Liberals, Progressives, 'Leftists' and Guns

reply to post by jsipprell


Thanks for your post. I do understand that perspective. But you have to understand people that believe in Anarchism do so predicated with the belief people are inherently good and not wicked. The way you described it essentially says if 'State' was removed only chaos could result. As of course would be the result if man's natural inclination was bad. I don't believe that. As for some of the specific faults of human nature you outlined, I don't see how those concerns are not equally applicable to the current system. Surely we see it manifest in the world today?

“But what about human nature? Can it be changed? And if not, will it endure under Anarchism?

Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?

John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?

Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities.

Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.

This is not a wild fancy or an aberration of the mind. It is the conclusion arrived at by hosts of intellectual men and women the world over; a conclusion resulting from the close and studious observation of the tendencies of modern society: individual liberty and economic equality, the twin forces for the birth of what is fine and true in man.”
― Emma Goldman

anarchists as leftists? i always thought of them as people who operated outside of prying eyes in order to act without government, mysterious, deep in thought

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by jsipprell

 

Thanks for your post. I do understand that perspective. But you have to understand people that believe in Anarchism do so predicated with the belief people are inherently good and not wicked. The way you described it essentially says if 'State' was removed only chaos could result. As of course would be the result if man's natural inclination was bad. I don't believe that. As for some of the specific faults of human nature you outlined, I don't see how those concerns are not equally applicable to the current system. Surely we see it manifest in the world today?

Man's natural inclination is certainly "bad". It's also very good. Everyone of sentient age has committed acts they believe to be "wrong". Man's nature is very much a mixed bag, and while I don't believe anyone intends to be wicked we are all still capable of great wickedness because of the true nature of evil. True evil lives in all of us in the form of the ability for the ultimate self-deception; to believe that our actions are always justified. To believe that this justification gives us carte blanche because we just know that the ends justify the means. To believe that we are so inherently good that we cannot be wrong; that we cannot be wicked. Evil men never think they are evil, and the underpinning of this is the core problem with human nature.

Absolutely we see it present in the world today, and it is very applicable to many current systems of governance. That's why we attempt to find balance between competing interests and ideologies in western societies. The only way to combat our nature is to accept it and put systems in place that don't allow our inherent demons to get the best of us (by this I mean things like term limits and judicial review). It is, like us, an imperfect system.

“But what about human nature? Can it be changed? And if not, will it endure under Anarchism?

Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?

I clipped the quote for brevity, but the main problem with it is that it employs a tautology: the premise necessitates the conclusion. Perhaps when the shackles of religion are no longer on mankind then our apparent (whether it's "true" or not is a bit of a red herring) nature will be much improved, but now (or the near future) is definitely not that time and we cannot say if it would be improved enough. That leaves this in the realm of utopianism, at least for the present time.

Here's the more pragmatic argument. You stated that "[according to my worldview] if 'State' was removed only chaos could result". I wouldn't state it like that. I would say that if you "removed the State" a new one would automatically form, and having relinquished all possible "control" you would be powerless to prevent it.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


There are only two world views that believe the nature of man is evil, and there fore need
objective absolute moral law to straighten man out: Theism and Deism.
The remainder of world views see the nature of man as good.

Theism and deism therefore believe in objective absolute moral law.
Just like the laws of science are absolute, and objective.
Just like the laws of logic or math are objective and absolute.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

 

There are only two world views that believe the nature of man is evil, and there fore need
objective absolute moral law to straighten man out: Theism and Deism.
The remainder of world views see the nature of man as good.

Theism and deism therefore believe in objective absolute moral law.
Just like the laws of science are absolute, and objective.
Just like the laws of logic or math are objective and absolute.

Why can not the nature of man be both good and evil at the same time? That seems more inline with my experience of reality (although I could be wrong).

Side note: Non-theist (including deism) world views can also espouse objective morality -- a supernatural source isn't a requisite.

reply to post by jsipprell


If human nature is good, then the objective (read morals) laws are not necessary.
If human nature is bad, then the objective laws are necessary.
Only those with self disciplined choice will follow them.

reply to post by jsipprell


there is good in the worst and bad in the best person.
overall the human nature is evil and bad.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by jsipprell

 

there is good in the worst and bad in the best person.
overall the human nature is evil and bad.

If there is good in the worst person then there is obviously much more good in the best person. The average of all people will thus always contain good.

Therefore human nature must be at least partially good. This doesn't conflict with your conclusion unless you meant that "overall the human nature is exclusively evil and bad".

My premise then still stands: Human nature is both good and evil.

I wouldn't presume to suggest that one is dominate over the other. In fact, I assert that it's not logically possible to know that because you can not know the moral composition of every single living person.

reply to post by jsipprell


basic human nature is evil.
look at an infant.
unless the infant has external
intervention they will continue
to be a tyrant.

basic human nature is evil.

now when you start discussing actions that people take
the actions can be good or bad.
good actions will be the result of following an externally
imposed objective ruler or set of values/morals.

bad actions are the result of rejection of the objective code of rules and
merely responding to the internal "natural" trends, tendencies and traits.

basic human nature is evil and needs trained with an objective external moral/value/code/rule.


i just happen to believe that this external objective moral law is also absolute.

theintelhub.com...

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by jsipprell

 

basic human nature is evil.
look at an infant.
unless the infant has external
intervention they will continue
to be a tyrant.

Well, we're pretty out in the weeds here but … I do not accept your assertion that an infant will always become a "tyrant" without external intervention. On what basis do you make this claim? It's a fairly bold assertion, do you have evidence of some type that suggests abandoned infants are irrevocably doomed to evil?

basic human nature is evil.

and good.

now when you start discussing actions that people take
the actions can be good or bad.
good actions will be the result of following an externally
imposed objective ruler or set of values/morals.

I similarly reject your assertion that "good actions will be the result of following an externally imposed objective ruler or set of values/morals". I don't reject the objectiveness, only that it necessarily be external. Why can I not form my own internal value system, over time, based on my experience of the world? This experience includes important external influences like caregivers and mentors; thus I don't mean that the synthesis has no external sources. Certainly such a value system will be highly similar to others in my environment due to natural law (humans almost always possess a natural sense of empathy, socialization necessitates value-sharing, etc) -- in fact, core components of it will be completely universal. In other words: objective.

bad actions are the result of rejection of the objective code of rules and
merely responding to the internal "natural" trends, tendencies and traits.

I think we basically agree on that, as long as you aren't stipulating a single source of external morality.

However, it only covers simple acts of wrong-doing. It's not sufficient to explain serious wickedness. For that you need a way to remove/ignore the guilt associated with values violation. You need someone to believe they are ultimately doing good, that any wrongs they may commit are justified by a greater goal. For that you need self-delusion where they are not "rejecting objective code" but incorrectly weighting the importance of objective rules (i.e. promoting some values while demoting others).

reply to post by jsipprell


an infant is a tyrant.
they want what they want when they want it.
they think they are the center of the world.
that the world revolves around them.

They only value what they want, regardless of others.

they are taught to not throw food,
potty trained, share toys,
do not bite or hit or scratch.

those are all EXTERNAL VALUES which are not
inherently or naturally present in the infant.

Some infants/children are more
difficult to teach these external
values to and parents get tired,
give up, or are themselves amoral
or not even there and the children
stop acclimating external values and morals.