The questions I'm (now!) trying to pursue (which I think are still pertinent to this thread) are--assuming there are natural rights, in what sense are duties associated with them, or arise from them? If there are no rights without duties, why is that so? What duties supposedly arise from rights? Are those duties a condition of natural rights--do we forfeit rights if we don't comply with those duties? Doing the right thing wouldn't seem to be dependent on a concept of natural rights. — Ciceronianus the White

I am not aware of what I think until you ask the question. In the process of trying to answer your questions, I figure out answers. This time my thinking led to the conclusion that only humans have duties because their brains can ask why and come up with an answer. (religion is superstitious answers and science works better). Chimps can learn to use a twig to fish for termites in dead trees (technology) but they will not know the life cycle of trees and termites (science). Our duty comes out of what we can know.

:smile: We are born in sin. Sin is ignorance. We are not born knowing right from wrong. We are born with only a few instincts. Animals learn through trial and error and can learn from each other. However, humans are unique in that they question why something is so and come to learn and understand cause and effect. This makes it possible for them to live in unnaturally large groups in increasingly more complex societies. This demands more of humans than other animals.

Social duties arise out of rights. Of course, it is easy to take and ignore our duties, and then blame others for the problems. But those problems are proof of the wrong, proof our failure to fulfil and duty.
Perhaps we are ignorant of what is right or we justify why we can ignore doing the right thing. Both are a failure to take responsibility for our actions. Polluting the land and waters becomes a problem we can not ignore. Media indulging our lowest instincts has encouraged a reality that is unpleasant. Wars are very destructive and the damage of war continues for several generations. On the other hand, I just had an awesome medical procedure yesterday that might extend my life and no other animal can do this. That is, because we can learn and understand so much, we can manifest a better and better reality. We can declare everyone has the right to food, shelter, medical care, and equal opportunity. Because we can do that, it might be our duty to do that? What happens if we think that is our duty? What happens if we do not? Or what happens if people think they have rights and no duties?
.

“Authority above us” meaning other people, right? — Pinprick

Not exactly. When I speak of that shift in power, I speak of reliance on policy. Like Prussian military order. Prussian military order is a few establish the policy and then they can all be killed, but the policy is still in force. In the past when someone died the person was replaced by someone who may do everything completely differently, like the US change in president. As soon as there is a new president, s/he can throughout what the president before established and create new ways of doing things. But all the bureaucracies are ordered by a policy and nothing can be changed without an act of congress. Kings died but these policies do not die.

Tocqueville was concerned about the power of government shifting from a democracy to a despot and that this despot would manage the details of our lives for us, leaving us nothing to do but be happy. Perhaps some remember the original Star Trek and the shows dealing with societies run by computers. Effectively that is what we have but the parts of computer are organic. The parts are humans following policy and who expect everyone to follow policy. However, when I deal with the internet I am impressed by how computers have taken control of our lives and the silliness of us throwing a fit over the government taking too much control and passively accepting turning our lives to computers and the web.

eople will often consider society or culture as a cause for human behavior, but isn’t society itself actually caused by human behavior? If a society or culture is particularly violent, isn’t that because the people within that culture behave violently? To me it seems that society or culture is basically just a scapegoat for our own actions and behaviors. Instead of pointing the finger at ourselves, we abstractly point to society instead, as if the fault/blame has nothing to do with us. — Pinprick

Culture is something that is learned. The US educated for democracy and transmitted a culture until the 1958 National Defense Education Act. With the passing of the act education for independent thinking was replaced with education for "group-think" and this has resulted in the reactionary politics we have now and an increase in violence. Education for good moral judgment was dropped and left up to the church. Now the US lives with a Christian myth of its democracy(?). I put a question mark there because the Bible is a book about kings and slaves, not a book for democracy. I am saying our democracy has been perverted and it is in big trouble right now. Few know how to defend our democracy because they don't have the education to understand it.

Our churches, military, and industry are all autocratic and we have militarized our institutions. That is, we experienced a shift of power away from the people and into the hands of authority above us. This problem is made worse by failure to treat the web as a public utility and to regulate it for the good of the people. Now it is used to manipulate us and corrupt our people system. We gave up too much power and now powerless people are at each other's throats. We don't trust anyone and we are not united. It is a perversion of the word culture to think we are cultured people. What we have is equal to mixing monkeys from many different troops and throwing them into a caged area and letting them fight things out until the fighting stops. This is not a civilized culture.

How about logos or universal law?

But is the word "right" right here? or duty? they imply a moral component. Is eating or drinking moral? The act itself, not what you eat. — god must be atheist

As you stated we must eat or we die, but the right to eat demands the right action, or we go hungry. I am working with some homeless people who are driving me crazy because the behaviors are not conducive to having a nice meal. A while, back someone in the forum, argued we get things for free and I went ballistic because mother nature does not take care of us as our humans mothers do. We might get oxygen without effort but I can't think of anything else we get without effort. If you want to eat, you better get up early and study the environment at this moment in time with the sensitivity of wolf looking for a meal. You might for you body and weapons and tools so that you survive a little longer. Sleeping through most the day, waking with no plan, waiting for life to happen to you, might not go so well.

:smile: A right is what gets us what we want. A duty is taking responsibility for doing the right thing. Rights exist as the law of nature and things don't go well when we choose wrongs. Whoo, I want to scream to the citizens of the US "grow up". Only your mother is going to your give you your rights without you fulfilling your duties. Mother nature will not and expecting society to care for you like your human mother once did, is just wrong. However- capitalism is good up to a point and then it turns bad and our government needs to resolve this problem. Like if there is plenty of land for us all to take land enough for a farm simply by being the first ones to get to that piece of land, then government doesn't have to do any more than protect our right to own the land. But when far more people need that land than their is land, government must act for justice and compensate for this demand and supply problem.

