I have a philosophical conundrum i am open to debate.

I believe humans to be violent not by nature but by environmental influence. Although, we feel hunger. Therefore we kill to eat. We made it to the top of the food chain because we have thumbs and imagination and eventually turned our weapons on eachother because of hunger, the corruption of greed and a misguided interpretation of wealth. Even the most humble of person might steal or kill when faced with starvation of themselves or thier loved ones. Is that selfish or nature?

We spend time "fighting for equality" but only for equality to our chosen groups regaurdless if it hurts others. Does that not become selfishness?

If we truly understood empathy would we not all starve together, leaving no man behind until all the food is gone if the case may be? We do not do that. We are split by the social classes we create and the idea that this paper money is wealth, yet few are truly happy. We have the unsaid idea that people who do not have money don't deserve food. Therefore those who do not conform to our cultural ideologies do not deserve thier life regaurdless if they chose to be born in it or not. That is selfish.

Are humans capable of true empathy? Or are we so divided by national identity and cultural ideolgies that we are doomed to implode by our own corrupted minds created by the societies we are born into.

Top | New | Old

greencompass · 36-40, F

Well that was a lot. I think I have a vague gist of your arguments.. with key ideas being hunger, greed, selfishness, nature, empathy, groups.

Are you saying that because of the human need for food humans are innately and inevitably greedy for material goods and selfish? If so, I think that's quite a leap. It's one thing to wanna survive starving to death, it's another thing to hoard more resources than is necessary. I think hunger is definitely part of human nature; I'm not sure greed qualifies to the same degree.

We spend time "fighting for equality" but only for equality to our chosen groups regaurdless if it hurts others. Does that not become selfishness?

I think to fight for equality means to fight for X of all parties, hence equality, not just chosen groups. Do you mean equity rather than equality? Fighting for the interests of one's own group can be seen as self-interest sure. If you think things are strictly like a zero-sum game, sure self-interest means others get hurt. But zero-sum thinking neglects the fact that common interests do exist among humans and groups.

If we truly understood empathy would we not all starve together, leaving no man behind until all the food is gone if the case may be?

I think maybe you're conflating empathy with compassion. There is a limit to how much people can care sometimes. Compassion fatigue exists. That said, ideally all humans would be empathetic and attuned to the suffering, or in this case the hunger, of those less fortunate. I don't think that means humans would all starve together though. Rather humans would share what they can so that more people can eat.

We have the unsaid idea that people who do not have money don't deserve food. Therefore those who do not conform to our cultural ideologies do not deserve thier life regaurdless if they chose to be born in it or not. That is selfish.

I think it's warped to think that just because you don't have the means to afford food you don't deserve it. Likewise I don't see how the first sentence follows the second.

Are humans capable of true empathy?

Yes many humans are capable of empathizing. Many are even compassionate. Just cause different humans belong to different groups doesn't mean we're doomed to a fate of zero-sum games where the physiological need for food underpins the morality of all and makes everyone greedy.

Hopefully I caught at least part of what you're saying🤷🏻‍♀

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

GuyWithOpinions · 31-35, M

@jshm2 for your first paragraph, religions are a practice that is taught, we are not born with this knowledge hence why there they are many and we are so diverse. But it may be our nature to believe in something greater than our selves wich leads to cultures of science and relgion. My question is what is the nature of a human being , along with the need to consume to survive. Humanity is far from a benevolent species and i believe hunger is a determining factor of this. What if we photosynthesized our food rather than hunt for it would that not change how we think, feel and create our societies? It is our nature to eat regaurdless of our system of beliefs.

