Is humanity perfectible?

There's one quality that I've seen all humans hold onto tight: If they want something badly enough, they will get and maintain it.

I want a computer really badly, I'm going to go get one. It's zombie apocalypse and I really want to live, I'm going to get as much supplies and fire power as possible. I want freedom of speech really badly, I'm going to publish as much as I can. If I don't want something, I think I'm in the middle of depression and probably want out of that depression pretty badly. Extend this business, social life, and even religion (I want to go to Heaven really badly, I better a very good person). The definition of what one wants, however, is free to change with the situation.

Why?

Is it the nature of dogs to sit at the word sit? or is it nature of dogs to be fairly easily trained to respond to verbal command?

Is it the nature of humans to eat other humans? or is it the nature of humans to do what they need to do to survive?

The specific practice doesn't matter much but what causes it, these causes if permenant do throw cogs into utopian plans that often don't account for them in any meaningful way, or assume they can be conditioned out.

If we're all perfectible, then we all can be perfect. You really can't escape that.

What if your model of "perfectibility" held adhering to the principles of Jainism as a goal, whilst mine had adherence to the philosophies of Ragnar Redbeard as my end point?

edited 24th Feb '11 7:06:58 PM by MRDA1981

Is it the nature of dogs to sit at the word sit? or is it nature of dogs to be fairly easily trained to respond to verbal command?

If you train them to do that, then yes? Especially if evolution has left them to survive better when they learn to take commands from others (including humans and other dogs).

Is it the nature of humans to eat other humans? or is it the nature of humans to do what they need to do to survive?

Is it your goal? Will it get you closer to your goal? Do you believe it will get you closer to your goal? If any of those are yes, then yes, yes it is.

The specific practice doesn't matter much but what causes it, these causes if permenant do throw cogs into utopian plans that often don't account for them in any meaningful way, or assume they can be conditioned out.

Well, it's a good thing most people in Utopian society don't believe they need to eat people to get where they want to go.

I have the feeling you're either trying to be funny or really missed my point, I'm not sure which though.

Nothing can ever reach perfection but a superhuman could get closer. Humanity cannot by its nature be even close and unless it moves to transcend its nature will never be. Perfection is a striving not an end. So... D

@MRDA 1981

I haven't read his book, is that actually prescriptive? Anyway, that's that's an obvious practical issue that I won't dispute. I was only considering one definition at a time.

I have the feeling you're either trying to be funny or really missed my point, I'm not sure which though.

Maybe I have, but then again, I really don't see your point being given in a concise manner. If you could make it more clear than asking "Why is human nature ...?"

But my point is, human nature means to go beyond need and to ascend to want. And why is that? Well, because it gives us a goal, common or otherwise, to work towards, which lead us to developing farms and ranchers, which resulted in stable human civilization, which means survivability. Why give up that which has gotten us so far?

edited 24th Feb '11 7:17:48 PM by Usht

I choose option E.

Option E(xcellent). "Be Excellent to each other... and party on dudes!" -Abraham Lincoln

Or, for a more clear version of my standing, I shall present a question: Can we all at least agree not to be doughebags?

I'm not trying to ascertain what human nature should be. But instead point out that if we're discussing the existence of a permanent human nature, we shouldn't look at just specific acts, but instead examine the motivations behind types of acts to see if it persists. If the claim is that people have a fallen nature, the goal should be to look to see if people have through out history shown a tendency to act out of greed mistrust hate etc, and if that can be fixed or has been fixed, instead of looking at specific acts.

To use a metaphor you don't disprove the continued existence of a forest because a few old trees fell down or were cut.

@Love Happiness

It's very, very prescriptive, to the point where he undermines his professed amoralism with his ramblings. Interesting read, even if a self-contradicting one .

edited 24th Feb '11 7:33:06 PM by MRDA1981

Metaphorically speaking, isn't the forest flammable?

edited 24th Feb '11 7:36:15 PM by LoveHappiness

Well, then, I'm presenting the case that humans act depending on what they want.

For example, while a male bee drone will die to allow the queen to lay more eggs (via a certain method), humans would as individuals want to all live, but we also increase our chances of survive by being in organized groups. Thus, the solution to this want is making tribes, towns, governments, and so on. The people in history chased after that.

Fast forward to the thirteen colonies where the colonists didn't want to be taxed so heavily and wouldn't be represented. They all wanted less tax, they wanted representation, and they wanted to live in a manner where the British Empire didn't have a leash on them. So they went to war and ended up with what they wanted.

That isn't to say, humans don't fail at getting what they want, but they'll go to no end to get it if they want it badly enough.

