In class on Tuesday we talked about Mill’s Racial Polity
essay. We discussed if we think people are naturally good and naturally bad,
and that is something that I think every human struggles with or asks
themselves at one point in their life. I personally side with Dr. J and
Chigozie because I just want to believe that there is good in the world. But
then you think about toddlers and how they interact with one another. They are
selfish, they don’t want to share; they hit and bite and scratch. We have to
teach them those things are bad and if do those things there are consequences
to their actions. But on the other hand you have people like Mother Teresa who
just do good things because they feel inclined to do so. The belief in God
definitely had something to do with her inclination to do those things, but her
belief didn’t make her go out and do it. She acted upon he beliefs, which not
everyone does. I mean I believe in God but I am certainly not a Mother Teresa.
There are people who believed in God and lead massacres of thousands of people.
Think about the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. If you look back on the
history of humanity, it is really hard not to think that humans are naturally
bad, but I like to believe otherwise. Children are innocent and society
corrupts them. If you meet a child they genuinely care and they are so full of
life and willing to please. Laws are put
in place to keep people in check, and I believe that our society needs them,
but I also believe that if we did not have them we could function and people wouldn’t
starve. Laws keep order because otherwise there would be mass chaos. Or would
it be?
During the discussion I thought of the book Lord of the Flies by William Golding. It
is a story about a group of schoolboys who get stuck on a deserted island and
they try to survive and govern themselves. They try to have order but there is
one boy who doesn’t like the elected leader so he makes his own tribe and they
are super violent and they end up killing one of the boys because he is too
weak. In this book survival of the fittest is clearly what the author is trying
to say, but since humans are rational and moral does survival of the fittest
apply to us?
Because humans are rational I don’t think they can live in a world without rules. This is where survival of the fittest comes into play. While there will be a chaotic period of everyone for themselves, eventually they will create some type of system. They will learn that they have a better chance of survival if they work as a group and eventually they will form some sort of organization to avoid chaos. This organization will be initiated by either the strongest or most respected individual. Then this leader will establish laws or rules either for the betterment of the group or to just secure their position at the top.
ReplyDeleteThe survival of the fittest question is definitely a difficult one. I don't want to write this and have it taken the wrong way, but here goes:
ReplyDeleteAs part of the animal kingdom, I think survival of the fittest does apply to us in our own context. Because we are rational, perhaps we put our own spin on what that might be. Historically, it seems to be those with more technology are the fittest. Those capable of crossing waters, clearing lands, and enslaving people seem to be the strongest and therefore the best fit to inhabit said land. And that is one argument pro-imperialism/pro-colonialism. Survival of the fittest was actually a justification for massacre, mass conversion, and y'know, white supremacy.
Do I agree with it, no, of course not. But did it happen? Yes, it did.
I'm currently struggling with the question of natural goodness/evil of humanity. I lean towards natural goodness, because I think I want to be optimistic in my answer. However, let me leave you with this little bit from Rousseau:
In his Emile, Rousseau makes the argument of the child-tyrant. A child, innocent, wordless, and helpless by itself, is catered to by its caretaker(s). Before coming to learn language, a child cries, waves an arm at a thing, and it is given to the child. The child associates its desire, its crying out, and its receipt of an object as a superiority complex. The child rules the world and everyone else does as it demands. However, we see the 'terrible 2s'come to fruition when the caretaker(s) no longer immediately provide for the child. The caretaker(s) encourage the child to provide for itself (in small steps, of course), and this is new to the child - it is, in fact, a challenge to its assumed authority. Once a child grows into language and its own strength, this independence is much welcomed, but the initial stages of it are considered a power struggle by the child.
I don't think this points to humans being naturally evil, but how we interact with the world is definitely subjective, through our own context. If we can see the benefit of working together, we'll work together. However, if we're stranded on an island like Lord of the Flies, I doubt we'd all band together for long. In extreme conditions, those more than likely without laws, we will take any advantage we can get. Even in this example, I still don't think it points to inherent malevolence.
While I would love to believe that all humans are innately good people who would do know wrong in a world with know laws, I personally do not think that is true. I think that everyone is born with the ability to do good and bad. If we lived in a world that did not make a distinction between right and wrong and negative consequences for those who decided not to comply with the rules, more people would do whatever they pleased whether good or bad. Even with laws in our society, we still have people who challenge or break them, subsequently, I feel as though the numbers of those doing wrong would increase if there were no laws. I also believe that laws work as a protective agent for people and if those protective laws were not in place, some people would have a hard time making it in the world. I definitely think that humans are rational with some morals and therefore survival of the fittest most definitely applies to us. I feel as though humans have a natural inclination towards success and it is understood in our society that only the people who have the means, the ambition, and the desire to succeed will do so. I think the same would hold true in a lawless society. People would do what they need to do in order to survive.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSurvival of the fittest is definitely an option for humanity without laws. In that society we can easily say that because we don't like someone, we can kill them and there wouldn't be room for remorse and mourning. I say this because in a society where his is allowed, there is an even greater fear of death. This fear as Master Yoda famously puts it, "leads to anger, which leads to hatred and eventually death and suffering." The only way we can ensure that fear can be counteracted with hope, is by having laws
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFnFr-DOPf8