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

[Sushan]

We can agree that most occasions will prove what you mentioned. But it is not rare to see kids who are born to good parents, live in good societies, get good education, become bad adults. And the vice versa is seen too. How can that be explained with this concept of prerequisites?

True, but you don't know how much worse the bad kid would have been without the good influences.

That is true. Maybe he could have been far more worse if he did not have the good influences. But ultimately why he became a bad person if he had abundant good influences?

"Good" and "bad" are arbitrary relative descriptors without independent meaning. Physical makeup, both genetic and congenital, lead to a baseline "goodness" quotient that is massively influenced by environmental and experiencial factors.

It is true that the words "good" and "bad" are arbitrary when it is applied to people. But I think anyone gets an idea when we simply name a person 'good' or 'bad', although it cannot be defined or clearly demarcated. I think that social agreement is enough to have this discussion.

Congenital and genetic factors may make a well built, genius kid. But will they have an effect on his 'goodness'?

[Sushan]

Thank you for the in detail explanation. So, by being unable to explain human behaviour by the srudy of behaviouralism, does it prove that this author is correct? Could there really be a system to determine the actions of individuals, which are not random, yet cannot be predicted?

And for the influences, I think there are many occasions that people already know that they are under certain influences, yet act either in ignorance, or in mere acceptance. The choice is upto the individual to accept or deny bad influences. But when the influences are concealed, then neither the individuals, nor the society can be helped.

Well, my OPINION is that it is similar to particle physics. Gross assemblages of behavior across many individuals is predictable to an extent, but in the real world, unanticipated influencing factors make the endeavor difficult.

Quite true. Particles can be studied in controlled environments with expected results. But when they act in the real world the external factors that may affect them are unpredictable, so are the results. Though controlled conditions cannot be fully applicable to humans, the predictability of results become far less in the real world than they are in various social models.

[LuckyR]

True, but you don't know how much worse the bad kid would have been without the good influences.

That is true. Maybe he could have been far more worse if he did not have the good influences. But ultimately why he became a bad person if he had abundant good influences?

"Good" and "bad" are arbitrary relative descriptors without independent meaning. Physical makeup, both genetic and congenital, lead to a baseline "goodness" quotient that is massively influenced by environmental and experiencial factors.

It is true that the words "good" and "bad" are arbitrary when it is applied to people. But I think anyone gets an idea when we simply name a person 'good' or 'bad', although it cannot be defined or clearly demarcated. I think that social agreement is enough to have this discussion.

Congenital and genetic factors may make a well built, genius kid. But will they have an effect on his 'goodness'?

I think they have an effect on his goodness capacity, whether he reaches that capacity will mostly depend on his environment and experiences.

[EricPH]

But it is the responsibility of the parents to make their children emotionally strong enough to deny bad things and accept good things.

This would happen in an ideal world. In the UK; when a child reaches fifteen; about half of them are not living with both their biological parents. Today's society almost encourages the thought that you deserve to be happy; and if this relationship is not what you want; walk out and find another.

And also how to think before acting and identify bad from good. Such a kid will not be affected by whatever the community that he will be released into.

Sadly I have met too many people who have been raped and abused when they were children, both male and female. I have met people who have been coerced into drug dealing and taking when they were young. Paedophiles and drug dealers are clever and controlling, they seek out the vulnerable.

I don't see how these urges can be influenced to change; they have probably been with us throughout the history of mankind.



.

[Sushan]

That is true. Maybe he could have been far more worse if he did not have the good influences. But ultimately why he became a bad person if he had abundant good influences?

"Good" and "bad" are arbitrary relative descriptors without independent meaning. Physical makeup, both genetic and congenital, lead to a baseline "goodness" quotient that is massively influenced by environmental and experiencial factors.

It is true that the words "good" and "bad" are arbitrary when it is applied to people. But I think anyone gets an idea when we simply name a person 'good' or 'bad', although it cannot be defined or clearly demarcated. I think that social agreement is enough to have this discussion.

Congenital and genetic factors may make a well built, genius kid. But will they have an effect on his 'goodness'?

I think they have an effect on his goodness capacity, whether he reaches that capacity will mostly depend on his environment and experiences.

I think it is quite unfair to think that humans have various capacities of 'goodness'. Then ultimately such a person with low capacity cannot be blamed for being bad, because it was what he could become. Then he has not been free since the beginning of life as his thought processes have been already stuck within his genetic code. I think all humans have an equal ability to be good, and the choice to achieve a preferred level of 'goodness' is upto the individuals.

