# The nature of man



## ambush80 (Oct 4, 2010)

I have concluded that people are selfish; that passing on one's genes is our ultimate goal.

I also have concluded that people are capable of over riding their natural impulses for any number of reasons; one of them being ideology.  I've been interested in the concept of humanitarianism and charity as of late, on a personal level, as well as how these notions can be applied to society.

Any humanistic thoughts on the subject of charity?

If you're going to respond with stories of talking snakes, please don't bother.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 4, 2010)

I took my old 50 inch projection TV to Good Will....


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 4, 2010)

drippin' rock said:


> I took my old 50 inch projection TV to Good Will....



Now that's pure unadulterated Altruism.


----------



## Tim L (Oct 4, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> I have concluded that people are selfish; that passing on one's genes is our ultimate goal.
> 
> I also have concluded that people are capable of over riding their natural impulses for any number of reasons; one of them being ideology.  I've been interested in the concept of humanitarianism and charity as of late, on a personal level, as well as how these notions can be applied to society.
> 
> ...



Let's see; philosophy class was many decades ago, but from what I remember most humanists were divided into two camps; one championed by Rosseau who said that man is a "noble savage" who left on his own devices was basically "good".  The second camp, championed by Hobbs (I think) stated that man is basically evil, a selfish, self centered creature....You seem to drift  to the second of the two..

Apart from all this, a girl I once knew back in the late hippie years of the early 1970's once dared me to come up with an example of something a human could do that at its base was not a selfish act....She explained how everything that everyone does is selfish at it's root; we expect something back in return.....I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, it just is...but I think she was right..I could not think of anything a person could do then that wasn't selfish at it's core and today I still can't...


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 4, 2010)

Sorry, I couldn't resist.  

I give clothes to homeless shelters and that is pretty much it.  I don't give to people on the street, although I have in the past.  Working in Atlanta has hardened me against that.  The argument has been made that we should not concern ourselves with what the homeless person does with the money we give.  I solve that problem by not giving them any.  I have all the charity I can handle at my house with two little girls and a wife.  Right or wrong that is my decision.

P.S.  Except for the occasional ticket, I don't give to the State Patrol either!


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 4, 2010)

Rouster said:


> Let's see; philosophy class was many decades ago, but from what I remember most humanists were divided into two camps; one championed by Rosseau who said that man is a "noble savage" who left on his own devices was basically "good".  The second camp, championed by Hobbs (I think) stated that man is basically evil, a selfish, self centered creature....You seem to drift  to the second of the two..
> 
> Apart from all this, a girl I once knew back in the late hippie years of the early 1970's once dared me to come up with an example of something a human could do that at its base was not a selfish act....She explained how everything that everyone does is selfish at it's root; we expect something back in return.....I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, it just is...but I think she was right..I could not think of anything a person could do then that wasn't selfish at it's core and today I still can't...



Mark Twain wrote an essay, " What is Man", that puts forth the same idea.  No matter what we do, great or small, it is done to satisfy our own spirit.  Your hippie friend might have read this.  For a long time after I read it, I believed it wholeheartedly.  I still think it is true, the idea that everything we do is done to satisfy ourselves, but now I also believe it's ok as long as what you do is benificial.  I guess what I mean is arguing the difference between selfishness and selflessness is pointless.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 4, 2010)

Rouster said:


> Let's see; philosophy class was many decades ago, but from what I remember most humanists were divided into two camps; one championed by Rosseau who said that man is a "noble savage" who left on his own devices was basically "good".  The second camp, championed by Hobbs (I think) stated that man is basically evil, a selfish, self centered creature....You seem to drift  to the second of the two..
> 
> Apart from all this, a girl I once knew back in the late hippie years of the early 1970's once dared me to come up with an example of something a human could do that at its base was not a selfish act....She explained how everything that everyone does is selfish at it's root; we expect something back in return.....I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, it just is...but I think she was right..I could not think of anything a person could do then that wasn't selfish at it's core and today I still can't...



I've always thought that what Rousseau describes is people acting for the good of the species.  It's both selfish and selfless.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 4, 2010)

So how would these philosophies relate to Govt. Welfare?


----------



## Tim L (Oct 4, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> I've always thought that what Rousseau describes is people acting for the good of the species.  It's both selfish and selfless.



I really think he was saying that man wasn't too complicated an animal and that he was just basically good and at his core would do the right thing...He really didn't elevate the right thing to being "selfish" or "selfless"..


----------



## earl (Oct 4, 2010)

I give to Disabled Vets and Good Will, I do not ask for or use their receipts for tax purposes. I guess that makes me selfish because it saves me the cost of disposing of the donated items. As my kids grew out of their clothes ,they gave them to charities that they picked out . In their late teens ,and even today ,they still do it . I think it is more compassion than greed. But thats just me.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Oct 4, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> So how would these philosophies relate to Govt. Welfare?