Whoo

Hanover — Hanover

I am glad you answered

Ciceronianus the White — Ciceronianus the White

question. You all are much more fun to play with than the folks in a political forum who do none of the thinking you all do here. I had no thought of our government but we should know this ..

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of ...

The Constitution | The White House — constitituion

My understanding of rights and duties at the moment, didn't go further than family. If you are lucky enough to have a bedroom it is your duty to clean it up and if you don't the natural consequence is your space will become very unpleasant and you will not develop the strength of character to be an orderly and attractive human being. A responsibility ignored is a lost chance to develop our character, and the negatives build up making our lives unpleasant. If we are so lucky as to have people who care for us, it is our duty to care for them. See how the habit of caring for others, develops our character?

As a great grandmother I can say it can seem near impossible to get children headed on the right track, especially in the culture we have today because none of us are supported by a culture that just puts the rights and duties in the air we breathe, so we assume they are just the way life is and don't even question them. As my statement of rights of duties was just something I assume without thought.

Having a good life is so much about developing the right habits. Confucius speaks of this and I believe it can be found in the Bhagavad-Gita (AS IT IS) a Hindu book. We can think, we have a duty to ourselves to be the best human being we can be, and grow our character by making right choices. From there our family, the groups we belong to, our nation, are just extensions of ourselves. And the laws are natural cause and effect.

↪I agree with you that many people avoid thinking and that the way of the hero or heroine is for the few. I am not sure that this would change much even if people receive the best possible education. The reason for that is because it is easier and safer to follow the leaders. — Jack Cummins

:grimace: That depends on the leader. Following some leaders can be very destructive. Some of us think bad leadership in the US has lead to many avoidable deaths and extended an economic problem far beyond what would have followed better leadership. No doubt some think a god gives us our leaders and that we only need to obey. I am not one of those people.

Thinking and finding a journey outside the common pathways is perilous and can be lonely. It can also be hard work. Perhaps the people who choose to think and question are those who do not fit in or who become dissatisfied with the status quo. — Jack Cummins

Athena is the goddess who taught men to rule themselves. Logos is the highest authority and we should seek to understand it and be careful about following others. When we have a sense of being one with the universe, loneliness is not a problem. And hard work leads to great satisfaction.

It is as if many people do not choose to climb to the top of Maslow's top of the pyramid of the hierarchy of needs, to strive towards the need for self actualization. In fact, I found that in my nurse training Maslow's model, is often just used as a model for the basic care needs, with no mention of self actualization at all. This is different from Maslow's original picture because in 'Towards a Psychology of Being'.

He emphasizes the role of peak experiences as being a possibility, but as one which occurs once the lower needs are satisfied primarily. But I do not think it has to be straightforward. For example, a person may follow artistic needs as a response to lack of love. But of course his model does make sense in the respect that if one was homeless or hungry, such factors would make creative work, not impossible, but difficult. — Jack Cummins

I think you write of a state of maturity. For many of us, we do not have a good sense of self until 50 years of age or older. When we are young we can be painfully concerned about what others think of us and our position in society. Now that is natural! As social animals we need each other and our position in the group really matters! But as we age our brains literally transform. Hopefully, we have used them and encouraged the growth of neurons. Of course if we have not, neurons atrophy and the amazing thing that happens when we get older is not so amazing. As the neurons grow they reach each other and instead of accumulating facts as we do when we are young, we begin realizing the meaning of those facts in away not possible before because now more neurons are activated so the thought is bigger and deeper. But as I said, this is dependent on how we use our brains through out our life time. People who get through life referring the same Bible verses again and again and by choice remain narrow minded, will not experience amazing brain activity when they are older.

I don't think Maslow had this understanding of neuron growth and how it changes our thinking when we age. Until recently, we didn't know our neurons keep growing and make new connections. In observing people he could gain knowledge but it was incomplete. It is observed, our thinking slows down and we will not learn how to use new technology as easily as youth does. But imagine having 10 neurons activated instead of 1 or 2 and then figuring out which brain message is the most important at the moment. From experience, I would say the complexity of our thinking in our later years, contributes to difficulty in learning new things and slower thinking. We have to forget the old to learn the new. I can hear my great granddaughter saying, "no, not that way grandma, this way". But she does not realize the importance of her decisions and why she needs to follow what the adults say. Fortunately, she is cooperative and receives more from her teachers than many children. Unlike many children in ghetto schools who do not trust anyone and are dealing with stresses and emotional problems that hinder their growth.

In essence, human nature is that which the person is inclined to do without external motivations. What would you do when no one is watching? I believe one can change ones nature by expanding one's perspectives to be far more inclusive and considerate of other perspectives and values. This can be accomplished with a great deal of reading, contemplation and time. Lastly, one must be in a place where any change will not be opposed. (basic change theory) — Book273

:smile: I think you have explained the experience of no longer caring what others think of us. When we are young, life is what is outside of ourselves. As we age we accumulate life, and one day, we are looking inside to know what we want to know, not outside. For very sure we change as our perspective changes!

I am not so sure of your last statement. :worry: I think today we are technologically smart but have lost our wisdom. While Trump is a smart mouth, Biden is not so sure, but will think about it, that is wisdom.

I don't think so. I think I merely say that a belief in natural, individual rights may give rise to an ethics which is inappropriately limited, encourages purely selfish conduct and may even be used to justify it when carried to an extreme. — Ciceronianus the White

I must speak to this. There are no rights without duties. The US culture has fallen into a complete disaster because people now believe we have rights without duty. That works about as well as breathing in, breathing in, and never breathing out. We seriously need to rebalance. With rights there are duties. With freedom there is responsibility.

