There are no truly good men, according to cooperation study

A new study indicates that human generosity may have a limit, even when being generous would fulfill our selfish tendencies too. In an economic game where investing all available resources in cooperation with others gave the largest possible reward, players would still hold back from contributing everything they had, and continued to view their collaborators as potential competitors. Our ability to cooperate appears to have definite limits, just as our selfishness does.

Source

How many here believe there are "truly good men"?

I believe that the game they created is flawed. Although I do believe that most people are selfish, I know for a fact that there are people, given that they knew the rules, who would have been considered ultimately unselfish if the game had not been flawed.

What do you think?

reply to post by TarzanBeta


It is hard to be charitable when the governments of the world take 50-75% of your labor for themselves. If the governments were not stealing from the labor of the people, IMO charity would go through the roof.

When someone has to work two full time temporary or three part time jobs to get by, it is hard to be charitable.

As for the statement that there are no good men, that is what the government wants people to believe. That way government has to be the one to SAVE THE DAY.

Government cannot and does not supply anything. All they can do is tax and control.

Render unto Caesar blah blah blah.

Caesar is an ass.

[edit on 5/20/2010 by endisnighe]

This is crap.

If it is an economic game then the people are obviously going to be playing it to win it. Therefore they will not set themselves up in the position to lose.

We dont need studies. We always hear of people who sacrifice everything, even their lives, for loved ones. That is evidence enough there ARE truly good people on this planet.

And remember one thing, every one of us is flawed and we all make mistakes. That does not mean there are no truly good people. It just means they are human.

This is interesting. Where would you say that the game used has a flaw?

Personally I can agree with the findings. They didn't say that men are evil just that there comes a point where he starts thinking about himself over others.

Maybe the use of "trully good men" makes some feel like they are being told they are bad so beware of jerking knees.

If you look at one of the biggest proponants of this arguement, the "philosophy of selfishness" - I think you would wind up with Ann Rand in modern times. Her philosophy was such, and the biggest exposition she provided on this was The Fountainhead. She claims that every action we take, ultimately and traced back to its root intents, is a selfish one.

I respect her deep thinking on the subject, and it did bother me to consider this philosophy for a few years after I read the book in high school. However, I outgrew it soundly in subsequant years. Of course there is altruism, and thoughts which could be considered sacrificial, given without thought or consideration of reward. In fact, life is full of this behaviour.

Causation of actions can be argued to have apparant selfish reasons, in the same way that one could argue we are selfish to eat because it is for the benefit of our further life. However, if real intents are judged from the inner perspective of a person, the result might restore some faith in humanity. Simply because a person could speculate on their actions a certain way, doesn't mean they are or will. For example, just because I can contemplate a theft, doesn't mean I will even consider it a temptation.

An acceptance of sound rules, a common acceptance of the soundness of the rules, and a willingness to abide by them generates selfless action. In the sense that Ann Rand expresses, we carry on in good actions for the sake of reward - be it a good name, reward from God, an emotional glow, etc. I argue that virtue is its own reward, and the only way to promote it is by exercising it ourselves. We are not "selfish" to seek anothers good for example, to the extent that we sought to truly benefit the other and not ourselves - as a matter of mental discipline.

In practice though, there's nothing wrong with a symbiotic arrangement. We do have our own personal concerns to address, and I see little point in being "overgood" to the point of self-neglect!

reply to post by endisnighe


End -

I've gone broke helping people. It's not hard friend.

I'm not going to die without money. I'll find a squirrel if I gotta. A couple for my family as well.

Originally posted by daskakik
This is interesting. Where would you say that the game used has a flaw?

Personally I can agree with the findings. They didn't say that men are evil just that there comes a point where he starts thinking about himself over others.

Maybe the use of "trully good men" makes some feel like they are being told they are bad so beware of jerking knees.

If people don't want to be told they are bad, that means they must atleast WANT to be good...

The game has a flaw because, as a previous poster said, it was a GAME.
A game is competitive by definition.

