We must be taught not to hate, not the reverse.

[Brown_Pride]

so let me use your example of a kid being selfish

is this behavior unique to humans alone? how is being selfish a "sin" if the behaviors that define being "selfish" are natural actions displayed by all organisms on this planet?

100% of our motives are geared toward survival? really? when you woke up today, everything you did was geared toward your survival? interesting. I think it's even more interesting you believe that 7 billion humans have the same concept of survival.

i'm not really speaking on "sin" just in motive. So don't try to drag god or religion into this. I accidentally put NON SECULAR in my original post but wanted to say secular point of view.

From secular point of view, sure everything i did this morning from the moment I opened my eyes was intended to help further my survival in one way shape or form.
Getting dressed to keep a job to feed me and mine.
Brushing my teeth, getting the kids ready for school, driving the speed limit, etc, etc, etc. all help keep me alive.

My THEORY is that yes 7 billion people, with differing definitions of survival, are all motivated to action in an attempt to further their survival...whatever they perceive that to be.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

i'm not really speaking on "sin" just in motive. So don't try to drag god or religion into this. I accidentally put NON SECULAR in my original post but wanted to say secular point of view.

From secular point of view, sure everything i did this morning from the moment I opened my eyes was intended to help further my survival in one way shape or form.
Getting dressed to keep a job to feed me and mine.
Brushing my teeth, getting the kids ready for school, driving the speed limit, etc, etc, etc. all help keep me alive.

My THEORY is that yes 7 billion people, with differing definitions of survival, are all motivated to action in an attempt to further their survival...whatever they perceive that to be.

I don't understand how there can be different definitions of survival. What you're describing are ways to enhance your quality of life.

I didn't drag God or religion into it. You very clearly stated you believed in being born with sin. But then you very clearly stead your opinion in the post was secular. No problems there at all. But then you rounded your post out by saying "you have to be taught to be generous."

I don't think that's true. I think from a purely survival perspective, we are biologically generous. Humans are social creatures. We don't live life like leopards or great whites. Our ancestors could not survive like this.

What you're looking for here is morality, ethics, social norms etc. And even then, those ideas and concepts change from population to population. They are social constructs that have been developed for millions of years.

 

[Brown_Pride]

I don't understand how there can be different definitions of survival. What you're describing are ways to enhance your quality of life.

well if we take the generic view of survival, namely NOT DYING, then survival is pretty cut and dry. So let's go with that. Wasn't it you that questioned 7 billion people have the same concept of survival?

The things i described were not quality of life they were survival based. If i dont' work i don't eat, if I don't dress well, i get fired and I don't work. Ergo me getting ready pays dividends towards my survival.

Quality of life is a byproduct of survival, you can't have a quality life without life in the first place.

I didn't drag God or religion into it. You very clearly stated you believed in being born with sin. But then you very clearly stead your opinion in the post was secular. No problems there at all. But then you rounded your post out by saying "you have to be taught to be generous."

Generosity is not religious...is it? Just so we're clear and it sounds like were in agreement on this we can keep religion out of this convo.

I don't think that's true. I think from a purely survival perspective, we are biologically generous. Humans are social creatures. We don't live life like leopards or great whites. Our ancestors could not survive like this.

you said it perfectly though. We are this way because if we weren't we wouldn't survive. Our ancestors learned that getting together in a pack increased chances of survival, hunting was easier, fighting off others was easier, etc, etc. the goal though was survival and as a means to that end humans are generous, it's a learned trait, a taught trait.

What you're looking for here is morality, ethics, social norms etc. And even then, those ideas and concepts change from population to population. They are social constructs that have been developed for millions of years.

I agree generosity can be a social norm. I'm not talking about morality though. Who's to say being stingy isn't moral? Do i split my last piece of bread with a stranger or keep it for myself...when survival is the ultimate goal?

Perhaps the words greedy and generous are misleading here? Is it greedy to want to live? Is it greedy to want to live if your survival comes that the expense of another? What obligation would i have to share my last piece of bread with a stranger? Does sharing it mean we're born compassionate/generous? Does not sharing it mean we're greedy...or that we just want to survive?

I still believe, and not religiously but just based on what i've seen of humans, that we're inherently self serving and that's motivated by our desire to survive, which can often lead to not sharing the bread...

 

[88m3]

Yeah you better teach me not to hate.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

well if we take the generic view of survival, namely NOT DYING, then survival is pretty cut and dry. So let's go with that. Wasn't it you that questioned 7 billion people have the same concept of survival?

