Are most humans fundamentally good or bad?

the earth is flat

What?

good and evil do not belong to nature, these are concepts/abstractions.

*

Ok hear this, do you know Vsauce?
He said the word "bad" is bad itself. Languages exist for us to communicate and faith seap right through it. So bad means you just don't buy into people's bullshit, that's what.

Most humans I would say are selfish which is usually not great.

They can't be selfish to a large degree because if that was the case civilisation would never have formed.

youtu.be/_BwsKjX0X1Y ppl like this

I'm not talking about the word "bad" I'm talking about whether humans are naturally geared towards doing things that hurt others and benefit themselves or things that benefit the species as a whole.

most people are neutral, no that great but not that bad. babies are born with a natural sense of right and wrong, but humans sometimes forget about these morals.

Why is some retarded millenial soy boy following some old guy with a camera while driving him mad about weed?

we're animals, we behave according with our genes and emvironment, we're not innately good or evil, like i said, these do not belong to nature like we do.

Do they forget about them or just pretend to have them because they are in public?

Even based on religion everyone is born bad.
We are all evil. We work to become less evil.
That's why we have prison to REFORM not exterminate.

If Good = doing things that benefit the species
and Bad = doing things that hurt the species
then is it possible that some animals (humans included) are born good or bad?

they forget, babies don't understand the concept of "public"

However our justice system is based on the idea that we all have a quality within us that is good therefore we are inherently good? On the topic of religon this is also the case with the idea of being created in God's image.

Given our modern definition on what is 'good', I can confidently say that all humans are fundamentally and irreversibly bad, as self interest and greed is human nature, and true altruism is impossible.

At the point that babies are unable to understand public would you not say that they are incapable of doing evil even if they wanted to?

they wouldn't want to

on a unconscious level maybe there's both. But on a neutral perspective, both serve nature. There's no good without evil on a conceptual level

People generally don't collaborate with another unless they feel like they're benefiting from it.

Since good and bad refer to an assessment of function, we must first know what that function is. Since humanity does not know it's function, its purpose, I'd say neither. Humanity simply is.

What bring you to this?

This is true in some circumstances but how do you explain the motherly instict?

that is not actually human nature, thus the reason greed and selfishness is to most people, bad. we, homo-sapiens-sapiens, are a social species. we have evolved in society since the beginning of our existence. greed is not our nature.

What do you consider our modern definition of 'good'?

Simple, evolution. Offspring of those who didn't have a motherly instinct wouldn't be able to survive.

they don't have the understanding of hatred, greed, lust, anger. these evil traits don't get implanted into them until they are like 3

being politically correct like a cuck

So evolution is where we get our morals?

Is it not greedy to demand the attention of a mother? Is it not anger that's expressed when they are denied this?

That's not the modern definition that's the definition of a select few who have taken the idea of compassion too far.

yep

Attached: 20190109_065501.jpg (243x300, 11K)

well, if it didn't it would die.

Good point. I agree.

outside of the internet maybe. remember people have a persona when online

So because it would die otherwise those emotions are built into it?

Would you say that the persona they present is their true self or is the person they are publicly theire true self?

Morals are constantly changing based on society's changing views of the world. For example, thousands of years ago it was extremely immoral to have sex before marriage and now it's the norm.

Fundamentally, humans cling to greed, hatred and delusion. Our very existence demands it, from the simplest thing like greed for water and food. Only through rejection of self and ego and physical form can we become not shitty.

Would that not be because society has evolved to be able to allow that? Eg now we have contraception.

Humans are fundamentally violent, selfish, combative, socially needy, and arrogant. These aren't "bad" traits per se, it's how these traits are expressed or repressed in individual cultures and belief systems that really matters.
I do feel that human beings are being pushed to greater and greater extremes of social conflict in the modern day though, and that this is the single most damaging thing to modern civilization. Mostly because the average human is flat out not allowed a real outlet for their violent impulses. All that suppressed rage, anger and chaos is going to break sometime soon.

Attached: 1513314638810.jpg (823x540, 56K)

Don't they cling to eachother? 1 strong person is nothing against 5 average people.

Good point, what do you think can be done to allow people to express their violent tendencies?

