NationStates Jolt Archive

MOD EDIT - split off from the thread: Israeli bomb kills five daughters. :( (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=578040)

Cooperation and altruism that only often happens when there is something to be gained from it.
For cooperation, of course. But altruism is, by definition, not done for any self-gain. As I said above, I'm not talking about the nonsensical Dawkins-esque 'selfish' altruism.

Cooperatice and altruistic behaviour most certainly happens, and frequently, within human society. Reducing humans to "red in tooth and claw" fiends who only act through selfish measures is, to put it bluntly, a load of outdated Social Darwinist bullshit.

The history of humanity handily agrees with me.
Except it isn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_assisted_Jews_during_the_Holocaust); and this is just one set of examples.

What you say is simply not true. You ignore a massive swathe of human behaviour (and continue to do so above), talking as if humans only bashed their neighbours heads in, never, say, cooperated on hunts, helped each other when sick, got together to produce agriculture, urban dwelling, etc., etc.

One cannot divide the world into 'weak' and 'strong'. Evolution does not work this way; never mind human society.

For cooperation, of course. But altruism is, by definition, not done for any self-gain. As I said above, I'm not talking about the nonsensical Dawkins-esque 'selfish' altruism.

Cooperatice and altruistic behaviour most certainly happens, and frequently, within human society. Reducing humans to "red in tooth and claw" fiends who only act through selfish measures is, to put it bluntly, a load of outdated Social Darwinist bullshit.

In the original context of justice and its application, you will find that it is not that outdated.


Except it isn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_assisted_Jews_during_the_Holocaust); and this is just one set of examples.

And these examples show people helping others, fine and dandy. I'm not disputing that. It's a mischaracterisation of my position. What I do dispute though, is that the idea of justice being somehow universally applicable at a realistic scale. The strong, in today's sense, meaning the well connected and influential, can do almost anything with near impunity, and the weak, the average person, will almost never be able to get fair redress. The pecking order if you will.


One cannot divide the world into 'weak' and 'strong'. Evolution does not work this way; never mind human society.

Of course there is the strong and weak. Nations are a representative of the societies within it, and strong nations have always done as they pleased to weak nations. This is where we simply do not see eye to eye. You take micro scale events and try to apply them to the macro scale that I talk about.

In the original context of justice and its application, you will find that it is not that outdated.
Are you saying justice itself, or merely its (current) application, is basically 'strong beats weak'?

What I do dispute though, is that the idea of justice being somehow universally applicable at a realistic scale. The strong, in today's sense, meaning the well connected and influential, can do almost anything with near impunity, and the weak, the average person, will almost never be able to get fair redress. The pecking order if you will.
I fully agree that in today's society, those with power can act in ways unavailable to those without.

However, I would reject the notion that this is inevitable in human society, that human nature is such that all societies will be grossly unjust and/or unequal. Coating a fair assessment of current society in the language of a social Darwinist view of nature -- talk of strong vs. weak, law of the jungle, etc. -- implies that humans are 'hard-wired', not only to live in oppressive societies, but also to be consistantly motivated egotistically.

For example:
Of course there is the strong and weak. Nations are a representative of the societies within it, and strong nations have always done as they pleased to weak nations.
Here, you're not just saying that powerful nations/institutions have the ability to 'bully' weaker nations/institutions, which is an observation of reality, you're framing this set-up as a part of some (non-Darwinian) natural order.

A natural order for which there isn't much evidence.

Are you saying justice itself, or merely its (current) application, is basically 'strong beats weak'?

No, no, no. I am saying the concept of justice is a flawed because it must operate on the basis of equality and fairness to all, which simply is never the case when applied on the large scale.


However, I would reject the notion that this is inevitable in human society, that human nature is such that all societies will be grossly unjust and/or unequal. Coating a fair assessment of current society in the language of a social Darwinist view of nature -- talk of strong vs. weak, law of the jungle, etc. -- implies that humans are 'hard-wired', not only to live in oppressive societies, but also to be consistantly motivated egotistically.

For example:

Here, you're not just saying that powerful nations/institutions have the ability to 'bully' weaker nations/institutions, which is an observation of reality, you're framing this set-up as a part of some (non-Darwinian) natural order.

A natural order for which there isn't much evidence.

If there is little evidence of this being part of the natural order, there should be cases of powerful, yet benevolent nations shouldn't there? Not just out in the open, because facades are all too easy to put up, but in all their actions as well. Obviously, this isn't the case.

It doesn't have to be hard wired behavior. All it takes is desire for something greater than one's current position, a near universal factor, and the observation that it is easier to attain those goals if one is ruthless. These are self evident truths and inevitable. Even if people make the realization and choose not to act on it, someone else will, and those who have the power but not the ruthlessness to keep it will lose it to those who have the cunning and ruthlessness to seize it.

And no, I don't mean ruthlessness being only the cartoon villain kind of ruthlessness. Ruthlessness means being willing to do whatever it takes to achieve a goal, no matter who suffers for it.

Think of it as a predator/prey mechanic. There will always be more prey than predators, but the predators will always be on top of the prey as far as the food chain or in this case, power structures, go.

No, no, no. I am saying the concept of justice is a flawed because it must operate on the basis of equality and fairness to all, which simply is never the case when applied on the large scale.
How so?

What is intrinsically impossible about justice on a grand scale?

If there is little evidence of this being part of the natural order, there should be cases of powerful, yet benevolent nations shouldn't there?
No, unless you also argue that nations are part of this 'natural order'. The system of nations may well be ill conducive to egalitarian society, but this is no evidence against any society being eqalitarian.

It doesn't have to be hard wired behavior. All it takes is desire for something greater than one's current position, a near universal factor, and the observation that it is easier to attain those goals if one is ruthless. These are self evident truths and inevitable.
"It is easier to attain... goals if one is ruthless" is not a self-evident truth; many goals involving better situations can be attained through co-operative, non-ruthless actions.

Think of it as a predator/prey mechanic.
It is exactly my point that one shouldn't think of human society as a predator-prey mechanic. As BunnySaurus has already noted, humans are social primates; not solitary predators. We cannot flourish without a good functioning of our social group, and cooperation is a vital part of any human society.

How so?

What is intrinsically impossible about justice on a grand scale?

Now justice as I understand it involves redress and fairness to all parties, correct? It's a very basic description, but bear with me.

On the grand scale of things, we have large social groups and their formalized forms like nations, and of course, their economic counterparts, companies. Their influence and power varies, but they are commonly far above those of the individual. Thus when a nation or company causes injustice to a single individual or many individuals (who have not formed their own social group of comparative power), the individuals will not be able seek redress. In fact, even formalized social groups like countries and companies will not be able seek redress against injustices acted upon them by far more powerful nations.

In order for there to be justice then, an arbitrator is not only required, but one powerful enough to enforce that justice upon the wrongful party. And since power does not accumulate in the hands of the well meaning, principled and virtuous, justice would never work on a grand scale.

Unless one goes about and builds an incorruptible, all powerful and just god like being that is, but I consider that to be more fantasy than achievable reality.


No, unless you also argue that nations are part of this 'natural order'. The system of nations may well be ill conducive to egalitarian society, but this is no evidence against any society being eqalitarian.

Nations are nothing more than more formal and structured forms of social packs that arose from tribal formations. Since humans are social creatures as you pointed out, the concept of nationhood and a greater identity than just the self is inevitable.


"It is easier to attain... goals if one is ruthless" is not a self-evident truth; many goals involving better situations can be attained through co-operative, non-ruthless actions.

And when compared to the costs and gains of ruthlessness, ruthlessness pays off quicker and bigger.


It is exactly my point that one shouldn't think of human society as a predator-prey mechanic. As BunnySaurus has already noted, humans are social primates; not solitary predators. We cannot flourish without a good functioning of our social group, and cooperation is a vital part of any human society.

Humans comprise both elements of social primates and solitary predators, with the more successful predators becoming social animals, but still predators, much like wolves.

Now justice as I understand it involves redress and fairness to all parties, correct? It's a very basic description, but bear with me.
Will do, but I'd note that justice does not necessarily involve redress (at least, if redress seeps into revenge).

On the grand scale of things, we have large social groups and their formalized forms like nations, and of course, their economic counterparts, companies. Their influence and power varies, but they are commonly far above those of the individual. Thus when a nation or company causes injustice to a single individual or many individuals (who have not formed their own social group of comparative power), the individuals will not be able seek redress. In fact, even formalized social groups like countries and companies will not be able seek redress against injustices acted upon them by far more powerful nations.
There's a rather obvious solution here: get rid of the system of nations. If you're claiming that current international capitalism is an unjust, inegalitarian system, I have no qualms in agreeing with you. However, this does not show that justice is intrinsically impossible on a grand scale, just that is impossible within the system of capitalist nations.

If you wish to claim that, you'll have to argue something further.

Incidentally, I'm a bit troubled by your mention of nations as the "formalized forms" of human social life; once again you seem to be implying that the system of capitalist nations is part of a natural order, that there is something instrinsic in human nature that makes us plump for international capitalism. An agument you'll have a hard time defending.

Indeed, you say:

Nations are nothing more than more formal and structured forms of social packs that arose from tribal formations. Since humans are social creatures as you pointed out, the concept of nationhood and a greater identity than just the self is inevitable.
I'd certainly dispute the former; there is nothing inevitable about the concept of nationhood by virtue of being a social creature.

And when compared to the costs and gains of ruthlessness, ruthlessness pays off quicker and bigger.
A bold assertion.

Evidence, perchance, that ruthlessness always "pays off quicker and bigger" in human society than cooperation? I'd maintain that there are many projects, especially in concentrated social living, that cannot be accomplished without cooperation.

Humans comprise both elements of social primates and solitary predators, with the more successful predators becoming social animals, but still predators, much like wolves.
Neither wolves nor humans are solitary predators; this is simple fact.

Will do, but I'd note that justice does not necessarily involve redress (at least, if redress seeps into revenge).

Not revenge, but redress would at least involve stopping whatever injustice is going on and some form of compensation.


There's a rather obvious solution here: get rid of the system of nations. If you're claiming that current international capitalism is an unjust, inegalitarian system, I have no qualms in agreeing with you. However, this does not show that justice is intrinsically impossible on a grand scale, just that is impossible within the system of capitalist nations.


Where on earth did I mention anything about capitalism? And getting rid of nations is about as likely to work as getting rid of the common cold.

Even if every nation vanished off the face of the planet, what we'd have is basically a reset. People would form groups that would eventually go on to become tribes until they finally have enough people and territory with a formalized pecking order to become a nation.


Incidentally, I'm a bit troubled by your mention of nations as the "formalized forms" of human social life; once again you seem to be implying that the system of capitalist nations is part of a natural order, that there is something instrinsic in human nature that makes us plump for international capitalism. An agument you'll have a hard time defending.

Where? Where did I mention capitalism? Stop putting words in my argument.

Nations need not be capitalistic, but nations are formed as a consequence of any social group being able to have sufficient numbers, formal social structure and group identity that recognizes itself as something greater than the individual.


I'd certainly dispute the former; there is nothing inevitable about the concept of nationhood by virtue of being a social creature.

Once people say "I am part of something" without personally knowing everyone in that something, you're already on the path to nationhood.


A bold assertion.

Evidence, perchance, that ruthlessness always "pays off quicker and bigger" in human society than cooperation?

Crime is the most obvious example, street and organized crime. With organized crime, there is cooperation, of course, but it is a cooperation of ruthless people, who often advance through ruthlessness. As I mentioned earlier, wolves would be a good analogy. Social creatures, but only within their pack, and every one a predator.


I'd maintain that there are many projects, especially in concentrated social living, that cannot be accomplished without cooperation.

Ruthlessness does not preclude cooperation. It often just means that the most ruthless one is the one doing the directing of those who cooperate. And their cooperation need not be necessarily out of goodwill either.


Neither wolves nor humans are solitary predators; this is simple fact.

But wolves are predators, who feed on prey, or the weak if you will. And there are of course, the sharks.

Where on earth did I mention anything about capitalism? And getting rid of nations is about as likely to work as getting rid of the common cold.
The nation (within the capitalist system) is becoming increasingly obsolete as a political unit. But ignoring this side-argument, you're not showing how justice is intrinsically impossible on a large scale.

Where? Where did I mention capitalism?
You're talking about modern capitalist nations (and, bizarrely, how they're somehow intrinsic to human nature).

Once people say "I am part of something" without personally knowing everyone in that something, you're already on the path to nationhood.
Nonsense.

I am part of a number of 'somethings' (institutions, organisations, etc.) that will never become nations, and are not on the 'path' to nationhood. Furthermore, you're saying that, because we're social creatures, we'll inevitably form nations. But this is obviously false. There's nothing inherent about being a social creature that equates to nation-creating.

Just ask the dolphins.

Crime is the most obvious example, street and organized crime. With organized crime, there is cooperation, of course, but it is a cooperation of ruthless people, who often advance through ruthlessness.
That's hardly evidence that being ruthless always beats being cooperative.

