Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jack Rabbit

(45,984 posts)
54. I don't quite agree, but yours is a lot closer to my point of view than Ayn Rand's nonsense
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 05:03 PM
Aug 2014

My view of the world is through the lens of Rousseau, specifically his dichotomy of the natural and social orders of things.

Our species is not cursed with original sin, as Christian doctrine holds, but there is certainly no evidence of the opposite, perhaps we should call it original virtue, which seems good for selling overpriced paperbacks in a new age bookstore, but little else. Since I've mention Ayn Rand, an overrated hack novelist and quack philosopher, her ideas about human nature are closer to the Christian doctrine of original sin, except that she thinks that the emotions and behavior Christians enumerate as sins are virtues.

To give that lady her due, however, greed and selfishness do fill a positive role, along with some of our more aggressive traits that get out of hand too often. If we were created by a god, then it created us, like it created every other species, to survive for at least for time on this planet while it is still inhabitable.

Nevertheless, Ms Rand's view of human nature is at best a half truth. Her heroes are "born without the ability to feel others." Such a person usually ends up committing criminal acts, like a serial killer. If her novels don't ring true to most of us, that is the reason: her heroes aren't like most of us, and we don't hold them up as people to be admired. That ability to feel others is as much a natural part of us as greed, selfishness and aggressive behavior. Primitive humans live in groups and hunt in packs. A human with no ability to feel others would not survive very long in a state of nature. He would be a lone hunter. No one would do his hunting for him or look after his health if he were laid up for a while with the flu or if he catches a cold that digresses into pneumonia. He might pass on his genes if he can find a mate who's as sick as he is, as happens in Ms Rand's novels such as, for instance, with Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged.

While it is true that we can be characterized as being greedy and selfish, there is a reason we don't often think that those are part of our better nature. Humans are also, by nature, a social animal. By nature, we reach out to our fellow humans. One can call that empathy. It's a good word for it, although I think empathy means something more, something less clinical or academic, but something warmer. If we didn't do that, we would have become extinct long ago. A slow runner (compared to a hungry leopard) and poor tree climber (compared to a frightened monkey) had to have something else going for it in order to have been as successful as we have been. A good part of this might have been that magnificent brain of ours.

Do I hear the Objectivists chortling? Do they really think a lone human hunter could have survived in a state of nature more than a winter or two by himself and his brain? No, he would not have. He would not have lived long enough to become a hunter. Most of human cerebral development takes place outside the womb, after birth. Our childhood comprises about the first 20% of our life span. It is necessary for our survival to the age of puberty that we be nurtured by other, older humans. Again, it is natural for humans to live in groups. If it were not, few of us would survive childhood and the likelihood we would be extinct by now would be rather high. Therefore, we have the family, the village, the tribe, the community, or if one wishes to use some more general term, society. Human society cannot be separated from our nature. It is part of us.

True, it comes at a cost, such as limitations on individual freedom. Part of that limitation is what we call morality, that is, the rules by which we agree to live in a particular group. Believers in the Abrahamic god assert that morality comes from their god. I don't agree with them. People who have never heard of that particular god still live in groups that have rules by which they live. A society could not function well if we allowed any individual to resolve a dispute with another by killing him. Nobody needs a god to furnish a prophet with a stone tablet saying so in order to know this. Even Pharaoh, who most certainly did not believe in the Abrahamic god, enforced laws prohibiting murder and theft.

Morality, in my view, grows out of a social pragmatism growing, in turn, from our natural need to live in groups. I don't think that need is the same thing as empathy, but it is related to it. Empathy is something like an elaboration on that need. We don't really need empathy for survival, but it makes the world a more pleasant place.

all gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. hobbit709 Aug 2014 #1
Heinlein Android3.14 Aug 2014 #17
Not the ones I allow to play in my sandbox tavalon Aug 2014 #72
^== Wow. IdaBriggs Aug 2014 #89
Just look at Trelane. Archae Aug 2014 #76
I totally agree with you! Delmette Aug 2014 #2
Welcome to DU, Delmette! calimary Aug 2014 #59
ABSOLUTELY correct! elleng Aug 2014 #3
Thank you! That's a great answer. Arkansas Granny Aug 2014 #4
And it is only their religion too not even just being religious . They like to decide what is lunasun Aug 2014 #5
I don't know what makes people behave well, but I know that some people merrily Aug 2014 #6
But if you base your morality on fear of Hell, and your "good works" on getting you into Heaven, maddiemom Aug 2014 #46
Most religions, especially chritianity offer a smorgasboard of morals allowing believers to A Simple Game Aug 2014 #90
No, you're right on the money Warpy Aug 2014 #7
^ nt littlemissmartypants Aug 2014 #75
Exactly correct cpwm17 Aug 2014 #8
You are correct. djean111 Aug 2014 #9
What, you want people running around Jackpine Radical Aug 2014 #24
I think we worship corporate logos now. :-O djean111 Aug 2014 #28
That secular=immoral bullshit was just posted in an OP on good ol' progressive DU. Arugula Latte Aug 2014 #10
Richard Dawkins actually is a total dickhead. Crunchy Frog Aug 2014 #47
Stole my line Prophet 451 Aug 2014 #127
"Bigoted" seems a bit of a stretch. bvf Aug 2014 #73
I think he's honest to a fault.. defacto7 Aug 2014 #82
I agree. Uncle Joe Aug 2014 #11
Acts of faith... dangin Aug 2014 #12
Absolutely. There is now plenty of social cognitive neuroscience to back you up on this. n/t RufusTFirefly Aug 2014 #13
What if we figured out a drug that we could give to people to make them feel empathy. Yavin4 Aug 2014 #22
Apparently we already have one - MDMA. GliderGuider Aug 2014 #34
It sounds right, but defacto7 Aug 2014 #84
Interesting question Prophet 451 Aug 2014 #128
re: "We've seen devoutly religious people commit all manner of horrific acts" thesquanderer Aug 2014 #14
some religious people azureblue Aug 2014 #83
“Kindness should become the natural way of life, not the exception.” ― Gautama Buddha Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2014 #15
Relevant quote: trotsky Aug 2014 #16
And religion is a great tool for the destruction of empathy. Bluenorthwest Aug 2014 #18
You Are Correct, Sir or Madam! cer7711 Aug 2014 #19
A quote from a Professor I had way back in 1975.......... mrmpa Aug 2014 #20
Where do morals come from? Puzzledtraveller Aug 2014 #21
Agree. phil89 Aug 2014 #23
Morals are socially constructed. Iron Man Aug 2014 #25
Morals are innate in the same way language is bhikkhu Aug 2014 #79
Morals are not innate. Iron Man Aug 2014 #109
The details vary, but morality itself is innate in every individual bhikkhu Aug 2014 #119
You're wrong. Iron Man Aug 2014 #122
Without social interaction, a developing mind withers bhikkhu Aug 2014 #129
No, you are absolutely right n/t War Horse Aug 2014 #26
You are right. In facts, some religions interfere with natural empathy. Lex Aug 2014 #27
I think Abe Lincoln said: "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my rhett o rick Aug 2014 #29
Love this! passiveporcupine Aug 2014 #58
That sums up my sentiments exactly. SunSeeker Aug 2014 #116
Religion is a scam, but JEB Aug 2014 #30
Religion is a threat and a control tool NightWatcher Aug 2014 #43
Well said. nt raccoon Aug 2014 #48
"Control tool" -- Yes, this. Arugula Latte Aug 2014 #50
Ina society without the threat of hell for doing bad deeds treestar Aug 2014 #88
Correct! I'm not religious. As I've explained in RL, I don't get my morals from religion, I ChisolmTrailDem Aug 2014 #31
Religion = the maniipulation of the masses ReRe Aug 2014 #32
Adam Smith certainly thought so. rogerashton Aug 2014 #33
I hope there are other factors to depend on beyond either religion or empathy TheKentuckian Aug 2014 #35
Yes! I was raised with an excellent moral compus, but very little religion. maddiemom Aug 2014 #36
You're correct. The lack of empathy is very apparent in people like Huck. sinkingfeeling Aug 2014 #37
It's amazing that someone would actually believe that Dont call me Shirley Aug 2014 #38
absolutely right! bigtonka Aug 2014 #39
Empathy is subjective. Morality, if it has any claim upon a person, is not. nt Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2014 #40
Christianity started with a murder albino65 Aug 2014 #41
No, you are not wrong. hamsterjill Aug 2014 #42
And what does that tell you about some religions where everywhere in their texts it.... Tikki Aug 2014 #44