Neither. Humans do what their evolutionary bio/neuro brain chemical illusions tell them to do. Good and bad are subjective based on our illusion and/or subjective reality. Good and evil/bad are cultural constructs created by the limited and fallible human brain. And in a different world and environment morals and ethics would not be the same. Were we at the brink of extinction, outright violent rape could be the only thing left and therefore, for the survival of our species a "good" thing. From this perspective, there are situations were murdering "innocent" random people would also be seen as "good", and letting another person survive would be considered "bad". tl;dr there is no freewill, nor good nor evil, we are slaves to what our primal brain chemicals command.

"Cling" in the sense that humans are obsessed with sensory input and mental formations. It's what causes pain and leads to chaos.

Most humans are fundamentally self-interested. Good and bad are typeically just frameworks to justify their actions/inactions.

Feed men, and then ask of them virtue.

Attached: 0868bf-heathledgerjoker.jpg (1600x1201, 340K)

If we abandon these frameworks then how should we view the world?

Is it not what causes prosperity as well? In a kind of yin yang relationship.

objective point of view maybe, but isn't easy.

We tend to cooperation provided nutrition and affection. It's really hardcoded in us, otherwise we would have never been able to form societies. Every damn time humans got together in social ways, cooperation was fundamental. Thing is a tiny few humans have always found the way to manipulate the rest because of better technology or simple opportunity. There's evidence that even lower primates tend to cooperation even if they don't see the benefit right away. Hegemonic narrative has great interest in you believing that being in this hellhole is our own fault. Don't believe them.
> link related is adorable tbh
youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

What would you consider to be an objective point of view?

true, morals are product of evolutionary leisure. survival has no rules

Well, yes, prosperity in this physical contraption we call society. Though to engage with society in such ways, to accumulate wealth, one must often partake in the ugliness, even if it's indirectly. That engagement causes pain eventually.

Look up unit 731 (or any other human experiment). Proof that humans are bastards if you let them be.

You can't abandon them, because we are inherently soliphistic as well. We can't read each other's minds, or even truly know if anyone else is concscious or just a construct of our perceptions. The whole universe, as we percieve it, exists within our minds - and when we die, existence as we perceive it is annihilated. We have no choice but to act in self-interest. Even altrustic acts are selfish acts in part and at their core. It feels good to give, it feels righteous to sacrifice, it feels fulfilling to uphold your duties to society. But when shit hits the fan, these emotional drug hits are often not enough to suppress self interest. The drowing man, who is dragging his rescuer under with him - does not typically let go and sacrifice himself. He claws and clings and drags his savior under the water for just a few more precious gasps of air. We do what we must to survive.

The only way around this is maybe some sort of collective networked consciousness that lets us share thoughts and perceptions with people directly and in real time, but by then - the paradigm of human interaction will have shifted so much that the old rules no longer apply.

So overall would you not agree that society has been a net positive? and given the clip I watched from Could it be possible this is evolutionarily hard wired into us?

But then there is also countless examples of human selflessness. In this case I'm talking about the average not the extreme.

I see your point, so the degree to which people are soliphistic affects how selfless we are?

Hell, that's something to aspire too but impossible. We aren't built to see objective reality. Our own brains play tricks on us to limit the amount of "unnecessary" input into our brains because there's so much superfluous static that's inefficient to process - it's a literal waste of brain activity. Example: our eyes "see" our noses all day long, but they go completely unnoticed by our brains. How deep does that rabbit hole go? What other sensory inputs are obstructed to limit the perception of our environment? Our senses are limited also, birds and cheetah see better immeasurably than us, dogs have better noses than us, humans have about 10k taste buds and catfish about 100k, dolphins actually have better memory (not iq) than humans. A human sees approx 60 fps, a dragonfly about 200, some snakes see in infrared. Sharks can detect minute electrical impulses and reindeer can see UV light. There's two senses that humans don't even have. The point is how many other possible senses are out there in the universe? We can't possibly see objectively, we can't even claim to get close.

Attached: 1550637191050.jpg (942x712, 84K)

As Joe Rogan would say "try DMT". but seriously, Is science the closest we can get to objective reality?

Personally I would say society is at a very abysmal state at the moment, as its been at probably most of history. There are of course chances to improve society, and all humans can bring peaceful and helpful aspects to the planet. Lately we're making progress seeing the pure speed of information break down walls and making us question reality as we know it. Morals and nations and money must crumble before we are pure, before society is peaceful.