The things i described were not quality of life they were survival based. If i dont' work i don't eat, if I don't dress well, i get fired and I don't work. Ergo me getting ready pays dividends towards my survival.

Eh you're still missing the point between survival and quality of life. You go to your job, so you can have a certain standard of living. You don't HAVE to go to work to eat. You CHOOSE to go to work to eat because you don't know & you don't want to find any other way of consuming food. You could get your Davy Crockett on lol….nothing is "stopping" you beside your social construct

That was my point about 7billion people having the same concept of survival. To you going to work is survival. For someone in a 3rd country, who doesn't have a "job" the concept of survival is completely different. And it's different because we keep talking about it through a cultural lens. All that does is make your point look self centered and narrow minded. Hence why I reversed back into the true, natural sense of the word "survival."

I agree generosity can be a social norm. I'm not talking about morality though. Who's to say being stingy isn't moral? Do i split my last piece of bread with a stranger or keep it for myself...when survival is the ultimate goal?

I honestly do believe at a purely natural level, being stingy is a moral right. And my main reason for thinking this, is because of the norms that different organisms have established over the ages.

First not OVER complicate things, it really depends on what item said organism is being stingy about. If we're talking strictly humans, and strictly in a natural state, being stingy about not splitting your last piece of bread is not "stingy." It's stingy because after we created agriculture, the only reason one would not share is because they were hoarding. So I guess what I'm saying is, when we're discussing someone being stingy, we're really arguing about the abundance or lack of resources.

Perhaps the words greedy and generous are misleading here? Is it greedy to want to live? Is it greedy to want to live if your survival comes that the expense of another? What obligation would i have to share my last piece of bread with a stranger? Does sharing it mean we're born compassionate/generous? Does not sharing it mean we're greedy...or that we just want to survive?

I still believe, and not religiously but just based on what i've seen of humans, that we're inherently self serving and that's motivated by our desire to survive, which can often lead to not sharing the bread...

I think its completely natural to survive at the expense of another person. But what we're really trying to figure out is if empathy is a natural part of being human. I would argue, that the perfect way to answer this question is by observing any parent to child relationship in the wild. That's a selfless bond that cannot be questioned.

 

[Brown_Pride]

Eh you're still missing the point between survival and quality of life. You go to your job, so you can have a certain standard of living. You don't HAVE to go to work to eat. You CHOOSE to go to work to eat because you don't know & you don't want to find any other way of consuming food. You could get your Davy Crockett on lol….nothing is "stopping" you beside your social construct

That was my point about 7billion people having the same concept of survival. To you going to work is survival. For someone in a 3rd country, who doesn't have a "job" the concept of survival is completely different. And it's different because we keep talking about it through a cultural lens. All that does is make your point look self centered and narrow minded. Hence why I reversed back into the true, natural sense of the word "survival."

I agree that culture adjusts what survival means in terms of accomplishing that goal. In other words TO ME survival is getting and keeping employment, to someone in a 3rd world country survival is getting and keeping food. Regardless of the means to that ends the motivating factor is survival. That is mainly my point. The motivating drive in most of what we do is survival...in whatever shape or form we deem best or most suited and yes that is heavily influenced by our society.

I honestly do believe at a purely natural level, being stingy is a moral right. And my main reason for thinking this, is because of the norms that different organisms have established over the ages.

I'd tend to agree, which is my main point. Selfishness is at the core of who we are as organisms, ergo the need to teach children NOT to be what their biology is telling them to be.

First not OVER complicate things, it really depends on what item said organism is being stingy about. If we're talking strictly humans, and strictly in a natural state, being stingy about not splitting your last piece of bread is not "stingy." It's stingy because after we created agriculture, the only reason one would not share is because they were hoarding. So I guess what I'm saying is, when we're discussing someone being stingy, we're really arguing about the abundance or lack of resources.

yes but what is the underlining motivation for that action? I'd say it is when someone is just being what and who humans, and honestly all organisms, are programmed to be, selfish and self preserving.

I think its completely natural to survive at the expense of another person. But what we're really trying to figure out is if empathy is a natural part of being human. I would argue, that the perfect way to answer this question is by observing any parent to child relationship in the wild. That's a selfless bond that cannot be questioned.

Even here you could say that the only reason we watch for our young is to preserve our genes, which is in and of itself selfish. Think, what benefit does having kids provide parents?