As I mentioned earlier, wolves would be a good analogy. Social creatures, but only within their pack, and every one a predator.
Wolves are a terrible analogy for your (faulty) argument. Wolf packs are highly cooperative, with members relying on each other for success in the hunt, etc. Not to mention the complex social interplay between a pack's members. The 'egotistical' lone wolf is an aberrance.

EDIT: You're also seem to be falling into the silly trap of equating 'carnivore' with 'sneaky individualist'. You're saying that a pack of wolves wolves are analogous with ruthless humans acting ruthlessly; but this is anthropomorphic nonsense.

But wolves are predators, who feed on prey, or the weak if you will.
I will not subscribe to outmoded, non-Darwinian codswallop. Prey are not weak; they are 'merely' prey.

Seriously, all this Spencerist nonsense will get you nowhere.

The nation (within the capitalist system) is becoming increasingly obsolete as a political unit. But ignoring this side-argument, you're not showing how justice is intrinsically impossible on a large scale.

Didn't I do that back in post #437? The only counter you had to that was doing away with nations.


You're talking about modern capitalist nations (and, bizarrely, how they're somehow intrinsic to human nature).

Human nature, or rather living nature, is to want something you don't have. Food, territory, whatever. You might find the odd person who has little and wants nothing, but that's an exception and not the rule.

If this means in your interpretation that there is an inclination towards formalizing a system of exchange of goods and services that resembles capitalists, well then so be it.


Nonsense.

I am part of a number of 'somethings' (institutions, organisations, etc.) that will never become nations, and are not on the 'path' to nationhood.


No, you become societies, organizations, collectives or what have you. In the absence of a nation to belong to, and sufficient resources to support increased numbers such structures eventually evolve to the point where they will become a nation itself.


Furthermore, you're saying that, because we're social creatures, we'll inevitably form nations. But this is obviously false. There's nothing inherent about being a social creature that equates to nation-creating.


Territorial pack creatures are quite close enough. They protect their territory against outsiders, use whatever resources are at hand there, and live there. Besides, I'm talking about human psychology and inclinations here, not other animal types.

Or are you insisting that they have a flag?

"You can't claim India, it's our country! We were here first! All 500 million of us!"

"Do you have a flag?"

"No flag no country! That's the rules!"

:p


Just ask the dolphins.


Tell you what, make me a dictionary for dolphin speak, and I'll do that.


That's hardly evidence that being ruthless always beats being cooperative.


That was because you seem to be equating ruthlessness with being a lone wolf. It isn't.


Wolves are a terrible analogy for your (faulty) argument. Wolf packs are highly cooperative, with members relying on each other for success in the hunt, etc. Not to mention the complex social interplay between a pack's members. The 'egotistical' lone wolf is an aberrance.

Bollocks. The wolf is an apex predator in its environment, and even though it a complex social animal, the pack is very ruthless when it comes to taking what it wants. It did not get to where it was by asking the elk nicely to lie down and die.

Likewise human society did not have it's most influential and powerful people come to be by being nice and virtuous, but being both cunning and ruthless when it came to acquiring and keeping their power. It's not an all or nothing as far as how humans develop psychologically, but the reality is simply that. You do not get very far to the top of the heap without being ruthless.

Make no mistake. I'm not saying ruthlessness guarantees power. That's a load of bollocks. But to gain power, and keep it, you need ruthlessness. Because if you don't, someone else will take it away from you. There is the term "swimming with the sharks", and that very much applies to any form of power acquisition where you aren't the only player.


I will not subscribe to outmoded, non-Darwinian codswallop. Prey are not weak; they are 'merely' prey.

Likewise human prey at the bottom of the social ladder are 'merely' prey then. Does it suit your sensibilities better? It's not some pie in the sky hypothesis, it's an observation of fact.

There will always be those who desire power for power's sake, and there will be always those with both the desire, the drive, intelligence, and ruthlessness who will get it. I challenge you to prove this observation wrong.

Didn't I do that back in post #437? The only counter you had to that was doing away with nations.
Because your case (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14361017&postcount=437) for 'justice is intrinsically imnpossible on a large scale' consists of arguing that 'justice is intrinsically impossible within the contxt of nations'.

And the two aren't the same; unless you also argue that nations are an inherent part of human society. But this is patently false.

Human nature, or rather living nature, is to want something you don't have.
How so?

Food, territory, whatever. You might find the odd person who has little and wants nothing, but that's an exception and not the rule.
If what you are arguing is 'human nature', then there cannot be a human exception to the rule. As a human, that person would be naturally inclined to want something they cannot have; this greed you describe would have to be universalised among all humans at all times in all societies.

If this means in your interpretation that there is an inclination towards formalizing a system of exchange of goods and services that resembles capitalists, well then so be it.
No, I completely reject such an assertion.

No, you become societies, organizations, collectives or what have you. In the absence of a nation to belong to, and sufficient resources to support increased numbers such structures eventually evolve to the point where they will become a nation itself.
Again, pure nonsense.

A tiddilywinks club is not yearning to become a nation, and it is not simply prevented from doing so by lack of resources. Moreover, there are now many supranational bodies, or international institutions like banks. Why would an institution with far more freedom and power than many nations wish to 'evolve' to become a fixed, less powerful institution?


Territorial pack creatures are quite close enough. They protect their territory against outsiders, use whatever resources are at hand there, and live there.
Territory of pack creatures =/= a nation.

It's far too vague a concept to be analogous. If I wanted to, I could (along similar lines that you are) argue that companies are inherent to human beings, and that any institution, given resources, will turn into companies. Furthermore, territorial pack creatures are basically companies, with a CEO, property the pack uses, use of resources that the company owns, and often an end product which the company survives off of.

I'm sure we could play this game for hours, likening territorial pack creatures with communes, feudal systems, or whatever. The point is, your argument is laboured and arbitrary.

Besides, I'm talking about human psychology and inclinations here, not other animal types.
Then explain why nations are inherent to human society, Explain why, if this is the case, they've only been around for a fraction of human history.

Bollocks. The wolf is an apex predator in its environment, and even though it a complex social animal, the pack is very ruthless when it comes to taking what it wants. It did not get to where it was by asking the elk nicely to lie down and die.
Once again, that's not ruthlessness. You're anthropomorphising; doing this terrible social Darwinist thing (whether you're aware of it or not) of assigning pejorative human traits to non-human carnivorous animals. A wolf is not being bad (even ruthless) by killing an elk; in fact, it is doing what a good wolf does.

Moreover, the elk isn't weak by being caught as prey; it is likely to have been a fine specimen of an elk. Reducing nature to 'strong vs. weak' will get you into these dead-ends.

Likewise human society did not have it's most influential and powerful people come to be by being nice and virtuous, but being both cunning and ruthless when it came to acquiring and keeping their power. It's not an all or nothing as far as how humans develop psychologically, but the reality is simply that. You do not get very far to the top of the heap without being ruthless.
In the current social set-up. Again and again, you describe modern capitalist society and expect it to hold for a model of humanity throughout time. This does not follow.

Likewise human prey at the bottom of the social ladder are 'merely' prey then. Does it suit your sensibilities better?
It is nothing to do with my sensibilities. It is to do with the unscientific, non-Darwinian nonsense you keep spouting. The idea of evolution as a movement from inanimate objects to intelligent beings, 'upwards' from single-celled organisms to human beings, is completely unscientific and non-Darwinian. Darwin's theory of natural selection neither supports nor needs a hierarchical structure to evolution or nature, nor does it need or support a 'strong vs. weak' concept of evolution or nature.

There will always be those who desire power for power's sake, and there will be always those with both the desire, the drive, intelligence, and ruthlessness who will get it. I challenge you to prove this observation wrong.
You challenge me to be able to prove a future event? How novel.

I'd disagree that the current state of society we are in is permanent, and I'd contend there are better ways of living in close quarters with other humans that are conducive to genuinely egalitarian, just society.

But I am no prophet.

There will always be those who desire power for power's sake, and there will be always those with both the desire, the drive, intelligence, and ruthlessness who will get it. I challenge you to prove this observation wrong.

Cynicism is just dogmatism. You obviously can't prove this--so why shouldn't we make the attempt for something better?

(Especially since we don't need perfection. Just something superior to the present state of affairs.)

At the risk of getting tangled up by two posters with whom I have had such acrimonious arguments that I have, at various times, put both of you on ignore just to make myself stop fighting with you, I can't help but wade into this mess -- and agree with Chumbly.

Not only is there no evidence that any given form of organization is the inevitable end of human social development, there is plenty of evidence of forms of organization different from what NAS asserts as the norm developing and functioning quite nicely, thank you. Holding up one particular modern, western model, which itself is currently undergoing a functional crisis that may yet force it to be altered significantly, is hardly a firm basis on which to set up such a sweeping argument about human nature.

Also, there is plenty of evidence that cooperation and altruism are actually inherent in ALL forms of human social organization, including the ones NAS claims are based on a predatory "strong beats weak" model. I would challenge NAS to show us any example of a modern capitalist nation where there is no such thing as people helping the old or the sick or orphans, etc, to be fed, sheltered, cared for in at least some way; no such thing as laws defining "cruelty" or "abuse" against weaker people or animals and prohibiting such behavior; no such thing as social support systems for people who, in practical terms, are nothing but a drain on resources and a burden on society because they are unable to care for themselves. ALL human societies contain such elements, in one form or another, and ALL such elements are expressions of altruism because they bring no direct benefit to the ones who deliver such support to those in need.

I would also put it to NAS that the indirect benefit gained from such altruistic acts and systems is, in and of itself, an example of cooperation, because it is the group coooperating to support its weakest members and thus creating a system or social contract, if you will, that promises such help to the helpers, should they ever need it in future. Benefit for one becomes benefit for all, via a cooperative group effort motivated by altruism.

I would also take exception to the entire characterization of cooperation and altruism as "human" traits. Altruistic and cooperative behaviors have often been observed among other many other species. Apparently, any creature that is not entirely solitary and appears (based on behavior) capable of forming personal attachment bonds to other creatures, is capable of cooperative and altruistic behaviors. If humans are engaging in the same behaviors as other animals, it seems silly to argue that such behaviors are not inherent impulses. It seems even sillier, given that humans are clearly both social animals and animals capable of forming personal attachment bonds. Our biology would seem, rather, to dictate that cooperation and altruism will always appear in any form of social organization we devise.

Finally, the predator/prey analogy is flawed for all the reasons Chumbly states, but also because, in a true predator/prey situation, the human is usually not the predator. If humans play-act the part of wolves, they are doing little more than wishing they had abilities they don't.

Also, wolf packs are famously cooperative and altruistic, among their members, so claiming them as an example of a non-cooperative/altruistic social order is false. And sharks do not have the capacity to form social units, they lack any apparent sense of "self" or "other" or "group" and show no ability to form personal attachments, so that comparison to human behavior fails as well -- unless NAS was trying to say that humans have the mental capacities of fish.

There will always be those who desire power for power's sake, and there will be always those with both the desire, the drive, intelligence, and ruthlessness who will get it.

even assuming this is true, so what? what moral are you claiming we should learn from this fact?

Because your case (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14361017&postcount=437) for 'justice is intrinsically imnpossible on a large scale' consists of arguing that 'justice is intrinsically impossible within the contxt of nations'.

And the two aren't the same; unless you also argue that nations are an inherent part of human society. But this is patently false.

Does it have to be nations that make large scale justice impossible? Not really. A cooperative which as a whole has far more power than any individual and more than their targets of ill intent will do. You've said yourself that humans are social animals.

I'll concede that nations may not be the inevitable, but I still hold that large scale justice is simply not feasible. At least not without something that completely overturns human mentality.


How so?

Wants and needs, I may have confused things a bit, but since we're talking humans here, they have both. Wants and needs that is. Needs are finite. Wants are infinite. And don't most humans want something they don't? Either it's something material or immaterial, but it's almost always something they don't have right now.

But resources are limited. So obviously when there are two or more individuals or cooperatives who strongly want a resource, they will come to loggerheads, which is a lot less bloody sounding than what usually happens.


If what you are arguing is 'human nature', then there cannot be a human exception to the rule. As a human, that person would be naturally inclined to want something they cannot have; this greed you describe would have to be universalised among all humans at all times in all societies.


Greed is universalized. But what differs is the amount of greed or want. And want/greed can be a very powerful motivator, often enough to overcome most commonly accepted ethical barriers.


Once again, that's not ruthlessness. You're anthropomorphising; doing this terrible social Darwinist thing (whether you're aware of it or not) of assigning pejorative human traits to non-human carnivorous animals. A wolf is not being bad (even ruthless) by killing an elk; in fact, it is doing what a good wolf does.

Actually, I'm doing the reverse. Applying animal traits to humans, because after all, humans are animals as well. I may call it ruthlessness, but let me put it this way. When a wolf hunts and kills prey, or kills to protect/gain territory, it is part of the natural order.

