CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Honestly, I would say yes. I would like to say that this question intrigued me. Because when you think about it, human nature, at it's core, is actually pretty savage. But as we have evolved with time, we have become more civilized so we are fit into this society in which we formed. But I do believe that at our core, we are indeed savage.
I would say the same but I feel as if "savage" is the wrong word. If we look at the animal kingdom and how different animals function in society natural selection is always present. I think that humans can either try to avoid this instict or simply try to take it to the next level to maximumize survival. I think we see this as "savage" because we have become more civilized and most people put morals in front of wants but others still perform certain acts to dominate their playing field.
we were born with a primal urge to reproduce and beat out competiton. Although we have evolved to adapt to our less savage society, we are still being pushed by those primal savage urges to win. Except we do it in more humane ways now. For instance these cut throat jobs where you have to crush your opponent to be the best in your feild like perhaps the Fashion industry or the Criminal Law, they are driven by a savage urge to be better, in a humane non physical, but more mental and emotional way.
Not all survival is "savage" or brutal. Certainly, we are still compelled by the evolutionary demands of reproduction and survival but as with earlier humans and arguably other species this cannot be reduced then or now solely to "savage" impulses and behavior. Affection, child rearing, and so forth were just as integral thousands of years ago as they are now.
As for the fashion industry and criminal law and the drive to be the best in your field, that has at least as much to do with socialization as it does human nature. So while you are at, make a blanket statement that all of society is also savage (even though that would be equally inaccurate).
we're savage because we still have the want to do bad things. Even if we dress ourselves as perfect beings and act like we are all for equal treatment of everything, it's the way we are inside that prove to me that we are still savage underneath.
Right, and I acknowledge we still have that "savage" aspect but I think human nature is considerably more complicated than that. Not all that is "good" in humans is learned through socialization in my opinion. If we were entirely savage at our core then socialization wouldn't work as effectively as it does.
I'm going off of savage as in wild and or uncontrolled.
Human nature may not seem wild but the things that the human race has done to the rest of the world is going unchechecked an dis growing uncontrolably.
But we are note entirely wild nor entirely uncontrolled. We live within a complex ecology, and while it is true that we exert considerable influence upon it it ultimately does set limits upon us. Humans have done some seemingly "savage" (wild/uncontrolled) things but humans have also done the converse. Still sticking to my point: it's not so simple as all that.
but the savegeness that we have can only be controlled by us, the people. No other creature has the abilty to yet, and the thing keeping humans from showing their true savae self is the phony morals they put into writing.
Actually, other species demonstrate sociability and social order as well. The human conscience is more highly developed though, and human society is more complex but the point remains that while society and human evolution has moderated human behavior the human species was never entirely savage (no species really is).
(I think we might be getting tangled up in a semantic misunderstanding... so I'm maybe going to leave the debate at this unless you really want to keep going.)
I'll clear up what i'm saying too, since I feel like without the right context they're are random statements, with probably no logic behind them.
I am saying that human nature is controlled, but only because we choose to be. If we chose not to be then we'd be rampantly destroying anything that we wanted with no cause. Zoo's are an exmaple of our uncontrolled nature based off of my explantion.
We have these zoos because no creature in them can stop us. Just as if a higher, more intelligent species showed it's self, they would call us savage beasts taking the land for themselves, and they could cage us just as we do zoo animals.
As a determinist I have to disagree with your word use - we do not choose to control our natures; our natures are controlled, and I would contend that they are controlled by both biology/genetics and socialization. It makes no sense to say that we would "rampantly" destroy anything we wanted because there is no logical reason why we should have such a compulsion - it serves no evolutionary function whatsoever.
Your example with the zoos also does not make sense to me. That we have zoos (and that they are arguably an expression of human dominance) does not mean that we have no innate behavioral checks against rampant savagery. We have zoos because we like to have them and we can - we do not kill every existing species because we cannot. There are natural limits imposed upon us by the ecological system within which we live. It is an easy delusion to think that we are completely unbridled, but our actions truly are constrained and there are generally repercussions to our actions (sooner or later).
Further, that human beings are capable of savagery (if you take the zoo to be savage, for instance) does not mean that they are not at least equally non-savage by nature; evidence of savagery in some instances does not justify the blanket assertion you and others have been making that all human nature is savage.
we control our natures to an extent. if you become upset with someone you hold onto the negative things you'd say if the situation isn't favorable like a job interview.
We don't rampantly destroy because we don't have that compulsion, but if we did nothing in society could stop us at this moment.
Zoo's are an example of uncontrolled savageness because, humans came up with the idea to cage other creatures, based off of whatever reason, but the point is that even if the idea was sudden it was still left unchecked by everything else in nature.
The limits set on us by our ecosystem won't actually stop us. They act as a barrier yes, saying not to cross this line, but if we decided to, not for logical reason, we could destroy the earth.
Pollution is another example, nothing is keeping people from polluting because humans will follow non polluting laws if the choose to.
I don't think all of humanity is savage, but humanity has savageness. Humanity is the only thing keeping humanity in check.
Some people hold their tongues in check, and others do not. It is a response conditioned by our predispositions towards confrontation, and to an extent our socialization (which is a product of our collective natures).
You observe that "we don't rampantly destroy because we don't have that compulsion" and I would argue that this is precisely because it is not in our nature to have that compulsion. There is no reason to think that such a compulsion, if present at the core of human nature, could be so aptly controlled and regulated for by social control.
