Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher
Does it seem like I'm so absolutely certain humanity is "good" in nature? Truth be told, I (and humans in general) am never certain of virtually *anything* except their own existence--the opposite would be irrationality(mentally ill). I am also not rejecting other possible explanations, what I'm try to do is create a more *optimistic* view of things for people. We've already acknowledged all the negatives but why don't we also acknowledge the positives?
Indeed, the innate nature of humanity is merely pragmatic or based on "selfish" concerns, but this is exactly what creates the "tendency of 'good' of humanity" of which I'm trying to describe. The tendency itself being natural creating *it*,"goodness", natural.
|
Since you have acknowledged and agree with me that the "innate goodness" of humanity is merely pragmatism, then what exactly about it is "innate" or "good"? Yes, perhaps it is "innate" in the sense that individual humans will naturally gravitate towards actions which is beneficial to themselves in the long run, but if the motivations of these actions are merely pragmatic and "selfish" as you may so, can you really say that it's really "goodness" as you seem to take the term to mean?
The way I see it, "goodness" is simply a
social construct, something which has meaning because it is people and society who ascribe the meaning to it, not because it is something "innate" in itself. In other words, from what you've said, does that mean you agree with my viewpoint?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xrayz0r
The theory of the social contract is always meant as a hypothesis, not an actual account of history. Rousseau wasn't the one who came up with it, he just altered it so that it was compatible with his own view on human nature, which was in fact supposed to be very noble. Given the post you quoted, I'd say you shot yourself in the foot by using Rousseau's version, instead of Hobbes', which would have supported your argument. No offense.
|
If I were attempting to prove that humanity were innately "evil" and formed the social contract because they required draconian control over their lives, then yes, you may have been right. However, I was merely attempting to put forth the viewpoint that humans are by nature "pragmatic", which is a neutral term, and not "evil", which is a negative term. Therefore, Rousseau serves my purposes quite sufficiently.
