Human Intentions
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am
Human Intentions
This experiment raises of other questions as.As the dominant species, are humans inherently good or bad? Are we only good because of the threat of punishment for bad behavior? Does any kind of power always corrupt the one who possesses it?
What would you do if you knew that no one would ever find out what you have done? What do you think other people would do? What would a good person do? As you think about these questions, remember the worst events in history and what was done because of it. For example, WWII's aftermath led to the formation of the United Nations, an assembly of various countries dedicated to aiding humanity and fighting against global conflict.
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: Human Intentions
"good" and "bad" are relative and don't necessarily have a moral connotation. If you're aiming at morality then what kind of morality are you aiming at? But putting aside my question, regardless of what you're aiming at with "good" and "bad" the "inherently" in "inherently good or bad" cannot be applicable because human behaviour depends on contexts which may imply sometimes "good" and sometimes "bad".WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:46 am Since their beginning, mankind has shown to be a species capable of great compassion as well as violence. In the end, the nature of any being can almost be determined by how an individual, man, woman, child or beast will behave if they know that they will face no repercussions for their actions.
This experiment raises of other questions as.As the dominant species, are humans inherently good or bad?
The key is social control. Even if some refer to religious morality and punishment by a god it boils down to social control through education and censure. On the secular side we have law and prosecution.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:46 am Are we only good because of the threat of punishment for bad behavior?
Sometimes or maybe it may appear that this is often the case but "always" seems to be too categorical.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:46 am Does any kind of power always corrupt the one who possesses it?
There are many thing all individuals can do without anyone else being able to know about it, so your conditioned question ("if ...") doesn't make sense.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:46 am What would you do if you knew that no one would ever find out what you have done? What do you think other people would do?
I don't practice thinking in terms of "[morally] good" and "[morally] bad".
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Human Intentions
Besides public philanthropy there are plenty examples of secret compassionate acts; plenty of obscure Schindlers and most of us know some of them. Or sometimes a man intends to be compassionate but lacks the power.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:46 am Since their beginning, mankind has shown to be a species capable of great compassion as well as violence. In the end, the nature of any being can almost be determined by how an individual, man, woman, child or beast will behave if they know that they will face no repercussions for their actions.
This experiment raises of other questions as.As the dominant species, are humans inherently good or bad? Are we only good because of the threat of punishment for bad behavior? Does any kind of power always corrupt the one who possesses it?
What would you do if you knew that no one would ever find out what you have done? What do you think other people would do? What would a good person do? As you think about these questions, remember the worst events in history and what was done because of it. For example, WWII's aftermath led to the formation of the United Nations, an assembly of various countries dedicated to aiding humanity and fighting against global conflict.
There is a stage in the moral development of the child when he is good for fear of disapproval or punishment. Let's hope all children are given the environment in which they can develop at least to the stage of reason and moral autonomy.
When humans become extinct there will be no recording angel to pass final judgement, as evaluating abstract qualities is solely a human activity. Violence is caused by fear. In the absence of God's recording angel and indeed the absence of God Himself, what we humans have and are shown to have is to aspire to and long for love. Perfect love transcends the relative world and psychologically is like the magnetic north for a migrating bird.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Human Intentions
Humans are notable among animals for an incredibly wide range of behaviors from very selfish to very altruistic.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:46 am Since their beginning, mankind has shown to be a species capable of great compassion as well as violence. In the end, the nature of any being can almost be determined by how an individual, man, woman, child or beast will behave if they know that they will face no repercussions for their actions.
This experiment raises of other questions as.As the dominant species, are humans inherently good or bad? Are we only good because of the threat of punishment for bad behavior? Does any kind of power always corrupt the one who possesses it?
What would you do if you knew that no one would ever find out what you have done? What do you think other people would do? What would a good person do? As you think about these questions, remember the worst events in history and what was done because of it. For example, WWII's aftermath led to the formation of the United Nations, an assembly of various countries dedicated to aiding humanity and fighting against global conflict.