When a human does the same to other humans, for the exact same motivations (resources and territory), it again is part of the natural order.


Moreover, the elk isn't weak by being caught as prey; it is likely to have been a fine specimen of an elk. Reducing nature to 'strong vs. weak' will get you into these dead-ends.

What are you on about? Predator prey relationships tend to be about winnowing out the easiest of the herd, typically the young or old.


In the current social set-up. Again and again, you describe modern capitalist society and expect it to hold for a model of humanity throughout time. This does not follow.

In the social set-ups preceding the current one, they were very much the case. Technology and civilization do a better job of making things look cleaner, but it didn't make the actual power struggles and all the bloodletting that went with it go away now did it?

It might be able to change, perhaps. But it will require a fundamental shift in mentality for the entire human race. For one, every single human would have to stop thinking about the individual and about the whole. How you are going to achieve that, well, you let me know.


It is to do with the unscientific, non-Darwinian nonsense you keep spouting.



The idea of evolution as a movement from inanimate objects to intelligent beings, 'upwards' from single-celled organisms to human beings, is completely unscientific and non-Darwinian.


You might want to elaborate your position. It sounds like you are arguing that humans did not physically evolve at all.


I'd disagree that the current state of society we are in is permanent, and I'd contend there are better ways of living in close quarters with other humans that are conducive to genuinely egalitarian, just society.

But I am no prophet.

Even society can change, but it will change on the fundamentals of human mentality.

even assuming this is true, so what? what moral are you claiming we should learn from this fact?

No morals. It's an observation.

Cynicism is just dogmatism. You obviously can't prove this--so why shouldn't we make the attempt for something better?

(Especially since we don't need perfection. Just something superior to the present state of affairs.)

Prove what? Human nature? Attempting to make something better is admirable. But the question is how, and what. I've considered many options, and almost everything which leaves humans in any position of power will be eventually be subverted or replaced.

Of course, one possible far future option would be to simply remove humans from the top tier decision making process entirely, and automate it, although that would come with the usual problems of people attempting rebellion in order to make their own decisions and end up with the square one problems.

Another would be to engineer a breed of human with few, if any, negative emotions and drives, and leave them in charge. Again, you'd end up with the same problem of human rebellion, but maybe it would be more palatable to most than AI government.

Also, there is plenty of evidence that cooperation and altruism are actually inherent in ALL forms of human social organization...

I would go as far as to say that cooperation, altruism and fairness are the default position for humans. It's only when there's a perceived threat to the value of fairness that other forces come into effect.

Fairness is seen through most intelligent animals and the punish/reward system that goes with that.

People have different perceptions of 'what is fair', affected by culture, environment and individual experience, and that causes the differences we see, as they say, only the paranoid succeed*.

*calling into question society's definition of success

I would go as far as to say that cooperation, altruism and fairness are the default position for humans. It's only when there's a perceived threat to the value of fairness that other forces come into effect.


I'm not disputing the existence of altruism or a sense of fairness. What I am arguing however, is that power, be it economic, political or military, thus the ability to affect the fates of many people, fall to the hands of those who are ruthless. Not ruthless as in shoot everybody, but ruthless as in those willing to do whatever it takes to seize power, no matter what it does to others.

This is not unique to the western model of rule. It is inherent in any human power structure.

I'm not disputing the existence of altruism or a sense of fairness. What I am arguing however, is that power, be it economic, political or military, thus the ability to affect the fates of many people, fall to the hands of those who are ruthless. Not ruthless as in shoot everybody, but ruthless as in those willing to do whatever it takes to seize power, no matter what it does to others.

This is not unique to the western model of rule. It is inherent in any human power structure.
Then account for the existence of ethical and scrupulous rulers.

If it is possible for BOTH ruthless people and scrupulous people to hold power, then it cannot be true that ruthlessness is inherent in a power structure.

Rather, I would say it is more reasonable to assume* that ruthless people are often also people who desire power, so they will tend to be the ones that choose to try to climb the power ladder, as it were. But that does not mean that ruthlessness is required or even particularly encouraged by the power structure itself.

*By "more reasonable to assume" I mean that the idea contains fewer points about which assumptions must be made, so it is a less risky assumption.

Then account for the existence of ethical and scrupulous rulers.

Martin van Buren, Grover Cleveland... (mostly) ethical and scrupulous rulers are few and far between...

Martin van Buren, Grover Cleveland... (mostly) ethical and scrupulous rulers are few and far between...
I believe there were more than two in the entire history of the world. My personal favorites were Charles VI of France and Charles V of Bohemia.* Those are two I happen to remember off the top of my head. There, now we have four.

Also, the discussion is about whether cooperation and altruism fit in with human power structures. NOT whether a lot of nice people end up leaders of countries. Read my post, especially the part about ruthless people being more likely to seek power, but that still not meaning that power structures are antithetical to cooperation and altruism.

EDIT: Actually, now that I think of it, even ruthlessness itself is not necessarily incompatible with cooperation and altruism within a given person's personality. So not only does the instance of ruthlessness in many powerful people NOT prove that ruthlessness is inherent in power structures, it doesn't prove that cooperation and altruism is absent even from ruthless people in positions of power. It really isn't an either/or proposition.

*Or maybe it was the V of France and the VI of Bohemia. I get their numbers mixed up. Anyway, they were related, so who cares?

Then account for the existence of ethical and scrupulous rulers.

Far and few in between as has been pointed out. Also, the question must be asked as to whether they held real power or not. It is not uncommon for hereditary roles of rulership to be filled by puppet rulers.


If it is possible for BOTH ruthless people and scrupulous people to hold power, then it cannot be true that ruthlessness is inherent in a power structure.

Rather, I would say it is more reasonable to assume* that ruthless people are often also people who desire power, so they will tend to be the ones that choose to try to climb the power ladder, as it were. But that does not mean that ruthlessness is required or even particularly encouraged by the power structure itself.


The structure itself does not have to encourage ruthlessness. You admit that it is reasonable to assume that ruthless people are more likely to seek power than those who are not. Ruthless people would also have more options open to consideration than those who are ethical. This allows them to exploit more opportunities towards taking power than those who refuse to consider them out of ethics.

If one person in a race for power handicaps themselves, then they are very likely to lose to one who will take all the advantages and means possible.

Sense of entitlement is a product of ones perception of fairness.

'I am entitled to...' denotes a perception of fair right to that entitlement.

The problem is that 'what is fair to me' does not accord to what is fair to society as an average.

Does it have to be nations that make large scale justice impossible? Not really. A cooperative which as a whole has far more power than any individual and more than their targets of ill intent will do. You've said yourself that humans are social animals.

I'll concede that nations may not be the inevitable, but I still hold that large scale justice is simply not feasible. At least not without something that completely overturns human mentality.
If I read you right, the problem that you see with achieving large scale justice is that there are powerful people or institutions (such as nations) that can easily prevent justice from happening. But if a just system was in place, a system, say, of egalitarian collectives working in a mutually beneficial and non-hierarchical manner, where no single power could act unjustly, then your problem would be solved. You agree that humans are a social animal; then I would contend we can, and should, construct a just social set-up where humans, as both individuals and as part of a social collective, can flourish.

I straight up disagree that there is anything within 'human mentality' that can prevent egalitarian, just society; and no amount of pointing at human-caused atrocities will prove such a thing, for I can always point at human-caused good. Defining humans as 'naturally' selfish or ruthless is as flawed as saying humans are 'naturally' altruistic and all-good.

Wants and needs, I may have confused things a bit, but since we're talking humans here, they have both. Wants and needs that is.
Fully agree here.

Needs are finite. Wants are infinite.
Not too sure about that:

Taking needs, surely the need for some things is infinite? I will always need water, air, etc. Turning to wants, if I want, say a DS Lite, then I get a DS Lite, surely that want is sated? I no longer possess that need; it is not infinite.

And don't most humans want something they don't? Either it's something material or immaterial, but it's almost always something they don't have right now.

But resources are limited. So obviously when there are two or more individuals or cooperatives who strongly want a resource, they will come to loggerheads, which is a lot less bloody sounding than what usually happens.
Are you not limiting this in some way? I'd agree that most humans want something they don't have, but sometimes folks want immortality, or to be a foot taller, to be more confident, etc. That wouldn't seem to be a good motivation for violence; at least not in the norm.

But to resources, back to the egalitarian society. I believe a huge part of what needs to radically change in society is the attitude we have towards, and the place we see ourselves within the environment. A socially just and egalitarian society can only be possible with an attitude towards the surrounding ecology that is, to use a rather hippy phrase, in harmony with it. 'Resource management', or in better terms, a sustainable way of living on Earth, would necessarily include the creation of largely self-sustainable communities – libertarian municipalities, communes, collectives – which operated on a level beyond 'x resource is mine/ours'; a level you may deny as impossible in humans.

Again, however, I see nothing within 'human mentality' which suggests the above is impossible.

And want/greed can be a very powerful motivator, often enough to overcome most commonly accepted ethical barriers.
Aye, it can, but that says nothing about it being inherent to humans.

Actually, I'm doing the reverse. Applying animal traits to humans, because after all, humans are animals as well. I may call it ruthlessness, but let me put it this way. When a wolf hunts and kills prey, or kills to protect/gain territory, it is part of the natural order.
I basically agree. But where is the ruthlessness in the wolves' actions? You're emoting something that does not need to be emoted.

The wolf pack which hunts for food, which holds territory, is a pack of wolves that I would call good. They are acting, characteristically, on a fashion that is conducive to the individual wolf's survival, the survival of the pack, and the survival of the species.

[i]When a human does the same to other humans, for the exact same motivations (resources and territory), it again is part of the natural order.
And here's where you're wrong. The difference between wolves and humans is that we can learn to live better. We have the ability to improve our lives, our societies, because, unlike most plants and animals, we do not have a characteristic 'way of going on'. We have the ability to reason, and can reason our way to a better society; a society that is far more conducive to individual, social and species survival.

Killing humans over territory or resources is not part of human nature; we are far more malleable than that. We can, and have, drastically altered the way we live as humans; improving the lot of humanity. I see no reason, no limitation in human nature, as to why we cannot continue with this process.

What are you on about? Predator prey relationships tend to be about winnowing out the easiest of the herd, typically the young or old.
Firstly, your talking in two different sphere's here. The young deer may be an easy prey for the wolf, but the deer may very well not be weak; simply young. (And, I'd reinforce, the wolf/wolf pack s not being ruthless in hunting deer; they are doing what good wolves do.) I wouldn't say a human baby that couldn't run as fast as an adult was weak; it is simply a baby, which cannot run as fast. True, there are weak babies (when compared to other babies), and weak deer (when compared to other bucks), but a predator is not necessarily preying on those.

Moreover, it as unfair to call the buck weak when compared to a wolf. A wolf is stronger than than a deer, but this doesn't make the deer necessarily weak – weak in nature, as you are trying to argue – but less strong than the wolf. Similarly, just because an elephant is stronger than a fully-grown human, it doesn't mean that the human is weak; it is simply weaker than an elephant.

Which brings me on nicely to my next point: strong overcoming weak, as you describe it, doesn't happen in many cases. Bacteria, severely weaker than most creatures, can kill a strong organism. Alternatively, intelligent animals (such as we humans) can destroy much more powerful animals that lack deeper intelligence.

Finally, mutually-beneficial relationships between stronger and weaker organisms permeates nature, such as the bacteria in our gut or feeder fish who follow whale sharks.

In the social set-ups preceding the current one, they were very much the case. Technology and civilization do a better job of making things look cleaner, but it didn't make the actual power struggles and all the bloodletting that went with it go away now did it?
No, because technological and productive forces are in the 'hands' of powerful interests; those interests which you (rightly) blame for having too much influence. As you note, having wonderful technology does not automatically lead to liberatory society.

It might be able to change, perhaps. But it will require a fundamental shift in mentality for the entire human race. For one, every single human would have to stop thinking about the individual and about the whole.
Firstly, to develop as an individual, one must be involved (in some manner) with society, and society can only flourish if individuals are needlessly hindered. 'Serving yourself or serving the Collective' is a false dichotomy.

Further, I do not think there needs to be a 'shift in mentality' within humans; at least not one that is incapable to current humans. Many of us do think about the whole, including that small part that is humanity.

You might want to elaborate your position. It sounds like you are arguing that humans did not physically evolve at all.
Nothing of the sort.

I'm simply noting that evolution is not a ladder, not a process leading towards anything, from anything. Moreover, it is non-linear; rather it branches exponentially. Trying to say hierarchical society is inherent in nature/evolution, for nature/evolution itself is hierarchical, is flawed, as nature/evolution is not hierarchical.

If I read you right, the problem that you see with achieving large scale justice is that there are powerful people or institutions (such as nations) that can easily prevent justice from happening. But if a just system was in place, a system, say, of egalitarian collectives working in a mutually beneficial and non-hierarchical manner, where no single power could act unjustly, then your problem would be solved. You agree that humans are a social animal; then I would contend we can, and should, construct a just social set-up where humans, as both individuals and as part of a social collective, can flourish.