Those who are generally unselfish rarely look at life as a game but as a pastime.

reply to post by Northwarden


I would say Rand is simply saying what she believes to be true about herself. I believe the people who performed this experimental game are the same way.

I am curious about your definition of self-neglect. What line must one cross to enter the realm of self-neglect?

reply to post by TarzanBeta


TarzanBeta when you refer to the concept of a ‘truly good’ man do you mean in the moral sense? A man can be good for something however this does not necessarily imply that he is moral.

Cultural context is an important determining factor of what qualifies ‘good’ in any given society and time however some psychologists believe we derive much of our ‘goodness’ from our parents and the quality of our upbringing. I tend to shy away from this theory as I prefer to believe we have a choice in making moral decisions and are not helpless observers and victims of circumstance.

Tribal people far removed from western civilization still operate under systems where there is no ‘mine’ or ‘yours’ but Ours. This is because there is an understanding that by doing this they are greater strengthening the community. Unfortunately this paradigm is long gone from our society; there are only people who are less generous and more generous. Electronic based, consumer driven, fast paced western societies are designed to make it extremely difficult for truly good people to propagate. Not that I have given up hope.

Remain Vigilant

thre are so much truths to say so sorry if it doesnt look very clear to you

void is the source of life in two different sense that ended to one truth, positive life freedom

void freedom
void source

void as freedom is the sense of certainty present always, being positive truth, void from freedom perspective being absolute nothing that then out of void abstractly become more since from itself conception become existing, and then source of its conception life, as freedom same constant repetition then it is positive truth fact

void as source, is from void freedom result to positive truth, that in void was moving as free positive source to absolute positive absolute reality of freedom existence truth, so by justifying freedom concept life is meaning itself life freedom from as positive truth fact free too absolute one, like out of void while inn from its living realisations objective as always same free moves resutls to one absolute positive reality, so it can be out free without justifying itself as positive sure

so you have in one void side freedom is the positive fact while other side end void freedom is itself life as source
and you have in one side positive as source of itself always same and on another side positive as source of objective absolute one reality same free

but this ended to mean how void was becoming an object and what is outside of it from all sides is the positive free life, which made void as object way to be alive positively,

that is why it is not the cell that is, but what is seeing it and any eyes are living free by seeing it

so truth found the objective conception of its source moves life, from surely what void from its freedom life was that way true already
that truth had to see it all meaning itself freedom positive too out
before meaning then more as same truth

so meaning absolute realisation one positive objective is actually meaning void conception as objective fact reality from being free out positive, exactly like the principal freedom life as truth certainty of itself same concept life out of void perceiving void as nothing

but then void is the whole story of that, it is the way to know void identity from self identification as aware out always present itself and from inn identification as positive source from void life

so in understanding how void is absolutely one, truth went to say objectively how anyone can be what he wants as positive free living one but after recognizing void absolute reality as positive free one everywhre

what is evil is never freedom and never positive

what is free must then consider whole objective free first
and what is positive must also consider whole objective positive first

and those consideration must be absolutely, so the free perspective must justify how it sees different as same objective result positive and free value, same value of the whole objective from its positive consideration and perspective

so here you can see what i would mean by obvious difference between people

all people mean their freedom positive and it is normal they say it is selfish but no here it is normal

the difference is the way dealing with what is objective anything there

some mean to hurt by an act anything thre living, even in meaning educating or whatever as positive incursions those are all evil, not minding their own business only

and some mean objective positive free consideration to its fact being living without meaning themselves, just they enjoy the sense of living source to realities that they are not the source they actually enjoy the recognition or the sense of positive life freedom from positive facts objective existing

and the majority are in between those two absolute behaviors acts

It's all because the evil PTB set it up this way and we didn't have the resources or ability to stop them. (obviously).


And it's also much rooted in unenlightened sexuality.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by The Quiet Storm]

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
If people don't want to be told they are bad, that means they must at least WANT to be good...

The game has a flaw because, as a previous poster said, it was a GAME.
A game is competitive by definition.