Various individuals label various points on the continuum as "normal", "good" and "bad". That is therefore completely subjective.
I like the "what would you do if no one was looking" trick to help evaluate behavior.
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am
Re: Human Intentions
Appreciate thatLuckyR wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:47 pmHumans are notable among animals for an incredibly wide range of behaviors from very selfish to very altruistic.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:46 am What would you do if you knew that no one would ever find out what you have done? What do you think other people would do? What would a good person do? As you think about these questions, remember the worst events in history and what was done because of it. For example, WWII's aftermath led to the formation of the United Nations, an assembly of various countries dedicated to aiding humanity and fighting against global conflict.
Various individuals label various points on the continuum as "normal", "good" and "bad". That is therefore completely subjective.
I like the "what would you do if no one was looking" trick to help evaluate behavior.
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am
Re: Human Intentions
stevie wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 3:35 amYou make good points, but there is a line between someone who wants to make better decisions and someone who knows a poor choice will make negative impact with no benefit and does so anyway. I mean to say what would anyone do if they had confidence that they were not going to be caught by any witnesses or authorities.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:46 am
"good" and "bad" are relative and don't necessarily have a moral connotation. If you're aiming at morality then what kind of morality are you aiming at? But putting aside my question, regardless of what you're aiming at with "good" and "bad" the "inherently" in "inherently good or bad" cannot be applicable because human behaviour depends on contexts which may imply sometimes "good" and sometimes "bad".
The key is social control. Even if some refer to religious morality and punishment by a god it boils down to social control through education and censure. On the secular side we have law and prosecution.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:46 am Are we only good because of the threat of punishment for bad behavior?
Sometimes or maybe it may appear that this is often the case but "always" seems to be too categorical.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:46 am Does any kind of power always corrupt the one who possesses it?
There are many thing all individuals can do without anyone else being able to know about it, so your conditioned question ("if ...") doesn't make sense.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:46 am What would you do if you knew that no one would ever find out what you have done? What do you think other people would do?
I don't practice thinking in terms of "[morally] good" and "[morally] bad".
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Human Intentions
WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:46 am Since their beginning, mankind has shown to be a species capable of great compassion as well as violence. In the end, the nature of any being can almost be determined by how an individual, man, woman, child or beast will behave if they know that they will face no repercussions for their actions.
This experiment raises of other questions as. As the dominant species, are humans inherently good or bad? Are we only good because of the threat of punishment for bad behavior? Does any kind of power always corrupt the one who possesses it?
<sigh>
Good for/to whom or what? Bad for/to whom or what? Good and bad are barely defined, relative, terms. The sense they convey is limited anyway. But if you consider "good" and "bad" without saying who it's good/bad for/to, you consider an incomplete concept, which is incomprehensible because of its incompleteness.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: Human Intentions
How IYO do good and bad intentions relate to the Eastern concept of karma?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 21st, 2021, 9:17 amWanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:46 am Since their beginning, mankind has shown to be a species capable of great compassion as well as violence. In the end, the nature of any being can almost be determined by how an individual, man, woman, child or beast will behave if they know that they will face no repercussions for their actions.
This experiment raises of other questions as. As the dominant species, are humans inherently good or bad? Are we only good because of the threat of punishment for bad behavior? Does any kind of power always corrupt the one who possesses it?
<sigh>
Good for/to whom or what? Bad for/to whom or what? Good and bad are barely defined, relative, terms. The sense they convey is limited anyway. But if you consider "good" and "bad" without saying who it's good/bad for/to, you consider an incomplete concept, which is incomprehensible because of its incompleteness.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/karma
Who or what is so concerned with intentions? Is it some deity, the universe itself, society, or perhaps a quality of force we are yet to appreciate?Essential Meaning of karma
1: the force created by a person's actions that is believed in Hinduism and Buddhism to determine what that person's next life will be like
2informal : the force created by a person's actions that some people believe causes good or bad things to happen to that person
She believes that helping people produces good karma.
