Humans are inherently good.

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,785
Twitter
No
I doubt that there is any such thing as an inherently good or inherently malevolent human, never mind such absolutes being suggested for the entire race.

Putting the same hubris aside that saw us emerge as the second most powerful naturally occurring species on the planet, we are within the fauna category when the alien visitor thinks about his report to the Galactic County Council. We aren't flora on the planet.

We are animals. We have animal instincts buried within us that are incredibly powerful.

We see members of the species go rogue from time to time but that is usually down to a failed or damaged psychology, whether it be fascist dictator or neighbourhood wife-beater.

'Good' is always only going to be what is agreed within the species as being useful for the species to regard as a rule. And that is always going to morph and shift over time.

I' suggest concepts such as 'good' or 'bad' should really be regarded as dynamics rather than absolutes in and of themselves.
 


shiel

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
17,465
Kant essentially supported the love of neighbour ethic when he said that we should judge every action as if it was to become an eternal principle.

Nietzsche on the other hand said the opposite.

He said the love of neighbour ethic was the morality of slaves.

He also said that the love of neighbour ethic should be replaced by the will to power and that 'higher men' should make war on the masses.

That conflict of ideas on how to manage our relationships with one another is being played out daily in our politics and economic life.

Stalin and Hitler were Nietzschean.

In Brexit terms Teresa May was Kantian while Boris Johnson is Nietzschean.
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,907
The best answer to that question

Define 'good'.

Otherwise the question itself is broken and will yield no useful information. Be good waffle though.
To be fair Rousseau didn't go into that much, it was it seems taken as read, natural if you will..

The Academy sought submissions on the theme of whether the development of the arts and sciences had improved or corrupted public morals. Rousseau later claimed that he then and there experienced an epiphany which included the thought, central to his world view, that humankind is good by nature but is corrupted by society.
 
Last edited:

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,602
As a German Kant was very Christian in his morality.

But in contrast Nietzsche who propounded the direct opposite and influenced fascism is also very German.
Artur Schopenhauer had a joke about Kant's moral philosophy .... Kant is like a married man who goes to a masked ball, determined to seduce a woman. He lays siege to one woman's virtue, she submits .... but when she takes off her mask. she turns out to be his wife.

So the conventional Lutheran Kant remains in thrall to Christianity in his moral philosophy.

Schopenhauer;s own moral philosophy is based on human solidarity, which makes it more utilitarian like Hume or Adam Smith (who was a moral philosopher before he was an economist).
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,602
Kant should not be dismissed, by the way, he was a giant of western philosophy, the greatest since Plato.

Philosophers like Kant, or his successors Hegel or Schopenhauer, was the last of the great "system" philosophers - nowadays, philosophy has become so diverse that any has to specialise in logic, language, morals .... etc.

But Kant was aware of the problem of conflicts, and was the first to write about universal peace, brought about by international co-operation between states. Of course, he has a few racist statements as well, that now look dubious.
 

shiel

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
17,465
Artur Schopenhauer had a joke about Kant's moral philosophy .... Kant is like a married man who goes to a masked ball, determined to seduce a woman. He lays siege to one woman's virtue, she submits .... but when she takes off her mask. she turns out to be his wife.

So the conventional Lutheran Kant remains in thrall to Christianity in his moral philosophy.

Schopenhauer;s own moral philosophy is based on human solidarity, which makes it more utilitarian like Hume or Adam Smith (who was a moral philosopher before he was an economist).
The significance of Nietzsche is that he totally challenged the conventional moral philosophy of his age.

He was totally anti-democratic and decried universal suffrage.

Giving power to the people or horror of horrors women is, according to Nietzsche, the dominion of the inferior.

There are many disciples of Nietzsche still around.

In present day terms Kant would be pro-EU while Nietzsche would be on the extreme end of the Brexiteers.
 
Last edited:

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,602
The significance of Nietzsche is that he totally challenged the conventional moral philosophy of his age.

He was totally anti-democratic and decried universal suffrage.

Giving power to the people or horror of horrors women is, according to Nietzsche, the dominion of the inferior.

There are many disciples of Nietzsche still around.

In present day terms Kant would be pro-EU while Nietzsche would be on the extreme end of the Brexiteers.
I always am sorry I do never had much time to read philosophy, but afaik Nietzsche was wildly misinterpreted by many of his followers, including the Nazis. Nietzsche had no truck with anti-semitsm, and would have rejected the racial interpretation of the Superman. Unfortunately, his sister decided differently, and, after his death, sold out his legacy to Hitler.