The fact that self-interest isn't a virtue doesn't mean one cannot be self-interested. It merely means that that one isn't being virtuous when acting solely in one's own interest. It means, in other words, that you and I don't show moral excellence when acting solely for our own benefit. There's nothing admirable or laudable about self-interest, but neither is there anything necessarily evil or wrong about. It may be perfectly natural and appropriate depending on the circumstances. — Ciceronianus the White

I struggled with issues involving self-interest and then I realized even the apple tree that gives freely of its apples has needs. I decided there is no virtue in denying myself but like the apple tree, the better I am nourished, the more I have to give.

I believe the story of the first Buddha begins with excessive self denial. He was not the only one wondering around and experiencing excessive self denial, but many have traveled this path and it can become even an unvirtuous competition to be the one who goes to the furthest extreme. It just is not healthy. A healthy person has learned to take good care of him/her self. :rofl: At my age, the virtue is maintaining independence and not complaining about the unpleasantness of living in this deteriorating body too often.

I don't know for certain, but I think it's likely those cultures/societies have no concept of the individual rights claimed to exist in the modern Western tradition. — Ciceronianus the White

Beautiful! I love your expression of thought! In general this forum is so different from a political forum where people bash heads and no thinks about what is being said. Your comments trigger ideas that are in my head and rearrange them in new ways, new insights. This is the most exciting and pleasurable experience we can have. It is Thomas Jefferson's idea of the pursuit of happiness.

Yes! it is about a concept of individualism. Our Western civilization is very individualistic but not cultures are like this. So it is not just what is wrong with rights but how do we identify ourselves? Are we individuals or members of a larger group, or as I like to think of it, a member of something much bigger than myself. :chin: I like Eastern consciousness and identifying with a universal consciousness.A belief system where the ego is deluded into believing it is the most important. I study history and feel connected with the whole of humanity since the beginning of our time. It is just not my nature to compete for money and power. That is crude and distasteful to me. My value is my mind and my humanness and I strive always to make a contribution to society. I am buying a Thanksgiving dinner for about 100 homeless people and my granddaughter is cooking it. Our value is not in money and I think I may understand our rights differently then you do?

Yes. But it was a struggle even for that to take place. FDR was condemned for his support of social welfare programs we now take for granted, implemented during the Great Depression, and there were many attempts to prevent their implementation. Congress wasn't formally authorized to impose an individual income tax until the 16th Amendment was adopted in 1913 (there were efforts to impose a tax previously during the Civil War). Income taxation was bitterly opposed. Even now, social welfare programs are condemned as socialist. Many of us are so convinced of the sanctity of our rights that we consider being told to wear masks is a form of tyranny (there is, apparently, a right not to be inconvenienced for the sake of protecting others). — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, the Western egomania culture has its problems. Yes, the vast majority appear to have extremely narrow consciousness. If the knew better they would do better. :lol: Considering how narrow minded many are, it is amazing the US has done so well. It is amazing that during this economic crisis they are handing out money to everyone to stimulate the economy. I am not sure this free handout is the way to go. I think Roosevelt creating jobs was a better way to go, but at least there is some recognition that a good economy depends on circulating money. But the US has a long ways to go in increasing consciousness. It must be one of the most selfish and economically ignorant nation in Western civilization.

Of course, the doctors and the soldiers have their blindspots too. — Jack Cummins

That is a wise conclusion. :grin:

Democracy is an imitation of the gods who argued among themselves just as humans do. Each god and goddess is a concept. For example when Athens was being torn apart with dissention, Apollo, the god of reason came into being and the war with Persia transformed Athena from an earth goddess who makes crops grow, to a goddess who teaches men how to rule themselves because Athens became a democracy so everyone would fight the Persians and for Athens.

This speaks of the evolution of the development of human consciousness. The problem with having many gods is you get more and more gods as people become aware of new concepts. In Egypt this got totally out of control and Amenhotep's grandfather ordered a research of the achieves to find the true god. But back to Athens and democracy, it is growing consciousness as each concept, each point of view interacts with another.

The point is the doctor and the soldier will have their blind spots and their different experiences and different points of view, and when they argue from these different points of view, new concepts can be realized and civilization progresses. Democracy is our shared consciousness. In contrast, Trump is attempting to establish a dictatorship where only those who say and do as he wants, hold the seats the power. There is a serious difference and it is disturbing that so many follow Trump.

My thoughts appears to be wondering off the topic of human nature, so to pull it back on topic, my father, a very knowledgeable man who helped send Apollo to the moon, said we naturally avoid thinking when we can, and this seems more true of some than others. Thinking or not thinking goes with responsibility. Following a strong leader can mean avoiding the thinking and responsibility that a democracy demands. The Greeks would say, the god's chose the heroes, but only a small fraction of men agree to go on the journey of hero. Most are content to being like cattle, well cared for but with no responsibility. So what is our nature?

They have no natural right to our support, and the law/government cannot be allowed to require that our wealth be used to support them. — Ciceronianus the White

You write so beautifully I didn't think I would find anything to argue. However, there are people who would disagree with the above statement. Among some aboriginal people it would be taboo to accumulate wealth and not share. The chosen leader among native American tribes is the one who gives the most. Democracy is about the everyone's welfare. It could be understood as a commitment to support each other.

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” Franklin Roosevelt

What you said was abhorrent when the church ruled and controlled prices. Communism and socialism focus more on shared wealth than the capitalism of the US and it is easy to find fault with the capitalism of the US. However, the US does tax people and distribute wealth to a limited degree. A minimum wage law, assistance programs take from some to give to others and hopefully most people think this the morally decent thing to do. Many believe this is important to avoiding social problems and the greater cost of incarcerating people. Public education is expensive, but it is an investment that a democracy must make. Divided we fall. United we stand.