You no longer go to battle in fields???

What the fuck am I doing wrong?

Why is peace a moral aspiration?

I only do that when I play rugby.

Were good but very selfish reasons. We value life because we want our lives valued. The vast majority of our societal behaviors are meant to keep us and our kin safe. Once these norms break down, we’re all pretty capable of damn near anything. Not to say we all harbor sadistic traits. I just think we’d all find ourselves much more apathetic to others suffering and more willing to contribute to it if we didn’t feel like it there were any consequences, or a lack of benefit.

indifferent nobody is hero and most will tolerate evil

Because we want to feel safe.

Is the value we place in our kin a sign of inherent good?

no

dmt is just a biochemical illusion, a damn good one perhaps, but still just that. And science won't be the final answer either. There really isn't a way for humans to ever see objective reality, unless you could find a way to become THE actual god. Or put another way, any creature who could see objective reality would necessarily BE god. Even a billion year old advanced species could never be certain that they have ascertained every single sensory perception, because without that sense they may not be able to perceive that sense.

What about peace at the expense of freedom and morality? Is peace so valuable that we avoid conflict at all costs.

The ones in power are generally bad. The white knights are generally black knights.

Good point.

because war causes much more pain individually and socially. So we go for the polar opposite, the path of least resistance, which is peace.

If someone in power is bad then they will inevitably get ousted by the good. (See Hitler, stalin etc)

Because it represents equilibrium, it's what all organic matter strives for in its natural state. Continuation of the spirit and balance. Eating enough to live, but not too much to be immobile. To breathe in and breathe out. Peace requires no craving, so it's something we should at least strive for.

What do you think of

each of us have different morality
there's no good or bad there's what people think of good and bad

But Hitler WAS ousted by the bad guys...

Attached: 1512600880270.png (720x715, 472K)

Should we strive for it at the cost of all else?

Exactly

>Are most humans fundamentally good or bad?
No.

Most humans are, however, fundamentally retarded.

Legalize bloodsports and gladiatoral combat for people who, of their own free will, want to participate.
Government programs that subsidize free martial arts training.
Greater access to guns and gun education across the world.
Reduce the penalties and punishments for fighting in K-12 schooling and teach kids that violence isn't always a last resort, that it's a natural response, that they should practice restraint and not abstinence from it.
This would all require HUGE cultural shifts from the top down, though

Based on what?

They are ignorant and selfish, but not totally bad

humans are fundamentally selfish, neither good nor evil. they want themselves to be happy, and maybe their friends and families.

your average person is true neutral, to you fa/tg/uy terms, they don't care about good v evil and law v chaos, they care about tits beer and steak. nothing wrong with that, just hard to get shit done.

Modern people live luxurious lives when compared to the standards of the past. Attachment to those luxuries, and fear of possible hardship, and anything that might threaten or jeopardize our luxury (such as conflict) is the price we pay for freedom. And modern morality justifies those fears. imo ofc

Strive for Nirvana above all else, yes, but not just secular peace for the sake of enjoyment. Once one has attained true enlightenment, they can do more good for the world than if they stayed down in the mud battling against ignorance. Cultivating peace is one of the fastest ways to heal society. Everybody must find their own peace.

Chances are anyone is bound to fail in world domination and more likely to succeed fighting off a schoolyard bully. But that is a power struggle and nothing is garunteed. They could just have easily never stepped down, but chances failed them.

Romans 3:23-24 New International Version (NIV)
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

I think you make good points. Most of the boxers and must thai fighters I know are some of the best people I know.

Experience. Don't believe me? Work retail for a week.

So it's OK to be bad if you're Christian. That explains all of the priests raping kids.

So we should achieve piece through encouragement rather than through force?

Kek but retail shoppers aren't a particularly good demographic for IQ assessment.

So you don't ever go to the grocery store to buy food? Retail shoppers are literally everyone.

you guys are getting too complicated. It's all empathy based. Too much empathy and you get kind of traumatized, too little and you're a psychopath.

the liberal side of the coin has generally more empathy toward people as people, while the conservative side sees them as groups, making it easier to generalize and be more tribal. both are necessary. I believe the far right and far left are the same low empathy as each other, not recognizing anyone else's right to exist. this isn't productive.

