Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[ibshambat]

One common problem that happens to humanitarian types is that they become disappointed in humanity. They believe that people are good; then they see people act in all sorts of ugly ways. They start out wanting to serve humanity, then they decide that humanity is not worth being served, so they go to a place of existential despair.

This is a lot less likely to happen to Christians. Christians expect people to be bad. When people are good, it is experienced as pleasant surprise. So these people become much happier.

I heard a liberal woman say, “humanity is great, it’s people I can’t stand.” I heard a Christian man say, “humanity is vile, but people are quite all right.” In both cases we see a direct function of their beliefs. One believes in goodness of humanity and is disappointed in misbehaviour in people. The other believes in the badness of humanity and is pleasantly surprised by people.

Of course Christians can go wrong as well. One big problem I’ve seen in Christians is that they think that only Christians are good and the only wisdom is in the Bible, and that everything else is of the Satan. I’ve known many good people who weren’t Christians, and I have seen a lot of wisdom outside the Bible, both in science and psychology and in Eastern religious paths. In taking this stance one impoverishes one’s understanding of the world, and the people who do that are correctly regarded as being ignorant. Christianity however does not have to be practiced that way. The most impressive people I know were Christians and Jews who had taken an interest in things besides the Bible and thus had a much richer understanding of the world.

The correct way to practice humanitarianism is to remain compassionate to people while being careful of sin. Empathy does not mean joining the mafia out of compassion. Be as wise and snakes and as gentle as doves. Have compassion for people without identifying with the wrong in them.

This being done, humanitarianism can again become a value and something to strive for. And then one runs a much lesser risk of being disappointed in humanity and more likely to remain happy.

[Sy Borg]

I'm not Christian but I have a different take on the situation.

To start: life is ultimately a zero sum game (or approximately so) because every living being needs to either kill, exploit or out-compete others to survive. Large groups of humans tend to out-compete smaller groups, so now the world is dominated by large groups. Large groups can only hold themselves together is most denizens are "nice". ie. cooperative, non-aggressive. Yet the societies at large cannot be "nice". They must kill, exploit and out-compete other entities. Most of their denizens can keep their hands clean, so to speak, delegating the ugly work to the military, police, correctional services, farmers and slaughterhouses.

Despite the inherent harshness of life, most entities will choose peace over conflict if they can. Thus, most people are pleasant beings, as are many animals. However, if under pressure, any being can become aggressive and/or problematic. Societies don't have the luxury of high ethics. Unlike the situation for many individuals, there is precious little support available if a society fails.

[Lagayascienza]

Yeah, life's a tough gig. And there's no getting off the merry-go-round until one kicks the bucket. Fortunately, people are nasty and nice in roughly equal measure. And most of the dirty work is done for us, out of sight. The nicest thing we could do is try to partly pull away from the ouroboros by going vegetarian. But that won't stop us killing each other in wars and religious strife. That would take a re-jigging and re-booting of the mind of humanity. That will happen very slowly, if at all. In the meantime, we just have to try to have a nicest ride we can.

[Count Lucanor]

One common problem that happens to humanitarian types is that they become disappointed in humanity. They believe that people are good; then they see people act in all sorts of ugly ways. They start out wanting to serve humanity, then they decide that humanity is not worth being served, so they go to a place of existential despair.

This is a lot less likely to happen to Christians. Christians expect people to be bad. When people are good, it is experienced as pleasant surprise. So these people become much happier.

I heard a liberal woman say, “humanity is great, it’s people I can’t stand.” I heard a Christian man say, “humanity is vile, but people are quite all right.” In both cases we see a direct function of their beliefs. One believes in goodness of humanity and is disappointed in misbehaviour in people. The other believes in the badness of humanity and is pleasantly surprised by people.

Of course Christians can go wrong as well. One big problem I’ve seen in Christians is that they think that only Christians are good and the only wisdom is in the Bible, and that everything else is of the Satan. I’ve known many good people who weren’t Christians, and I have seen a lot of wisdom outside the Bible, both in science and psychology and in Eastern religious paths. In taking this stance one impoverishes one’s understanding of the world, and the people who do that are correctly regarded as being ignorant. Christianity however does not have to be practiced that way. The most impressive people I know were Christians and Jews who had taken an interest in things besides the Bible and thus had a much richer understanding of the world.

The correct way to practice humanitarianism is to remain compassionate to people while being careful of sin. Empathy does not mean joining the mafia out of compassion. Be as wise and snakes and as gentle as doves. Have compassion for people without identifying with the wrong in them.

This being done, humanitarianism can again become a value and something to strive for. And then one runs a much lesser risk of being disappointed in humanity and more likely to remain happy.

This doesn’t make any sense. Why are humanitarian types on one side and Christians on the other side? Can’t humanitarians be Christians and vice versa? Besides, as far as I know, your blanket statement about Christians doesn’t play well against historical evidence. Christians have been just as good or as bad as any other religious group. In fact, religion doesn’t seem to make much difference in people’s behavior, and you’ll find good and bad people everywhere, without religious affiliation being an accurate indicator of their moral standing.