Empathy seems a mammalian trait to me... ymetca Aug 2014 #45
Congratulations. what are you going to do Tribalceltic Aug 2014 #49
You are correct. Helen Borg Aug 2014 #51
You're absolutely right IMO. bvf Aug 2014 #52
Often Christian morals are founded on fear of punishment instead of empathy. Kablooie Aug 2014 #53
They may not be inherently immoral in the absence bvf Aug 2014 #67
I don't quite agree, but yours is a lot closer to my point of view than Ayn Rand's nonsense Jack Rabbit Aug 2014 #54
Socialism existed in various human societies around the globe long before Karl Marx Yavin4 Aug 2014 #60
It's very primitive socialism, suited to hunter/gatherer societies. Jack Rabbit Aug 2014 #62
Here's religious "morals." Group suicide of more than 900 people, Jonestown: blkmusclmachine Aug 2014 #55
^ http://www.kk.org/truefilms/archives/Jonestown1.jpg ^ blkmusclmachine Aug 2014 #56
I can only rec this thread once, goddamit! Iggo Aug 2014 #57
I'll go you one better, religions are based on morals... Spitfire of ATJ Aug 2014 #61
That was well put. flying rabbit Aug 2014 #63
You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! nt LiberalElite Aug 2014 #64
The human species has survived because of cooperation. From birth, we're dependent valerief Aug 2014 #65
I like that, Yavin.. simple and true. Cha Aug 2014 #66
You're not wrong at all EvolveOrConvolve Aug 2014 #68
I think morality is innate in the human heart, something everyone is born with. Voice for Peace Aug 2014 #69
And Japan has a small fraction of the crime our Christian nation does. ErikJ Aug 2014 #70
I totally agree with the OP however comparing Japan to the US on this issue snagglepuss Aug 2014 #92
I have said this here before...empathy develops vanlassie Aug 2014 #71
organized religion has never been about morals, it is about convincing the masses to whereisjustice Aug 2014 #74
You should look up the word "empathy" flvegan Aug 2014 #77
True - morality is a universal human characteristic bhikkhu Aug 2014 #78
And real religion is based on empathy, too MannyGoldstein Aug 2014 #80
Bollocks. All religions talk a good talk but where is that stellar empathy when snagglepuss Aug 2014 #93
Hence the "real" in my title MannyGoldstein Aug 2014 #110
But real Judaism has a god that promotes warfare, who frames the world snagglepuss Aug 2014 #118
What is there to interpret? MannyGoldstein Aug 2014 #124
A big argument between men. Where's the voice of women? That said I do esteem the value snagglepuss Aug 2014 #130
I think most of it started as a means of control. Arugula Latte Aug 2014 #132
correct, and-- azureblue Aug 2014 #81
I don't think you are wrong. defacto7 Aug 2014 #85
nope. you're right. barbtries Aug 2014 #86
You are not wrong. Kicked and recommended. Enthusiast Aug 2014 #87
I agree ChristianSocialist Aug 2014 #91
We definitely should abolish faith-based funding and there s/b no restrictions valerief Aug 2014 #100
So, what if empathy isn't that common, really? malthaussen Aug 2014 #94
Your argument proves my point Yavin4 Aug 2014 #98
So true, hifiguy Aug 2014 #95
No. Need both. We know some lack empathy. Festivito Aug 2014 #96
You don't need religion for that. Hissyspit Aug 2014 #107
Neither you nor the op describe what is needed. Festivito Aug 2014 #111
Religion has nothing to do with morality. Arugula Latte Aug 2014 #112
How about: yes, it does. Festivito Aug 2014 #121
Uhhh yeeeeah. No. Arugula Latte Aug 2014 #123
Uhhh, yeeeeeah, yes. Festivito Aug 2014 #125
And the immoral aspects of religions? Hissyspit Aug 2014 #117
Religions can become corrupted. Festivito Aug 2014 #120
Absolutely true! Maineman Aug 2014 #97
To be fair, there are positive examples of religions as well. Yavin4 Aug 2014 #99
If you want to prove it, just ask a relgious person why they don't stone their neighbor for Marr Aug 2014 #101
Morals are an expression of our investing in people, DesertFaux Aug 2014 #102
You are so true!! Perfect! hue Aug 2014 #103
Yes you are wrong.. LW1977 Aug 2014 #104
How is he wrong? Hissyspit Aug 2014 #106
Pat Robertson is religious. Arugula Latte Aug 2014 #113
Empathy is what Christianity's "Golden Rule" tries (and fails) to inculcate. SunSeeker Aug 2014 #105
Morals are based on empathy not religion The CCC Aug 2014 #108
I'd agree. Some of the most Christian people I have met aren't Christians. raouldukelives Aug 2014 #114
Exactly right . Empathy was expressed in the saying by Jesus " do unto others as you would have them geretogo Aug 2014 #115
No, you're not wrong Prophet 451 Aug 2014 #126
You are not wrong fadedrose Aug 2014 #131
... napkinz Aug 2014 #133
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Morals are based on empat...»Reply #54