Empathy for others is what makes people good, as we wish to prevent others from feeling pain or suffering as we can imagine ourselves in their position. This helps humanity grow and survive and not nuke ourselves. No empathy? I've got a psycho (diagnosed) kid in my family. He feels no empathy for any other human, and it's really freaking scary. He'll stab you just to eww watch you bleed. Purely animalistic. Is it evil or just an evolution throwback?

It depends on how they are raised.

We achieve true peace through great effort. Buddhist texts contain very helpful mindfulness exercises to achieve these states. Forcing peace out doesn't work, nor does clinging to the pleasant sensations of peace. We can only encourage others to follow the right path, we cannot force them ever.
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html

Peace through force comes at the cost of freedom. It also comes from the ignorance that is "I know better than you, about you and for you." which historically has never really ended in anything but resentment. And so some people, cultures and nations are in a constant state of revolution, and then a new revolution against the old revolution, ad infinitum. That's not to say that peace through encouragement is the best method either.

You make good points. What's it like being around that kid? Any stories?

Do you think it's valueable to have both sides of the coin (Liberal and conservative)

Of course I do, my point is that people are dumb as fuck when shopping. It's kind of like saying "I'm a bartender, the whole world is drunk!" Which isn't true but from his perspective it certainly is.

What is the best method?

Morality is subjective

Evolution. But brain chemistry changes as people get older, so he may change if he gets the helps he needs. After he hits 18 or 20 he's probably fucked though.

All humans fear death and being good lessens the chance of being killed so most choose good.

I don't know really, I think it works best when it's a personal philosophy. A 'do unto others sort of thing', minus the religious connotation. Empathy based as some other user said. Teach empathy, get peace.

So we should encourage people to learn values?

They are fundamentally selfish, and viewing something as good or bad is just a measure of how their actions fit within our set of values.

Well if all laws were abolished almost every society would collapse.

Why does being good lead to lower chances of being killed?

Good: because even if they perform terrible and unjustifiable actions, they think they are doning the right thing

Depends how one defines “good” and “bad”. What’s good for one may be bad for another and vise versa. In USA Inc. selfishness, greed, and capitalism apparently rule. I grew up upper middle class and I personally hate the emptiness and superficial aspects of it. Capitalism to better the human race, cool. I’m all for Darwinising out the sheeple. Is that good or bad?

And based on these values do most act in a positive way?

>All humans fear death and being good lessens the chance of being killed so most choose good.

That only works if you view other people as people. If you view them as parasites, then it becomes good and righteous to exterminate them, because they are a threat to your society and safety. This can lead to generations of retribution violence where the inhumanity of both groups is reinforced in the view of the other - and both sides are good and righteous for killing each other who are evil.

What about actions based on social consiquence? Would it not be likely that if laws where abandoned we would simply see vigilante justice?

Adding...I wouldn’t steal from a poor old lady to buy food but if I had to I wouldn’t think twice to steal from a multimillion dollar business.

Depends on your set of values.

For me, yes, most people would be considered good, fetus killers included.

If we're speaking in terms of quality and reliability, most humans are fundamentally "bad". Most will not care, unless there's some sort of immediate, positively correlated cost-benefit analysis that's easy to consider. Most will not know what to do, and most of those people will rarely make rational decisions given unknown variables. Most will not be able to consider the better options of any given scenario due to that aspect, and will prefer "what seems right", based upon things that certainly have no bearing over "what is right".

You could lose count of all the dumb and horrible things real, living people would do to you if you found yourself stuck with them.

Not impossible. Just fatal. Fatal, and easily overshadowed, as a consequence of said fatality.

And someone will take advantage of those things to create a scenario you'd want to never consider. I shudder at the idea of global access to guns and gun education around the world. Then the leniency in violence.

Guns and violence and the knowledge to use said guns in violence. user, no. God, no. You just said it requires huge cultural shifts, radically so. You know that's unrealistic.

I always find this trend cropping up. Everyone tries to build a utopia, where the hypothetical denizens are those who would never break the established rules, and are otherwise perfect people, with consideration to the respective utopia. But you know people aren't like that, not at all. So, why build a world that you know some will easily find ways to convolute or break? You should be building a world for the worst people you can imagine, one that can operate fully if the worst people you could imagine were put in charge.

