NationStates Jolt Archive

For the purposes of this thread I'm going to assume a God-less universe. I have done this because I need to show that the purpose of human life is to increase the individuel's happiness. If God exists then the purpose of human life could be preparing for heaven/hell, the next reincarnation etc. If this was so my argument would fall apart somewhat, and seeing that it is impossible to prove the existance of God one way or the other I'm just going to have to make this big assumption. Sorry...

I would argue that in the beginning, or at least a fair while back, emotion did not exist. Like camel's feet, crocodile's teeth and sea slugs characteristics had to evolve, through improving the prospect of furthering genes. These changes where not of course conscience but just pure mindless determinism at work.

Emotions must have come into exist therefore because they aided the individeul in question, not the species at large. Cats don't compete with mice, they compete with other cats. If one cat by some mutation benefitted the whole of cat kind, not just himself, then his genes would not be passed on in a way that would dominate the species. The same cat genes would pretty much remain in the population. It is only when the individuel cat in question recieves the benefit that his genes are chosen above his peers and his genes dominate the species, as his genes give him an advantage. Emotions benefit the individuel, always, or at least are percieved to help the individuel.

Happiness/satisfaction/utility can be seen to be you thinking you are doing well to pass on your genes or just surving. Guilt? fear of retribution, you have broken society's rules. Kindness? you scratch my back I'll scratch yours. The human mind is evolved to exist in small tribal groups. By donating to a charity you merely get the happy emotion that you have increased your standing within the tribe, you have more political weight more power. The fact that you will get anything in return is irrlevent, you subconscience does not know this when it dishes out pity, remorse or empathy. Human cooperation is based around mutual benefit. It is not based exclusivly on "kindness".

In socialist style collective you face a problem. One man's labour cannot be seen to improve his personal postion. It improves the whole of society's material conditions but that is not what humans crave. Humans via emotion, via determinist evolution crave to pass on their genes. They crave survival, but beyond that they crave power.

Human emotion is always evolved, it is always selfish, it is always greedy.

That's mostly in traditional Marxism. Newer strains of Communism tend to encompass modern thinking of the Human condition, an extreme example would be "Communism as it is practised in China", but there are many others which seek to encourage hard work through non-economic awards and other special perks.

In other news: I'm going to go see Rik Mayall pretending to be Alan B'stard at the Alexandra in Brum tonight, he's modernised the act a bit now, the slogan is 'New B'stard, New Labour'.

Should be pretty funny...

In other news: I'm going to go see Rik Mayall pretending to be Alan B'stard at the Alexandra in Brum tonight, he's modernised the act a bit now, the slogan is 'New B'stard, New Labour'.

Should be pretty funny...

Sounds good, I heard in the play he buys a peerage from the money he makes on Black Wednesday, but I don't know if thats true.

I've never liked the 'because we're by our nature greedy' argument because, in all honesty, it's an argument both sides site.

If humans will think of their own good above the others of everyone else, that we are that jealously greedy then it would be in societies best interest to curb that so that one individual or group of individuals greed doesn't ride all over the rest of the people in that community.

Dogs and cats by thier nature are predators, but in our best intrest we curb that. By our own natures we are also scavenger eaters, but you don't find us eating as many fresh kills from other predators (at least no literally). That we are greedy by nature is not in itself a reasonable arguement to create a system where that greed can run wild.

With the charity/status reward-in the greed society there is an infinantly greater reward to be had by having the most vs. charity.

It also side steps our pack nature. We are soft and spongy with no natural weapons and not nearly as fast as the other animals. Tool use helped, but so did abstact thought and sense of community. Socialism plays into that sense of community as neatly as the proposed greed fits into capitalism.

Seems to me that you need to acknowledge both traits. The real difference in the camps is the importance they place on that pole.

It is interesting to note that greed is essentially based on the principle that you will not get enough of what you need (food) and you need to get as much as you can when you can. When survival isn't as drastic, when the winter isn't anymore likely to kill you by starvation than anything else, is the instinctual greed really something that needs to be fostered, or mitigated?