For example, there would be nothing morally objectionable in accruing as much wealth and property as we can, even if it means we are much better off than others and have far more power and influence than others do. — Ciceronianus the White

I think exploiting the land and others for personal gain is hurting the earth and the nation, and is morally wrong. Especially those who are exploiting the earth are stealing from future generations and are being immoral because of how damaging they are. And thank goodness enough people thought slavery is wrong, to stop it but we did not successful give people of color equal rights and now we are paying for that wrong.

Right Reason — Ciceronianus the White

Right reason is more consciousness than any one person can have. Democracy is amazing because everyone feeds into the consciousness and this brings us to education for all, a national pension plan, and hopefully some day a national health care system. A moral is a matter of cause and effect and a moral nation is one with board consciousness. The US is now divided and its democracy may be self destructing? It is my hope that we will pull through these bad times and come out stronger, but we need to reeducate the masses about democracy before we can defend it. Democracy like a tribe is everyone working together for the good of all.

Unfortunately our industry was based on English autocracy, and in 1958 the National Defense Education Act, ended transmitting a culture for democracy and liberty. Now we are in big trouble. Right reason resolves problems and avoids creating them.

The tendency to prejudge individuals and groups seems to be innate for humans, in part because quick categorizations proved advantageous for survival during Mammal evolution. But our advanced cognitive powers also allow us to quickly learn from our peers, who is to be trusted, and who is to be avoided. So human prejudice is both Innate and Learned. As for your other questions, read the book. :smile:

Humans are wired for prejudice : https://theconversation.com/humans-are-wired-for-prejudice-but-that-doesnt-have-to-be-the-end-of-the-story-36829

Innate or Learned Prejudice : https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/fall-2015-questions-race/innate-or-learned-prejudice-turns-out-even-blind-arent — Gnomon

Beautifully worded. :clap:

I have a huge preference for dumping the Bible and using science to understand our nature and I am delighted that you seem to be working with the more scientific understanding of our nature. I think everything in our lives around the world would be improved with a scientific understanding of our nature.

I want to add to what you said, black birds also learn which humans are their friends and which humans should be avoided and they pass this information to each other, so our ability to do has nothing to do with our cognitive powers. HOWEVER, we can do something the rest of the animals can not do. We can see that German uniform or an allied uniform and we can spontaneously put down our weapons and share Christmas eve with our enemy, and return to war the next day. We have more choice over our actions and we can change what we think.

The degree to which we have self determination and self control, depends on how we are raised and educated. Our culture and our time in history shapes who we are, and unlike the animals we can become aware of this and we can change what we think and how we behave.

Essential is understanding, if we are raised to be conservative, concrete thinkers, we will be narrow minded and quick to defend what we believe. If we are raised not to be reactionary, but to think things through, and to think abstractly rather than concretely, we will be broadminded and not so sure of what we think we know. For this reason, the US is locked in culture wars and may destroy its democracy.

Let us just hope that the future is one of more knowledge rather than ignorance. I am inclined to think that we are at a crossroads, and history can make negative or positive of knowledge and that it could be used destruction or positively. Perhaps, it will be a mixed picture. — Jack Cummins

That would be more knowledge of what? Holy books are so simple. Until the 20 century the only education most people had was from the holy book and that is still true of some people. Our specialization has made it possible for us have good lives relying on the expertise on others, and totally ignoring most of the available information.

The people in the US think they have a democracy but what do they know of democracy? Who can list ten principles of democracy? How can we defend something we know so little about? We may discover our worst enemy is ourselves. At this moment in time, it is as important to know the history of Germany as the history of the US, if you are a US citizen because the US adopted the German model of bureaucracy that shits power to the state, and the German model of education that prepares the young to live under the Germany model of bureaucracy and what makes this really bad is they have no awareness of this.

I am arguing like this because my own family does not share truths and this is extremely upsetting. My own family operates on beliefs that they get off of Facebook and they are so sure of themselves, no one will ever look for facts. They were not educated to think! Education for technology is for people with good memories, not thinking people, and it has nothing to do with transmitting a culture for democracy, unless you happen to be a good school district.

We could say our nature depends on how we are educated. Human beings are very pliable and can be saints or sinners depending on their childhood. Doctors or soldiers, depending on their childhood.

Hum interesting. How can there be nature laws without natural rights? Are you saying Jefferson's word's wrong?

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.- — Jefferson

Of course we have a big problem because we ignored what Jefferson said As though Nature's God had one set of rules for us and another set of rules for "those people".

That sounds like reasonable explanations.

The Wikipedia explanation is more in line with the one I am familiar with.

t is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers' wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God.

Original sin - Wikipedia — Wikipedia

Isn't that belief a judgment of all people?

How does Jesus save us?

What is the definition of good and evil here? — schopenhauer1

Good question. Kahlil Gibran said we do good when we feel good, and we do bad when we feel bad. Now does it make sense to try to make someone good by punishing this person? We are now exploring the possibility of helping people who are having a problem being a part of main stream society instead of incarcerating them and punishing them. It will be nice to see if this gets better results.

The human species began as neither good nor evil. Good and evil were nothing until we thought of them. Because we have set out "good" and "evil" as terms that can apply to us, the terms do apply, and we are sorted good or evil, depending on who is speaking.

We are what we are: a primate species endowed with intelligence (but not too much), driven by a strong will (as often heedless as not) and possessed of wisdom (but a day late and a dollar short). — Bitter Crank

You said so well and so concisely, I don't think there is anything I can add to it.

Many writers have got themselves in a deep mess by assigning characteristics to a particular race, gender or group of people. Even though I see a lot of strengths in Jung's writings, his enormous weakness, or shadow was the way he made generalisations about racial groups, in particular about the Jewish and German nation, and at a critical time in history.