Which means no one who judges can be reasonably judged in any capacity to where the chaos would even be mitigated. Imagine if looking at someone funny was punishable by death, and there was no authority to challenge that, besides a stranger, who may also deem that punishable by death.

Chaos. Or, chaos until most people realized that they needed that sort of governing structure of law again.

Everyone would claim vigilante justice to avoid the social consequence.

Values are subjective, so no. Empathy exists as a biological thing, dolphins have been known to save humans, hippos defend other animals, etc. So, imo fostering empathy in humans has a value that leads to peace. Both inner and then external.

Attached: dsadfdfs.jpg (1028x675, 194K)

Define good and bad.

>I wouldn't steal from a poor old lady to buy food
You would if you were hungry enough and the opportunity presented itself.

Attached: Them's good eating.jpg (1280x720, 116K)

If the browse Yea Forums, they are fundamentally autistic

Good point.

Use these.

Yep. I’ve seen the human race become apathetic to others except their family and inner circle. See what happens.

People would still stand together to try to maintain the community as a safe place to raise children. Their standards could be violent or peaceful but there would certainly be local standards of acceptable behavior.

if laws were abandoned you'd see gangs, then tribes and soon a warlord society would break out.

I refused the test in high school so they couldn't diagnose me. Nice try, FBI.

So basically south sudan?

As long as they're in a civilization where their most basic needs are provided for and things are more or less orderly, most people are going to be good most of the time. It's when a society starts to break down, and the systems holding everything in place begin to deteriorate, that people tend to get divided up into victimizers and victims.

Attached: 47325985326293580x.png (1100x632, 846K)

genetic predisposition to altruism is explained in great detail int Dawkins "The selfish gene"

Whut?

Yep. Isolated communities can get tribal and clannish if they have a lot of insecurity and fear. It's ugly.

I gotta read that then, thanks user.

1 in 20 people are sociopaths.

You don't say....

Attached: magafaga.jpg (1200x800, 121K)

I wouldn't. It is psychologically impossible for me to consider this realistically, given that all the information I have is
>poor old lady
I'd already be suffering from hunger pains and foaming at the mouth if that were my last option.

Some, I assume, are good people.

Well that's a good reason to set social standards. Can't have some opportunistic savage kicking your cats without any social consequence.

most humans are fundamentally covetous and can easily be convinced to act out their wicked desires and destroy everything they claim to love

This is in high school and in real life. School, work. Fit in or fit out.

Maybe just sick and tired of working hard and loosing to quotas.

>sick and tired of working hard and loosing to quotas
>sick and tired
>working hard
>loosing to quotas
Insecurity and fear.

It's not necessarily a bad thing either, it keeps the honest people honest. As an user noted above 1 in 20 are sociopaths.
youtube.com/watch?v=EYYdQB0mkEU

That's not how sociopaths function. They blend in very well and even excel according to social standards, meanwhile they manipulate and create chaos for self gain or amusement.

>claims to have the slightest idea of how he'd react to one of the most extreme situation/conditions imaginable
i feel like watching that waterboarding scene from archer again

You can tell it's real and not from a TV show or movie, because the crowd's not 65% comprised of black and brown people.

Attached: not_an_anti_semitic_image.png (369x431, 97K)

Decent looking dudes. But shit, do they really think that Trump actually cares about them? Trump would let a million people die if it meant fueling his ego. I seriously don’t understand the delusion.

OP here: It's been nice talking to you guy's. I'm going for my morning run now so I won't be responding for the next hour or so, feel free to continue talking between yourselves.

Attached: 1549042352071.jpg (960x939, 53K)

Was seriously thinking of this tune. That video tho.

Or just fucking angry and fed up.

It's instinctual behavior that was beneficial to survival in the prehistoric world we evolved in. It's no longer beneficial in modern society, but we can't just shit off our genetic programing....yet...

It's fun to belong to something. They're lost. They're looking for a savior.

Watch "Life of Brian" and it will all make sense.
youtube.com/watch?v=rW8fDw8VzKI

Neither

>I seriously don’t understand the delusion.
Basic authoritarianism with a sprinkle of cult of personality. Look at other examples in history to perhaps better understand this one. It's a sycophantic daddy issue complex based on misconceptions of loyalty.

