Influences, Individuals, and the Society

[Sushan]

We can agree that most occasions will prove what you mentioned. But it is not rare to see kids who are born to good parents, live in good societies, get good education, become bad adults. And the vice versa is seen too. How can that be explained with this concept of prerequisites?

True, but you don't know how much worse the bad kid would have been without the good influences.

That is true. Maybe he could have been far more worse if he did not have the good influences. But ultimately why he became a bad person if he had abundant good influences?

"Good" and "bad" are arbitrary relative descriptors without independent meaning. Physical makeup, both genetic and congenital, lead to a baseline "goodness" quotient that is massively influenced by environmental and experiencial factors.

It is true that the words "good" and "bad" are arbitrary when it is applied to people. But I think anyone gets an idea when we simply name a person 'good' or 'bad', although it cannot be defined or clearly demarcated. I think that social agreement is enough to have this discussion.

Congenital and genetic factors may make a well built, genius kid. But will they have an effect on his 'goodness'?

[Sushan]

Thank you for the in detail explanation. So, by being unable to explain human behaviour by the srudy of behaviouralism, does it prove that this author is correct? Could there really be a system to determine the actions of individuals, which are not random, yet cannot be predicted?

And for the influences, I think there are many occasions that people already know that they are under certain influences, yet act either in ignorance, or in mere acceptance. The choice is upto the individual to accept or deny bad influences. But when the influences are concealed, then neither the individuals, nor the society can be helped.

Well, my OPINION is that it is similar to particle physics. Gross assemblages of behavior across many individuals is predictable to an extent, but in the real world, unanticipated influencing factors make the endeavor difficult.

Quite true. Particles can be studied in controlled environments with expected results. But when they act in the real world the external factors that may affect them are unpredictable, so are the results. Though controlled conditions cannot be fully applicable to humans, the predictability of results become far less in the real world than they are in various social models.

[LuckyR]

True, but you don't know how much worse the bad kid would have been without the good influences.

That is true. Maybe he could have been far more worse if he did not have the good influences. But ultimately why he became a bad person if he had abundant good influences?

"Good" and "bad" are arbitrary relative descriptors without independent meaning. Physical makeup, both genetic and congenital, lead to a baseline "goodness" quotient that is massively influenced by environmental and experiencial factors.

It is true that the words "good" and "bad" are arbitrary when it is applied to people. But I think anyone gets an idea when we simply name a person 'good' or 'bad', although it cannot be defined or clearly demarcated. I think that social agreement is enough to have this discussion.

Congenital and genetic factors may make a well built, genius kid. But will they have an effect on his 'goodness'?

I think they have an effect on his goodness capacity, whether he reaches that capacity will mostly depend on his environment and experiences.

[EricPH]

But it is the responsibility of the parents to make their children emotionally strong enough to deny bad things and accept good things.

This would happen in an ideal world. In the UK; when a child reaches fifteen; about half of them are not living with both their biological parents. Today's society almost encourages the thought that you deserve to be happy; and if this relationship is not what you want; walk out and find another.

And also how to think before acting and identify bad from good. Such a kid will not be affected by whatever the community that he will be released into.

Sadly I have met too many people who have been raped and abused when they were children, both male and female. I have met people who have been coerced into drug dealing and taking when they were young. Paedophiles and drug dealers are clever and controlling, they seek out the vulnerable.

I don't see how these urges can be influenced to change; they have probably been with us throughout the history of mankind.



.

[Sushan]

That is true. Maybe he could have been far more worse if he did not have the good influences. But ultimately why he became a bad person if he had abundant good influences?

"Good" and "bad" are arbitrary relative descriptors without independent meaning. Physical makeup, both genetic and congenital, lead to a baseline "goodness" quotient that is massively influenced by environmental and experiencial factors.

It is true that the words "good" and "bad" are arbitrary when it is applied to people. But I think anyone gets an idea when we simply name a person 'good' or 'bad', although it cannot be defined or clearly demarcated. I think that social agreement is enough to have this discussion.

Congenital and genetic factors may make a well built, genius kid. But will they have an effect on his 'goodness'?

I think they have an effect on his goodness capacity, whether he reaches that capacity will mostly depend on his environment and experiences.

