Human race: Naturally good or evil?

[vanisleflamesfan]

The book "The Mountain People" by anthropologist Colin Turnbull is an ethnographic study of a group reduced to an absolute basic level of self-preservation. While Turnbull refrains from analysing his time in the field with any theoretical framework, the reader is left with the impression that, at the core, humans are neither 'good' or 'evil', but rather acting only out of instincts of self-preservation. The actions that humans engage in to achieve this, are judged, based on the standards of the society that they live in, as 'good' or 'evil'. These concepts are therefore, 'sociall constructed'.

Obviously, when humans in a society have their most basic needs taken care of (for the most part) many layers of behaviour are added. However, the conclusion remains that, at the core, humans are not intrinsically 'good' or 'evil'.

This is a really amazing and quite sobering read by the way, and I would HIGHLY recommend it to anyone.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

That in a way is my point. He helped usher in a society that lacked interest of any kind. If Hitler was spiritually impoverished or an idiot, what does that say about the people that elected him?

Poverty had something to do with it, but not entirely. We have to talk about a distinction between fascism and totalitarianism. There is a tendency among weakened polities to elect a dictator and give him the strength and authority to right the ship. That's what Italy did, and it's what Britan and France came dangerously close to doing (don't believe me? Chamberlain talked about suspending Parliament in the mid-1930s). There was no similar totalitarian movements across Europe, except the Soviet Union.

Societies have a moral choice to make. Some societies chose to save their Jewish neighbours, others chose to throw them on the fire.

There has to be a reason beyond regular human self-interest. I point to an absolute standard of morality that is nurtured by community, but somehow rooted in biology, that is so complex that it can only be called transcendence.

On the contrary... the Germans were inspired by Hitler. Completely. He was a superhero to them and if anything, restored interest and love for the nation. That is what made the Germans throw the Jews to the wolves. Not any inherent standard of biology... but because they so loved this man and what he did for them that they would do anything for him. Those who didn't love him, he either wiped out, or kept veiled in secrecy. If the elites in NW Germany were completely aware of what was happening... they likely would have revolted on him much like the Italians did to Mussolini. To them, things were normal... there were even civilian police forces and civilian authorities.

You're right about the Rest of Europe too though... but like I said, their desperation was not near that of Germany's. This was a humiliated, defeated and degenerating society.

It was self-interest that lead to becoming "members" of what was essentially a national cult. What they did was a result of what they were told. Man's inherent need to belong?

[troutman]

I think the answer is both.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

Societies are ravaged by more than just financial woes. France and Britain had just lost an entire generation of young men, like Germany. Their social woes were very much the same.

How does one society produce a Churchill and the other a Hitler?

Simply... because Britain won. They had something to be proud of. Yes, they suffered... but their nation was still could be optimistic and proud. Churchill was able to rise to that underlying notion.

Germany was defeated in every definition of the word. They lost their wealth, they lost the war, they lost their colonies, they lost their standing, they lost an entire generation of young men, they lost land, they lost pride... Hitler responded to that.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by peter12

I absolutely get it, but you're missing the point. How is a perfect world rational and self-interested?

Does it matter? You're looking at this from our perspective. Rational? Certainly not. I would say attempting to exterminate millions of people rarely is. In his best interests? Doubtful, if you look at the odds he had of actually pulling it off and taking over the world. He probably gave it the best go since Napoleon though.

But try and think about it from his view. Would it seem rational to him to try and exterminate all the Jews who he, and many others as a result, saw as the cause of Germany's problems? Probably. Would it be in his best self-interests to expand his empire and impose his beliefs elsewhere? Likely. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened before. I would imagine he was a pretty powerful and wealthy guy at the peak of the Nazi Empire.

Power, wealth, and your chance to take over the world. Those are like the cliche self-interests of any villain!

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by peter12

That in a way is my point. He helped usher in a society that lacked interest of any kind. If Hitler was spiritually impoverished or an idiot, what does that say about the people that elected him?

I'm sure that 33% of Germany voting for Hitler in 1933 before most of their schemes were even hinted at indicates that 100% of German people or even a strong majority of Germans are inheriently morally corrupt. Research the Weimer Republic and how Hitler rose to power and it becomes clear that the average German in 1933 had no idea what they were getting into.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

On the contrary... the Germans were inspired by Hitler. Completely. He was a superhero to them and if anything, restored interest and love for the nation. That is what made the Germans throw the Jews to the wolves. Not any inherent standard of biology... but because they so loved this man and what he did for them that they would do anything for him. Those who didn't love him, he either wiped out, or kept veiled in secrecy. If the elites in NW Germany were completely aware of what was happening... they likely would have revolted on him much like the Italians did to Mussolini. To them, things were normal... there were even civilian police forces and civilian authorities.