I straight up disagree that there is anything within 'human mentality' that can prevent egalitarian, just society; and no amount of pointing at human-caused atrocities will prove such a thing, for I can always point at human-caused good. Defining humans as 'naturally' selfish or ruthless is as flawed as saying humans are 'naturally' altruistic and all-good.

That's a huge ask.

First, I am utterly naturally altruistic as long as I perceive that those I interact with are equally altruistic to me. At the point I don't, I will enter the game of debts owed.

First, we do not perceive fairness equally and second, our surrounding environment is not equal.

Those two problems mean competition for fairness and competition for resources will naturally arise.

Where there is competition, one requires resolution, which requires 'laws' and someone will always perceive themselves to be unjustly affected by those laws.

It's a huge ask of society, even of two individuals but it still doesn't mean that the default state of humans is not both altruistic and cooperative where there has been no previous experience.

Far and few in between as has been pointed out. Also, the question must be asked as to whether they held real power or not. It is not uncommon for hereditary roles of rulership to be filled by puppet rulers.



The structure itself does not have to encourage ruthlessness. You admit that it is reasonable to assume that ruthless people are more likely to seek power than those who are not. Ruthless people would also have more options open to consideration than those who are ethical. This allows them to exploit more opportunities towards taking power than those who refuse to consider them out of ethics.

If one person in a race for power handicaps themselves, then they are very likely to lose to one who will take all the advantages and means possible.
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense entirely dependent on assumption for all its foundational points. The embedded assumptions are highlighted in bold, above.

You assume that ethical rulers are not powerful.

You assume ethical courses offer fewer options for action than unethical ones.

You assume ruthlessness = unethical.

You assume unethical choices are more effective in application than ethical ones.

You assume that a ruthless person is going to be as skilled or more skilled at power games than an ethical person.

You assume that there is no ethical way to beat an unethical opponent.

But every single one of those assumptions can be shown to be false, historically, at least as often, if not more, as they can be shown to pan out accurately. For example, the two medieval kings I mentioned were both highly ethical, scrupulous and relatively compassionate people during a time of extreme scumbaggery in politics, war and the ruling classes in Europe. Yet both held significant power and enjoyed long and stable careers. The French Charles was, arguably, the best ruler France ever had -- he waged war against England much less recklessly and more effectively than his forebears, negotiated advantageous peace agreements, and advanced social fairness for all strata of French society. The Bohemian Charles was not only king of Bohemia but also held the political position of Holy Roman Emperor. He was considered one of the best rulers of a land that had enjoyed a long history of relatively beneficient rulers -- so he had some tough acts to follow. But his real influence was as "Emperor" which put him on the hot seat of international politics in Europe, negotiating diplomacy between rulers of nearly every other nation. He was nobody's puppet. By the way, both the Charleses were obsessed with the ethics of law and followed a kind of personal "rule of law" before there even was such a concept in politics. Both were famous for engaging lawyers to make certain that absolutely everything they did was fully legal. It is noteworthy that, even as far back as the 14th century, that was enough to counter the attempts of more "ruthless" adversaries from undermining their real political power. That was because it emphasized the fairness of their actions, and the cooperative and selfless quality of their approaches to issues, which caused the majority of other rulers as well as nobles and commons to trust and support them, thereby increasing their strength.

EDIT: By the way, please note that neither of these two exemplary Charleses sought the power they had. They gained their positions by accident of birth. Thus, even though they do not counter the argument that ruthless people are more likely to seek power, they do counter the argument that ethical people are less able to wield power.

That's a huge ask.

First, I am utterly naturally altruistic as long as I perceive that those I interact with are equally altruistic to me. At the point I don't, I will enter the game of debts owed.
Altruism that expects any personal return (even a return of altruism) is not altruism. If you only offer altruism as long as you get it back, then I would say you are not actually altruistic at all. And since what you are talking about is not altruism, then your comments are meaningless in regard to altruism.

First, we do not perceive fairness equally and second, our surrounding environment is not equal.

Those two problems mean competition for fairness and competition for resources will naturally arise.
Fairness is not something that is competed over. Fairness negates the need for competition because it balances out the needs of all the parties. If people are competing to get something, that something is not fairness. So, like altruism, you are not actually talking about fairness at all, and therefore your comments are not applicable to fairness.

Where there is competition, one requires resolution, which requires 'laws' and someone will always perceive themselves to be unjustly affected by those laws.

It's a huge ask of society, even of two individuals but it still doesn't mean that the default state of humans is not both altruistic and cooperative where there has been no previous experience.
I think it would be much more accurate to say is that people want to get their own way, regardless of fairness, but that they will opt for fairness rather than get less or nothing -- and that fairness is often more satisfying in other ways. Also that true altruism is much more rare than a drive for fairness, but that does not mean it does not exist. And that, regardless of pressures that might push us away from cooperation, altruism and fairness, all of those things are inherent in human nature.

Altruism that expects any personal return (even a return of altruism) is not altruism. If you only offer altruism as long as you get it back, then I would say you are not actually altruistic at all. And since what you are talking about is not altruism, then your comments are meaningless in regard to altruism.

I can be altruistic in giving yet that initial feeling can be altered. If I give something altruistically and am slapped in the face for it, I can revoke that altruism. Return does not have to be neutral. I gave altruistically, I acted afterwards based on overtly negative reaction.

Fairness is not something that is competed over. Fairness negates the need for competition because it balances out the needs of all the parties. If people are competing to get something, that something is not fairness. So, like altruism, you are not actually talking about fairness at all, and therefore your comments are not applicable to fairness.

I'm afraid fairness is nearly always competed over because we perceive it differently, the value I ascribe to something may be different to what you ascribe and we negotiate a fair deal, that holds true between individuals, an individual and society and society and society.

I think it would be much more accurate to say is that people want to get their own way, regardless of fairness, but that they will opt for fairness rather than get less or nothing -- and that fairness is often more satisfying in other ways. Also that true altruism is much more rare than a drive for fairness, but that does not mean it does not exist. And that, regardless of pressures that might push us away from cooperation, altruism and fairness, all of those things are inherent in human nature.

Any interaction between humans should be an exchange and if that negates the concept of altruism then so be it. I am altruistic because that's the person I want to be and I expect others to be similar, where they act differently will effectively end my altruism in some form either on an individual or society level. I wish it wouldn't but it does, we're human.

Maybe its just my current state of mind, but I am currently under the impression that nobody wants to get along with anyone and every other person you meet is looking for a fight.

I can be altruistic in giving yet that initial feeling can be altered. If I give something altruistically and am slapped in the face for it, I can revoke that altruism. Return does not have to be neutral. I gave altruistically, I acted afterwards based on overtly negative reaction.



I'm afraid fairness is nearly always competed over because we perceive it differently, the value I ascribe to something may be different to what you ascribe and we negotiate a fair deal, that holds true between individuals, an individual and society and society and society.



Any interaction between humans should be an exchange and if that negates the concept of altruism then so be it. I am altruistic because that's the person I want to be and I expect others to be similar, where they act differently will effectively end my altruism in some form either on an individual or society level. I wish it wouldn't but it does, we're human.
I don't mean to say that your stance is not reasonable, only that it is not altruism. In fact, I would say it's "fairness," not "altruism."

Also, I still object to your apparent idea of what "fairness" is in your other paragraph. The whole point of people feeling that they have been treated fairly is that they stop competing over whatever is at issue. It doesn't matter if they start out with different expectations of what "fair" will be like. If at the end, they feel they have been treated fairly, then they are no longer in competition with the other guy.

(EDIT: By the way, "ask" is not a noun. You're the second person I've seen use the phrase "that's a huge ask." I intend to start nipping that weed in the bud right now.)

Maybe its just my current state of mind, but I am currently under the impression that nobody wants to get along with anyone and every other person you meet is looking for a fight.
I get that feeling, too.

I don't mean to say that your stance is not reasonable, only that it is not altruism. In fact, I would say it's "fairness," not "altruism."

Also, I still object to your apparent idea of what "fairness" is in your other paragraph. The whole point of people feeling that they have been treated fairly is that they stop competing over whatever is at issue. It doesn't matter if they start out with different expectations of what "fair" will be like. If at the end, they feel they have been treated fairly, then they are no longer in competition with the other guy.

(EDIT: By the way, "ask" is not a noun. You're the second person I've seen use the phrase "that's a huge ask." I intend to start nipping that weed in the bud right now.)

Right, at the point fairness is achieved there is no competition, in that sense fairness negates competition - fair enough.

Is it not a phrase? That's a big ask?

Hmm, on checking it seems quite the controversy, I'm afraid it's epidemic Mur and you're going to have to get used to it.

If I read you right, the problem that you see with achieving large scale justice is that there are powerful people or institutions (such as nations) that can easily prevent justice from happening.


Correct. The addendum I would add to this is that even if these institutions and people were to vanish overnight, new ones would arise to take their place.


But if a just system was in place, a system, say, of egalitarian collectives working in a mutually beneficial and non-hierarchical manner, where no single power could act unjustly, then your problem would be solved. You agree that humans are a social animal; then I would contend we can, and should, construct a just social set-up where humans, as both individuals and as part of a social collective, can flourish.

The question is how such a society would ever appear, not be sabotaged by internal strife resulting from people who place more importance on numero uno than the whole, and not be crushed beneath the more competitive ones.


I straight up disagree that there is anything within 'human mentality' that can prevent egalitarian, just society; and no amount of pointing at human-caused atrocities will prove such a thing, for I can always point at human-caused good. Defining humans as 'naturally' selfish or ruthless is as flawed as saying humans are 'naturally' altruistic and all-good.

It's very much like this. No, there is nothing preventing humans creating egalitarian, just societies. Nothing physically that is. And in some ways, it can happen. But very small scale, and certainly not when there are other, more competitive societies nearby.

Humans are a diverse lot with many motivations, but one thing comes out again and again no matter where or when. And that is the desire to be on top of the heap. Ruthlessness tends to go hand in hand with this desire, and what eventually happens is a system of elimination until only one person sits at the top or controls it. It's why history is absolutely littered with examples of rulers and powerful people, good and bad (you can be a ruler good for your country, but bad for everyone else i.e. Genghis Khan), who came to power and stayed in power by quashing their competition.


Not too sure about that:

Taking needs, surely the need for some things is infinite? I will always need water, air, etc. Turning to wants, if I want, say a DS Lite, then I get a DS Lite, surely that want is sated? I no longer possess that need; it is not infinite.

Needs are things that allow you to continue existing, very basic, and finite by the fact that they can be sated. You don't need more water if you've drunk 4 liters in one sitting. Wants on the other hand, can be infinite. Luxury goods are a good example of this. People don't need that BMW, or that third house, or that really expensive suit or any other number of things that people want, but don't need but want all the same.

It's not so much a DS Lite you want in that example, but a convenient entertainment item. The DS Lite was simply the form that the want settled on.


Are you not limiting this in some way? I'd agree that most humans want something they don't have, but sometimes folks want immortality, or to be a foot taller, to be more confident, etc. That wouldn't seem to be a good motivation for violence; at least not in the norm.

Well you obviously can't fight someone else to become taller or live forever.


But to resources, back to the egalitarian society. I believe a huge part of what needs to radically change in society is the attitude we have towards, and the place we see ourselves within the environment. A socially just and egalitarian society can only be possible with an attitude towards the surrounding ecology that is, to use a rather hippy phrase, in harmony with it. 'Resource management', or in better terms, a sustainable way of living on Earth, would necessarily include the creation of largely self-sustainable communities – libertarian municipalities, communes, collectives – which operated on a level beyond 'x resource is mine/ours'; a level you may deny as impossible in humans.

Again, however, I see nothing within 'human mentality' which suggests the above is impossible.

You see, all this requires a fundamental shift in human mentality. A complete discarding of the "Me first" mentality. And how is that going to happen? Even the kibbutz's which were supposed to be the embodiment of true egalitarian societies (as I understand it), had their flaws and didn't really work once they grew beyond a certain size.

Also, you would have to completely nullify the draw of the "Me first" mentality and the usual things that come with it. A lot of small communes in developing countries that are close to egalitarianism break apart when the young head off towards cities and the likes to make their fortune. They see something better than their current existence (in terms of material wealth), so of course they would gravitate to it. This is very apparent in rural China.

How do you propose to get rid of that, much less prevent it from arising again?


Aye, it can, but that says nothing about it being inherent to humans.


Want/greed is not inherent to humans? Not that this means exclusivity to humans, but I believe you know what I mean.


And here's where you're wrong. The difference between wolves and humans is that we can learn to live better. We have the ability to improve our lives, our societies, because, unlike most plants and animals, we do not have a characteristic 'way of going on'. We have the ability to reason, and can reason our way to a better society; a society that is far more conducive to individual, social and species survival.

