• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

What is human nature? v. And are we innately evil?

humans are by far the most altruistic animals on the planet, for what it's worth

I'd like to see your evidence for this.

As to the OP, "evil" is a concept and it's not the same for everyone as can be seen by the replies. Therefore IMO it has little real meaning outside of the subjective. Same with all the rest of our concepts. We are continually fooled by language, mistaking it for reality.
 
In biology, altruism refers to behaviour by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing the fitness of the actor.[1] Altruism in this sense is different from the philosophical concept of altruism, in which an action would only be called "altruistic" if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another. In the behavioural sense, there is no such requirement. As such, it is not evaluated in moral terms—it is the consequences of an action for reproductive fitness that determine whether the action is considered altruistic, not the intentions, if any, with which the action is performed

All biologists accept that Homo sapiens is an evolved species, and thus that general evolutionary principles apply to it. However, human behaviour is obviously influenced by culture to a far greater extent than that of other animals, and is often the product of conscious beliefs and desires (though this does not necessarily mean that genetics has no influence.) Nonetheless, at least some human behaviour does seem to fit the predictions of the evolutionary theories reviewed above. In general, humans behave more altruistically (in the biological sense) towards their close kin than towards non-relatives, e.g. by helping relatives raise their children, just as kin selection theory would predict. It is also true that we tend to help those who have helped us out in the past, just as reciprocal altruism theory would predict. On the other hand, humans are unique in that we co-operate extensively with our non-kin; and more generally, numerous human behaviours seem anomalous from the point of view of biological fitness. Think for example of adoption. Parents who adopt children instead of having their own reduce their biological fitness, obviously, so adoption is an altruistic behaviour. But it is does not benefit kin—for parents are generally unrelated to the infants they adopt—and nor do the parents stand to gain much in the form of reciprocal benefits. So although evolutionary considerations can help us understand some human behaviours, they must be applied judiciously.
-Biological Altruism

also, humans routinely act altruistically towards other species - almost unknown in other animals.
 
Other animals are structureally incacble of altruism. Not even in zoos. Flags.
 
huh? interestingly, one of the most studied species for altruism is the vampire bat

Vampire bats form strong bonds with other members of the colony. A related unique adaptation of vampire bats is the sharing of food. A vampire bat can only survive about two days without a meal of blood, yet they cannot be guaranteed of finding food every night. This poses a problem, so when a bat fails to find food, it will often "beg" another bat for food. A "donor" bat may regurgitate a small amount of blood to sustain the other member of the colony. For equally familiar bats, the predictive capacity of reciprocity surpasses that of relatedness.[12] This finding suggests that vampire bats are capable of preferentially aiding their relatives, but that they may benefit more from forming reciprocal, cooperative relationships with relatives and non-relatives alike.[12] Furthermore, donor bats were more likely to approach starving bats and initiate the food sharing. These findings contradict the harassment hypothesis—which claims that individuals share food in order to limit harassment by begging individuals.[12] All considered, vampire bat research should be interpreted cautiously as much of the evidence is correlational and still requires further testing

We conclude that social interactions between captive, socially acclimatized adult male vampire bats in non-crowded conditions are much more frequent and varied than previously reported or supposed, and that adult males participate in reciprocal altruistic food sharing
-Reciprocal altruism between male vampire bats, Desmohs votundus

okay, i cited a ref from a peer reviewed journal. i have no idea what you mean by 'structurally incapable' or 'flags'.
 
Thats pretty interesting. In many ways I feel animals other than humans are instinctively more altruistic but as far as we know we are alone in the ability to use language, develop complex societies, and have enough awareness of our place as a species to contemplate the benefits of helping our fellow man.
 
we are alone in the ability to use language, develop complex societies, and have enough awareness of our place as a species to contemplate the benefits of helping our fellow man.

I don't think that's true. I don't have sources/references handy, but I believe there are many animals who have societies, hierarchy, use some sort of language and participate in altruistic activities.
 
Yes, but they lack any real groups, institutions etc. expressly concerned with the welfare of their fellow kind. Despite me not thinking we are special, humans are unique. We have reached the stage where simply concerning ourselves with the welfare of others can be done without benefiting those who help. It would be a good way to get killed if most animals could do this.
 
Humans have definitely gone much farther as far as intelligence goes, but I believe the basic principles are still shared between us and other close animals.
 
We are animals. But while our intelligence is what got us here, the fact that we do not have to fight for survival allows more for our altruism than others. Not the biological altruism tantric wrote about, but simple care for cares sake. I guess I am saying there is only one species with a notion of being altruistic that is not directly tied to survival or reproducing.
 
