Are human beings good or bad?

• O-Trap

  

  I was having a discussion the other day with a friend of mine regarding how well you can trust a stranger to do the right thing without any form of compensation. In essence, if you were to put a person in a world where showing altruism yielded no intrinsic or extrinsic beneficial compensation (not even so much as a warm, fuzzy feeling about doing the "right" thing), but acting selfishly would result in some shred of self-satisfying consequence (but no negative repercussions), which would a human most likely make?
  
  What do you think?
• Con_Alma

  Desirous to be good but simply unable to fully.
• vball10set

  You guys were smoking weed, amirite?
• O-Trap

  

  Nope. I never have, actually.
• vball10set

  Oh.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Humans are self-serving first. In my opinion, the only reason humans help each other out is because of pressure to do so, whether it's from religion, Obama, or Hurricane Sandy.
• sleeper

  

  The individual will always choose the easiest path. If the easiest path happens to be an altruistic action, then he will chose that. 99 times out of 100, the altruistic act is the harder path and therefore would be chosen less. The other 1 time out of 100 that the altruistic act occurs, the human would simply being doing the altruistic act out a perceived future benefit(fame, fortune, women, etc).
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1308736 wrote:The individual will always choose the easiest path. If the easiest path happens to be an altruistic action, then he will chose that. 99 times out of 100, the altruistic act is the harder path and therefore would be chosen less. The other 1 time out of 100 that the altruistic act occurs, the human would simply being doing the altruistic act out a perceived future benefit(fame, fortune, women, etc).

  Which, in my example, wouldn't exist.
• sleeper

  

  I didn't read in depth the OP. Also I would like to change (fame, fortune, women) to just (women).
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1308751 wrote:I didn't read in depth the OP. Also I would like to change (fame, fortune, women) to just (women).

  "Edit post" button is good for doing that.
• Fly4Fun

  

  O-Trap;1308716 wrote:I was having a discussion the other day with a friend of mine regarding how well you can trust a stranger to do the right thing without any form of compensation. In essence, if you were to put a person in a world where showing altruism yielded no intrinsic or extrinsic beneficial compensation (not even so much as a warm, fuzzy feeling about doing the "right" thing), but acting selfishly would result in some shred of self-satisfying consequence (but no negative repercussions), which would a human most likely make?
  
  What do you think?

  You intentionally pose a situation that encourages only one answer. It's hardly indicative of anything. If social science has shown one thing it is that humans respond to stimuli/incentives. Yes, people are born with a certain genetic code that might affect how they act in situations such as having a genetic predisposition towards psychopathy that is brought in conjunction with psychological and environmental factors. Thus I think it would be safe to assume that people are also born with a genetic predisposition that combined with psychological and environmental factors are more likely to act altruistically.
  
  But to set up your situation or "world" in such a way that incentivises rewards for a specific behavior, that's the behavior you are most likely to get. Humans react to stimuli consciously and subconsciously all the time.
• O-Trap

  

  Fly4Fun;1308761 wrote:You intentionally pose a situation that encourages only one answer. It's hardly indicative of anything. If social science has shown one thing it is that humans respond to stimuli/incentives. Yes, people are born with a certain genetic code that might affect how they act in situations such as having a genetic predisposition towards psychopathy that is brought in conjunction with psychological and environmental factors. Thus I think it would be safe to assume that people are also born with a genetic predisposition that combined with psychological and environmental factors are more likely to act altruistically.
  
  But to set up your situation or "world" in such a way that incentivises rewards for a specific behavior, that's the behavior you are most likely to get. Humans react to stimuli consciously and subconsciously all the time.

  The ultimate question was whether or not altruism was, itself, valuable apart from the results of it. Or if it was really even an option, as one might say that the benefits of perceived altruism (the warm fuzzies, social perception, etc.) make perceived "altruism" really a self-serving act.
• Fly4Fun

  

  O-Trap;1308767 wrote:The ultimate question was whether or not altruism was, itself, valuable apart from the results of it.

  And I think it is ridiculous to try to examine a certain behavior absent of external stimuli or set up specifically with stimuli to counteract that behavior. My ultimate point is that humans don't truly have free-will in the sense that our behavior can be viewed in such a void. We are influenced in ways we can process at the time and are influenced in an a nearly infinite numbers of ways that we can't comprehend consciously.
• Con_Alma

  O-Trap;1308767 wrote:The ultimate question was whether or not altruism was, itself, valuable apart from the results of it.

  ???
  
  That's a different question than would humans act altruistically without influential presence.
  
  Hmmm, it's also one that is much more difficult to answer.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1308777 wrote:???
  