[Sushan]

But it is the responsibility of the parents to make their children emotionally strong enough to deny bad things and accept good things.

This would happen in an ideal world. In the UK; when a child reaches fifteen; about half of them are not living with both their biological parents. Today's society almost encourages the thought that you deserve to be happy; and if this relationship is not what you want; walk out and find another.

And also how to think before acting and identify bad from good. Such a kid will not be affected by whatever the community that he will be released into.

Sadly I have met too many people who have been raped and abused when they were children, both male and female. I have met people who have been coerced into drug dealing and taking when they were young. Paedophiles and drug dealers are clever and controlling, they seek out the vulnerable.

I don't see how these urges can be influenced to change; they have probably been with us throughout the history of mankind.

Well, in the community where I live, most children live in their parents' homes until they get married and start a separate family. And some continue to live in the same house even after they start their own family. I am not saying that my country has a zero amount of rape cases and drug dealing cases that involve children. But most parents protect their children and prepare them to face the dangers of the society. Although the law says after fourteen you are not a kid anymore, there are laws to protect minors from bad influences in the society until they are eighteen and relatively more mature. Being with parents for too long can affect the ability of children to be independent, but I think it is valuable when their protection is concerned.

[LuckyR]

"Good" and "bad" are arbitrary relative descriptors without independent meaning. Physical makeup, both genetic and congenital, lead to a baseline "goodness" quotient that is massively influenced by environmental and experiencial factors.

It is true that the words "good" and "bad" are arbitrary when it is applied to people. But I think anyone gets an idea when we simply name a person 'good' or 'bad', although it cannot be defined or clearly demarcated. I think that social agreement is enough to have this discussion.

Congenital and genetic factors may make a well built, genius kid. But will they have an effect on his 'goodness'?

I think they have an effect on his goodness capacity, whether he reaches that capacity will mostly depend on his environment and experiences.

I think it is quite unfair to think that humans have various capacities of 'goodness'. Then ultimately such a person with low capacity cannot be blamed for being bad, because it was what he could become. Then he has not been free since the beginning of life as his thought processes have been already stuck within his genetic code. I think all humans have an equal ability to be good, and the choice to achieve a preferred level of 'goodness' is upto the individuals.

You are confusing goodness with legal, thus badness with criminal. Folks who are criminals are punished, folks who are bad but legal get promoted to the head of the department.

[Rende]

Subconciousness is influenced. People act by thoughts, real thoughts (I am referring to thoughts in general as an equivalent term to our consciousness or active mind). From my point of view, thoughts are a developing complex of thoughts which is induced by the surroundings. When we are born, we are like a blank paper, but a paper that has already (different from human to human) starting line guides. Our thoughts start to develop by the influence of the surroundings. Then we use thought patterns, then repeat some patterns, discard some, and form new ones (learn). So we are influenced for sure. But we can develop. That's the point of humans for me. In the end, it can become messy text or it can become clear text. People mess up thoughts and don't have enough visible line guides to order the text, so forth. A clear text is better than a messy one. It's our nature that predilidges that.

[gad-fly]

This topic is about the February 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, 
Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral

The greatest danger humans face is the power of bad influences.

(Location 125 of Kindle version)

As per my view, whether good or bad, influences are good to mould ourselves, even after becoming adults. And they will show the true colours of a person. So I disagree with the author's above statement.

What is your opinion about influences in relation to individuals, as well as the society?

The statement is a hyperbole. Human faces many dangers, including extinction and climate change. Comparatively, bad influence is no big deal.

What exactly do you disagree? That 'danger' is not the right term, or that it is out of context? Please elaborate.

Let me skip bad influence between child and adult. Are you questioning the difference imposed by influence between personal and society, or on each?

I would say that, How good or bad, and how much? It depends, which is what this book is about.

[Sushan]

Subconciousness is influenced. People act by thoughts, real thoughts (I am referring to thoughts in general as an equivalent term to our consciousness or active mind). From my point of view, thoughts are a developing complex of thoughts which is induced by the surroundings. When we are born, we are like a blank paper, but a paper that has already (different from human to human) starting line guides. Our thoughts start to develop by the influence of the surroundings. Then we use thought patterns, then repeat some patterns, discard some, and form new ones (learn). So we are influenced for sure. But we can develop. That's the point of humans for me. In the end, it can become messy text or it can become clear text. People mess up thoughts and don't have enough visible line guides to order the text, so forth. A clear text is better than a messy one. It's our nature that predilidges that.

