The Increasing Morality of Society

Some thoughts on reconciling a basically positive view of human nature with the existence of evil.

Aaron0883's video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bw_hlvTo_8

Steven Pinker on the Myth of Violence
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• morality
• ethics
• human
• nature
• epistemology
• psychology
• control
• self-hatred
• violence
• history

[fede2]

so you say that lack of information is the root or all evil? kind of like socratic intellectualism. i'm not concinved but that. it seems to me that the element of will is missing from it.

[XOmniverse]

Will in what sense? You can't will yourself to not act towards what you perceive to be your self-interest.

[brainpolice2]

I think he means that someone could concievably know "the good" and act against it (hence him bringing up will). I believe socrates is portrayed as argueing the opposite, I.E. that one that knows the good will inherently do the good.

[XOmniverse]

I think Socrates is correct if one recognizes that superficially recognizing the good in a logical sort of way isn't the same as really believing the idea and integrating it into your world view.

[stealthswimmer]

just wanted to say this vid makes a lot of sense. Also, more information, from the individual standpoint, doesn't necessarily mean an improvement in outcome because the person has to believe the information. through experience, whether by that individual or having them watch others, the information becomes validated or discredited. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen with all information, but i think it happens with enough of it to improve outcomes, as the lessening of violence seems to show

[l1berty53000]

I think he meant there are societies where the *cause of death* is being killed by another person 50% of the times.

[UnschoolingEagle]

@rickdelagarza Ego issue? Okay dude see ya.

[rickdelagarza]

"Normal" and "happiness" aren't scientifically supported traits that can support the "nature" of a human.I think I have supported my argument enough.I'm not responsible if you do not wish to concede because of an ego issue.

[UnschoolingEagle]

It is normal for humans to desire happiness. Just because some people have some type of error... doesn't make it not nature.

[rickdelagarza]

Can you give me an example of such a trait?

[UnschoolingEagle]

People who are actually physiologically depressed are born with a disorder. We aren't perfect. I do not see nature as something that is inevitable... only a common trait among most of a certain creature. A trait that can be altered.

[rickdelagarza]

So what about those with physiological depression?If what your saying is true these people wouldn't exist at all.They're physiologically depressed, they were born that way because of a serotonin deficiency which existed since birth.What about their happiness?They can never feel happiness because of that chemical deficiency.

You just proved my point.If we can change animal or human behavior it is not nature, is it?As I said before, nature implies inevitability, behavior that can not be avoided.

[UnschoolingEagle]

Happiness is sought, and it is sought no matter what our culture dictates that happiness is. Just because there is a human nature, doesn't mean everyone is going to end up exactly the same... wolves have a nature... but we domesticated them and changed it. Just because a creature has a nature, doesn't mean it can't be changed for better or worse.

[danielsondanielson]

When or where has ever 50% of humans regularly died by human killing? I don't say it's impossible, but I would appreciate some source.