I guess I am saying there is only one species with a notion of being altruistic that is not directly tied to survival or reproducing.

Perhaps. I still think the altruism humans show is a result of pseudoaltruism tied to survival and reproducing. I have to think about it, however.
 
Thats pretty interesting. In many ways I feel animals other than humans are instinctively more altruistic but as far as we know we are alone in the ability to use language, develop complex societies, and have enough awareness of our place as a species to contemplate the benefits of helping our fellow man.

well...no.

language...
Alex [the african grey parrot] had a vocabulary of over 100 words,[14] but was exceptional in that he appeared to have understanding of what he said. For example, when Alex was shown an object and was asked about its shape, color, or material, he could label it correctly.[12] He could describe a key as a key no matter what its size or color, and could determine how the key was different from others.[5] Looking at a mirror, he said "what color", and learned "grey" after being told "grey" six times.[15] This either made him the first and only non-human animal to have ever asked an existential question (apes who have been trained to use sign-language have so far failed to ever ask a single question), or his parroting the question phrase was very luckily situated.[16]
Alex was said to have understood the turn-taking of communication and sometimes the syntax used in language.[11] He called an apple a "banerry" (pronounced as rhyming with some pronunciations of "canary"), which a linguist friend of Pepperberg's thought to be a combination of "banana" and "cherry", two fruits he was more familiar with.[15]

complex societies...
Like other macaques, rhesus troops comprise a mixture of 20–200 males and females.[19] Females may outnumber the males by a ratio of 4:1. Males and females both have separate hierarchies. Female philopatry, common among social mammals, has been extensively studied in rhesus macaques. Females tend not to leave the social group, and have highly stable matrilineal hierarchies in which a female’s rank is dependent on the rank of her mother. In addition, a single group may have multiple matrilineal lines existing in a hierarchy, and a female outranks any unrelated females that rank lower than her mother.[20] Rhesus macaques are unusual in that the youngest females tend to outrank their older sisters.[21] This is likely because young females are more fit and fertile. Mothers seem to prevent the older daughters from forming coalitions against her.[clarification needed] The youngest daughter is the most dependent on the mother, and would have nothing to gain from helping her siblings in overthrowing their mother. Since each daughter had a high rank in her early years, rebelling against her mother is discouraged.[22] Juvenile male macaques also exist in matrilineal lines, but once they reach four to five years of age, they are driven out of their natal groups by the dominant male. Thus, adult males gain dominance by age and experience.[15]
In the group, macaques position themselves based on rank. The "central male subgroup" contains the two or three oldest and most dominant males which are codominant, along with females, their infants, and juveniles. This subgroup occupies the center of the group and determines the movements, foraging, and other routines.[15] The females of this subgroup are also the most dominant of the entire group. The farther to the periphery a subgroup is, the less dominant it is. Subgroups on the periphery of the central group are run by one dominant male, of a rank lower than the central males, and he maintains order in the group, and communicates messages between the central and peripheral males. A subgroup of subordinate, often subadult, males occupy the very edge of the groups, and have the responsibility of communicating with other macaque groups and making alarm calls.[23] Rhesus social behaviour has been described as despotic, in that high-ranking individuals show little tolerance and frequent and often severe aggression towards non-kin.[24]

Elephants are the only species of mammals other than Homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals[citation needed] known to have or have had any recognizable ritual around death. They (elephants) show a keen interest in the bones of their own kind (even unrelated elephants that have died long ago). They are often seen gently investigating the bones with their trunks and feet while remaining very quiet. Sometimes elephants that are completely unrelated to the deceased still visit their graves.[15]
Elephant researcher Martin Meredith recalls in his book an occurrence of a typical elephant death ritual as witnessed by Anthony Hall-Martin, a South African biologist who had studied elephants in Addo, South Africa, for over eight years. The entire family of a dead matriarch, including her young calf, were all gently touching her body with their trunks, trying to lift her. The elephant herd were all rumbling loudly. The calf was observed to be weeping and made sounds that sounded like a scream, but then the entire herd fell incredibly silent. They then began to throw leaves and dirt over the body and broke off tree branches to cover her. They spent the next two days quietly standing over her body. They sometimes had to leave to get water or food, but they would always return
 
I have no comment on the parrot except to say he asked an existenstial question is a leap. But Ive never seen that before so will leave it at that.

I am aware that animals form social groups and can communicate. Show me one that can contemplate and successfully express their thoughts about altruism or anything else and I would be happy to give up the uniqueness of humanity.