Rather than politics, Nietzsche was more concerned with the struggle of the individual to achieve fulfillment against the constraints of society, not communal concepts like freedom or rights. His ideal was the Artist, not the Dictator or brute sensualist, Vincent Van Gogh or James Joyce more than Napoleon or the Marquis de Sade.

But he will always be a controversial figure.

 

shiel

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
17,465
I always am sorry I do never had much time to read philosophy, but afaik Nietzsche was wildly misinterpreted by many of his followers, including the Nazis. Nietzsche had no truck with anti-semitsm, and would have rejected the racial interpretation of the Superman. Unfortunately, his sister decided differently, and, after his death, sold out his legacy to Hitler.

Rather than politics, Nietzsche was more concerned with the struggle of the individual to achieve fulfillment against the constraints of society, not communal concepts like freedom or rights. His ideal was the Artist, not the Dictator or brute sensualist, Vincent Van Gogh or James Joyce more than Napoleon or the Marquis de Sade.

But he will always be a controversial figure.


Great post. But it is hard to defend Nietzsche in his advocacy of anarchy and the right of the powerful to become great 'by means of the annihilation of millions of the bungled and the botched'.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,602
Great post. But it is hard to defend Nietzsche in his advocacy of anarchy and the right of the powerful to become great 'by means of the annihilation of millions of the bungled and the botched'.
Well, the poor man did end his life in an asylum for the insane. I am moved by the story that in Turin he saw a horse collapse after being flogged by a coachman. He put his arms around the horse's neck and wept. He never recovered from this emotional turmoil, and spent his last 11 years in the mental hospital.

One claim is that he was in the last stages of syphilis, but it is not what you expect from the philosopher of the Will To Power, and the Superman.

Like a lot of philosophers his work can be mined for ambiguous or nasty quotations. But I agree that a lot of his writings are vicious.
 

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
9,934
The significance of Nietzsche is that he totally challenged the conventional moral philosophy of his age.

He was totally anti-democratic and decried universal suffrage.

Giving power to the people or horror of horrors women is, according to Nietzsche, the dominion of the inferior.

There are many disciples of Nietzsche still around.

In present day terms Kant would be pro-EU while Nietzsche would be on the extreme end of the Brexiteers.
When you are very sick, do you take a vote giving the uneducated a say in your treatment? When you are at war and millions of lives are at risk, do you give a common soldier a vote in military tactics or let the best strategist decide ? In business, should the janitor get a vote on the structure of finance to be used ? In most walks of life we accept that the best decision is made by leaving the most able decide. One man one vote is a new system that will be replaced.
 

shiel

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
17,465
When you are very sick, do you take a vote giving the uneducated a say in your treatment? When you are at war and millions of lives are at risk, do you give a common soldier a vote in military tactics or let the best strategist decide ? In business, should the janitor get a vote on the structure of finance to be used ? In most walks of life we accept that the best decision is made by leaving the most able decide. One man one vote is a new system that will be replaced.
No

One person one vote is as old as the Athens of Plato Aristotle and Socrates.

It is the basis of representative democracy that governs a good part of the present day world.

As a famous man once said it is anything but perfect but think of the alternatives before you get rid of it.

It has nothing to do with running a business.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,602
When you are very sick, do you take a vote giving the uneducated a say in your treatment? When you are at war and millions of lives are at risk, do you give a common soldier a vote in military tactics or let the best strategist decide ? In business, should the janitor get a vote on the structure of finance to be used ? In most walks of life we accept that the best decision is made by leaving the most able decide. One man one vote is a new system that will be replaced.
Sounds like a recipe for an authoritarian technocracy .... Marx and Stalin would have approved, so would the Nazis, as would Hayek, Friedman and the economists who gave us neo-liberalism.

On climate change, for example, would you appoint a team of climate scientists and economists to examine the question, and then enforce their prescriptions rigidly, no matter who got hurt?

I would prefer the democratic system, where elected politicians possessing leadership skills deciding ultimately on our behalf, while being advised by the experts, and with us entitled to keep tabs on them through a free press, freedom of enquiry and free elections.
 
Last edited:


New Threads

Most Replies

Top