I appreciate your perspective. Your analogy of human minds being like paper—forming, discarding, and repeating thought patterns under the influence of the surroundings—brings a nuanced understanding to the concept of influences and how they shape individuals.

I see influences as a dynamic process, which, in line with your argument, are indeed necessary for us to grow and adapt. I agree with your notion that our ability to process these influences, to order and make sense of them, can lead to a clearer understanding of ourselves and the world. In this sense, influences are not inherently bad, but rather tools that can help us shape our thoughts and actions. However, the outcomes can be both positive and negative, depending upon the influence and our ability to manage and process it.

This brings us back to the story I shared earlier about the egg, potato, and coffee beans. As the father in the story illustrated, the same societal influence (heat in the story) can lead to different outcomes based on the individual's nature and resilience.

So, I concur with your perspective that we are influenced and we can develop. But I also think that this developmental process doesn't necessarily have to involve us becoming hardened like the egg or softened like the potato. It could involve us remaining true to ourselves while also influencing our environment, much like the coffee beans.

I wonder, how do others see the interplay of influences, individuals, and society? Are there ways we can better manage the influences that come our way, or even seek out more positive influences?

[Sushan]

This topic is about the February 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, 
Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral

The greatest danger humans face is the power of bad influences.

(Location 125 of Kindle version)

As per my view, whether good or bad, influences are good to mould ourselves, even after becoming adults. And they will show the true colours of a person. So I disagree with the author's above statement.

What is your opinion about influences in relation to individuals, as well as the society?

The statement is a hyperbole. Human faces many dangers, including extinction and climate change. Comparatively, bad influence is no big deal.

What exactly do you disagree? That 'danger' is not the right term, or that it is out of context? Please elaborate.

Let me skip bad influence between child and adult. Are you questioning the difference imposed by influence between personal and society, or on each?

I would say that, How good or bad, and how much? It depends, which is what this book is about.

Thank you for your response. When I say I disagree with the author's statement, I mean that I view influences, whether perceived as good or bad, as essential components of human development and societal dynamics. They act as catalysts that inspire changes in attitudes, behaviors, and values.

What I intended to convey is that the power of influence isn't an inherent danger. Instead, it is a tool that, depending upon how it is used or received, can lead to various outcomes. The 'danger' doesn't inherently reside in the influence itself but in how it is interpreted, understood, and applied by individuals or societies. The term 'danger' suggests a uniformly negative impact, which I believe is an oversimplification.

I agree with you that the measure of an influence being 'good' or 'bad' is dependent on the context and individual interpretation, as echoed by the narrative of the book we're discussing.

The distinction you've asked about, between personal and societal influence, is indeed crucial. Personal influences often shape individual actions, while societal influences can mold the values and norms of entire communities. However, the interaction between these two levels of influence is complex and often reciprocal.

In light of our discussion, I'd like to further ask, can we as individuals or societies, control the influences we're exposed to? Or should the focus be more on managing our responses to these influences? What are your thoughts?

[Sushan]

It is true that the words "good" and "bad" are arbitrary when it is applied to people. But I think anyone gets an idea when we simply name a person 'good' or 'bad', although it cannot be defined or clearly demarcated. I think that social agreement is enough to have this discussion.

Congenital and genetic factors may make a well built, genius kid. But will they have an effect on his 'goodness'?

I think they have an effect on his goodness capacity, whether he reaches that capacity will mostly depend on his environment and experiences.

I think it is quite unfair to think that humans have various capacities of 'goodness'. Then ultimately such a person with low capacity cannot be blamed for being bad, because it was what he could become. Then he has not been free since the beginning of life as his thought processes have been already stuck within his genetic code. I think all humans have an equal ability to be good, and the choice to achieve a preferred level of 'goodness' is upto the individuals.

You are confusing goodness with legal, thus badness with criminal. Folks who are criminals are punished, folks who are bad but legal get promoted to the head of the department.

Indeed, your perspective brings another layer to our discussion, specifically regarding the intersection of morality and legality. To clarify, my use of 'good' and 'bad' in this context has primarily been to express moral judgement, rather than a legal one.

I agree that there can be individuals who engage in morally questionable behaviour, yet are within the bounds of the law and may even rise to positions of power. However, I believe this only further underlines the importance of individual choices and interpretations in the face of societal influences.

If we equate 'badness' with criminality, we're limiting our understanding of morality to the legal framework, which is a societal construct that can change over time and varies across different societies. It can also be influenced by those in power, potentially promoting certain behaviours that may not align with universal moral values.