Attached: 182628-004-3C08039F.jpg (221x300, 10K)

>this

youtu.be/xKTJY6q--FM

Also the methods used by demagogues. Trump is textbook, he uses everyone constantly. In fact that's all he does. every time he speaks he employs these tactics:

ren.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue#Methods

Attached: creatures.jpg (640x360, 80K)

>claims to know that he doesn't have the slightest idea of how he'd react to one of the most extreme situation/conditions imaginable
That's not even remotely extreme. Remotely extreme is deciding how many people need to drown slowly in ice cold water, so that the rest of you can live. And only you can choose, because everyone else is too afraid to make that call.

That implying only works with half-baked brainlets whose worst situation consists of not being able to find the tendies.

i think it might be both but a little bit more true to yourself. I know that people can be hacked and get found out, but we hide behind a screen giving us a false sense of security. that leaves us thinking we can just do what we want. especially because almost every desire you have can be found on the web. i think people are worse on the web but better in person. idk i couldn't structure my thought well

>angry
Insecurity.
>fed up
Fear.

“Stop making fun of meeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!”

nope most people are evil being evil is way more easier than being good. it's easier too be a dick lie cheat steal, or do really fuck up things and only have too worry if when you get caught. even then the legal system being the way that it is a lot rapist murders ect get off. being a good or a decent human is hard and a lot of work.

Attached: nahwherefucked.jpg (907x509, 114K)

>not being able to find the tendies
the thing that should never be spoken of again

Or, just kill niggers?

most humans are fundamentally retarded

link

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue#Methods

So evil is just the highest level of laziness? I don't think wondering if you're going to be murdered because of something you did 10 years ago is easy.

neither
get out of here binaryfag

Ok, big brain boi.

Hmmm...So he was behind of that..?

Attached: dppsybbxl526nbfee228733732600.jpg (1674x1198, 103K)

mostly flammable

I’m 39. What depresses me is that the cycle just repeats. I’m hoping that the advancement of technology will eventually eliminate these archaic faults in human thinking. Yes, there will be a “great correction” where there will be war and death. It is inevitable. All this human bickering will die as we hopefully grow.

Of course. That’s like not flushing a toilet.

no...there is no answer as 'good' and 'evil' have just changed as humans change. Define 'evil' outside of human context please..

you are talking about animal behavior here. all of you. When you really look at it, we are animals.

literally see No.793847449 for the answer.

"Fundamentally they are neither, good and evil are social constructs." - some faggot

Both.
Everyone tries their best to be good based on what their subjective understanding of good is, everyone's charitable in the right situations, everyone cares and will come through for a friend, everyone wants to be good.

Everyone's also downright selfish and shitty in certain situations, everyone has terrible moments especially when emotions are involved, and everyone, given the right situation, will damn well commit murder to save themselves if they have to.

Tl;Dr

Forgive others, forgive yourself. Were human. Our best is all we can do and as emotional animals with a tendency towards self preservation, our best isn't too shiny at all times.

Too many times, though. Too many times have there been conflicts in recorded history, where men have said the same thing, too.

What will it mean if the technology one thinks will solve our problems vanishes after it is used? The problems will return. Unless we're dead.

And some of us are talking about the efficacy of animalistic behavior in animals like humans. It's not well, on average. We don't really seem to benefit ourselves, unless absolute hurdles have been taken on in favor of the most hapless of us. In other words, where the system has been designed to save us from ourselves.

It demands a lot of us. There are a lot of us now, with few willing to give what it demands.

Certain advancements in technology will eliminate the need of jobs/people. Greedy capitalists won’t be able to get rich on the need that technology will eventually replace. It will be awhile though.