And how do you know that is not the society we have witnessed in all of recorded human history?


Killing humans over territory or resources is not part of human nature; we are far more malleable than that. We can, and have, drastically altered the way we live as humans; improving the lot of humanity. I see no reason, no limitation in human nature, as to why we cannot continue with this process.


Technologically, the lot of humanity has improved, yes. But even then, it's hard to miss how the bits of humanity who have the technological edge suppress those who don't.


Firstly, your talking in two different sphere's here. The young deer may be an easy prey for the wolf, but the deer may very well not be weak; simply young. (And, I'd reinforce, the wolf/wolf pack s not being ruthless in hunting deer; they are doing what good wolves do.) I wouldn't say a human baby that couldn't run as fast as an adult was weak; it is simply a baby, which cannot run as fast. True, there are weak babies (when compared to other babies), and weak deer (when compared to other bucks), but a predator is not necessarily preying on those.

The predator preys on those weaker than itself. The strong prey on those weaker than themselves.

The term weak, by itself, has no meaning. There is nothing to compare it to.

When I say the strong prey on the weak, I do not mean that the strong is a 200 pound 8 foot giant and the weak is a 40 pound 3 foot midget with Alzheimer's and polio. I mean that the weak are weak compared to the strong.


Which brings me on nicely to my next point: strong overcoming weak, as you describe it, doesn't happen in many cases. Bacteria, severely weaker than most creatures, can kill a strong organism.

[QUOTE=Chumblywumbly;14375802]
Alternatively, intelligent animals (such as we humans) can destroy much more powerful animals that lack deeper intelligence.

Can you really say that the animals are much more powerful then? It's never just a contest of raw physical strength when it comes to the strong preying on the weak. Tools, economic might, military might, influence, political clout, all these things augment one's natural capabilities, granting more options available than if it was merely yourself.


No, because technological and productive forces are in the 'hands' of powerful interests; those interests which you (rightly) blame for having too much influence. As you note, having wonderful technology does not automatically lead to liberatory society.

Even if these people were to vanish overnight, what is stopping a new generation of like minded people rising to fill the power vacuum?


Firstly, to develop as an individual, one must be involved (in some manner) with society, and society can only flourish if individuals are needlessly hindered. 'Serving yourself or serving the Collective' is a false dichotomy.

Further, I do not think there needs to be a 'shift in mentality' within humans; at least not one that is incapable to current humans. Many of us do think about the whole, including that small part that is humanity.

If you place the self as more important than the collective, then at what point does it become a detriment to the collective? Collectives, as you describe, should work for the common good. But what happens when someone places their wants and needs above those of the collective?


I'm simply noting that evolution is not a ladder, not a process leading towards anything, from anything. Moreover, it is non-linear; rather it branches exponentially. Trying to say hierarchical society is inherent in nature/evolution, for nature/evolution itself is hierarchical, is flawed, as nature/evolution is not hierarchical.

Hierarchical societies in social animals are inherent however. I cannot think of any social animal group that does not have an alpha of some sort.

The thing I don't understand is why self-interest is inherently wrong or somehow completely invalidates altruistic actions. If anything, making altruistic decisions with a mind towards your own self interest is the most optimal kind of altruism; not only are you helping another person but you're helping yourself in the process, thereby enabling both of you to achieve more and to make more contributions to societal well-being in the future.

You assume that ethical rulers are not powerful.

You assume ruthlessness = unethical.


False. I raised a question as to whether the highlighted ones held power in their own right and were not puppet rulers, as was not uncommon in the days of succession rule. I do not dispute the possibility of ethical leaders, but the probability of such people appearing does seem to be marginal at best.


You assume ethical courses offer fewer options for action than unethical ones.

False. A ruthless person would consider all possible options, ethical or otherwise, that he or she can perceive and choose one they saw as best suited to their purpose. An ethical person might conceive of unethical options to achieve their purposes, but would not use them, despite any advantage they might confer.


You assume unethical choices are more effective in application than ethical ones.

False. Equal consideration to unethical choices and the willingness to use them if they prove the more effective, provides a greater range of flexibility than limiting one's self to just the ethical set.


You assume that a ruthless person is going to be as skilled or more skilled at power games than an ethical person.

Not all ruthless persons will be more skilled or as skilled, but there will be those who are.


You assume that there is no ethical way to beat an unethical opponent.


I've assumed no such thing. You might catch an unethical opponent in the act and ethically put them away. But just as many get away with it.

Furthermore, the very few actual ethical winners in a long line of unethical ones makes it's own the argument.


Both were famous for engaging lawyers to make certain that absolutely everything they did was fully legal.


Legal, as I'm sure you know, doesn't necessarily mean ethical.


It is noteworthy that, even as far back as the 14th century, that was enough to counter the attempts of more "ruthless" adversaries from undermining their real political power. That was because it emphasized the fairness of their actions, and the cooperative and selfless quality of their approaches to issues, which caused the majority of other rulers as well as nobles and commons to trust and support them, thereby increasing their strength.

I believe you mistake ruthlessness for cruelty. If the commons and nobles did not seek to undermine his power, and thereby were not a threat to his rule, it would only be a logical choice to gain their support. But those that were his adversaries, well, you seem to know more about this person than I. How did he deal with them?


EDIT: By the way, please note that neither of these two exemplary Charleses sought the power they had. They gained their positions by accident of birth. Thus, even though they do not counter the argument that ruthless people are more likely to seek power, they do counter the argument that ethical people are less able to wield power.

The only exception to the seek, gain and hold power rule is when hereditary successions are in place. It gives quite a headstart in the race to power, although it has its pitfalls.

The thing I don't understand is why self-interest is inherently wrong or somehow completely invalidates altruistic actions. If anything, making altruistic decisions with a mind towards your own self interest is the most optimal kind of altruism; not only are you helping another person but you're helping yourself in the process, thereby enabling both of you to achieve more and to make more contributions to societal well-being in the future.

The problem arises when self-interest is put ahead of the welfare of others, which happens very often. When the direct impact on the welfare of others by one's self interest becomes more remote by several lines of intermediaries, the amount of importance placed on the welfare of others becomes even smaller, and sometimes non-existent.

Take for example, a piece of African sourced diamond jewelry. Few people put any consideration on its implications beyond what they intend for it, aesthetics, and cost. Few would be bothered enough to check to see if it was a blood diamond, or care if it was.

Or simpler. Grain. Farming collectives bargain for subsidies in their industry, allowing for large quantities of cheap grain. Since they cannot sell it all locally though, they export it to countries which cannot afford such similar subsidies, resulting in dumping practices that ruin local agriculture, forcing dependencies on foreign markets for food. The farming collectives do not care. Neither do the farmers. They are happy. Their direct customers in their country of origin are happy. The people with ruined livelihoods and facing famine from economic crashes are far away in another country.

So they don't care.

dawkins or no dawkins, the kind of world we all have to live in, is in everyone's self interest.

Right, at the point fairness is achieved there is no competition, in that sense fairness negates competition - fair enough.

Is it not a phrase? That's a big ask?

Hmm, on checking it seems quite the controversy, I'm afraid it's epidemic Mur and you're going to have to get used to it.
Works both ways. The people who say that dumbass shit are going to have to get used to having their dumbness pointed out to them. Repeatedly. :p

I get that feeling, too.

Oh good, I was starting to think I was alone on the process.

False. I raised a question as to whether the highlighted ones held power in their own right and were not puppet rulers, as was not uncommon in the days of succession rule. I do not dispute the possibility of ethical leaders, but the probability of such people appearing does seem to be marginal at best.



False. A ruthless person would consider all possible options, ethical or otherwise, that he or she can perceive and choose one they saw as best suited to their purpose. An ethical person might conceive of unethical options to achieve their purposes, but would not use them, despite any advantage they might confer.



False. Equal consideration to unethical choices and the willingness to use them if they prove the more effective, provides a greater range of flexibility than limiting one's self to just the ethical set.



Not all ruthless persons will be more skilled or as skilled, but there will be those who are.



I've assumed no such thing. You might catch an unethical opponent in the act and ethically put them away. But just as many get away with it.

Furthermore, the very few actual ethical winners in a long line of unethical ones makes it's own the argument.



Legal, as I'm sure you know, doesn't necessarily mean ethical.



I believe you mistake ruthlessness for cruelty. If the commons and nobles did not seek to undermine his power, and thereby were not a threat to his rule, it would only be a logical choice to gain their support. But those that were his adversaries, well, you seem to know more about this person than I. How did he deal with them?



The only exception to the seek, gain and hold power rule is when hereditary successions are in place. It gives quite a headstart in the race to power, although it has its pitfalls.
Similar to other debates with you in the past, I notice that you offer no historical examples to illustrate your points, to show that what you say is actually true.

I also notice that rather than address the examples that are offered to you by others and actually show by reasoning or citation of fact how they do not counter your points or do not support the other person's points, you merely dismiss them out of hand, airily claiming that whatever the other person said about them is not so without actually showing that in your argument.

You also cherry pick details out of the other person's point, pulling specific phrases out of context as if that magically turns them into poison pills that destroy the other person's argument -- such as your little trick with being all cynical about the word "legal" as if I had not also talked about other things the two kings in question did and how they did them.

It is a perfectly fair tactic to tear down the other person's argument by attacking its weaknesses and to do that instead of defending or even presenting your own counter argument. Done right, it is very effective. In fact, it is one of my personal favorite approaches in debates.

However, you do not do it right because you do not attack actual weaknesses. You try to invent them with your cherrypicking, but that does not work. You try to show up the other person as wrong by simple gainsaying all their points, but that amounts to nothing more than "Nuh-uh, 'cause I'm right and you're not 'cause I said so, and everything you say I didn't think of, I did think of it, only I didn't say so before, so there, neener-neener." And you try to trump the other person by whipping out points with a "so-there" attitude, apparently unaware that those very points were already brought up and addressed by the other person in the post you are supposedly responding to.

Free Soviets pointed out very early in this thread that you actually have no argument to defend because nothing you are saying about how power structures work has any basis in fact, as evidenced by your failure to present any facts and show the sense of any of your factual assertions. So far, you have held that failure up consistently. You have done nothing but insist on your points without actually resolving any of the objections to them. Your extensive "responsive" posts have been nothing but redundancies, even though the thread is so short. That does not bode well for the thread's future.

And actually, your failure to make a real argument on this topic had already led to the thread's quiet dignified death by disinterest. I notice you gravedug it up again. Apparently, you were not done repeating yourself.

But I'm telling you right now -- you've made your point. It's a weak point consisting of nothing more than pessimistic personal opinion about human nature masquerading as factual analysis of history. It has no substance, and you have not bothered to inject any substance to it by doing any research to back up your claims that your views are factually accurate. If, in all the time this thread lay dead, you could not be bothered to shore up your argument, then I don't see any reason why you bothered to revive it in the first place. If you fail to present any arguments better than you have done so far, I will not indulge you in this because "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things."

I've made my argument: Cooperation, altruism and fairness are inherent in the nature of all social animals, including humans, therefore they are inherent in human nature, and inherent in the social systems humans create, including power structures. History shows examples of this everywhere we look, on both macro and micro scales. Also, cooperation, altruism and fairness are not antithetical to the ability to hold and wield power, and history gives us examples of that, too. I stand by that argument and by my view that you have failed to defeat it.

I will not argue with you further as long as your arguments consist of nothing more than repetitions without substance. Come up with something better, and I'll engage you. Otherwise, I leave my argument in the thread as unanswered.

You know, I don't think it's as simple as weak or strong when you're trying to include fairness and altruism. Even a good loser is stronger than a bad winner in the long run, if you ask me. And not just from some idealistic, wishy washy perspective, or even an altruistic one, but from an enlightened one that seeks truth. Also, I don't think selfishness negates altruism. Acknowledging the the selfish part of human nature doesn't negate altruism, if anything, I'd say it enforces it when you accept a difficult reality and accept the consequences as opposed to living in a delusion no matter what happens to who. Like if your only goal in a confrontation is simply to avoid conflict, you might convince yourself that yielding is always more noble, but it's not necessarily altruistic. When people ignore the long term consequences, it's usually due to short sightedness or to retain comfort. Path of least resistance, not altruistic in itself.

Similar to other debates with you in the past, I notice that you offer no historical examples to illustrate your points, to show that what you say is actually true.

What? Puppet rulers? Ok, fine. Bao Dai. Vietnam's last emperor, and a puppet of French colonial rule. Pu Yi, puppet Emperor of the Manchu state, but answered to Japan. Or the Kingdom of Holland under Napoleonic control? Poland under Imperial Russia? Judea under the Roman Empire?

Or were you talking about my assertion that ruthlessness is required to gain power? A good example of this would be the Chinese Imperial court. Well, let's go with the first one. Qin Shi Huang. First man to unify China by thrashing everyone who resisted. Purportedly also buried a lot of scholars alive in order to get rid of competing views. A ruthless thug by all accounts, but his power was indisputable. The dynasties that followed his rule were hardly peaceful, civilized things either. Palace intrigues and assassinations weren't uncommon in the fight for succession or to control the one who would sit on the throne.