Chimps have been observed mourning the dead too and are a hell of a lot closer to humans than elephants. They also have been observed to not share with their own offspring and vice versa. Im not suggesting animals are not capable of altruism or other traits that seem to be human, just their motivation is different.
 
Humans are capable of horrific acts no other animal would consider. That's unique lol.

There's elephants and whales and dolphins etc to consider also. And expressing thoughts on altruism and being altruistic are very different things. As to the uniqueness of humans that's a given because we are a separate species, which makes all other species unique.

Still would like to see some proofs about the superior altruistic nature of humans over all other animals.
 
I have no comment on the parrot except to say he asked an existenstial question is a leap. But Ive never seen that before so will leave it at that.

I am aware that animals form social groups and can communicate. Show me one that can contemplate and successfully express their thoughts about altruism or anything else and I would be happy to give up the uniqueness of humanity.

Chimps have been observed mourning the dead too and are a hell of a lot closer to humans than elephants. They also have been observed to not share with their own offspring and vice versa. Im not suggesting animals are not capable of altruism or other traits that seem to be human, just their motivation is different.

mmmm - in the evolutionary scheme of things, what you think about your actions is completely irrelevant. i don't mean that in a snarky way. the only way what you think matters is how it affects your reproductive fitness - the only reason we can think is because at some point it helped our ancestors reproduce. what if your motivations are just a trick your brain plays to get you to perform a certain way? do you know that pigeons have superstitions? if you set up a machine to randomly drop a food pellet to the pigeons, they will train themselves to do little rituals - whatever they were doing before the completely random event happened.

just watch this video: LeopardGrief
 
But our reproductive fitness is innately tied to our ability to think and learn in ways no other living thing displays. It is irrelevent to all other species just as the instinct of wildebeast to form herds is irrelevent to us. But we did not become the most dominant, adaptable, wide-spread animal for no reason (we can debate the merits of our dominance elsewhere). We arent the biggest, strongest, or fastest. We are, and by a large margin, the smartest. With this, we have been able to defeat the normal existence of most living things and not have to really worry about other species either killing us or competing for resources. And with that out of the way, it is only humans that developed morality, social norms, culture hell even the concept that we have a mind, all which have been instrumental in our success. With this we are the only things we know of that do not need provocation, or mutualism or anything else to help those of our like that are less fortunate. Of course, it was evolution that got us here, but our path, as I said was unique.
 
Yes, but they lack any real groups, institutions etc. expressly concerned with the welfare of their fellow kind. Despite me not thinking we are special, humans are unique. We have reached the stage where simply concerning ourselves with the welfare of others can be done without benefiting those who help. It would be a good way to get killed if most animals could do this.

Dolphins are a notable exception. They have a complex communication system (larger language centers than us), and form close groups. There have been many cases of dolphins grouping together to help humans in trouble in the water, even if it means fending off sharks.

I think humans have it in them to be remarkably altruistic, however we also have it in us to be horrific to one another and other life forms. I think it's a combination of your own unique makeup (some people are sociopathic for example), and the way you were raised and your cultural context you choose to identify with.
 
Dont go all Douglass Adams on me, Xorkoth. :)

I thought about dolphins. Its just so hard to judge anything of real value from their communication ability because we dont fully understand it. I am open to these things, would welcome them actually, but havent seen enough proof.
 
being the smartest got us to neanderthal. altruism got us here - by domesticating other species
 
But our reproductive fitness is innately tied to our ability to think and learn in ways no other living thing displays. It is irrelevent to all other species just as the instinct of wildebeast to form herds is irrelevent to us. But we did not become the most dominant, adaptable, wide-spread animal for no reason (we can debate the merits of our dominance elsewhere). We arent the biggest, strongest, or fastest. We are, and by a large margin, the smartest. With this, we have been able to defeat the normal existence of most living things and not have to really worry about other species either killing us or competing for resources. And with that out of the way, it is only humans that developed morality, social norms, culture hell even the concept that we have a mind, all which have been instrumental in our success. With this we are the only things we know of that do not need provocation, or mutualism or anything else to help those of our like that are less fortunate. Of course, it was evolution that got us here, but our path, as I said was unique.

Put just a little survival pressure on a human group and you will for the most part see altruism disappear outside the family or group. So what is it's real worth? Almost all animals will protect their offspring even if it means their death. So it seems to me that altruism is a pretty flimsy attribute. In fact I predict we will see it's lack of value to humans as global warming really gets up and running.

Many species have a unique evolutionary path in some aspect so...

It's interesting that when well fed many carnivores become gentle and friendly. It may be the advent of farming more than anything that contributes to altruism.
 
Last edited:
Top