Those who are generally unselfish rarely look at life as a game but as a pastime.

My point about the use of "no truly good men" in the title is that this will make these people who WANT to or condsider themselves good to jump into defense mode. This could make some look at the article you posted unobjectively.

Good point about the game part of the study. To be fair though life is also competative and even more so in a capitalist society.

I don't agree that there are "no truly good men" but I would give some merit to the study.

Originally posted by bonsaisert
reply to post by TarzanBeta

 

TarzanBeta when you refer to the concept of a ‘truly good’ man do you mean in the moral sense? A man can be good for something however this does not necessarily imply that he is moral.

Did you read the article?

No scientist or researcher is any good, but only hypocrites, how do they judge.

reply to post by imans


imans, if you were Moses, you are most certainly in need of an Aaron.

I believe you believe what you are trying to convey, but I am not able to fully understand what you are trying to articulate.

My apologies.

Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
It's all because the evil PTB set it up this way and we didn't have the resources or ability to stop them. (obviously).


And it's also much rooted in unenlightened sexuality.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by The Quiet Storm]

?????

We are responsible for our own actions.

And speak for yourself in regards to sexuality... this topic has little to nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by daskakik

My point about the use of "no truly good men" in the title is that this will make these people who WANT to or condsider themselves good to jump into defense mode. This could make some look at the article you posted unobjectively.

Good point about the game part of the study. To be fair though life is also competative and even more so in a capitalist society.

I don't agree that there are "no truly good men" but I would give some merit to the study.

daskakik, I only used the title of the original article in making this thread. I believe there is no such thing as a good man personally, but this is not a religious forum so I'm not going to get into exactly why I believe that.

But I do believe there are ultimately unselfish people.

As well... I mean no offense to anyone, but if people are offended so easily then they might need to go out into the wild for a few days to learn what it is to be offended.

Life is competition to animals. Humans have the capacity to have a better perception. Capitalism is animalistic... as are most if not all "isms" or doctrines.

I do offer a little merit to the study because there is another part of the study that the observers could not observe - themselves.

The people who set up this experiment are a part of the experiment by default. Firstly, is it possible that the people who set the experiment up had a theory already in mind? I don't know... maybe they already thought that humans were weak and selfish and decided to simply prove it?

It's easy to prove results you desire my manipulating and experiment.

And to be entirely objective is impossible since the observers themselves are human... so they must prove atleast that humans have some capacity to be unselfish because they wouldn't want to think of themselves as selfish, now would they?

Or would they?

I think it's a silly experiment all in all. The only person that truly knows my heart is me. I can say whatever I want and everyone only assumes one way or the other. But who knows what is in my brain and my heart at all times?

To put a percentage on the amount of selfishness a person has is incredibly judgmental and foolish.

Originally posted by andy1033
No scientist or researcher is any good, but only hypocrites, how do they judge.

Careful now. I agree, "how do they judge?"

But careful to say that no scientist or researcher is any good...

Have you met them all yourself, knowing their hearts and their worth?

That's a bit hypocritical, friend.

reply to post by TarzanBeta


i cannot be moses when i am trying to justify objective fact from void truth, i am speaking metaphysically obviously while you are meaning god the evil source of anything you mean to use that fact to judge others and not you

and you are wrong there are plenty of good true people, the problem is what it cant be ssen with god being the obejctive evil life source of humans, so good people are for who are true too to recognize it and for themselves knowledge of course freely

reply to post by TarzanBeta


I agree with most of what you say but, I don't really think they are placing a percentage on the unselfishness of a person but rather saying that a limit exists and in alot of people it is lower than the people themselves would like to admit.

I also don't believe that humans are much better off than animals when it comes to seeing life as a competition. Actually we are at a disadvantage because we are not trying to just survive. We are trying to keep up with the Joneses which adds a skewed twist to the game because it is a competition for stuff you don't really need. It isn't life and death so they can be more selfish cause it's not like they are really hurting anyone.