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: Human Intentions
WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 21st, 2021, 2:50 amSomeone "who wants to make better decisions" may have lost contact to her/-himself because appopriate decisions originate naturally and someone "who knows a poor choice will make negative impact with no benefit and does so anyway" may be a person driven by irrational intellectual motivations. So both persons may be governed by specific but different disorders, yes, so "there is a line between" applies metaphorically.stevie wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 3:35 amYou make good points, but there is a line between someone who wants to make better decisions and someone who knows a poor choice will make negative impact with no benefit and does so anyway. I mean to say what would anyone do if they had confidence that they were not going to be caught by any witnesses or authorities.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:46 am
"good" and "bad" are relative and don't necessarily have a moral connotation. If you're aiming at morality then what kind of morality are you aiming at? But putting aside my question, regardless of what you're aiming at with "good" and "bad" the "inherently" in "inherently good or bad" cannot be applicable because human behaviour depends on contexts which may imply sometimes "good" and sometimes "bad".
The key is social control. Even if some refer to religious morality and punishment by a god it boils down to social control through education and censure. On the secular side we have law and prosecution.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:46 am Are we only good because of the threat of punishment for bad behavior?
Sometimes or maybe it may appear that this is often the case but "always" seems to be too categorical.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:46 am Does any kind of power always corrupt the one who possesses it?
There are many thing all individuals can do without anyone else being able to know about it, so your conditioned question ("if ...") doesn't make sense.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:46 am What would you do if you knew that no one would ever find out what you have done? What do you think other people would do?
I don't practice thinking in terms of "[morally] good" and "[morally] bad".
The consideration "will I be caught by any witnesses or authorities?" can only appear if there is the intention to do something that is socially censured and there is knowledge that it is socially censured and - referring to the two disorders - such an intention can only arise if the naturally originating decision is in conflict with these social norms (absence of disorder 1) but the person is driven by irrational intellectual motivations (presence of disorder 2). So given the absence of disorder 1 but simulaneous presence of disorder 2 the arising of the consideration "will I be caught by any witnesses or authorities?" as such is already evidence that the person in question will act counter the corresponding social norms if there is confidence that she/he will not be caught by any witnesses or authorities.
The fact that the naturally originating decision is in conflict with these social norms renders the cure of such a person very difficult because the conditioning obviously has happened in the context of family, upbringing etc. not in touch with these social norms.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Human Intentions
No. For most people the threat of punishment is not the primary motivator. It's empathy. There are various ways in which empathy can be enhanced or decreased.WanderingGaze22 wrote:Are we only good because of the threat of punishment for bad behavior?
Events like the Holocaust aren't caused primarily by the lack of punishment. I think they're caused by tribalism, compartmentalism, human exceptionalism (the belief that humans are fundamentally different from other animals) and the notion of objectively existing values. Those last two together, it seems, have been particularly effective at easing the way for genocides like the Holocaust and others. The first two, it seems, also play a part in genocides but also more widely in other examples of violence.As you think about these questions, remember the worst events in history and what was done because of it.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Human Intentions
Cooking a friend a big, juicy steak would often be seen as "good". The cow that was slaughtered for the steak would not have shared that view.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 21st, 2021, 9:17 amGood for/to whom or what? Bad for/to whom or what?WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 2:46 am Since their beginning, mankind has shown to be a species capable of great compassion as well as violence. In the end, the nature of any being can almost be determined by how an individual, man, woman, child or beast will behave if they know that they will face no repercussions for their actions.
This experiment raises of other questions as. As the dominant species, are humans inherently good or bad? Are we only good because of the threat of punishment for bad behavior? Does any kind of power always corrupt the one who possesses it?
Since life forms are all competing with each other, "good" exists in the eye of the beholder.
So, as you suggest, the "no consequences" test does not tell us about "good" or "bad". Rather, it reveals a person's sphere of concern - anywhere from strong selfishness to strong universalism (most don't seem to much worry outside family, friends and, to a much lesser extent, fellow locals and citizens). The "no consequences" test will also test impulse control (a la the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment).
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023