. So says Alice.

[Libertadia]

I am a human being. My only moral aim is to achieve my own happiness, not other's.

That's a contradiction, humans are social animals, having well-being of others as terminal values. Altruism, love, friendship, compassion are built-in in humans, and they are part of what makes human worthy. Randroids rant on "my only goal is my own happiness" is not backed by any fact, neither neuroscience, nor from social psychology, nor from evolutionary psychology. It's just a lie.

It's backed by philosophy. Love is a form of possession. Compassion has to do with empathy, which is in fact selfiness. Altruism, meaning that you sacrifice your life for others, it's moral depravation. But even altruism stops being a "good" feeling if you're force to do good. Read about Immanuel Kant -- goodness results from freedom, freedom to choose between good and bad options.

Because I wasn't born to live for other individuals

If today you're writing on Internet forum, it's because of countless of other individuals. Those who domesticated fire, invented agriculture, writing, scientific method, electricity, quantum mechanics, ... in the past. Those who fed you, sheltered you, protected you, educated you when you were a baby. Those who work so you can eat and produce the electricity on which you computer runs. You are not an isolated individual - an isolated new born human would die in a matter of hours. Society allowed you to become the educated, healthy individual you became, who at least knows how to write and has access to Internet. You've contracted a debt to society, that you'll never fully pay off. You have the right to follow your happiness, but only within the limits set by society, and you also have duties towards it.

I haven't signed any contract, so I haven't concracted any debt. If I wash your car without your consent, does it mean that I have the right to demand you a reward, even if you didn't want to wash your car?

Those who invented the Internet, electricity, etc, didn't do it for me and they didn't do it for free either -- my fathers payed voluntary for everything a have had in the past and I have right now, and I will pay for everything I will have in the future. Those people did it as a way to achieve their own happiness and to fulfill their own ambitions, that's the reason I admire their efforts. Social life must be voluntary, not compulsary. Look up "Voluntaryism".

I'm not a tool they can use to achieve their goals, the same way they aren't tool I can use either.

That's what you're doing. You can't do otherwise. It should be respectful of each human being, allowing the emancipation of all, but in a complex, interconnected system like modern societies are, we are all using the others and being used by the others. And there is nothing wrong in that, as long as it's done fairly and allowing everyone to be emancipated - something capitalism fails at, but communism doesn't.

I don't use people as tools -- they have things I want and I have things they want, so we reach voluntary agreements and contracts that benefit us all. Using people as a tool is for example slavery. My life is not your tool -- is mine.

Communism forces people to work for each others

Because capitalism doesn't ? What forces people to work for each other are the laws of biology that makes us die if we don't eat, drink, get drugs when sick, get clothes when it's cold, ... The economical system (capitalism or communism) only change how the duties and the rewards are shared.

Capitalism doesn't force you to work if you don't want.

"I am the only being that can use my life, body and force to achieve goals, BUT maybe if you give me something valuable, we can reach an accord about you using me." That's the perfect voluntaryist reasoning. Only capitalism can get that, because communism doesn't let you dispose of your body to fulfill your ambitions and get what you want, because self-interest is "bad".

it teaches that self-interest is bad

Well, self-interest at the cost of society as a whole is bad, because at the end we all lose. Defecting in a prisoner's dilemma is bad, because all participants end up in worst situation. But communism doesn't teach that self-interest is always bad. It teaches that we should seek balance between self-interest and common interest, in order to maximize happiness of all.

It doesn't exist such a thing as "common interest", just individual interest, which is in turn self-interest. What communism really teaches you is that some people (that are valuable to the survival of the system -- workers, proletarians, peasants) can fulfill their ambitions, whilst others can't because that goes against the self-interest of the first ones.

and that your only purpose is to repress those feelings of selfiness

Communism, unlike you, don't try to reduce humans to have an only purpose. We acknowledge, and embrace, the fact that human values are complicated.

Human values are complicated indeed! Because of that the economical and political system must allow people to achieve their own goals, goals that a sole government won't ever imagine and won't ever fulfill effectively. Thus, you need capitalism to achive those goals yourself.

It claims "Don't work in exchange of a reward, work for the sake of your brothers and sisters

And that's a wonderful claim. That's how we got Einstein and Mozart. That's how we got most of progress of humanity - scientists, artists working for the sake of humanity, for the love of discovery, for the love of science. Humanity's progress come from that - from people working primarily because they care for others, for humanity as a whole, not by people motivated by profit and greed. People motivated by profit and greed plunder, destroy, exploit, wage wars. People motivated by compassion, friendship, love of humanity or science make us go forward.

Progress is the result of many people trying to achieve their own personal goals, for example, the Internet. Those who think as a being part of a group, society, race, social class or religion tend to develop nationalistic and isolationist views that derive into conflict with other nationalistic and isolationist groups. Even love may derive to slaughter, for example, Christianism. Thus, the problem is thinking collectively.

Work without thinking, work without feeling, work because we ask you for.

Actually, that's what the capitalists ask from the workers. Communism and socialism always were about giving more rights and control to the workers on their production, so they are not mindless drones obeying to the capital owner, but they become actually part of the production process, including in defining it.

Yes, until communism took over Russia, Cuba, North Corea, etc, and realised that letting workers be freethinkers was dangerous if they wanted the Revolution to succeed, so they set up a tyrannical State instead of a tyrannical capitalist pig. Very wise...

Capitalism has realised that a motivated worker is a productive one. It's always better if the worker loves his job than if he doesn't.

how in the world a harnessed and starving north-korean is living a human live

North Korea has absolutely nothing of communism - it is in fact what happens when people motivated fully by greed and selfishness take control of a country.

North Korea, Cuba, Soviet Union, etc, are the final result of communism. You know why? Because political power, the State, is the great corruptor of the human being. You can't use the State if you want to set up a paradise on earth because it will twist you as you never imagined before. Intentions may be considered good (no socialist or communist leader thinks he's spreading evil) but results don't lie -- communism is never the answer.

This is a warning to neocons and neoliberals too -- they can't spread a true Capitalism if they don't renounce to use the State unconditionally.

[Euroslavia]

Alright people (And Obamacult, I'm looking right at you), the topic is NOT about Communism or if it could work, the topic is changing human nature and if that makes appeals to it worthless.

Get it back on track.

People, please re-read the above quote. Let's not veer off topic again. Feel free to create another topic if you wish to discuss Communism.

[Grave_n_idle]

You act like those would be two separate, distinct things.

yes, yes i do.

They aren't.

[Kanery]

Well I think in that sphere its will no longer be what options our nature gives us, but what options we give our nature. We will now have to be deciding what we want to keep, and possibly what we want to lose.