You're right about the Rest of Europe too though... but like I said, their desperation was not near that of Germany's. This was a humiliated, defeated and degenerating society.

It was self-interest that lead to becoming "members" of what was essentially a national cult. What they did was a result of what they were told. Man's inherent need to belong?

Yeah, I agree that nationalist movements start out as rational, if their express goal is to rebuild the country. However, you still haven't filled in the logical gap between that and the Holocaust. What leads a country from one to the other? Where is the connection between Mussolini trying to make Italian trains run on time and Nazis stuffing pillows with Jewish hair? It is, as you say, lunacy. Or maybe immorality.

Why were many people, including a lot of German scholars, saying Hitler is a bad guy, even before 1938/39? You can recognize evil.

Of course the Germans were fascinated by Hitler, but what led to their social responsibility in the Holocaust? You can't plead ignorance, quite a few Germans saw what was going on and tried to do something about it. Only morality can explain that decision.

To lend to the greater discussion about human nature. I don't know. We seem to be a mixed bag as other posters have said, both selfish and altruistic. The question is what actions those traits lead us to engage in. That's the moral question and it's honestly one of those Big Questions which thinkers, philosophers, mystics and scientists will always struggle to answer.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Simply... because Britain won. They had something to be proud of. Yes, they suffered... but their nation was still could be optimistic and proud. Churchill was able to rise to that underlying notion.

Germany was defeated in every definition of the word. They lost their wealth, they lost the war, they lost their colonies, they lost their standing, they lost an entire generation of young men, they lost land, they lost pride... Hitler responded to that.

Then what about Chamberlain? Why did Churchill see it and Chamberlain didn't? Why did most of the British people oppose the appeasement policies, which they saw as immoral?

You're being too simplistic/reductionist in your overall view of social organization and how it affects social morals. As a conservative, I'd expect a bit more of a ponderous answer from you. Difficult questions never have easy answers.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I'm sure that 33% of Germany voting for Hitler in 1933 before most of their schemes were even hinted at indicates that 100% of German people or even a strong majority of Germans are inheriently morally corrupt. Research the Weimer Republic and how Hitler rose to power and it becomes clear that the average German in 1933 had no idea what they were getting into.

After Hitler was declared Chancellor? After the Nuremburg rallies? After The Night of Broken Glass?

I think after a few years that it was obvious that Hitler wasn't some guy.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, I agree that nationalist movements start out as rational, if their express goal is to rebuild the country. However, you still haven't filled in the logical gap between that and the Holocaust. What leads a country from one to the other? Where is the connection between Mussolini trying to make Italian trains run on time and Nazis stuffing pillows with Jewish hair? It is, as you say, lunacy. Or maybe immorality.

Why were many people, including a lot of German scholars, saying Hitler is a bad guy, even before 1938/39? You can recognize evil.

Of course the Germans were fascinated by Hitler, but what led to their social responsibility in the Holocaust? You can't plead ignorance, quite a few Germans saw what was going on and tried to do something about it. Only morality can explain that decision.

To lend to the greater discussion about human nature. I don't know. We seem to be a mixed bag as other posters have said, both selfish and altruistic. The question is what actions those traits lead us to engage in. That's the moral question and it's honestly one of those Big Questions which thinkers, philosophers, mystics and scientists will always struggle to answer.

The majority of Germans realized they elected a monster. But what could they do? Fear kept them in line once he switched from a "Great man" to a cartoonish supervillain. Like Cowboy said, in 1933, he seemed like a swell guy... even in 1936, he was Time's Man of the Year. In 1938, Canadian Prime Minister King called him a great man and compared him to Joan of Arc! The man had a lot of people fooled.

The ones that didn't were probably thirsty for revenge for WWI and the hardship that followed.

Lets not forget Canada, US and Britain severely limited Jewish immigration in the 1930s and in 1939, weeks before war, threatened to torpedo the M.S. Saint Louis carrying them towards their shores... what provoked these societies to send these people away and back to Germany and what would likely mean death?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

The majority of Germans realized they elected a monster. But what could they do? Fear kept them in line once he switched from a "Great man" to a cartoonish supervillain. Like Cowboy said, in 1933, he seemed like a swell guy... even in 1936, he was Time's Man of the Year. In 1938, Canadian Prime Minister King called him a great man and compared him to Joan of Arc! The man had a lot of people fooled.

The ones that didn't were probably thirsty for revenge for WWI and the hardship that followed.

Lets not forget Canada, US and Britain severely limited Jewish immigration in the 1930s and in 1939, weeks before war, threatened to torpedo the M.S. Saint Louis carrying them towards their shores... what provoked these societies to send these people away and back to Germany and what would likely mean death?