  That's a different question than would humans act altruistically without influential presence.
  
  Hmmm, it's also one that is much more difficult to answer.

  It's not really different. If altruism is able to, itself, have value, then it is possibly of greater value than at least the smallest of self-fulfillments, indicating that despite no actual beneficial repercussion, it still warrants action.
• Con_Alma

  O-Trap;1308782 wrote:It's not really different. If altruism is able to, itself, have value, then it is possibly of greater value than at least the smallest of self-fulfillments, indicating that despite no actual beneficial repercussion, it still warrants action.

  I see it as different. Accepting all that you have said is true the ability to act in a certain manner without influence or even the desire to act isn't the same thing as warranting certain action.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1308790 wrote:I see it as different. Accepting all that you have said is true the ability to act in a certain manner without influence or even the desire to act isn't the same thing as warranting certain action.

  Could you elaborate on the difference?
  
  For what it's worth, if altruism has intrinsic value itself, then there still is influence, if not desire (which I haven't considered enough).
• O-Trap

  

  It's entirely possible that I'm not explaining the quandry well.
  
  Perhaps I should simplify the origin of the discussion:
  
  Would altruistic actions be committed without any self-serving benefit, down to a warm-fuzzy feeling about doing the "right" thing?
• Con_Alma

  O-Trap;1308808 wrote:It's entirely possible that I'm not explaining the quandry well.
  
  Perhaps I should simplify the origin of the discussion:
  
  Would altruistic actions be committed without any self-serving benefit, down to a warm-fuzzy feeling about doing the "right" thing?

  Isn't the warm fuzzy feeling a self-benefit that could be desirous?
  
  Even so, I think the answer is the acts would be committed just as much they wouldn't. They would be random in nature.
• Con_Alma

  O-Trap;1308799 wrote:Could you elaborate on the difference?
  
  For what it's worth, if altruism has intrinsic value itself, then there still is influence, if not desire (which I haven't considered enough).

  The ability to act altruistically versus the choice to would be the difference. If we can't then even if we choose to the action wouldn't occur.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1308819 wrote:Isn't the warm fuzzy feeling a self-benefit that could be desirous?
  
  Even so, I think the answer is the acts would be committed just as much they wouldn't. They would be random in nature.

  
  I was saying that even the warm, fuzzy feeling would be absent, since the feeling is a result of the action, and is not the action itself. The quandary is into whether or not there would be perceivable intrinsic value in altruism such that, at some level, people would choose it as being more valuable than some level of selfish fulfillment resultant from the alternative action.
  

  Con_Alma;1308820 wrote:The ability to act altruistically versus the choice to would be the difference. If we can't then even if we choose to the action wouldn't occur.

  I didn't mean to indicate that it wouldn't be possible (though genetic predeterminism is certainly an offshoot of this discussion). I meant given the human disposition, would there be any recognizable intrinsic value in altruism?
• cruiser_96

  

  I've heard it stated "Do the right thing because it's the right thing to do." Sometimes the correct thing is not always the easiest. It might not be the most self-serving either.
  
  Also, this presupposes absolute right exists. Same with (as the thread title suggests: Good/Bad) There is neither is there is no absolute. Only relativism.
• O-Trap

  

  cruiser_96;1308837 wrote:I've heard it stated "Do the right thing because it's the right thing to do." Sometimes the correct thing is not always the easiest. It might not be the most self-serving either.
  
  Also, this presupposes absolute right exists. Same with (as the thread title suggests: Good/Bad) There is neither is there is no absolute. Only relativism.

  Altruism it often the most agreed "good" in many cultures. However, altruism itself is not relative, so the quandary stands.
• FatHobbit

  

  IMHO you can't predict what "humans" would do because they all act indepently. Just because 10 people might choose one path doesn't mean 10 different people wouldn't choose another.
• Con_Alma

  O-Trap;1308831 wrote:I was saying that even the warm, fuzzy feeling would be absent, since the feeling is a result of the action, and is not the action itself. The quandary is into whether or not there would be perceivable intrinsic value in altruism such that, at some level, people would choose it as being more valuable than some level of selfish fulfillment resultant from the alternative action.

  The result, however, could be the incentive for the action and thus we are back to where started, correct? The perceived intrinsic value would invite the individual to try and act.
  
  I think my ultimate answer is that acts would be committed just as much they wouldn't. They would be random in nature. As cruiser pointed out the relative nature of good/bad would be the only thing definitive...if that's even possible. Lol.
  
  
  I didn't mean to indicate that it wouldn't be possible (though genetic predeterminism is certainly an offshoot of this discussion). I meant given the human disposition, would there be any recognizable intrinsic value in altruism?