Humanity

[kill4joy KJ]

Hobbes and Locke are two of the most famous philosophers in human history. They both take a strong stand on the nature of humanity, whether it is good(kind, civilized) or bad(brutish, uncivilized). Both stands bring amazing points which are still debated today, although in american society we usually take the side of Locke. In spite of this, one cannot argue that without certain restrictions of freedoms we would live in total anarchy.

So for this debate I would like to discuss the following:

• Is the human race inherently good or bad?
  
• In our current society, do we live by Hobbe's or Locke's philosophy?
  
• Where should one draw the line between freedom and law?
  
  

 

[Nestea]

Not much of a point here, but my opinion is Humans are a plague on the Earth.

 

[Infamous_mybb_import16109]

Humanity is to the earth as a parasite is to the creature; we're sucking it dry. We should convert to mutual-ism!

 

[kill4joy KJ]

Humanity is to the earth as a parasite is to the creature; we're sucking it dry. We should convert to mutual-ism!

Hmm, thats not really at all what I was talking about, but interesting point.

 

[Buddy_mybb_import10515]

• Is the human race inherently good or bad?

To put such ease into a question is to really deny what it is, in it's purest form. Is the human race good or evil? To answer that we would have to know, or at least be able to guess with a rational opinion, what good and evil are. We would then have to prove that our definition fit examples of what the two are. Even then, though. Is good and evil something that can truly be defined? Societies change morals and adapt them to their present state. What, then, of the question at hand?

• In our current society, do we live by Hobbe's or Locke's philosophy?

Locke argues that man cannot know good or evil. He says that, in our natural state, we are something of a peaceful race. Only in societies that shove us in other directions do we stray from that peacefulness. On the other hand, Hobbes say that man, in his natural state, is a brutish creature. Not a peaceful race at all, but bent on the ideals of a savage animal. This is where it takes a turn, but knowledge, to Locke, is well enough to know what is right and wrong. Still, though, we do not know good and evil, we know bits of what is good and evil. Which would go back to what Plato says about the difference between knowledge and right opinion vs. not having knowledge. Hobbes, on the other hand, is convinced that man is inherently evil. He says that there is no such thing as morality. There is no such thing as order and structure. There is only society and what it tells you is right and wrong.

With that being said, both philosophies pose great points and have real life evidence to support them. Not one man is right, but all men hold a piece of truth. In my personal opinion, Locke's theories fit the mold more closely than Hobbes's.

• Where should one draw the line between freedom and law?

Who is to say that there is a line between freedom and law? To say that there is would require the definition of freedom. Is there a definition, or is personal freedom entirely subjective?

 

[kill4joy KJ]

• Is the human race inherently good or bad?

To put such ease into a question is to really deny what it is, in it's purest form. Is the human race good or evil? To answer that we would have to know, or at least be able to guess with a rational opinion, what good and evil are. We would then have to prove that our definition fit examples of what the two are. Even then, though. Is good and evil something that can truly be defined? Societies change morals and adapt them to their present state. What, then, of the question at hand?

• In our current society, do we live by Hobbe's or Locke's philosophy?

Locke argues that man cannot know good or evil. He says that, in our natural state, we are something of a peaceful race. Only in societies that shove us in other directions do we stray from that peacefulness. On the other hand, Hobbes say that man, in his natural state, is a brutish creature. Not a peaceful race at all, but bent on the ideals of a savage animal. This is where it takes a turn, but knowledge, to Locke, is well enough to know what is right and wrong. Still, though, we do not know good and evil, we know bits of what is good and evil. Which would go back to what Plato says about the difference between knowledge and right opinion vs. not having knowledge. Hobbes, on the other hand, is convinced that man is inherently evil. He says that there is no such thing as morality. There is no such thing as order and structure. There is only society and what it tells you is right and wrong.

With that being said, both philosophies pose great points and have real life evidence to support them. Not one man is right, but all men hold a piece of truth. In my personal opinion, Locke's theories fit the mold more closely than Hobbes's.

• Where should one draw the line between freedom and law?

Who is to say that there is a line between freedom and law? To say that there is would require the definition of freedom. Is there a definition, or is personal freedom entirely subjective?

