The can live with themselves because, like most people they are almost entirely self-focused and have little empathy for the Other. Especially the other who is a different color or sex or whatever.
Many people exist in a zero sum world where there are winners and losers--and if you are losing it is because someone took something from you.…
The can live with themselves because, like most people they are almost entirely self-focused and have little empathy for the Other. Especially the other who is a different color or sex or whatever.
Many people exist in a zero sum world where there are winners and losers--and if you are losing it is because someone took something from you... and if you are winning it is because you HAD to take things from the losers.
It is just the nature of things, eh? No real reason to feel too guilty about it, amiright.
Besides, if I don't do it they will do it to me.
There are "good" people, but in general people are not good--not without the existence of a cultural and economic system that basically forces them to be good (at least until they manage to corrupt it).
There is no substantive moral/ethical structure with a society to write and enforce it.
There is no arc of history bending towards a better world for all unless there is a continual effort to make that happen.
The question is not about making people better (because we can't) the question is about how do we build a system where people MUST be better--and how do we protect it from being co-opted and corrupted for as long as possible.
I think this gets to the heart of it. We're not remotely close to perfect, and any system designed by us isn't going to be perfect either. It will take constant updating and modification to keep it doing what it is supposed to do (forcing us to be good).
To me, the key is to get enough acknowledgement of this to be able to improve the system. Too bad that the truths that were self evident were all positive rather than having some negative in there.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people will seek their own and their children's advantage, almost invariably at the expense of others; that gaming the system and pulling the ladder up behind them is something most people will do if given the chance; that our tribal nature of in-group vs. out-group thinking isn't suited to societies of thousands let alone millions of people. That to guard against these tendencies Governments are instituted among people..."
TJ would need to flower that up a bit, and certainly I don't want to go down the road of man as inherently bad, but we are inherently flawed, and while it may have gone without saying 250 years ago, it could use more saying these days.
Good and bad are contextual judgments. We can only say that something is good or bad by looking at the outcome and judging that outcome WRT some goal that we have.
People are not good or bad. People are people. They behave in accordance with how they were shaped by evolution and then constrained by culture.
If the goal is to create large, powerful, equitable, and harmonious societies, then there are obvious goods and bads. Obvious positive and negative behaviors... and so we judge good and bad on THAT basis.
If the goal is to concentrate power and wealth, then there are obvious goods and bads, and we judge on THAT basis.
But without the constant dedication and watchfulness towards particular ends, an effort towards the first thing is doomed to founder on the rocks and shoals of human nature as we tend towards the second thing.
The can live with themselves because, like most people they are almost entirely self-focused and have little empathy for the Other. Especially the other who is a different color or sex or whatever.
Many people exist in a zero sum world where there are winners and losers--and if you are losing it is because someone took something from you... and if you are winning it is because you HAD to take things from the losers.
It is just the nature of things, eh? No real reason to feel too guilty about it, amiright.
Besides, if I don't do it they will do it to me.
There are "good" people, but in general people are not good--not without the existence of a cultural and economic system that basically forces them to be good (at least until they manage to corrupt it).
There is no substantive moral/ethical structure with a society to write and enforce it.
There is no arc of history bending towards a better world for all unless there is a continual effort to make that happen.
The question is not about making people better (because we can't) the question is about how do we build a system where people MUST be better--and how do we protect it from being co-opted and corrupted for as long as possible.
I think this gets to the heart of it. We're not remotely close to perfect, and any system designed by us isn't going to be perfect either. It will take constant updating and modification to keep it doing what it is supposed to do (forcing us to be good).
To me, the key is to get enough acknowledgement of this to be able to improve the system. Too bad that the truths that were self evident were all positive rather than having some negative in there.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people will seek their own and their children's advantage, almost invariably at the expense of others; that gaming the system and pulling the ladder up behind them is something most people will do if given the chance; that our tribal nature of in-group vs. out-group thinking isn't suited to societies of thousands let alone millions of people. That to guard against these tendencies Governments are instituted among people..."
TJ would need to flower that up a bit, and certainly I don't want to go down the road of man as inherently bad, but we are inherently flawed, and while it may have gone without saying 250 years ago, it could use more saying these days.
Good and bad are contextual judgments. We can only say that something is good or bad by looking at the outcome and judging that outcome WRT some goal that we have.
People are not good or bad. People are people. They behave in accordance with how they were shaped by evolution and then constrained by culture.
If the goal is to create large, powerful, equitable, and harmonious societies, then there are obvious goods and bads. Obvious positive and negative behaviors... and so we judge good and bad on THAT basis.
If the goal is to concentrate power and wealth, then there are obvious goods and bads, and we judge on THAT basis.
But without the constant dedication and watchfulness towards particular ends, an effort towards the first thing is doomed to founder on the rocks and shoals of human nature as we tend towards the second thing.