Is humanity mostly constrained or unconstrained?
Unconstrained View –
Human beings are capable of great feats of
wisdom, virtue, and intellectual power. Humanity is perfectible. Our egoism,
our self-interestedness, and our wickedness are not part of human nature, but
are instead artifacts of cruel, unfair, or irrational institutions. Given our
capacity for enlightenment, it follows that some humans, who find themselves
further on the path of perfectibility, can use their intellectual and/or moral
power to elucidate what must be done and get rid of the shackles of the past.
This is the vision of Rousseau, Condorcet, and Godwin.
Constrained View-
Human
beings are deeply, flawed. The moral and intellectual limitations of human
beings must be put in check by traditions and institutions that stood the test
of time. Since no one can wield the knowledge or moral perfection necessary to
guide the whole of society, we need systemic processes to coordinate our
self-interested strivings, leading to the emergence of a beneficial social
order. This is the vision of Hobbes, Burke, and Smith
Constrained
Side Score: 1
|
 |
Unconstrained
Side Score: 1
|
|
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
Unconstrained View – Human beings are capable of great feats of wisdom, virtue, and intellectual power. This is true, the opposite is also true. Humanity is perfectible. There is no such thing as perfection. Our egoism ego is something that can manifest in a variety of ways, or not at all. our self-interestedness, Humans can be conditioned to not be self interested, although this is not even ideal. and our wickedness Wickedness is meaningless. There are very different ideas of what constitutes "wickedness" which further proves a lack of human nature. but are instead artifacts of cruel, unfair, or irrational institutions. Yep, people are a result of their environment and neurochemistry. The society in which we live conditions the humans that live in it to be both irrational and a destructive force on the earth. Given our capacity for enlightenment, it follows that some humans, who find themselves further on the path of perfectibility, can use their intellectual and/or moral power to elucidate what must be done and get rid of the shackles of the past. This is the vision of Rousseau, Condorcet, and Godwin. Mostly correct.
Constrained View- Human beings are deeply, flawed. Agree. intellectual limitations of human beings They exist. must be put in check by traditions and institutions that stood the test of time. They don't work very well. We need new systems. Since no one can wield the knowledge or moral perfection necessary to guide the whole of society, we need systemic processes to coordinate our self-interested strivings, leading to the emergence of a beneficial social order. That's my position. Your position is to just let whoever has the most money run things. Side: Unconstrained
Unconstrained View – Human beings are capable of great feats of wisdom, virtue, and intellectual power. This is true, the opposite is also true. You are capable of something or not. You cannot be both. One person being blind does not mean that humans are incapable of sight. The human capability for sight does not mean that no one is blind. ego is something that can manifest in a variety of ways, or not at all. Conscious living human beings all have a sense of self. Even while intoxicated with drugs that makes them feel an illusory lack of this sense, it is themselves feeling this lack. The ego is not the same as egoism. Humans can be conditioned to not be self interested, although this is not even ideal. Conditioning cannot even take place in humans but for their self-interest. Conditioning is accomplished through positive and negative incentives. The very notion that self-interest is not ideal is a self-interested one. Wickedness is meaningless. I just checked dictionary.com. Wickedness has a meaning. There are very different ideas of what constitutes "wickedness" which further proves a lack of human nature. Rooks moving differently than Knights does not prove that Chess has no rules. Human nature doesn’t imply that human beings are identical. Human nature simply means that there are common traits that are naturally occurring in humans. Humans are bi-pedal by nature. This does not mean that a paraplegic isn’t human, nor that an ostrich is. Nonetheless, being b-pedal is part of human nature, which clearly exists or a number of scientific fields would not exist. but are instead artifacts of cruel, unfair, or irrational institutions. Yep, people are a result of their environment and neurochemistry. Neurochemistry is the reason we are not born tabula raza, but rather with a common human nature. Your position is to just let whoever has the most money run things. No, it isn’t. Try sticking to articulating your own position. You’re shit at articulating mine. Side: Constrained
|