If we consider 'goodness' as an inherent capacity, influenced by genetics or congenital factors, are we not oversimplifying the complexity of human nature and free will? Can our choices, our resilience in the face of adversity, our capacity for growth and change, be relegated to predetermined genetic codes?

Or does our human experience, with its spectrum of influences and our responses to them, allow us to transcend beyond our inherent capacities? What are your thoughts?

[LuckyR]

I think they have an effect on his goodness capacity, whether he reaches that capacity will mostly depend on his environment and experiences.

I think it is quite unfair to think that humans have various capacities of 'goodness'. Then ultimately such a person with low capacity cannot be blamed for being bad, because it was what he could become. Then he has not been free since the beginning of life as his thought processes have been already stuck within his genetic code. I think all humans have an equal ability to be good, and the choice to achieve a preferred level of 'goodness' is upto the individuals.

You are confusing goodness with legal, thus badness with criminal. Folks who are criminals are punished, folks who are bad but legal get promoted to the head of the department.

Indeed, your perspective brings another layer to our discussion, specifically regarding the intersection of morality and legality. To clarify, my use of 'good' and 'bad' in this context has primarily been to express moral judgement, rather than a legal one.

I agree that there can be individuals who engage in morally questionable behaviour, yet are within the bounds of the law and may even rise to positions of power. However, I believe this only further underlines the importance of individual choices and interpretations in the face of societal influences.

If we equate 'badness' with criminality, we're limiting our understanding of morality to the legal framework, which is a societal construct that can change over time and varies across different societies. It can also be influenced by those in power, potentially promoting certain behaviours that may not align with universal moral values.

If we consider 'goodness' as an inherent capacity, influenced by genetics or congenital factors, are we not oversimplifying the complexity of human nature and free will? Can our choices, our resilience in the face of adversity, our capacity for growth and change, be relegated to predetermined genetic codes?

Or does our human experience, with its spectrum of influences and our responses to them, allow us to transcend beyond our inherent capacities? What are your thoughts?

OK. Let's let go of the issue of legality that I (apparently) introduced in error. If we use morality as our yardstick, then I assume you mean personal moral code. This is, of course subjective. And doesn't necessarily correlate with behavior. For example, if I have a standard moral code but don't follow it much and thus commit murder I would rank low on "morality". OTOH if I have an atypical moral code, say I'm a Nazi in 1944 and I follow it fastidiously and thus commit killings, I should be high on the scale of "morality"?

As to the roles of nature vs nurture in shaping and the separate issue of following moral codes, IMO environment is more responsible for developing the code and genetics for following it, though both can play a role in both facets.

[Sushan]

I think it is quite unfair to think that humans have various capacities of 'goodness'. Then ultimately such a person with low capacity cannot be blamed for being bad, because it was what he could become. Then he has not been free since the beginning of life as his thought processes have been already stuck within his genetic code. I think all humans have an equal ability to be good, and the choice to achieve a preferred level of 'goodness' is upto the individuals.

You are confusing goodness with legal, thus badness with criminal. Folks who are criminals are punished, folks who are bad but legal get promoted to the head of the department.

Indeed, your perspective brings another layer to our discussion, specifically regarding the intersection of morality and legality. To clarify, my use of 'good' and 'bad' in this context has primarily been to express moral judgement, rather than a legal one.

I agree that there can be individuals who engage in morally questionable behaviour, yet are within the bounds of the law and may even rise to positions of power. However, I believe this only further underlines the importance of individual choices and interpretations in the face of societal influences.

If we equate 'badness' with criminality, we're limiting our understanding of morality to the legal framework, which is a societal construct that can change over time and varies across different societies. It can also be influenced by those in power, potentially promoting certain behaviours that may not align with universal moral values.

If we consider 'goodness' as an inherent capacity, influenced by genetics or congenital factors, are we not oversimplifying the complexity of human nature and free will? Can our choices, our resilience in the face of adversity, our capacity for growth and change, be relegated to predetermined genetic codes?

Or does our human experience, with its spectrum of influences and our responses to them, allow us to transcend beyond our inherent capacities? What are your thoughts?

OK. Let's let go of the issue of legality that I (apparently) introduced in error. If we use morality as our yardstick, then I assume you mean personal moral code. This is, of course subjective. And doesn't necessarily correlate with behavior. For example, if I have a standard moral code but don't follow it much and thus commit murder I would rank low on "morality". OTOH if I have an atypical moral code, say I'm a Nazi in 1944 and I follow it fastidiously and thus commit killings, I should be high on the scale of "morality"?