Second paragraph,
I believe humans clinging to an archaic hierarchical structure is why problems occur but turning away from faith is also a contributing factor regaurdless of what our individual beliefs are. National identity and different cultural ideologies prevents unification and empathy towards others outside our nation or culture otherwise we would view our selves as humans from earth rather than a member of an individual nation. the earth is not made for us, we endure, adapt and overcome our obstacles through innovation and creativity that other mammals lack. We have conquered our environment and became the top of the food chain. We have the means to accommodate everyone yet we dont. We rather fight over our differences for personal gain Or die for political ideologies thinking we are free because we are taught national identity.
"Why" do we do this and is curruption and greed natural to humans when given power over others?

Adstar · 56-60, M

GuyWithOpinions::
31-35, M
We have the unsaid idea that people who do not have money don't deserve food.

Speak for yourself.. I have NEVER heald such an opinion.. And i find it very offensive that you try and tell me and everyone else that we do..

Therefore those who do not conform to our cultural ideologies do not deserve thier life regaurdless

Once again speak for yourself.. Don't try and hoist such evil ideas onto everyone..

Are humans capable of true empathy?

Most are capable of it.. Some are not.. Such is life..

we are doomed to implode by our own corrupted minds created by the societies we are born into.

You are the type who thinks all our problems are caused by forces outside us.. You are a ""nurture"" believer on the debate between nurture and nature.. If you continue to disregard nature you will continue to waste your time trying to come to a correct conclusion and therefore you will never have any ability to come to any solutions..

GuyWithOpinions · 31-35, M

@Adstar when you sit down for dinner with your family, would you be willing to to scrape off half of everyones plate so others, who might not work as hard a do, have the chance to eat?

We find pride and a sense of duty to provide for our families but we do not provide for everyone. One could also argue that its not our responsibility to do so. We should all be able to provide for ourselves since we have the means to do so. But then why do some starve while some have more than they need?

Why do first world nations have fancy steak dinners while third world nations ration what they can find? We even have people in our own nations who barley have enough to survive while business throw out food they feel they cant sell.

If this is a societal norm across most countries, how do we as humans define empathy? And are we that definition as a whole? Is it our nature to be empathetic or a righteous ideal that we idolize?

Adstar · 56-60, M

@GuyWithOpinions

@Adstar when you sit down for dinner with your family, would you be willing to to scrape off half of everyones plate so others, who might not work as hard a do, have the chance to eat?

No because that would be thieft.. I would be willing to scrape half my food off my own plate because that would be my own personal decision to give charity to give another person something to eat..

We find pride and a sense of duty to provide for our families but we do not provide for everyone.

Some people give charity to others not in their families ..

One could also argue that its not our responsibility to do so.

Yes some would argue that..

We should all be able to provide for ourselves since we have the means to do so.

Sometimes people fall into situations not of their own responsability where they do not have the means to provide for themselves... There are millions of people in Sudan currently who cannot work to provide for themselves because of the genocidal violence being carried out in the region of Darfur..

Why do first world nations have fancy steak dinners while third world nations ration what they can find?

Because many first world nations have Laws and cultures that promote an environment of material prosperity.. while many third world nations do not..

If this is a societal norm across most countries, how do we as humans define empathy?

The situation on the ground does not effect a persons genuine Empathy.. A person with genuine empathy does not give a meal to a hungry person because the hungery person deserves to eat.. They give to the needy because it is Good to give to the needy because they other person is a fellow Human being and deserving of love/ caring just as much as anyone else.. No matter how a person came to be in the terrible situation they are in we should still extend help to them if we have the means to help them..

Is it our nature to be empathetic or a righteous ideal that we idolize?

I believe in our early state ( childhood ) we are naturally more Empathetic.. But as we grow older some people's greed and hardness leads them to become less and less empathetic.. Some people end up loving what is good and some end up loving what is evil..

People can both be empathetic and also idealize rightious empathy... Because there are different levels of Empathy.. Most people do not take their empathy performance to the point of empathetic perfection.. For instance a person would give away all their food and the cloths off their back and would choose to die of starvation to help others if they where performing empathy to a perfect level..

No one is perfect.. But people can admire perfection even when they are not perfect..

Add a comment...