Genghis Khan is also another example. Unified Mongolia much the same way Qin Shi Huang did, by smashing everyone who resisted, and then went on to try and conquer the world.

Napoleon is another one. He got to power by launching a coup de tat, installed himself as Consul, and then later on as Emperor.

How about Joan of Arc? Sure, she was viewed as a hero and helped France regain its sovereignty from the British, but she didn't do that by being nice. She led armies. Or for that matter, how did France fall under England? With England invading of course, thanks in no small part to taking the opportunity of Charles VIs sheer nuttiness, which didn't do much to help when combined with the fact that the nobility were squabbling with each other and ordering assassinations (Duke of Burgundy against Duke of Orleans).

All of these examples are quite ruthless, and while you might point out that they were conquerers who gained much of their power that way, I counter with the fact that none of them would be in position to be conquerers if they were not ruthless enough to gather the power base necessary to do so.

Or did you mean our interpretations of ruthlessness and whether being one precludes (somewhat) ethical/good rule? How about Abraham Lincoln? Whatever the man's personal feelings, the timing and application of the Emancipation proclamation made it an act of war designed to cause insurrection in the separatist states and weaken them. Yet by all accounts, the man personally opposed slavery and did work for its end.

Or did you mean that a ruthless person might not beat one of equal skill who isn't in a power play? It's not impossible. It's just unlikely. A good example would be Bush and Kerry during the 2004 elections (although whether they were of equal political skill is debatable).

Or did you mean legal, but not ethical? Japanese Internment in WWII maybe?

As for catching an unethical act by ethical means yet the one doing unethical acts getting away? Well that's easy. The Plame affair? Or how about hmm, the My Lai massacre? Agent Orange is in the same time frame as well. Or maybe the Bhopal disaster by Union Carbide? Union Carbide still maintains their innocence I believe.


such as your little trick with being all cynical about the word "legal" as if I had not also talked about other things the two kings in question did and how they did them.

I don't know. You never told me what they did with their legal acts or which ones they were. You just said they were loved by their people, waged good campaigns of war, and were competent rulers. I specified that legal didn't mean ethical because legal acts don't necessarily translate to ethical ones, which to me, came off as what you were trying to say they did. If that wasn't your intention, then I apologize.


And actually, your failure to make a real argument on this topic had already led to the thread's quiet dignified death by disinterest. I notice you gravedug it up again. Apparently, you were not done repeating yourself.

Hardly. If you ask Chumbly, you'll find that the argument was split off from another thread, and I couldn't find it until Chumbly showed me where it was with a link in the original thread. In fact, here's the link. Post #864 and #865 pretty much sum things up.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14375053&highlight=Conflict+Megathread%21#post14375053


I've made my argument: Cooperation, altruism and fairness are inherent in the nature of all social animals, including humans, therefore they are inherent in human nature, and inherent in the social systems humans create, including power structures.

Which does nothing to dispute my assertion that ruthlessness, ambition, greed and cruelty are also inherent in social animals (dolphins have been known to brutalize their young), including humans, and therefore inherent in their social systems and power structures.

Let's make this clear, in case you missed it the first time around. The existence of cooperation, altruism and fairness are not in dispute. What's in dispute is that altruism and fairness (cooperation is needed in any form of power structure, the only difference is the reasons for cooperating), is somehow better for gaining power as opposed to ruthlessness.

This doesn't make altruism and fairness impossible in gaining power. The assertion is that it makes it much harder and less likely to succeed.


I stand by that argument and by my view that you have failed to defeat it.

The ball is in your court.

I get that feeling, too.

And that doesn't tell you something about human propensity, or lack thereof, to get along? If we can't get along with nothing at stake beyond our pride, why would it be different in the real world when there's much more at stake?

What? Puppet rulers? Ok, fine. Bao Dai. Vietnam's last emperor, and a puppet of French colonial rule. Pu Yi, puppet Emperor of the Manchu state, but answered to Japan. Or the Kingdom of Holland under Napoleonic control? Poland under Imperial Russia? Judea under the Roman Empire?
What about them? If, as usual, you are not actually paying attention to what the other person says, then it is not surprising that you don't seem to get that I want you to show me historical examples that support your point that ethical leaders are weaker than unethical/ruthless ones.

Also, none of the puppet rulers you listed above could be called ethical, considering the degree to which they sold out the people they were officially responsible for to their behind-the-scenes masters. Because of this, your examples are off-point and useless in this discussion.

Or were you talking about my assertion that ruthlessness is required to gain power?
Oh, so you do read. Then you just misdirect to piss people off?

A good example of this would be the Chinese Imperial court. Well, let's go with the first one. Qin Shi Huang. First man to unify China by thrashing everyone who resisted. Purportedly also buried a lot of scholars alive in order to get rid of competing views. A ruthless thug by all accounts, but his power was indisputable. The dynasties that followed his rule were hardly peaceful, civilized things either. Palace intrigues and assassinations weren't uncommon in the fight for succession or to control the one who would sit on the throne.
Now show me how their existence negates the existence of the ethical rulers I mentioned. Seriously, NAS, do I have to remind you of each and every dot at every step of the conversation before you will just go ahead and connect them?

Genghis Khan is also another example. Unified Mongolia much the same way Qin Shi Huang did, by smashing everyone who resisted, and then went on to try and conquer the world.
But that was not unethical. He had an ethic and he stuck to it. He made promises and he kept them. He behaved in exactly the way he told people he would and was always consistent with his own stated beliefs. And he did produce the beneficial results he promised to the people he had declared himself responsible for. Genghis is an example of an ethical ruler who was very powerful and effective.

Napoleon is another one. He got to power by launching a coup de tat, installed himself as Consul, and then later on as Emperor.
Napoleon was arguably not an ethical person. Now, as with the Chinese rulers, show me how his existence negates the existence and effective careers of rulers like Genghis and the two Charleses.

How about Joan of Arc?
Yeah, how about Joan of Arc? And while you're at it, how about George Washington and that cherry tree? You may as well, if you're going to use as examples people whose entire histories are warped by apocryphal tales.

Sure, she was viewed as a hero and helped France regain its sovereignty from the British, but she didn't do that by being nice. She led armies.
Ethical =/= nice. In the matter of rule (which Joan did not have) even cooperative and altruistic =/= nice, necessarily. And in the matter of war, cooperative and ethical definitely =/= nice. Just being a warrior does not make a person unethical.

Hint: Remember what I said about the assumption that ruthless = unethical being a bad assumption? See also Genghis Khan, above. Simplistic thinking will sink you every time.

Or for that matter, how did France fall under England? With England invading of course, thanks in no small part to taking the opportunity of Charles VIs sheer nuttiness, which didn't do much to help when combined with the fact that the nobility were squabbling with each other and ordering assassinations (Duke of Burgundy against Duke of Orleans).
You have the wrong French Charles there. The one I'm thinking of defeated the English and then brokered a (fragile) peace that was only broken a few times until the next king's rule. Then they went back at it. I probably got his number wrong. I can't find my book in which I have my notes about him. *annoyed at self*

EDIT: Arrrgh. My notes about this guy are in my copy of Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror, all about the 14th century. The reason I can't place which Charles he was is because I can't remember the names of the big French battlefields. He was the son of the king who got France's ass handed to it in that big battle where the English longbow made mincemeat of the French cavalry. Then this next king learned that lesson and avoided war like hell, until he couldn't anymore, and he ended up winning a major battle against the English. I could place him, if I could get the order of the battles right, but my memory keeps coming up with the wrong place names and no sense of their order. Crap.

All of these examples are quite ruthless,
But not all were unethical. And one of them is largely fictionalized.

and while you might point out that they were conquerers who gained much of their power that way,
Another assumption -- that is not what I would point out. It's not what I've been pointing out in this conversation, and it's not what I did point out in my responses above.

I counter with the fact that none of them would be in position to be conquerers if they were not ruthless enough to gather the power base necessary to do so.
But not necessarily without ethics, cooperation and even, in a few occasional instances, a leaning towards altruism.

Or did you mean our interpretations of ruthlessness and whether being one precludes (somewhat) ethical/good rule?
Oh, I see, you were breaking up all the possible permutations of my statments that you could make up, even though what I actually meant was stated obviously from the start and several times thereafter too. I guess you really wanted to show off all the different ways you could be wrong on this topic?

How about Abraham Lincoln? Whatever the man's personal feelings, the timing and application of the Emancipation proclamation made it an act of war designed to cause insurrection in the separatist states and weaken them. Yet by all accounts, the man personally opposed slavery and did work for its end.
And? So? See my comments about Genghis Khan and Joan of Arc above. Waging a war does not make a person automatically ruthless and/or unethical.

Furthermore, you ignore that there were a lot of other issues in play about freeing the slaves, that it was its own nest of hornets besides even the secession of the southern states and the fighting of the war which also contributed to his unwillingness to do it earlier, until he did it as a message to the south that the north was not going to back down (also a message to those in the north whose support for the war was flagging). In fact, there is a good argument to be made that he could have been planning to do it after winning the war, provided the north won, when, on the tide of victory, he would be able to overcome other opposition to the proposition. But he chose to do it earlier than he wanted for the sake of his war effort.

In addition, your claim that Lincoln's prosecution of the war was ruthless is not shared by all. There are solid arguments that Lincoln was not ruthless enough and that his relative lack of aggression (or experience) in war caused the war to last longer and be more bloody and destructive than it possibly needed to be. That's a debatable view on several points, but it shows that your way of seeing it is not the only way, so your certainty that you are right is not that convincing.

A better example of a truly ruthless leader, although he was only a general and not a national leader, was Sherman. Many denounce him as a murderous, warmongering bastard, but what he actually was, was an utterly ruthless warrior but one strict in following a ethical code. He was the exact opposite of a warmonger. Rather he was one who believed that "war is hell" in a very literal sense -- that it was bad to the point of evil and not something fuck around with. In Sherman's letters, he makes it clear that he believed war should be avoided, but if it is engaged then it should be prosecuted without hesitation or holding back, because hesitation in war only gives war the chance to escape its bounds, spread, escalate and destroy everything around it. Don't start wars, but if you do start one, then fucking finish it fast and permanently. It's not a toy to play politics with. That was Sherman -- a brutal, bloody kind of cruel to be kind, a man capable of inflicting total destruction upon other people, but having within himself no desire to do so. And given the chance to gain political power later, he passed on it. Why? Because his ethics and his sense of fellow-feeling for humanity made him know he was not the kind of person to put in charge of big things.

Or did you mean that a ruthless person might not beat one of equal skill who isn't in a power play? It's not impossible. It's just unlikely. A good example would be Bush and Kerry during the 2004 elections (although whether they were of equal political skill is debatable).
An equally good example would be two little kids fighting over a ball in a playground. Weak examples for a weak point. "It could be, but I'm going to say otherwise just because" isn't very convincing.

Or did you mean legal, but not ethical? Japanese Internment in WWII maybe?
This game is boring. You know perfectly well what I meant. And your continued misuse of the word "legal" out of the context in which I introduced it is childish.

As for catching an unethical act by ethical means yet the one doing unethical acts getting away? Well that's easy. The Plame affair? Or how about hmm, the My Lai massacre? Agent Orange is in the same time frame as well. Or maybe the Bhopal disaster by Union Carbide? Union Carbide still maintains their innocence I believe.
Again, so what?

Here, I'll frame the question AGAIN for you:

You stated that ruthlessness is inherent in all human power structures, and that that makes them antithetical to cooperation and altruism. Later, your statements expanded that to include making them antithetical to ethical behavior as well (because you seem to be stubbornly equating ruthless with unethical).

I challenged that by saying that the fact that there have been powerful and effective rulers/leaders who were also ethical, cooperative and, in some instances, altruistic shows that human power structures are not inherently antithetical to those traits. Also that their existence shows that ruthlessness (which you think means "unethical") is NOT actually a requirement for gaining power and weilding it effectively.

YOU HAVE FAILED TO DEFEAT THAT ARGUMENT. All you have done is list a bunch of leaders you think are examples of how you think power works (and only some of them actually are).

WHAT YOU HAVE NOT DONE is show how my examples do not exist or did not work the way I say they did.

BOTTOM LINE PROBLEM FOR YOU: If you cannot show that my examples are false, then you cannot support your claims about how power works, because as I stated right at the beginning, if power structures can support BOTH kinds of personalities, then they clearly do not favor one over the other. If power structures are typically dominated by ruthless and/or unethical people, that can be easily and reasonably explained by saying that ruthless and/or unethical people are more likely to desire and pursue power, but that does not mean that power structures favor the ruthless and/or unethical or that ruthless and/or unethical people are inherently better at being powerful than other people. The fact that a perfectly good and likely alternate explanation exists is what undermines your argument.