Fascinating thought. We resent taxes because we often disagree with how the money is spent regardless of the good that is done with it, but we feel warm and fuzzy inside when we give to our favorite charity. I guess both are necessary to have a functioning society.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Oct 4, 2010)

earl said:


> I give to Disabled Vets and Good Will, I do not ask for or use their receipts for tax purposes. I guess that makes me selfish because it saves me the cost of disposing of the donated items. As my kids grew out of their clothes ,they gave them to charities that they picked out . In their late teens ,and even today ,they still do it . I think it is more compassion than greed. But thats just me.



earl, you're just an old softy at heart!
But...let me add that I agree, except I usually do keep the receipts.


----------



## VisionCasting (Oct 4, 2010)

earl said:


> I give to Disabled Vets and Good Will, I do not ask for or use their receipts for tax purposes.



That doesn't make you generous, just foolish.    Sorry, couldn't resist that layup.  

Seriously, kudos on giving.  You'd be surprised how few people actually do give charitably.


----------



## Thor827 (Oct 4, 2010)

I give as much as I am able to charity. It's good to see that most of you do too. That being said, I think we are all selfish at the core. The fact is, when I give to charity, I do it because it makes me feel good. Self gratification is the epitome of selfish behavior.

As far as gov't welfare, any politician who supports it does so for one reason only. They know a voter on the payroll is a guaranteed vote.


----------



## pnome (Oct 4, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> I have concluded that people are selfish; that passing on one's genes is our ultimate goal.



Disagree.  

First, people are not selfish at their core.  Truly selfish people, those who empathize with no one but themselves, are few and are arguably insane.

Empathy rises with familiarity.  Some people still lead lives in which they only familiarize themselves with the relative "locals".  Or people like themselves.  This leads to a lower level of empathy as they are familiar with only a few types of people.  Of note is that, in Christians, this sort of thing _shouldn't_ happen.  Jesus taught that empathy was the #1 thing.  He was right!  And the best examples of his followers have not forgotten that lesson.

Second, passing on genes is only a tactic employed in the pursuit of the ultimate goal.  The ultimate goal is survival.




> I also have concluded that people are capable of over riding their natural impulses for any number of reasons; one of them being ideology.



Disagree.  Sort of.

The natural impulse is survival.  The ideology serves that end.  At least as far as you believe the ideology.  Muslims and Christians believe their ideology, because they think it will grant them eternal survival. 

It is certainly possible to override the natural impulse of survival.  People still smoke cigarettes. But few who do think that what they are doing is "good".  



> I've been interested in the concept of humanitarianism and charity as of late, on a personal level, as well as how these notions can be applied to society.
> 
> Any humanistic thoughts on the subject of charity?
> 
> If you're going to respond with stories of talking snakes, please don't bother.



Charity is a product of empathy.   Empathy,  is a product of our survival instinct.   People helping people helps us all survive better.  In a small community, or tribe, this is clearly evident.  It's a little harder to see at the level of our modern societies, but it still applies. 

And we are by no means the only animal to have it. 


That's my opinion anyway.. take it or leave it.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Oct 4, 2010)

pnome said:


> Charity is a product of empathy.   Empathy,  is a product of our survival instinct.   People helping people helps us all survive better.  In a small community, or tribe, this is clearly evident.  It's a little harder to see at the level of our modern societies, but it still applies.
> 
> And we are by no means the only animal to have it.
> 
> ...



pnome, pardon the partial quote, but I think this is a well thought out post. Small communities whose lives are dependant on their environment clearly demonstrate charity. While there may be individual ownership of some items, food and other natural resources are considered property of the entire community and is given gladly.


----------



## Madman (Oct 4, 2010)

Rouster said:


> She explained how everything that everyone does is selfish at it's root; we expect something back in return.....I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, it just is...but I think she was right..I could not think of anything a person could do then that wasn't selfish at it's core and today I still can't...



I'm with Rouster on this one.

"My most righteous deeds are but filthy rags."
Sorry Ambush I couldn't resist.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 4, 2010)

Madman said:


> I'm with Rouster on this one.
> 
> "My most righteous deeds are but filthy rags."
> Sorry Ambush I couldn't resist.




You should try harder.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 5, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> I have concluded that people are selfish; that passing on one's genes is our ultimate goal.
> 
> I also have concluded that people are capable of over riding their natural impulses for any number of reasons; one of them being ideology.  I've been interested in the concept of humanitarianism and charity as of late, on a personal level, as well as how these notions can be applied to society.
> 
> ...



If we are completely selfish, then end of story.

If we overcome those natural impulses for the sake of "ideology", then, where does that ideology come from? Animals don't have it. Why would we make up ideologies to set us apart from animals?


----------