You always have the ability to choose right or wrong. Denmark choose to save their Jews, so did Bulgaria, both in the face of massive Nazi retaliations. 1000s of Germans died resisting the Nazis. Fear is never an excuse.

I'm not excusing the way the Western world treated the Jews before the war, but there is a big difference between racist immigration policies and gassing 10 million + people. However, we did fail, we failed to recognize a tyrant, but we succeeded in not following him down his path of evil. One of the express purposes of Winston Churchill in fighting Hitler to the bloody end was to end the atrocities against the Jewish people.

Hitler seemed like a swell guy to the intellectually lazy. However, not everyone thought he was a great guy. In 1933, after Hitler was elected, Churchill warned Parliament that this man would start a war in Europe. Leo Strauss, Hannah Arendt, and Eric Voegelin all had to flee Nazi Germany because of their anti-Hitler publications.

The lesson we should learn is that once we start viewing things like morality as being a construct and relative to outside perspectives is when we start missing moral evils like Adolf Hitler.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

Then what about Chamberlain? Why did Churchill see it and Chamberlain didn't? Why did most of the British people oppose the appeasement policies, which they saw as immoral?

You're being too simplistic/reductionist in your overall view of social organization and how it affects social morals. As a conservative, I'd expect a bit more of a ponderous answer from you. Difficult questions never have easy answers.

This is a difficult and complicated situation, but the essential factor is quite simple. German people are not inherently evil... desperation drives people to do foolish things that serve their interests of self-preservation... once you sign a deal with a guy like Hitler, who systematically introduced the most comprehensive indoctrination in world history... you dont get out easily. They were limited in their rationality because the facts were not there. At first, why would they? He rebuilt their nation, their pride and improved their lives. Who helped them? only Hitler.

You also simplify the war by implying that all Germans had Jewskin lamps and semitic-down pillows.

Conservatives like ourselves pride themselves on being pragmatic and thoughtful. Its simply not logical or thoughtful to assume the German people had some significant flaw in their internal makeup. Its more logical to assume that their environment gave rise to a horrible monster.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

You always have the ability to choose right or wrong. Denmark choose to save their Jews, so did Bulgaria, both in the face of massive Nazi retaliations. 1000s of Germans died resisting the Nazis. Fear is never an excuse.

I'm not excusing the way the Western world treated the Jews before the war, but there is a big difference between racist immigration policies and gassing 10 million + people. However, we did fail, we failed to recognize a tyrant, but we succeeded in not following him down his path of evil. One of the express purposes of Winston Churchill in fighting Hitler to the bloody end was to end the atrocities against the Jewish people.

Hitler seemed like a swell guy to the intellectually lazy. However, not everyone thought he was a great guy. In 1933, after Hitler was elected, Churchill warned Parliament that this man would start a war in Europe. Leo Strauss, Hannah Arendt, and Eric Voegelin all had to flee Nazi Germany because of their anti-Hitler publications.

The lesson we should learn is that once we start viewing things like morality as being a construct and relative to outside perspectives is when we start missing moral evils like Adolf Hitler.

I think we're arguing the same thing from different viewpoints. I'm defending the actual average German citizen.

I'm not arguing that Hitler wasn't an evil SOB... he sure was. So were many of his lieutenants and buddies.

Many people saw the inherent trouble signs of a build up, but chose to ignore it. Hell, how can anyone watch Triumph of the Wills and not know Hitler was gonna throw down? Appeasement is a scary thing when dealing with a man like Hitler.

People were willing to sacrifice some freedoms in exchange for what Hitler promised... I propose that the Germans were a victim of their own inherent self-interest... Hitler was their best option to forward that, but it came at a massive cost few wanted to take note of.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

This is a difficult and complicated situation, but the essential factor is quite simple. German people are not inherently evil... desperation drives people to do foolish things that serve their interests of self-preservation... once you sign a deal with a guy like Hitler, who systematically introduced the most comprehensive indoctrination in world history... you dont get out easily. They were limited in their rationality because the facts were not there. At first, why would they? He rebuilt their nation, their pride and improved their lives. Who helped them? only Hitler.

You also simplify the war by implying that all Germans had Jewskin lamps and semitic-down pillows.

Conservatives like ourselves pride themselves on being pragmatic and thoughtful. Its simply not logical or thoughtful to assume the German people had some significant flaw in their internal makeup. Its more logical to assume that their environment gave rise to a horrible monster.

Oh, I'm absolutely not saying that. Of course, the German people are not inherently evil. That's ridiculous. My point is that human beings act within more of a framework than simple self-interest. Desperate times lead to desperate men, but it doesn't have to lead to evil.

Of course not every German owned a pillow or lamp from the camps. My point was that they lived in a society that condoned those things. I'm sure many German families had a Jewish neighbour who they refused to help as they were carted off by the Gestapo. It doesn't have to be about guilt, but responsibility.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by peter12

After Hitler was declared Chancellor? After the Nuremburg rallies? After The Night of Broken Glass?