It does not mean that people who are both ruthless and unethical will not be able to get, keep and use power. It only means that power does not require a person to be ruthless and unethical to get, keep and use it.

So to sum up: Your argument is undermined by the fact that there are BOTH ruthless and/or unethical rulers AND ethical and scrupulous rulers, and by the reasonable likelihood that, if there are more ruthless rulers than scrupulous ones, that is only because ruthless people seek power more often than scrupulous people, not because power structures don't support scruples.

I'm snipping everything else you say following this because it is redundant and already addressed by what I say above.

One cannot divide the world into 'weak' and 'strong'. Evolution does not work this way; never mind human society.


Worked pretty well for Hitler, until some other nations got the balls and the strength to kick his ass.

And that doesn't tell you something about human propensity, or lack thereof, to get along? If we can't get along with nothing at stake beyond our pride, why would it be different in the real world when there's much more at stake?
I was going to snip and ignore this one because it is a silly response to a remark that was not really serious in the first place, but I just noticed something about it.

Does the above question mean that you are now trying to reassert your original claim that there is no such thing as cooperation or altruism in human nature?

If you recall, you started out making that claim -- "supported" by a whole bunch of factually incorrect malarkey about wolves and sharks and such like -- and then backpedaled from it in a later post where you said that you had never meant that there are no such things, but only that they don't appear in human power structures (about which you are also wrong).

So has your argument lapped itself? Have you come full circle back to where you started (after only three pages)? If so, then I suggest you let this thread slide back into its grave, because there can be no answer except to just repost all the earlier posts.

Does the above question mean that you are now trying to reassert your original claim that there is no such thing as cooperation or altruism in human nature?

No. Cooperation can happen, just like it does on this board sometimes. But more often than not, when there's competing viewpoints or interests, especially when they are on the far ends of the spectrum, cooperation falls through because the advancement of a viewpoint has higher priority than compromise necessary for such cooperation.

In an odd way, NSG can be considered to be a microcosm representing a simplified window of interaction on the global scale. Minus the mods and the actual violence that is.

No. Cooperation can happen, just like it does on this board sometimes. But more often than not, when there's competing viewpoints or interests, especially when they are on the far ends of the spectrum, cooperation falls through because the advancement of a viewpoint has higher priority than compromise necessary for such cooperation.

In an odd way, NSG can be considered to be a microcosm representing a simplified window of interaction on the global scale. Minus the mods and the actual violence that is.
In a very odd way, since nothing is really at stake in NSG's conflicts. Nobody loses a vote or a house or a job or a court case or anything. No relationships are destroyed by our fights. No treaties or agreements are violated by NSGers switching camps and sides just for the novelty. Since there is nothing to either lose or gain, there is no incentive for anyone to either reach agreement or stick to their guns to the bitter end -- everything is up to just our preference and our mood. Is it fun to use fantasy as the model for reality? Play time as the model for real work?

In a very odd way, since nothing is really at stake in NSG's conflicts. Nobody loses a vote or a house or a job or a court case or anything. No relationships are destroyed by our fights. No treaties or agreements are violated by NSGers switching camps and sides just for the novelty. Since there is nothing to either lose or gain, there is no incentive for anyone to either reach agreement or stick to their guns to the bitter end -- everything is up to just our preference and our mood. Is it fun to use fantasy as the model for reality? Play time as the model for real work?

As I said, it's a simplified window. Real world losses and gains make things more complex, but from an abstract view, the squabbling is the same.

as it is said "sometimes the adults just want peace and no longer care about justice"

much law as it is, seems based on that concept.
so include that concept plz. its not just

right & wrong vs strong & weak gota include "stop bothering me"

Oh, so you do read. Then you just misdirect to piss people off?


I was not certain what examples you wanted, so I gave examples of the possible interpretations of your demand.


Now show me how their existence negates the existence of the ethical rulers I mentioned.


I've said it before. I'll say it again. Ruthlessness does not preclude a person having ethical actions. To me, ruthlessness is doing what works, no matter who suffers (or doesn't, what works may not have to produce suffering). Pure pragmatism and ruthlessness aren't all that far apart to me.

When I say that ruthlessness is inherent in all power structures, I mean all power structures lend themselves to ruthless people, who are more likely to seek power than those who are not, that latter being something I believe you agreed with. That increases the amount of ruthless competitors for power than those who aren't. To put it simply, the odds are stacked.

I find it curious that you defend Genghis Khan as an ethical person despite evidence that he had entire cities and their civilian populace butchered wholesale after capturing them. Is it ethical just because he promised that if the nation didn't capitulate from the very beginning? Does that make me ethical if I deliver each time I promise to kill someone if they don't give me their wallet?

For that matter, I am curious as to what your definition of ethics is. This is an honest question, in case you think I'm trying to mock you or something like that. I can't continue this argument until I have a solid idea of what ethics means to you.


He was the son of the king who got France's ass handed to it in that big battle where the English longbow made mincemeat of the French cavalry.


Agincourt, 1415

I was not certain what examples you wanted, so I gave examples of the possible interpretations of your demand.



I've said it before. I'll say it again. Ruthlessness does not preclude a person having ethical actions. To me, ruthlessness is doing what works, no matter who suffers (or doesn't, what works may not have to produce suffering). Pure pragmatism and ruthlessness aren't all that far apart to me.

When I say that ruthlessness is inherent in all power structures, I mean all power structures lend themselves to ruthless people, who are more likely to seek power than those who are not, that latter being something I believe you agreed with. That increases the amount of ruthless competitors for power than those who aren't. To put it simply, the odds are stacked.

I find it curious that you defend Genghis Khan as an ethical person despite evidence that he had entire cities and their civilian populace butchered wholesale after capturing them. Is it ethical just because he promised that if the nation didn't capitulate from the very beginning? Does that make me ethical if I deliver each time I promise to kill someone if they don't give me their wallet?

For that matter, I am curious as to what your definition of ethics is. This is an honest question, in case you think I'm trying to mock you or something like that. I can't continue this argument until I have a solid idea of what ethics means to you.



Agincourt, 1415
Thank you. Now, I just have to remember if the one I'm talking about is that guy's son or grandson. I have things to do today and will return to this later. Hopefully, I'll locate that book in the meantime.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. Ruthlessness does not preclude a person having ethical actions. To me, ruthlessness is doing what works, no matter who suffers (or doesn't, what works may not have to produce suffering). Pure pragmatism and ruthlessness aren't all that far apart to me.

When I say that ruthlessness is inherent in all power structures, I mean all power structures lend themselves to ruthless people, who are more likely to seek power than those who are not, that latter being something I believe you agreed with. That increases the amount of ruthless competitors for power than those who aren't. To put it simply, the odds are stacked.
Yes, I know that, because you keep saying it over and over. However, the way things appear to you does not jibe with what history tells is what actually happens. I have tried to show this to you. Apparently, you don't feel like noticing that.

I find it curious that you defend Genghis Khan as an ethical person despite evidence that he had entire cities and their civilian populace butchered wholesale after capturing them. Is it ethical just because he promised that if the nation didn't capitulate from the very beginning? Does that make me ethical if I deliver each time I promise to kill someone if they don't give me their wallet?
No, you would be ethical if you took a set of responsibilities, declared how you would fulfill them, and then did fulfill them in precisely the way you said you would, without shirking or lying or subverting your responsibilities for the sake of your own personal benefit. If Genghis had promised those cities that, if they did immediately capitulate, he would spare them, and they did as he asked, and he still went ahead and slaughtered them, he would have been unethical.

If he promised that all his conquests would provide material benefit to the Mongolian people, and then he turned around and hoarded all that wealth for himself and left the Mongolian people to starve, he would have been unethical.

If he established a set of rules but did not apply them to himself, he would have been unethical.

However, he did not do those things. Genghis Khan was a bastard. But he was an ethical bastard. People could know where they stood with him. They could know where his interests and his loyalties lay, and where they didn't. They could know what he would not do, how far he would not go, as well as just how far he would go. You can deal with someone like that, and indeed, many rulers did deal with him.

For that matter, I am curious as to what your definition of ethics is. This is an honest question, in case you think I'm trying to mock you or something like that. I can't continue this argument until I have a solid idea of what ethics means to you.

The above should give you a clue. I see ethics as the system of principles that define what a person will not do, the places where they draw the lines they will not cross. It doesn't really matter what those limits are -- they are an ethic if they do not vary. The limits of what a person will not do are part of how a person defines him/herself. "This is me. These are the boundaries of me. This is what I do. This is what I don't do. This is my idea of right and wrong."

Now you might find a person who draws those lines at a place far beyond what you or I might consider acceptable or civilized, but as long as those lines never move, as long as the person abides by them in all circumstances, then you are dealing with an ethical person. You can come to understand such a person and figure out how to deal with them. You might choose to deal with them as a mortal enemy, but at least you'll know how to fight them, because you know where they draw their lines.

A person who is constantly shifting their lines to suit their best interests in any given situation, or a person who draws no lines at all, is a person without ethics. Such a person cannot be trusted and cannot be dealt with, because you can never rely on them to respond to anything in any given way. If they say they will not slaughter your entire population if you capitulate immediately, you cannot believe their words.

So, with that in mind, you must be able to see why I say that ruthlessness =/= unethical, and that ethics and ruthlessness/scruples are not interdependent. In fact, although I've been using "scruples" as an opposite to "ruthlessness", they are not actually mutually opposed, either. An ethical person has scruples, and if a ruthless person is ethical, then he also has scruples.

By the way, I see ruthlessness as describing a degree of commitment. It does not necessarily imply that ANYTHING will be done. It merely implies that the person will not be swayed ONLY by concern for consequences or impact on others. But even the most ruthless bastard will still find a way to accomplish his goals without violating his ethics if he has any, or without harming himself or other things he desires/values if he doesn't have ethics. Just bear in mind that, if his ethics would not require the ruthless bastard to avoid harming you, then you'd best get out of his way.

No, you would be ethical if you took a set of responsibilities, declared how you would fulfill them, and then did fulfill them in precisely the way you said you would, without shirking or lying or subverting your responsibilities for the sake of your own personal benefit. If Genghis had promised those cities that, if they did immediately capitulate, he would spare them, and they did as he asked, and he still went ahead and slaughtered them, he would have been unethical.

If he promised that all his conquests would provide material benefit to the Mongolian people, and then he turned around and hoarded all that wealth for himself and left the Mongolian people to starve, he would have been unethical.

If he established a set of rules but did not apply them to himself, he would have been unethical.

However, he did not do those things. Genghis Khan was a bastard. But he was an ethical bastard. People could know where they stood with him. They could know where his interests and his loyalties lay, and where they didn't. They could know what he would not do, how far he would not go, as well as just how far he would go. You can deal with someone like that, and indeed, many rulers did deal with him.
Lol Genghis was a thief and murderer, and theft and murder are unethical...

Lol Genghis was a thief and murderer, and theft and murder are unethical...
I like it when a long, detailed post is answered by a shallow, unsupported, unreasoned lol that completely ignores most of what was said in the post and in the thread in general. It's like talking to a pet, and I enjoy pets -- until they pee on the carpet.

MOD EDIT - split off from the thread: Israeli bomb kills five daughters. :( (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=578040)


For cooperation, of course. But altruism is, by definition, not done for any self-gain. As I said above, I'm not talking about the nonsensical Dawkins-esque 'selfish' altruism.

Cooperatice and altruistic behaviour most certainly happens, and frequently, within human society. Reducing humans to "red in tooth and claw" fiends who only act through selfish measures is, to put it bluntly, a load of outdated Social Darwinist bullshit.


Except it isn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_assisted_Jews_during_the_Holocaust); and this is just one set of examples.

What you say is simply not true. You ignore a massive swathe of human behaviour (and continue to do so above), talking as if humans only bashed their neighbours heads in, never, say, cooperated on hunts, helped each other when sick, got together to produce agriculture, urban dwelling, etc., etc.

One cannot divide the world into 'weak' and 'strong'. Evolution does not work this way; never mind human society.One of my lecturers has interesting take on this subject (tl;dr -- his research interests include evolution of co-operation and emergent computation in multi-agent models).

When talking about the benefits of altruism you need to consider what is being benefited. Normally we just consider the agent itself as the hopeful benefactor of their altruism. But can also consider the agent's DNA to be a benefactor of the altruism. That is that an agent performs acts that will propagate its DNA. With just considering the agent by itself this is taken to mean "if I'm nice to her, maybe she'll fuck me".

However, for social creatures things become a little more complicated. Within in a primitive tribe all the members of that tribe are likely to have very similar DNA. Therefore, when one tribal member helps another they are helping to propagate DNA for which significant amounts will be, excluding mutations, identical to their own.