As to the roles of nature vs nurture in shaping and the separate issue of following moral codes, IMO environment is more responsible for developing the code and genetics for following it, though both can play a role in both facets.

I appreciate your insights and the way you challenge our thinking. In response to your example, I would like to clarify that by 'morality', I am referring to the adherence to generally accepted ethical standards, which typically condemn acts such as murder and intentional harm to others. These standards tend to transcend personal moral codes and are, at least to some degree, shared among various societies and cultures around the world.

From your perspective, it appears that you perceive a moral code as a subjective construct, which indeed it can be. However, for our discussion, it may be more beneficial to think of morality in terms of these universal ethical standards. In that sense, both individuals you described, despite following their personal moral codes, would fall short in terms of universal ethical standards due to their harmful actions.

Concerning the nature vs. nurture debate, it is intriguing to see your viewpoint where environment plays a key role in developing the moral code and genetics influences the adherence to it. However, it raises a question: if the environment shapes our moral code, how can our genetics predetermine our adherence to it? Furthermore, how do we account for instances where individuals, despite their genetic predispositions or upbringing, consciously make choices that defy their moral code or change it altogether?

[LuckyR]

You are confusing goodness with legal, thus badness with criminal. Folks who are criminals are punished, folks who are bad but legal get promoted to the head of the department.

Indeed, your perspective brings another layer to our discussion, specifically regarding the intersection of morality and legality. To clarify, my use of 'good' and 'bad' in this context has primarily been to express moral judgement, rather than a legal one.

I agree that there can be individuals who engage in morally questionable behaviour, yet are within the bounds of the law and may even rise to positions of power. However, I believe this only further underlines the importance of individual choices and interpretations in the face of societal influences.

If we equate 'badness' with criminality, we're limiting our understanding of morality to the legal framework, which is a societal construct that can change over time and varies across different societies. It can also be influenced by those in power, potentially promoting certain behaviours that may not align with universal moral values.

If we consider 'goodness' as an inherent capacity, influenced by genetics or congenital factors, are we not oversimplifying the complexity of human nature and free will? Can our choices, our resilience in the face of adversity, our capacity for growth and change, be relegated to predetermined genetic codes?

Or does our human experience, with its spectrum of influences and our responses to them, allow us to transcend beyond our inherent capacities? What are your thoughts?

OK. Let's let go of the issue of legality that I (apparently) introduced in error. If we use morality as our yardstick, then I assume you mean personal moral code. This is, of course subjective. And doesn't necessarily correlate with behavior. For example, if I have a standard moral code but don't follow it much and thus commit murder I would rank low on "morality". OTOH if I have an atypical moral code, say I'm a Nazi in 1944 and I follow it fastidiously and thus commit killings, I should be high on the scale of "morality"?

As to the roles of nature vs nurture in shaping and the separate issue of following moral codes, IMO environment is more responsible for developing the code and genetics for following it, though both can play a role in both facets.

I appreciate your insights and the way you challenge our thinking. In response to your example, I would like to clarify that by 'morality', I am referring to the adherence to generally accepted ethical standards, which typically condemn acts such as murder and intentional harm to others. These standards tend to transcend personal moral codes and are, at least to some degree, shared among various societies and cultures around the world.

From your perspective, it appears that you perceive a moral code as a subjective construct, which indeed it can be. However, for our discussion, it may be more beneficial to think of morality in terms of these universal ethical standards. In that sense, both individuals you described, despite following their personal moral codes, would fall short in terms of universal ethical standards due to their harmful actions.

Concerning the nature vs. nurture debate, it is intriguing to see your viewpoint where environment plays a key role in developing the moral code and genetics influences the adherence to it. However, it raises a question: if the environment shapes our moral code, how can our genetics predetermine our adherence to it? Furthermore, how do we account for instances where individuals, despite their genetic predispositions or upbringing, consciously make choices that defy their moral code or change it altogether?

Just to clarify, you are (correctly and accurately) describing the difference between ethics and morality. I do not use them interchangeably. Since you are addressing ethical standards (not morality), you can ignore my comments on morality. Ethical standards (like morality) are also subjective, but this subjectivity only has meaning across cultural boundries and historical time periods. For individuals in one place and time they behave as objective standards in the moment.

The difference between creating a moral code and following it is the difference between aspirational goals and convenience. The former are (mostly) shaped by our upbringing. If you are raised by college graduates, you are more likely to value a college education long before you are old enough to go to college. But even if you value a college education, your ability to delay gratification (study for the SAT instead of partying) is more in your nature, that is two brothers who grew up in the same environment can have very different work ethics.