I think it is quite unfair to think that humans have various capacities of 'goodness'. Then ultimately such a person with low capacity cannot be blamed for being bad, because it was what he could become. Then he has not been free since the beginning of life as his thought processes have been already stuck within his genetic code. I think all humans have an equal ability to be good, and the choice to achieve a preferred level of 'goodness' is upto the individuals.

[Sushan]

But it is the responsibility of the parents to make their children emotionally strong enough to deny bad things and accept good things.

This would happen in an ideal world. In the UK; when a child reaches fifteen; about half of them are not living with both their biological parents. Today's society almost encourages the thought that you deserve to be happy; and if this relationship is not what you want; walk out and find another.

And also how to think before acting and identify bad from good. Such a kid will not be affected by whatever the community that he will be released into.

Sadly I have met too many people who have been raped and abused when they were children, both male and female. I have met people who have been coerced into drug dealing and taking when they were young. Paedophiles and drug dealers are clever and controlling, they seek out the vulnerable.

I don't see how these urges can be influenced to change; they have probably been with us throughout the history of mankind.

Well, in the community where I live, most children live in their parents' homes until they get married and start a separate family. And some continue to live in the same house even after they start their own family. I am not saying that my country has a zero amount of rape cases and drug dealing cases that involve children. But most parents protect their children and prepare them to face the dangers of the society. Although the law says after fourteen you are not a kid anymore, there are laws to protect minors from bad influences in the society until they are eighteen and relatively more mature. Being with parents for too long can affect the ability of children to be independent, but I think it is valuable when their protection is concerned.

[LuckyR]

"Good" and "bad" are arbitrary relative descriptors without independent meaning. Physical makeup, both genetic and congenital, lead to a baseline "goodness" quotient that is massively influenced by environmental and experiencial factors.

It is true that the words "good" and "bad" are arbitrary when it is applied to people. But I think anyone gets an idea when we simply name a person 'good' or 'bad', although it cannot be defined or clearly demarcated. I think that social agreement is enough to have this discussion.

Congenital and genetic factors may make a well built, genius kid. But will they have an effect on his 'goodness'?

I think they have an effect on his goodness capacity, whether he reaches that capacity will mostly depend on his environment and experiences.

I think it is quite unfair to think that humans have various capacities of 'goodness'. Then ultimately such a person with low capacity cannot be blamed for being bad, because it was what he could become. Then he has not been free since the beginning of life as his thought processes have been already stuck within his genetic code. I think all humans have an equal ability to be good, and the choice to achieve a preferred level of 'goodness' is upto the individuals.

You are confusing goodness with legal, thus badness with criminal. Folks who are criminals are punished, folks who are bad but legal get promoted to the head of the department.

[Rende]

Subconciousness is influenced. People act by thoughts, real thoughts (I am referring to thoughts in general as an equivalent term to our consciousness or active mind). From my point of view, thoughts are a developing complex of thoughts which is induced by the surroundings. When we are born, we are like a blank paper, but a paper that has already (different from human to human) starting line guides. Our thoughts start to develop by the influence of the surroundings. Then we use thought patterns, then repeat some patterns, discard some, and form new ones (learn). So we are influenced for sure. But we can develop. That's the point of humans for me. In the end, it can become messy text or it can become clear text. People mess up thoughts and don't have enough visible line guides to order the text, so forth. A clear text is better than a messy one. It's our nature that predilidges that.

[gad-fly]

This topic is about the February 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, 
Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral

The greatest danger humans face is the power of bad influences.

(Location 125 of Kindle version)

As per my view, whether good or bad, influences are good to mould ourselves, even after becoming adults. And they will show the true colours of a person. So I disagree with the author's above statement.

What is your opinion about influences in relation to individuals, as well as the society?

The statement is a hyperbole. Human faces many dangers, including extinction and climate change. Comparatively, bad influence is no big deal.

What exactly do you disagree? That 'danger' is not the right term, or that it is out of context? Please elaborate.

Let me skip bad influence between child and adult. Are you questioning the difference imposed by influence between personal and society, or on each?

I would say that, How good or bad, and how much? It depends, which is what this book is about.