The case in point where you talk about people who assisted the Jews during the holocaust can neatly fit into this explanation if it is assumed that who an agent considers to be within their social grouping is, at least, in part determined by genetic factors. The perpetrators of the holocaust can be seen to have a very low threshold for who they consider to be within their social group. Such that they can be seen to be attempting to clear out non-similar DNA from their territory. Whereas, others might have a much higher threshold and so help people evade the Nazis -- and so help propagate similar DNA.

Pfft, relying on DNA propagation is small thinking. When DNA engineering is mastered, natural people will start becoming irrelevant, and so will lineages.

Yes, I know that, because you keep saying it over and over. However, the way things appear to you does not jibe with what history tells is what actually happens. I have tried to show this to you. Apparently, you don't feel like noticing that.

No, it's because we have two completely different ideas of what ethics means. More on this below.


No, you would be ethical if you took a set of responsibilities, declared how you would fulfill them, and then did fulfill them in precisely the way you said you would, without shirking or lying or subverting your responsibilities for the sake of your own personal benefit.

Isn't this similar to a ends justify the means sort of reasoning? Anything goes so long as the responsibilities are fulfilled that is. What happens if I took a set of responsibilities that revolved around gaining benefits for me personally and say, a close circle of friends/relatives/toadies/etc and not screwing them/me over? Does that mean I am still ethical regardless of how I choose to fulfill those responsibilities?


The above should give you a clue. I see ethics as the system of principles that define what a person will not do, the places where they draw the lines they will not cross. It doesn't really matter what those limits are -- they are an ethic if they do not vary. The limits of what a person will not do are part of how a person defines him/herself. "This is me. These are the boundaries of me. This is what I do. This is what I don't do. This is my idea of right and wrong."

Now you might find a person who draws those lines at a place far beyond what you or I might consider acceptable or civilized, but as long as those lines never move, as long as the person abides by them in all circumstances, then you are dealing with an ethical person. You can come to understand such a person and figure out how to deal with them. You might choose to deal with them as a mortal enemy, but at least you'll know how to fight them, because you know where they draw their lines.

A person who is constantly shifting their lines to suit their best interests in any given situation, or a person who draws no lines at all, is a person without ethics. Such a person cannot be trusted and cannot be dealt with, because you can never rely on them to respond to anything in any given way. If they say they will not slaughter your entire population if you capitulate immediately, you cannot believe their words.

You see, this is what I don't get. What happens if a person does have lines of what they will and won't do, but none of which preclude misleading others or outright giving false ideas of your position? If we look some time back during the heydays of the Vatican, one Cardinal, his name escapes me, promised leniency if a Swiss village surrendered, but then had them butchered once they laid down their arms. Yet if his dos and don'ts were things like "Everything for Christianity" and "never betray the Vatican", does that make him ethical?

If ethics are just a simple set of dos and dont's that you live up to, no matter what those rules are, then even a double dealing backstabber could be considered to be ethical if double dealing and backstabbing weren't part of his don'ts.


So, with that in mind, you must be able to see why I say that ruthlessness =/= unethical, and that ethics and ruthlessness/scruples are not interdependent. In fact, although I've been using "scruples" as an opposite to "ruthlessness", they are not actually mutually opposed, either. An ethical person has scruples, and if a ruthless person is ethical, then he also has scruples.

By the way, I see ruthlessness as describing a degree of commitment. It does not necessarily imply that ANYTHING will be done. It merely implies that the person will not be swayed ONLY by concern for consequences or impact on others. But even the most ruthless bastard will still find a way to accomplish his goals without violating his ethics if he has any, or without harming himself or other things he desires/values if he doesn't have ethics. Just bear in mind that, if his ethics would not require the ruthless bastard to avoid harming you, then you'd best get out of his way.

Ok, let's see if I've got this right. If ruthlessness does not preclude ethics, and ethics (in your view), does not preclude being a downright murderous bastard, then what is the argument about then? I've said that ruthlessness is inherent in power structures in that ruthless people are more likely to get to power than those who aren't, even if it's only because there are more competitors for power. You say that ruthlessness means that humanistic concerns will not be the significant factor in their considerations (except where it may benefit them).

Put all together, aside from our different interpretation of what makes for ethics, there doesn't seem to be a substantive point of contention between our points.

By the way, did you find that book of yours?

No, it's because we have two completely different ideas of what ethics means. More on this below.



Isn't this similar to a ends justify the means sort of reasoning? Anything goes so long as the responsibilities are fulfilled that is. What happens if I took a set of responsibilities that revolved around gaining benefits for me personally and say, a close circle of friends/relatives/toadies/etc and not screwing them/me over? Does that mean I am still ethical regardless of how I choose to fulfill those responsibilities?



You see, this is what I don't get. What happens if a person does have lines of what they will and won't do, but none of which preclude misleading others or outright giving false ideas of your position? If we look some time back during the heydays of the Vatican, one Cardinal, his name escapes me, promised leniency if a Swiss village surrendered, but then had them butchered once they laid down their arms. Yet if his dos and don'ts were things like "Everything for Christianity" and "never betray the Vatican", does that make him ethical?

If ethics are just a simple set of dos and dont's that you live up to, no matter what those rules are, then even a double dealing backstabber could be considered to be ethical if double dealing and backstabbing weren't part of his don'ts.



Ok, let's see if I've got this right. If ruthlessness does not preclude ethics, and ethics (in your view), does not preclude being a downright murderous bastard, then what is the argument about then? I've said that ruthlessness is inherent in power structures in that ruthless people are more likely to get to power than those who aren't, even if it's only because there are more competitors for power. You say that ruthlessness means that humanistic concerns will not be the significant factor in their considerations (except where it may benefit them).

Put all together, aside from our different interpretation of what makes for ethics, there doesn't seem to be a substantive point of contention between our points.

By the way, did you find that book of yours?
No, I didn't, and that annoys me. Considering that I haven't touched it in years, I fail to see why it's not on the shelf with the other history books.

However, I've become bored with this topic. The one point of contention between us remains your original point and my contention that it is wrong. Nothing has changed that. It appears nothing is going to.

And no, it is not similar to an "ends justify the means" argument. And no, I don't feel like explaining why, because as far as I'm concerned my argument was clear enough as presented, and I'm tired of talking about it.

The bottom line remains: (1) Cooperation and altruism are inherent in human nature and, thus, in human social systems, including power structures. (2) Power structures can support BOTH ethical and unethical personalities, therefore the assertion that there is something about human power structures that favors the unethical over the ethical is not valid. That's my position. I stand by it. I'm no longer interested in trying to make you see the flaws in your assertions. Sorry.

No, I didn't, and that annoys me. Considering that I haven't touched it in years, I fail to see why it's not on the shelf with the other history books.

In either case, you're probably thinking Charles VII who was Dauphin for a while before finally ascending the throne and driving the English out. Charles VI was the nutty one and lost most France to England.


However, I've become bored with this topic. The one point of contention between us remains your original point and my contention that it is wrong. Nothing has changed that. It appears nothing is going to.

Examining the argument as a whole, the point of contention is caused by our differences of interpretation of what ethics is. By your interpretation, ethics does not preclude any amount of viciousness, double dealing or just being a ruthless bastard. My interpretation precluded such behaviors.

If you can accept that an ethical person can also be a vicious person who rises to power by murdering (or otherwise disposing of) all his rivals, then there is no reason for this argument at all.

Correct. The addendum I would add to this is that even if these institutions and people were to vanish overnight, new ones would arise to take their place.
And always would? Even if the systems of power that enable such institutions were demolished?

The question is how such a society would ever appear, not be sabotaged by internal strife resulting from people who place more importance on numero uno than the whole, and not be crushed beneath the more competitive ones.
All good questions but, as I've said before, I'm no prophet, and cetainly wouldn't want to perscribe any future society. The point being, I don't see anything that would necessarily prevent such a society from being incepted, apart from your mooted 'human nature', of which you have presented little compelling evidence.

I'd simply note that through cooperation, humans can acheive wondorous visions.

Humans are a diverse lot with many motivations, but one thing comes out again and again no matter where or when. And that is the desire to be on top of the heap.
But does it? You have repeated this statement, or statements like it, numerous times in this thread, but with little backing. Indeed, you've already conceded that there are individuals that have no concern about getting "to be on top of the heap", and I'd maintain there are many communities and institutions that act in a non-'ruthless' manner.

This desire is not universal, and I'd challenge you to prove such the assertion that it is.

Needs are things that allow you to continue existing, very basic, and finite by the fact that they can be sated. You don't need more water if you've drunk 4 liters in one sitting.
Yes, but I still need water to survive. You're limiting the use of the word 'need' to fit your bill, and I'm not going to allow that. Some needs are insatiable; I will always need water and oxygen. Even if I have just taken a breath, my need for air does not end.

It's not so much a DS Lite you want in that example, but a convenient entertainment item. The DS Lite was simply the form that the want settled on.
Not in this case. I explicitly wanted a DS Lite. If I got a PSP or an NGage, the want wouldn't be fuly satisfied, as I wanted a DS Lite. But, as I got a DS Lite with my savings, my want is sated.

You see, all this requires a fundamental shift in human mentality. A complete discarding of the "Me first" mentality. And how is that going to happen?
One way may be moral extensionism. This 'fundemental shift in human mentality' is a similar 'shift' as when women began to be treated as equal persons in Western society (albeit with emphasis on the 'began'; there are still inequalities). I don't think there's anything inherent to humans which makes them think of themselves beyond a survival instinct; and I don't accept the notion that a survival instinct equates to a selfish attitude or nature.

Want/greed is not inherent to humans? Not that this means exclusivity to humans, but I believe you know what I mean.
I'm sorry, I've lost you here.

And how do you know that is not the society we have witnessed in all of recorded human history?
Because said society is patently not conducive to individual, social or species survival.

Technologically, the lot of humanity has improved, yes. But even then, it's hard to miss how the bits of humanity who have the technological edge suppress those who don't.
And those people(s) live in societies where such action was encouraged, part of the way a society survived, even.

Once again, the example of one form of behaviour of one society at one point in the entirity of human experience is little evidence for said behaviour being 'human nature'.

The term weak, by itself, has no meaning. There is nothing to compare it to.
My point exactly.

When I say the strong prey on the weak, I do not mean that the strong is a 200 pound 8 foot giant and the weak is a 40 pound 3 foot midget with Alzheimer's and polio. I mean that the weak are weak compared to the strong... It's never just a contest of raw physical strength when it comes to the strong preying on the weak. Tools, economic might, military might, influence, political clout, all these things augment one's natural capabilities, granting more options available than if it was merely yourself.
Then you're spouting meaningless tripe. If, by 'weak' and 'strong' you mean nothing of strength or weakness, then you are using completely arbitrary words which imply something that is not there.

Why not, then, use the terms 'intelligent' and 'stupid'? They are just as arbitrary, meanngless and have as much potential for confused meanings.

Collectives, as you describe, should work for the common good.
Not necessarily; I'm no utilitarian.

But what happens when someone places their wants and needs above those of the collective?
Probably the same thing as would happen in current society; the'd get little help but from those who sympathise with them.

Hierarchical societies in social animals are inherent however. I cannot think of any social animal group that does not have an alpha of some sort.
Bats and antelopes, to name but two non-human examples.

Away with your 'inherent' nonsense.



When talking about the benefits of altruism you need to consider what is being benefited. Normally we just consider the agent itself as the hopeful benefactor of their altruism. But can also consider the agent's DNA to be a benefactor of the altruism. That is that an agent performs acts that will propagate its DNA...The case in point where you talk about people who assisted the Jews during the holocaust can neatly fit into this explanation if it is assumed that who an agent considers to be within their social grouping is, at least, in part determined by genetic factors.
This is the 'selfish' altruism that I've sneered at before, and I'll sneer at it again. If you'd indulge me, I'm going to quote from Richard Joyce's The Evolution of Morality (2007; MIT Press; pp14-15), as it has a wonderful discussion of just this topic:

"Altruism - Acting with the intention of benefiting another individual, where this is motivated by a non-instrumental concern for his or her welfare. Contrast: selfishness.

In restricting 'altruism' in this way I take myself to be respecting ordinary English. In English, an action is altruistic only if done with a certain other-orientated deliberative motivation, in the sense that the welfare of another was the agent's ultimate reason for acting...

...What is important is that we don't unthinkingly equate a creature's interests with its reproductive fitness. A creature's interets might coincide with its reproductive fitness... but it certainly doesn't need to. When I buy a birthday present for my friend, this is a kind of helping behaviour (even if it's only pleasure I'm trying to bring). But it is her interets that I am seeking to advance -- the individual who is born, lives and dies -- not those of her genes. Talking of 'the interests of genes' is even more shaky... Genes don't really have an interest in replicating, any more than a river has an interest in not being damned...

...In short, to confuse a person with her genes is as silly as confusing her with her lymph nodes, but as soon as the distinction is enforced, so too must the distinction between a person's interests and the 'interests' of her genes."

I don't want to jump on your back, I realise this is your lecturer's position, not yours, but it's a subject which needs some thought and a hell of a lot of clearing up.