Certainly, any use of the term human nature needs to go beyond stereotypes. If the term is used it is about understanding the basics of the human condition and nothing more. — Jack Cummins

Nice consideration. Our history is surely one of ignorance. I have much hope for humanity because of how information can change what we think and do.

The story of the ants was very interesting. It was fun thinking about what I would do. I think I would use fire, but it would also be fun to see what would happen if a live electric wire were put in the ditch filled with water.

What is sin?

That was a very good argument, but why does anyone need to be saved? Saved from what?

"If Jesus truly walked this earth, then he was the most morally excellent person to have ever walked the face of the earth and, according to Christian doctrine, he was God in the flesh."

Why do you believe that? Are you familiar with Confucius and Buddha so you can make an independent decisions of who is most worthy of our attention?

Presumably, everyone has the "right to property." The problem is some people don't have any. The right is used in justification of an essentially selfish position, though it is a right to which supposedly all are entitled. — Ciceronianus the White

Animals are territorial and they have to fight to claim their territory and keep it. I would say this is in our nature. It is a survival need. But what gives us an unquestioned right to land and resources cut out of the mother? The God Abraham gave only a small part of the earth to Hebrews, but I don't think this means unquestioned property rights for everyone. Native Americans held the notion that we don't have the right to claim pieces of earth for our selves. Violating the earth and taking her coal, gold, oil, and covering the land with concrete and blacktop, may be as much our right as raping a woman?

Yes. Materialistic Science has learned a lot about human physiology, much of which which we share with our ape cousins, who are quite clever as animals go. But Human Nature, as a philosophical enterprise, is mostly about how humans differ from animals. For example, the age-old question of non-empirical Souls. If there is no such thing, how do we account for the gap in reasoning power, which, seems to be our only significant advantage over more instinctive creatures? Even apes have hands.

Based on empirical evidence, our physiological advantage seems to be rather minor. But in terms of evolutionary success, humans have created a whole new form of Evolution : world-conquering Culture. A bigger brain is a Quantitative edge in processing power. But a rational mind seems to give humans a Qualitative superiority. Yet, some think it's our Animal Nature, including irrational hormones, that holds us back morally. While others think it's our over-weening intellectual arrogance that gets us into trouble. Both seem to be involved in Human Nature. :smile:


The Gap -- The Science of What Separates Us from Other Animals : . . . psychologist Thomas Suddendorf provides a definitive account of the mental qualities that separate humans from other animals, as well as how these differences arose.
https://www.amazon.com/Gap-Science-Separates-Other-Animals/dp/0465030149 — Gnomon

Perhaps I should read the book before responding, or may be I can just question you about what the book says. How is an uneducated person 8000 years ago, different from an animal?

What does prejudice have to do with our nature?

Are there limits to our thinking? Do we function as well in a group of 12 people as we do in a group of 500? Is there a difference in how we function in a group of 500 and a group of 5000 people?

I'm not arguing against morality based on natural law. I'm questioning one based on claimed inherent rights. I think our concept of rights was unknown to ancient thinkers like Cicero and the Stoics and said as much in the OP. I remain a Ciceronian. — Ciceronianus the White

You skipped my Greek example of our rights being well understood in ancient times. Perhaps not Rome, but surely by Greeks. Think back to that ancient civilization and many gods. Democracy is an imitation of the gods. Each one of us has the freedom of a god because there is no god over us rewarding and punishing us. Now we can not violate laws of nature, which even the gods must obey, but there is no authority higher than our own. There is no god or king over us, only logos.

The restrictions to what we do other than logos, is human customs. In Rome do as the Romans do. All social animals have social agreements, and getting along means falling in line with those agreements. But even before kings sisters buried there brothers. There is an authority higher then human authority and this is the source of our freedom.

If we are belligerent enough to go against all other human authority two things can happen. We will face rejection or we will convince others we are right. This seems to me crucial to our concept of freedom. In short, if you think you know "God's truth" and have the right to impose that on others, you are wrong!!!! You might win the war and destroy my people, but that still does not make you right. Only though reason and consensus can we determine what is right. The law above us is logos (reason), not human authority. Humans have social agreements and customs, but not the ultimate authority and our liberty depends on this understanding.

Of course, Human Nature doesn't "exist" in a materialistic concrete sense. It's a generalization, and an abstraction. So, it's not a testable empirical "thing" to be studied by scientists. But it's certainly amenable to philosophical study. "The writer" must be a hard Materialist, who doesn't accept immaterial things, such as Minds, to be Real. For them, the only things that "exist" are Atoms & Void. But Unfortunately, speculations on generalizations & universals are always somebody's Opinion, not hard facts. What's yours? :smile: — Gnomon

I think science is full of materialistic explanations of our human nature and it most certainly is testable and empirical. Take for example what we know of hormones. Hormones strongly effect how we feel and what we do.

Then there is brain imaging and we know we share in common empathy with other primates.

Anthropology gives us lots of information about social animals and humans are a social animal.

Then there are biological studies of the brain and this is very informative when the brain has been damaged and we can look at the damaged area and study the effect of that damage.

One of the difficulties I have with the concept of rights is that I think acceptance of them gives rise to an ethics in which good, or moral, conduct is defined as that conduct which doesn't interfere with them. Each person has the right to do certain things as long as they don't infringe on or violate the rights of others. Rights are deemed possessions we each have, to which we're entitled, and nobody may take or interfere with those possessions. As long as they don't their conduct isn't objectionable, and they're free to do whatever they like and refrain from doing whatever they don't want to do without censure. — Ciceronianus the White

What makes a right right and a wrong wrong?

“For there is but one essential justice which cements society, and one law which establishes this justice. This law is right reason, which is the true rule of all commandments and prohibitions. Whoever neglects this law, whether written or unwritten, is necessarily unjust and wicked.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero, On the Laws — Cicero

Democracy is not blind obedience to law, but the constant search of right reason.