The only thing I am going to comment on is that last bit, in my personal opinion, freedom is the right to do something. For example, the freedom of speech(the right to speak about whatever one pleases). So the more freedoms you have, the more rights you have. It could be the freedom to kill, but that is where law steps in and regulates it. Other societies and stricter laws, while the US is considered to be more lenient. But the question is, is the US too lenient?

 

[Buddy_mybb_import10515]

Well, when you narrow something down, it's easily to reflect upon. The freedom to talk freely. The freedom to walk freely. Like Plato would say, though. Is the freedom of speech freedom, or is it a part of freedom?

Here's a small quote from the Meno.

It follows, then, from what you agree, that to do whatever we do along with a bit of virtue is virtue; for you to say justice is a bit of virtue, and so with each of those bits. Well, why do I say this? Because when I begged you to tell me what whole virtue is, instead of telling me that you say that every action is virtue if it be done with a bit of virtue, just as if you had explained what virtue is as a whole and I should know it at once even if you chopped your coin up into farthings. Then I must put the very same question from the beginning, as it seems: My friend Meno, what is virtue, if a little bit of virtue would make any action virtue? [...] [Do] you believe we can know what a bit of virtue is, when we do not know virtue itself.

---

I didn't really handle that well, maybe I should add to that. In the Meno (in case you haven't read it), Plato says, through Socrates, that you shouldn't define something by a bit of that same thing. For instance, defining with examples. For how can you know parts of something, if you do not know what the something is. (In this case virtue) If I asked you what figure was, would you say shape, or list examples? Socrates recieves both answers, but still he presses on, eventually saying that to define something you must find the common element in all of it's parts. Socrates finally defines figure as the limit, or edge, of form. As where one thing is, another cannot be.

 

[Monstar]

No question the world would be a much better place without us in it, we're wiping out all the Earth's natural resources.
Without us, no global warming, no animals going extinct. Much healthier

 

[Relapse]

No question the world would be a much better place without us in it, we're wiping out all the Earth's natural resources.
Without us, no global warming, no animals going extinct. Much healthier

"global warming" is a natural process the earth has gone through for millions of years and wasn't caused by us as humans. And animals have been going extinct way before humans, just look at the dinosaurs

 

[Monstar]

"global warming" is a natural process the earth has gone through for millions of years and wasn't caused by us as humans. And animals have been going extinct way before humans, just look at the dinosaurs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm <- just saying.

About the animals going extinct, I understand they have. Although it would be going at a much slower rate than if we wasn't around.

 

[Relapse]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm <- just saying.

About the animals going extinct, I understand they have. Although it would be going at a much slower rate than if we wasn't around.

>look at the date
>2002 trololololol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory <-Read the first sentence

There is no way to know or prove at what rate animals would go extinct without us, there are also many species we have protected from naturally becoming extinct

 

[Monstar]

The date is irrelevant, it's true. The increase of pollution since we've been here speaks for itself.
Just saying, I'm enjoying this little debate with you, don't turn it into something it doesn't need to be. Keep it clean and if you don't flame I won't.

 

[Relapse]

The date is irrelevant, it's true. The increase of pollution since we've been here speaks for itself.
Just saying, I'm enjoying this little debate with you, don't turn it into something it doesn't need to be. Keep it clean and if you don't flame I won't.

The date is not irrelevant because we have proved global warming (and Al Gore for that matter) to be a huge hoax. Ya pollution has increased but nowhere near enough to strongly effect our environment. Our planet goes through a cycle of warming and cooling throughout its lifetime, hence ice ages.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

 

[Monstar]

The date is not irrelevant because we have proved global warming (and Al Gore for that matter) to be a huge hoax. Ya pollution has increased but nowhere near enough to strongly effect our environment. Our planet goes through a cycle of warming and cooling throughout its lifetime, hence ice ages.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

I may be misunderstood, I was under the impression the huge hole in the ozone layer was caused by humanity.
And the huge hole in the ozone layer was the cause of global warming.

 

[Relapse]

I may be misunderstood, I was under the impression the huge hole in the ozone layer was caused by humanity.
And the huge hole in the ozone layer was the cause of global warming.

There is a hole in the ozone over Antarctica which has been closing for 30 years. And it just happens to be in one of the least inhabited places on Earth