That nature did not prevent us making zoos is hardly a persuasive argument that human nature is savage at it's core; it merely means that there was no ecological reason for nature to have checked or prevented our making zoos (i.e. zoos do not fundamentally disturb the world ecology).
We could not destroy the earth. We could make it inhabitable for humans (the ecosystem limiting human behavior), but life would continue on in some form. Nature and ecology are quite indifferent to us, and driven only towards restoring equilibrium. Take your pollution example; while pollution is ultimately a great danger to humans as well as other species it creates a new ecology that is favorable to other forms of life. The same with global warming.
To me, arguing that human nature is savage at its core is arguing that the fundamental disposition of humanity is towards savagery rather than being a more complicated set of desires and motivations. It appears, though, that excepting our semantic disagreements we are actually saying roughly the same thing?
Are you saying that human nature isn't savage, and uncontrolled because we control ourselves?
I am actually in slight agreement with that statement but insist that since we could at any point relinquish that control, that we are indeed savage.
Would it be more compromising to say that humanity isn't savage but it can be? It depends on whether you choose to control yourself, or give into your baser instincts.
Not exactly, no. I think saying that we control ourselves lends a little more intentionality to the process than I would give it; I would say more that we are controlled by our genetics, socialization, and ecology. Consequentially, I do not think that we could relinquish that control as I do not view at as something we consciously choose to apply to ourselves.
Disclaimer: If it has not become obvious by this point I am a determinist, so I do not think a person "chooses" to control themselves or to give into their baser instincts. I think that were have varying degrees of predisposition towards the savage or sociable, and that our experiences determine how those predispositions are triggered and developed throughout our lives. Consequentially, human nature is simultaneously savage and non-savage (in my view at least).
Humans are one of the most savage animals on the face of Earth but it is now covered by a thin veneer of civility but we kill for fun, do Martial Arts for fun and enjoy watching violent films, tv and sport and the biggest selling video games are the violent ones.
Violence is a way of life for humans we just channel it in different ways but it is bubbling away in our subconcious
We also enjoy laughing with friends, sending people flowers, and swapping stories. Not everyone enjoys violence either. Most people are a mix of the "savage" and "non-savage". We're not so simple as all that.
That's because humans have evolved traits to better help them fit into a society (not that there's anything wrong with that). However, if you removed these traits, humans would be pretty savage
But those traits are just as integral to human nature as is being savage... even if it did develop more recently which I doubt is true. Humans had to be sociable to come into communities to begin with.
Or it is, but like I said "We have Evolved with time, we have become more civilized so we fit into this society in which we formed" Its not as if it is just apparent. It has been buried deep within who we are. But each and everyone of us is capable of murder. And I think that each and every one of us could be pushed to the edge of actually doing it (due to severe circumstances that most of us will never face) Just think about it, we ENJOY violence. That's why we watch movies about it. We are savage, but it doesn't show through as much, it has been buried within us over a long amount of time.
Sure, almost everyone is capable of killing another. That's not necessarily savage in nature. Killing another can easily be of necessity, of self-defense, or to stop something even worse from happening.
Savage is doing without thinking first, or later. It's being without a regard for anything but perhaps own personal raw emotions and unable to deal with them by objective thinking. Savage means more or less being animalistic, and as should be known, animals don't have the kind of a mind and brain we do.
And I think that each and every one of us could be pushed to the edge of actually doing it
If someone intended to kill me and I had the chance to take the person out before risking my own life, I would do it without hesitation. It's not being savage, it's being logical.
we ENJOY violence.
I don't, I pretty much hate it. I don't even like putting others in awkward situations.
But if necessary, I could be really violent. In fact, when I was younger, very young, in school... there were some who pushed me around, I didn't do anything at first but when I noticed there was no other way to stop it but to do something then I acted on it. Shortly, sharply, and effectively. It stopped immediately, no pushing around ever again by the same persons. Now, honestly, you think it is savage to stop someone from constantly messing with your nerves, with your health? It's good for you and for the offender to make it stop, by force if necessary.
That's why we watch movies about it.
About violence? I don't care for the violence. The concept of vengeance, getting back at someone, justice for wrongs done, is what I watch them for. Not violence. And not just that, there are many good nonviolent movies I've seen - dramas. I've got a wide taste, but only for quality ones.
We are savage, but it doesn't show through as much, it has been buried within us over a long amount of time.
I'm not savage. As I mentioned something about young and in school... I was like that even before that, only acted violently when it was necessary, if the negative influence subjected toward me didn't stop on its own or went on for far too long. I never picked on anyone, never have, and the times I did cause some negative feelings in someone I later felt bad about, the later was usually soon after, like several seconds after. I'm not savage in nature, at all.
you may not enjoy violence but you enjoy a challenge. We all do. I think that human aspect is savage. We all want to see a problem. Wehter or not the problem is overcome.
That would seem to imply that early human beings or their/our ancestors where vicious with no redeeming social aspects, but that's just not true. Humans have long been social creatures, as are many other species for that matter. Having savage/vicious tendencies does not preclude also having positive/social tendencies at the core of human nature.
Human behavior is a complicated derivative of our evolutionary history and socialization. It is neither purely "savage" nor inherently "good", but a collection of the attributes that allow the species and its members to survive.
No, I do not think that human nature is savage nor do I think that good behavior is a "cover up". My view on the issue is that human nature has both its brutal as well as redeeming natural qualities, and that our behavior is a byproduct of those mixed instincts as well as our socialization.
No. But we are animals and natural selection affects us the same way it does animals. We want to be dominant but since we can actually think about things before we do it we can ignore instinct. I still think natural selection exists within the human population though.