Even before kings sisters buried their brothers. This is an argument that we do have rights that a king can not take away. It is a right, because it is the right thing to do. You speak of laws as though we control what a law will be. Humans do not make the laws of nature, they can only become aware of them. And not every man made law should be obeyed, because they can be hateful laws and oppose natural law. Here is the Greek story arguing we do have rights that a king can not take away.

Prior to the beginning of the play, brothers Eteocles and Polynices, leading opposite sides in Thebes' civil war, died fighting each other for the throne. Creon, the new ruler of Thebes and brother of the former Queen Jocasta, has decided that Eteocles will be honored and Polynices will be in public shame. The rebel brother's body will not be sanctified by holy rites and will lie unburied on the battlefield, prey for carrion animals like vultures, the harshest punishment at the time. Antigone and Ismene are the sisters of the dead Polynices and Eteocles. — wikipedia

" that Law is intelligence, whose natural function it is to command right conduct and forbid wrongdoing" is compatible with Confucius and oriental concepts of moral and laws of nature. Clearly we are not born knowing the laws and must learn them. That is learn to live in harmony with universal law and understanding, to violate universal law leads to trouble. That is not because a God or court of men will punish us, but it is a natural consequence of taking the wrong action. We are not entitled to violate the laws of nature, not even Trump. There is nothing we can do to change the consequences of our action. But we need be clear that we are not born knowing right from wrong and must make constant effort to learn and reason.

Back your argument, men's law and the authority of men can be wrong! Man's law is not the ultimate law. Universal law is above the law of man. Remember, we persecuted the Germans who were just following orders. A deeper understanding of such things is very important because it is what democracy is about.

I myself find it odd that labor unions had been infiltrated by organized crime at the first place. But I think this is a major reason why real income and wages haven't gone up in the US and inequality has become even greater. — ssu

That is a fascinating statement! I must look into that. Do you have any more to say about it?

Awe you speak of the American dream where the only thing government provides is a police force to protect private property.
— Athena
The fundamental idea behind is that well known mantra of "limited government" and giving freedom for everyone to pursuit their happiness. And that is a struggle for many, which is a problem.

In the US the idea of a good education system is neighborhood controlled schools that are as good as want the people in that neighborhood can afford.
— Athena
As neighborhoods aren't similar, in fact even US states differ from each other just like member states of the European Union (even if English is spoken everywhere), one cannot think that neighborhoods, communities and cities can all provide equal opportunity. Hence here is where things start going wrong. Worse schools make it harder to get to the best secondary schools or to apply to tertiary education.

Awe yes, the United States, the richest nation in the world. What would happen to our wealth if threw it away on that scum? Look people get what the deserve and it would be stealing form those who work hard for their money to tax them and give the money to the undeserving.
— Athena
You wouldn't have so many problems or crime, for starters. Not that problems would go away altogether. Still our societies (yours and mine) try to function as meritocracies, which do inherently create inequality. The issue is to have a system with social mobility and not have the classes turn into a caste system.

Do you think? but that isn't what is causing the rioting in our cities is it?
— Athena
No.

Of course there's a long thread about racism and I won't go into that. perhaps the basic problem in the US is that many confuse Bernie Sanders, who basically in Europe would be your average social democrat, with Hugo Chavez and his kind, which are a totally different socialists.

They won the fight. It just took a long time to realize their win.
— Athena
Exactly.

It should be understood that the conservative right accepted and took the idea of a welfare state as it's own in the Nordic countries. This is something that Americans would find really hard to understand from people who call themselves right-wingers. A similar thing happened with capitalism: the modern social democrat does not cry for a Marxist revolution, but just wants to curb the excesses of capitalism, yet understands that there is a time and place for free market capitalism. Especially when elections are around, the ordinary leftist and the right-winger won't admit that they have accepted issues from the other side, naturally, but their silence does tell a lot.

Our unions made some progress and then past President Reagan destroyed the unions.
— Athena
I myself find it odd that labor unions had been infiltrated by organized crime at the first place. But I think this is a major reason why real income and wages haven't gone up in the US and inequality has become even greater. — ssu

Let me begin with "I love you". It is so wonderful to find someone who really knows the value of education and that it isn't only about military and industrial interest. It is our culture and everyone being prepared to give their best to the country.

James Williams in 1899 "If we reflect upon the various ideals of education that are prevalent in the different countries, we see that what they all aim at is to organize capacities for conduct. " At this time for the Germans that meant preparing the young to advance technology for military and industrial purpose. England strongly rejected this education because it wanted to protect it classes, and education for technology tends to make everyone equal, because the child from the poorest home, educated for technology, does not remain in the low class. The focus of English education was to be an English man and woman.

The US with its democratic values, stumbled onto the benefits of education for technology when it mobilized for the first world war. Technologically Germany was the most advanced, and the US had to scramble to catch up. This is not just about having the best war ships and best cannons. It is about having thousands of people who can type, or repair trucks, or build bridges. We did not have that when we faced WWI but rapidly put education for technology into our schools when we knew we were going to entered the war.

Up to this time, US education was limited to literature, reading, writing, and speaking! I collect old books and they are quaint. The goal of education, as you understand it, being to prepare good citizens, so we have social order and a well running democracy. This including promoting associations and unions uniting people to do for themselves what Europeans relied on their governments to do for them. The addition of education for technology was a huge economic benefit that was not expected. Up to this time parents rather keep their children home to help on the farm. When parents learned their children would learn a job skill in school, they were more willing to send their children to school, because that meant their children a had chance of having better lives with more money and the benefit of what money can buy.