E, definitely. Possibly D, if path to this includes transhumanism.

Otherwise, what is the point of all efforts to be better than our base instincts tell us to, if it is doomed to failure? Might as well give up and be animals.

Not sure if it belongs to topic, but for this one one of the defining characteristic of sapience - and thus humanity - is an ability to act against instinct.

Oh, and that's why I think that Humans Are Bastards, period - they have, in every moment, an option to act against human nature (which is rather bastardly) but fail to do so, over and over.

edited 24th Feb '11 7:37:52 PM by Beholderess

Count me as a B. Perfection is a normative quality, which makes it inevitably subjective; we're never going to be able to define it to a satisfactory manner. Optimality given a set of premises and circumstances, however, we can and should define and strive for.

B.

It's just like earning money. You can work hard and be a millionaire, or a billionaire[[hottip*:yes, I know it's very much not that simple.]], but you will never be an infinityaire. Ever. But it's much better to be a millionaire than it is to be poor.

Similarly, working for positive social change can improve society, but society can never be perfect.

I find C interesting. If God/Supreme Being is unknowable, then how do the religious profess to know that God is supremely good?

Whoo boy, Beholdress, you're getting meta. Wouldn't by that definition mean that it's human nature to go against human nature? Or am I misinterpreting what you're saying, because otherwise you've just invented a paradox for me to scratch my head over.

EDIT: Then again, I may have made a leap with sapience equaling human nature, but then again, that's part of how I define human nature.

I find C interesting. If God/Supreme Being is unknowable, then how do the religious profess to know that God is supremely good?

Would you prefer it the other way?

edited 24th Feb '11 7:42:30 PM by Usht

"But it's much better to be a millionaire than it is to be poor."

In what respects?

The question would then be what desire ties these actions together or is there no tie or set of ties? most of these actions are based on self interest, enlightened perhaps to the extent of wanting to promote and preserve their family as well. But generally speaking people seem to act out of what they perceive to be their best interest, and have show willigness through out history to use various forms of savagery.

Can we say human nature has advanced or improved when we're less than a century from the holocaust? within 20 years of Rwanda? There is an unfortunate amount of evidence that people will act like bastards.

Would you prefer it the other way?

No. I would prefer that the supreme being be omnibenevolent. Unfortunately, the universe doesn't care what I'd prefer; it was here first.

The question would then be what desire ties these actions together or is there no tie or set of ties? most of these actions are based on self interest, enlightened perhaps to the extent of wanting to promote and preserve their family as well. But generally speaking people seem to act out of what they perceive to be their best interest, and have show willigness through out history to use various forms of savagery.

Welcome to Economics 101. (Sane) Humans have shown the ability to rationalize what they want and think about everything in terms of margins instead of extremes, unless extremes are presented as the only possible method. Why do many people conform to society despite complaining about it? Because despite work, taxes, and other difficulties, you're better off here than outside and on your own (or you know, in jail for not following the rules).

Insanity (especially since its own definition is... erm, debatable to say the least) is its own discussion, but I'll put it this way: Your set of values are either radically different from most people or brain doesn't function like most humans' brains do. Go science, figure that one out for us.

Can we say human nature has advanced or improved when we're less than a century from the holocaust? within 20 years of Rwanda? There is an unfortunate amount of evidence that people will act like bastards.

Godwin's Law in now in effect. Anyway, did oppressing those people help? Actually, it may have, for one, killing your enemies' children means a smaller next generation as cruel as that sounds (and I don't think any of us will disagree in saying that doing that is a horrible act) and by directing everyone's hate at the Jews and several subcultures) after losing the previous war, Hitler did manage to unite Germany politically. That isn't to say, it was a good thing, but he at least had a rational and want behind it (a want for a stronger Germany and a want for all Jews dead... for some reason). Wants may not make sense, but the way people go about them often do.

By "human nature" as something to go against I mean the set of instincts and patterns of behaviour instilled in humans by their evolution as species.

But isn't that its own instinct? The ability to say, hey wait, the previous way I did this may not be the best, perhaps I should try this next time. Isn't that an instinct? The instinct to think things over and rationalize to survive?

edited 24th Feb '11 8:00:18 PM by Usht

Belief in C is dependent upon the idea that one can know a Supreme Being. Since I earnestly believe that can happen, I thus have no problem believing in C. Now, before my religious conversion I would've identified as a D.

edited 24th Feb '11 8:52:23 PM by pvtnum11

Threadhop:

None of the above. "Perfection" is a point of view, and what we ought to be is completely subjective and varies from person to person.

How do know that?

edited 24th Feb '11 8:51:10 PM by LoveHappiness