The question you pose is presented in a flawed manner. Ethics are a human construct that exist after humanity gained the ability of abstract thought. If we judge humanity as a whole with a construct that has existed for a shorter timespan than humanity itself then we will get a flawed result. That being said, traps are gay

Technology is already making fundamental shifts to human behavior and society. How we interact with each other, how we dont', and how we evaluate each other. The problem is that it wasn't implimented in the perfect utopian progression that people assumed would bring us to the next level of human evolution. It was erected post-hoc and designed by multinational corporations which are trying to please automated stock trading bots by reaching for unsustainable growth by any means possible. People, en masse, were not gradually introduced to this entirely new modality of thought and interaction. They were thrust onto the internet by the iPhones circa 2007 and promptly freaked the fuck out at the new society that was forming within the telecom infrastructure. They paved the wild west with strip malls and safe spaces, and proceeded to use their amplified voices and their tracked viewing history to project all the bullshit baggage of their familiar world and transposed it onto the internet with none of the social contract safety mechanisms there to restrain them.

We got what we wished for, but we had somehow deluded ourselves into thinking a utopia could actually be possible this time. Instead, reality manifest and turned it into a dystopia and subsumed by corporate interests and larger power structures - just like every other failed utopian society.

how is it a more extreme experience to be in a power position deciding who lives and who dies than to be at your physical limit of how much hunger you can take without coming up with very creative rationalizations if not just blatantly lowering your moral standard?
obviously if you're the one that's given the right to make the call in a scenario like the one you described you'd pick yourself as one of the ones surviving.
sure it can be hard, i guess somewhat varying depending on who the people are and your general view on living things.

but i mean just compare overcoming a mental barrier that was definitely learned for the most part (let's face it, your instincts and your brain are generally set up for you to be able to take quite a lot of violence and gore without much issues, very unlike depriving your body of food for extended periods of time), plus the almost immediate relief that you get from just the right mix of noradrenaline and dopamine in your brain telling you "oh hey, you just did this incredibly hard thing and you were scared of so we got that really unpleasant fight or flight shit going up here but it seems like nothing happened to you, i think we can chill on the panic attack symptoms now. good job." to every single neuron in your brain screaming "JUST FUCKING EAT, I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE, JUST EAT OR WE WILL FUCKING DIE"

so yeah i guess tl;dr fuck i'd eat anyone if i was just hungry enough and so would most people, probably including you.
but yeah keep predicting how far you'd stand out way above the rest of us in your shining armor of asserted moral superiority lol

But we still have things like nuclear weaponry. That won't go away unless we go-it-away by using them enough. Even with ideas of nuclear fusion cropping up, the fact remains that there are still destructive uses for almost any avenue of technology we develop or improve.

That goes for the autonomous work force as well. That can still be weaponized.

i meant to tag this nigga lol

Neither - They're just retarded which doesn't operate under such confines.

>being this retarded
sorry boys, it's late
third time's a charm

Degenerate drug addicts who are driven to steal at all costs popped in my head.

I'm going to assume you were replying to me.

Here's how.

Being at your physical limit of how much hunger you can take doesn't allow you to function in the same way you would if you were merely in a position to decide who lives and who dies. The more extreme scenario is the one with more variables and consequences involved. In one, a number of people absolutely have to die, or everyone dies. In the other, you steal from a poor old lady, or you die. Without any further rationalization- which, mind you, is integral to determining the actual response of the person in question, a number of people dying or everyone dying is more extreme than exactly one person dying.

The consequences of stealing from a poor old lady may exist, but they aren't necessarily dire. The consequences of not stealing from a poor old lady are dire, because you will die of starvation eventually assuming you're not able to do x y or z, besides steal, to solve said starvation. The consequences of being indecisive about who drowns is extremely dire, because everyone dies if you are indecisive. The consequences of having chosen to let some people drown is dire, because you have to deal with the consequences of losing lives, as well as the emotions and rationalizations of those who lived. You are the one who will have condemned them to die. Don't imagine that some people now want to see you die for that, too.

> you'd pick yourself as one of the ones surviving
That's a hefty assumption. If 5 people were allowed to live, and I had a child, I would sacrifice myself for my child to be one of the 5 people who lived. I would also make similar judgements in scenarios wherein I felt that someone present deserved to live, more than I did. And there are a number of people who I barely know, who I could consider dying for, so this isn't an ass-pull for muh kin.

>JUST EAT OR WE WILL FUCKING DIE
My quirk is that I don't seem to have that kind of weakness people do. I've starved before like that. I've been in the place where you can barely make thoughts, and you can barely feel your own body. Guess what? I never stole. At that point, I'd already made up my mind, and then I couldn't really make up any more complicated decisions. I was dying. Because I'd already decided to die.