We can see how this develops. People have more money to spend, so more businesses become profitable. The whole economy grows and the standard of living is improved. There is no need to say this to you, but more people in the US need to understand the relationship between the education, the military and the economy. This trinity becomes stronger and larger.

But for all the good of this trinity something went very wrong in Germany and the US. If human beings are to be more than well trained, reactionary animals, that obey their masters, or get pushed to the margins of society, then they must learn how to be civilized humans. Leaving moral training to the church does not work in a democracy with liberty. In a democracy with liberty the people must have training for good moral judgment and cultural values. Citizens must be adults, not God's and the king's children.

Germany has progressed as a civilization better the US since WWII. The US missed the lesson's Germany learned and the US took their culture for granted. Now it is no longer a well cultured nation, but I have hope we will return to better education for reasoning and a better economy of independent thinkers who are empowered to make their best contribution to society. Education preparing our young to be products for industry, is good for slaves, and gives us a third world economy of workers dependent on the owners. :rage:

We are now seeing an exodus from California now as the high cost of living and the possibility of working from home gets many to move away from the traditional centers like Los Angeles or San Francisco. Yet many of those moving away do also mention the homeless problem and the tent cities on the street as a reason. Homelessness isn't just a personal problem for those who are effected by it, it does effect the whole society. It easily reminds us how much social cohesion there is in our society. If there isn't any, people are genuinely scared of each other. So I think this is a topic that can and should be discussed on a thread about the economy. — ssu

Do you think? but that isn't what is causing the rioting in our cities is it? Those rioters are anarchist that should be controlled with the National Guard if local police forces can not maintain law and order. You are a foreigner so you can be forgiven for not knowing what our great leader Trump says about law and order. I pray to the heavens you know I am being sarcastic and I am experiencing a great emotion relieve as I attack what we have been living and what is tearing the US apart. Europe experienced peasant revolts long ago, and because they were crushed by those in power, we might think they lost their fight, but you are telling us the did not win the fight. They won the fight. It just took a long time to realize their win.

Our unions made some progress and then past President Reagan destroyed the unions. Our past education explained the connection between unions and democracy, but that was before the 1958 National Defense Education that put an end to education for citizenship in a democracy and gave us instead education for a technological society with unknow values. We are no longer the democracy we once were, and as more and more of our wealth goes to the 1% things are not getting better so we worship Trump who promisers to make things better. We will see how well Biden does. I hope he and Harris can unite our nation, but no one understands what the change in education has to do with the mess we are in, so I am afraid we will continue to be divided and fighting against each other.

Yet there is also a link the other way around: if social problems are left unchecked and become large, this increases the lack of social cohesion, increases crime and heightens political tensions, which then create an atmosphere that decreases economic investment and business activity. — ssu

Awe you speak of the American dream where the only thing government provides is a police force to protect private property. You know, bash people's heads in when they dare defy the authority of autocratic industry and property owners. Anything to do with taking care of the poor, who are exploited by industry and property owners, is a matter of charity and that is not the correct function of government. I mean like get real. If you take care of these people they stop working for poverty wages and that would be terrible for the economy! We are not like Europe you know, where the government might be expected to take care of the people.

In the US the idea of a good education system is neighborhood controlled schools that are as good as want the people in that neighborhood can afford. So in one school district the advantaged students have a superior education, and the kids in the slums who live with crime and violence daily, actually risk their lives going to school that have very little to offer the children and the teachers can actually experience battle fatigue because the uncivilized behavior of students. We have videos of these schools where teachers have no control over students and surely you would not spend your hard earned money on those children, would you? Awe yes, the United States, the richest nation in the world. What would happen to our wealth if threw it away on that scum? Look people get what the deserve and it would be stealing form those who work hard for their money to tax them and give the money to the undeserving.

Like OMG, we don't want to be socialist! Everyone knowns how bad that is. Government is correctly restricted to using tax dollars to support a military force that in turn protects our economic interests over seas, because that is the source of our wealth. Local government provides the services the people can afford, and we just stay out of those bad neighborhoods where those disgusting people live. Like Trump said, we don't want those people in our neighborhoods ruining our property value. Really? arguing in favor of socialist notions and that it is the governments responsibility to spread out the prosperity? What kind of person are you? You do not sound like a Trump supporter! :brow: Someone in this forum must provide the correct understanding of what makes the US great because we must protect our wealth and stand firmly against socialism!

Perhaps I seem to be a "socialist" when I do say that these things ought to be taken care by the government and not to be left only to voluntary organizations as they can do only so much. Above all, it policies have to be smart and understand that homelesness is a complex issue, yet it can be minimized and dealt with. Many need far more help than just a roof over their head. Even if there is mental disorders and addiction problems, many don't have these issues. In my country in the 1950's there were about 70 000 homeless people, in 1987 the number had decreased to 18 000 and now in 2020 it's estimated that there are 4 000. Four thousand in over five million people isn't much (0,008%), which all are sheltered. In the US the number is something like (0,175%), which is twenty times the amount than here. For comparison, LA County has roughly twice the population of my country, Finland, yet has about 60 000 homeless.

I think this isn't a problem of money in the US, but the lack of sound social policies, social work and organization. The biggest obstacle is the view that the Welfare State is socialism and that you cannot force people into treatment etc. Reducing the homeless by 50% is totally possible for starters. — ssu

Your opening statement is excellent and I look forward to reading the rest of your post.

The truth of what you said makes me so mad! :rage: The US has just recently come to the end of its wilderness, and its mentality has not caught up with its changed reality. For awhile we did have facilities for the mentally ill. Some were very nice and others were hell holes because they were overwhelmed by a larger population of mentally ill people than expected. The solution was to close them down and deny the problem. Today where I live, we have an space that provides many services and the mentally ill hang around this area with no place to go. My sister has been rescuing people off the streets at our state capital and her life has been hell because we do not have the organization to help the seriously mentally ill. Our hospitals are dumping people with serious health problems on the streets knowing they have no place to go. A third world country could not do worse than we are doing.