I think after a few years that it was obvious that Hitler wasn't some guy.

Then the question begins as to what an able bodied pure-bred German would do about it in 1934. What could they do about it? By the time Hitler had marginal control, he didn't need the permission of the average German. Clearly the average German acted out of self-interest. It wasn't them being shipped off, and if they interfeared they probably would have been taken off to work camps with the Jews too.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I think we're arguing the same thing from different viewpoints. I'm defending the actual average German citizen.

I'm not arguing that Hitler wasn't an evil SOB... he sure was. So were many of his lieutenants and buddies.

Many people saw the inherent trouble signs of a build up, but chose to ignore it. Hell, how can anyone watch Triumph of the Wills and not know Hitler was gonna throw down? Appeasement is a scary thing when dealing with a man like Hitler.

People were willing to sacrifice some freedoms in exchange for what Hitler promised... I propose that the Germans were a victim of their own inherent self-interest... Hitler was their best option to forward that, but it came at a massive cost few wanted to take note of.

I didn't really think we were arguing, so much as engaging in a constructive dialogue. I think what we differ on is the responsibility of the average German citizen, who I feel shares some culpability in the Third Reich.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

On the side of transcendence, I was talking more about Burke, Oakeshott, Voegelin, who all say that society is terribly complex, but that it is complex for a reason. We have the institutions that we do in order to govern our passions appropriately.

Come on, Oakeshott was a neo-Kantian hack. We have these institutions because the previous generations of elites developed them as constructs for our control. Interestingly, these institutions will continue to evolve as new elites are defined and they provide their unique twist on policy and slowly modify their society into their own image. It is these institutions that enable the elites to affect modifications in social and moral norms. This is the perspective that evaded you when you missed my Hitler example. Hitler would have been a social outcast and amounted to nothing had the institutions not been available to enable his delusions and then allow him to affect social change.

Voegelin is definitely on the right track when talks about the spiritual health of a society and it's importance in providing guidance to evaluating moral situations.

I agree with his position, depending on the definition of spiritual health. Some will argue America is a very spiritual country. I argue its a very religious country, and there is a big difference (key the arrival of Firefly). The spiritual health of America could be construed as being fit, as the majority of society believes strongly in some religion, but it is this religiosity that contributes to the discontinuity of American society and much of the discontent for the nation in first place. How does this spiritual situation provide guidance in moral situatuions? How is the moral fabric of America judged or regarded by other societies? Individually, the people are good. As a collective, America is perceived as evil. I have a feeling this situation, and the contradiction to his theory, would have Voegelin spinning in his grave. Or would this be stretching Voegelinian thought to its breaking point?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Then the question begins as to what an able bodied pure-bred German would do about it in 1934. What could they do about it? By the time Hitler had marginal control, he didn't need the permission of the average German. Clearly the average German acted out of self-interest. It wasn't them being shipped off, and if they interfeared they probably would have been taken off to work camps with the Jews too.

Well, you could do what the Italians eventually did to Mussolini. Kill him.

Not to say that some people didn't try, but it wasn't enough.

These sorts of moral situations do transcend simple self-interest. Some people chose to be motivated by fear, a lot of people didn't

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

Oh, I'm absolutely not saying that. Of course, the German people are not inherently evil. That's ridiculous. My point is that human beings act within more of a framework than simple self-interest. Desperate times lead to desperate men, but it doesn't have to lead to evil.

Of course not every German owned a pillow or lamp from the camps. My point was that they lived in a society that condoned those things. I'm sure many German families had a Jewish neighbour who they refused to help as they were carted off by the Gestapo. It doesn't have to be about guilt, but responsibility.

What about fear? Being a Jewish collaborator in much of Nazi Germany was a capital offense. They knew their neighbor was going to die... but they had a responsibility to their families to keep them safe. Why die too?

One exception is in NW Germany, with the civilian police authorities still in place, token Jewish families were actually left intact to fool the locals. "See, we're not killing them all, your neighbors have the yellow star and they are still there."

I contend the German people had no clue their desperation lead to evil until it was too late.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by peter12

These sorts of moral situations do transcend simple self-interest. Some people chose to be motivated by fear, a lot of people didn't

I don't think they really do though. Some people didn't act in the interests of their own self preservation or a fear of being killed. Some people acted because they saw Hitler for who he was or saw the reality of the situation around them and maybe felt they had a moral obligation to do so. One that came before their own self preservation. Maybe they felt a share of the culpability and felt they had to act to deal with this? Who knows.

Everyone's hardwired differently, but it all goes back to simple self interest. It's the actions resulting from our pursuit of these self interests that lay the moral groundwork for "good" and "evil", IMO.