I'm wound like that. I seldom compromise, because I have a big enough brain, and have had enough time, to work through all of that. I know what I will and won't do. I can't shoot a man in cold blood. I could probably shoot a man if I had a good enough reason. I'd still regret shooting a man, even if it was an accident.

Would I eat a living person? No. I couldn't. I functionally could not, not unless you jam something through my brain and permanently alter who I am. Would I eat a recently deceased person if I had no choice? If I were optimistic and wanted to live, probably.

Call it moral, call it whatever you like. I know beyond a doubt that I can't do these things you tell me you'd do. I wouldn't do them even if no one knew about it. It's not about everyone else. It's about what happens when I'm left to sit down and be alone with my thoughts. Do I really want to build everything on the back of hypocrisy I know to be the fault of someone with weaker inhibitions? Do I want to contribute what I'd otherwise rail against? Do I want to be that base? Is that the only option I can find?

I'd rather die. Society can't survive on people who aren't willing to die or give something up. The veneer only shines because someone's stubborn enough to make it shine. I'mma die, nigga.

yup. and i didn't condone anything. i just told you i'm not convinced you realize how much easier things seem when your body isn't at it's physical limit. of course you wouldn't steal from a poor old lady after a few days of not eating, but make that a few weeks and you'll fucking eat her.
that's why drug addicts are degenerates, they willingly added certain substances to the list of things they need to consume regularly.
stop the intake for long enough and you'll see similar physical reactions since your brain is really bad at distinguishing between something you really need to live and something that just feels like you need it to live, therefore you'll also see similarly lowered inhibitions to do quite extreme things.

>humans are much less evil than 1000 years ago

Do you think 1000 years ago they looked around and said “wow this is evil”.

Let me reframe it like this. “Yeah my generations music broke some rules and my parents said it was vulgar garbage but modern music...” It’s all perspective. I mean Jesus Christ how many hundreds or millions of people were killed last century. Entire cities with millions of people were sacked and the females ten years old and over were systematically raped and sodomized by countless soldiers each. Some were literally raped to death.

That isn’t even getting into the carnage of communism.

>but make that a few weeks and you'll fucking eat her
Still won't.

>they willingly added certain substances to the list of things they need to consume regularly
So... I willingly add... tomatoes to the list of things I need to consume regularly? What? That doesn't seem like something you can compare. You really made it sound like an impulse problem.

>your brain is really bad at distinguishing between something you really need to live and something that just feels like you need it to live
And that can be curated over with conscious thought. Imagine that, you can fool your body into thinking it's full by drinking enough water. You're not actually solving the hunger problem, but your biological sensors think you've "eaten", and you stop gurgling in agony.

This might be a case of just not being able to intimately take a peek into the psyche of another human being that intimately, so that's that. But if you put me in a lab, without me knowing, it's not like I'd turn into a wild animal because I didn't eat my fruit loops that day.

>We no longer go to battle in fields on a regular basis and most people grow up sheltered.

Are you American because this is patently false. There are shit tons of guys running around having gone into combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’re everywhere.in addition to that not every able bodied man was a soldier in every civilization. They weren’t all Sparta.

>They’re everywhere.in addition to that not every able bodied man was a soldier in every civilization.
Lots of societies still do have universally mandatory military service tho, even today

You're not from around here are you...

True and that’s kinda my point. It’s not like every man fought in wars in ancient civilizations and now far less do. It’s like people aren’t aware of what the fuck has been going on for the last 100 years.

not everybody on Yea Forums is a retard like you, stop trying to normalise dunce behavior because of your own insecurities. The more of Yea Forums doesn't have to constantly consist of cringeworthy attempts at humor and pornography, and the self-imposed taboo of intelligent discussion will eventually be the death of this board. Yea Forums is on it's death bed because of people like you.

The number of people who have seen combat is alot smaller than the number of people that haven't

Good and bad is subjective. Go fuck yourself

you're right, my guy.
and Getting triggered over one self reflective post is definitely the cure, truly you are the savor /b deserves...

and /b has been dead for a while now, excuse me while I fuck off to 8 chan.

Define good or bad

Neither, they’re selfish.
Whether it’s self interest to help or hurt others, it all boils down to doing it for numero uno.