We are just beginning to think in terms of government having a responsibility to care for people needing help, instead of driving them out of town or incarcerating them for crimes. But I am not sure this discussion belongs in a thread about economics? This discussion belongs in a thread questioning if the US is civilized. We are so clueless about the end of a labor intense economy that could more easily assimilate marginal people, and why our high tech society has pushed millions of people out of main stream society and into uncontrolled mental illness and drug addiction. Now that economic change could be an economic issue? But as long as people insist everything is free I don't think we can make much progress in a discussion of economic reality.

Your post is so good, I am excited about what you may say next.

↪Athena The point was just shorthand that the example you provided is fictitious. The budget is never zero. There's always a budget of labour available for starters - there's a bunch of homeless lying around doing nothing after all. And yes, if enough people are homeless they should just take homes from others. Seems fair enough if a society fails to care for all its members. — Benkei

Okay you have 50 labors. Now how do you turn this labor into shelter for everyone?

You can easily create a budget by taking from other people. Or taxation. — Benkei

Please explain that. Who decides how much a tax payer will pay, and who pays taxes? What is the process of getting more money from tax payers? What are the consequences of raising taxes or creating new taxes? What is being taxed, property, things we own or buy, incomes?

When a representative has a history of raising taxes, what happens when the next election period comes? When a representative or president says we must conserve and stop consuming oil or stop cutting down the forest, what happens at the next election? Why? It is the economy and I hope people keep posting.

What in the Heavens is whatever you said and do you stand by the concept it is not a byproduct of God? A useful one perhaps but yes. — Outlander

Yeah, once again I left out an important word. I have corrected the post. Amazing what a difference one word can make. Especially when the word is "not". This time the missing word is "glad".

I became politically active to house the homeless following the 1970 recession. We could not assimilate the young into the work force fast enough and I housed many of them. I sold plasma to supplement my small pay check and was feeding these young people, buying them medicine, buying them clothes so they could apply for jobs, and then things got worse. When an economy crashes the cost of housing stays low but as soon as the economy improves, the cost of housing rises and even more people become homeless.

During the 1970 recession I researched poverty at the U of O document department. I wanted to understand how can wealth just suddenly disappear and such hardships follow?! I learned some interesting things, such as how laws to protect the middle class standard of living, result in increased homelessness. What large populations and diminished resources has to do with the increased cost of housing because the cost of land and everything that makes a house, goes up, making it impossible to build truly low income housing.

I fought very hard to call public attention to the increasing homelessness, and now my retired sister combs the streets of our state capital, rescuing the homeless people she can rescue. Her Facebook page has pictures of the horrors she deals with, and the people who want their story to told. My grown granddaughter manages a camp ground for homeless people and her life is on the line, because of the virus and because, when necessary, she must take knives away from men who are not in their right mind. In my community there is much more for struggling people than in our state capital and this is because of what I was able to achieve long ago. I did not achieve it alone but I got the ball rolling because I wanted to get homeless people out of my home. We could not have achieved anything but our city counsel had hippies running our city and so a lot of good things were done. :flower:

It is hard to imagine anyone being homeless and staying in their right mind for long. Their survival almost depends on going feral, like a feral cat that can no longer be domesticated. I am not as involved as I once was because I just physically can't do much, but I turn on my computer every morning to make this world a better place. After what I have seen and experienced, I really want people to face reality. Never in the history of humanity did the easy life come free, unless the people live in one of the few places that are like a Garden of Eden, such as the tropical islands and Mediterranean areas with large rivers.

The homeless have been robbed of their home which is the same Earth that the rich think they have exclusive right to. Some people think there is some justice or morality in a few people owning many homes and a great number paying to borrow their homes and many more not having homes at all. I think is ridiculous and unneccesary. Everyone should have a garden, and everyone should have a home. — unenlightened

This thread is about the economy and I suppose we could talk about housing the homeless. We have come to that time of year when people freeze to death if they are not sheltered. First we need to decide where they are going to sleep? Then where will they pee and shit? How do they get food? How do they manage their trash? How do they avoid having their few possessions stolen? Our budget is zero. Now create those shelters.

The homeless will be glad to know they get so much free.

Wouldn't it have been better if we'd done it the other way - learned to speak mother earth, Gaia's language, perhaps requiring a getting in touch with our softer, mellow side that has a primeval connection to the Earth?

Something must be done about the so-called global economy. — TheMadFool

Your thought needs our attention. Primitive people learned they must invest in the land to get food. When I speak of being materialistic, my intention is to raise awareness of our disconnection with life. How we develop our awareness will make us ,more or less anthropocentric. We might want to be focused on Gia?

Religion attempts to focus us on God but that focus doesn't work well if it ignores Gai.

A person who does something useful or worthwhile or creates something of the like should be rewarded.
— Outlander

Why?I just created that worthwhile post; reward me.

Nothing is given for free.
— Outlander

Everything is given for free. We come into this world with nothing and helpless to even feed ourselves. — unenlightened

Interesting discussion you two are having. I will argue we do not get things for nothing when we are no longer dependent children. Even what nature gives us, requires us to make an effort to get it. I think everyone should have a garden because gardens teach us a lot about life. A productive garden requires a lot of work, preparing the soil, planting at the right time, watering just enough and not too much, defending the garden from disease, pest, and animals that will gladly eat it and if you don't get it right, you starve. Hunters and gathers lived off the land, but they had to learn where to look for food, and when the food would be there, and how to survive the elements. In some places life was more like a Garden of Eden, but much of our planet is not so friendly, and life was not so easy.