Nathan here.
I recently got into a discussion about the nature of humanity with an Evangelical Christian. Apparently the only way for me to turn from my 'wicked' nature is to give my life to Jesus. I began wondering if he had a traumatic experience in life or if he had committed some kind of crime or foolishness that he couldn't forgive himself for. It would make sense after all...what better way of accepting forgiveness than believing that the ultimate power accepts you for who you are and what you've done. It must be significantly easier to go on living with moderate guilt. Regardless, that's not what I want to talk about.
The idea of human nature would imply some kind of ethical principle that dictates what is moral or immoral. Two concepts that are more than difficult for me to understand...I'd like to propose that neither actually exist. Bear with me on this one and hang on until the end.
What has been deemed moral and immoral has fluctuated on a radical level throughout human history. Keeping the conversation in the modern period it's easy to compare political systems' influence on the evolution of morality. I'm sure growing up in the Hitler Youth would produce a completely different ethical perspective than those who have grown up in an overtly accepting society like a nation similar Canada (not to inject bias into the argument :p).
I think the easiest principle to address is the value of human life. I'm sure those living in China or even Russia would have a completely different perspective on the sanctity of life than those in North America (excluding American foreign policy). Altering perspectives surrounding an 'ethical principle' such as respecting human life would suggest that there is no absolute moral principle that governs humanity - morality is, instead, dictated by socialization. This theory would also suggest that a person who is juxtaposed with a nation's moral principles is not 'corrupted' by the principles of another nation; A standard in which to base 'corrupted' from 'uncorrupted' can not exist. People's morality simply is. A conservative capitalist society, one like America, would promote short term gain over possible long term consequence. It's better to make a million dollars in a month that would hinder thousands of people than performing some kind of responsible action that would turn a profit over a significantly longer period of time. I think many people would view that morality as 'corrupted' or 'immoral'...despite its encouragement throughout North America.
This entire rant is not to be taken as a justification any action kind of action, regardless of how it either 'positively' or 'negatively' affects humanity. Instead, it's more of a critique over judgement of others. One person's morality can't be 'better' or more 'valid' than someone else's because there's no real base to judge its validity.
Where does this leave us? I don't know. If anyone pretends to have all of the answers they're probably selling something. Despite this, I'd rather play with concepts like morality than try and follow any kind of socially accepted principle without thinking about it. This isn't some kind of pretentious, deep argument. It's more like a series of questions...where can we stand and what should we do about it?
Just a little food for thought I guess.
Talk to you later
I recently got into a discussion about the nature of humanity with an Evangelical Christian. Apparently the only way for me to turn from my 'wicked' nature is to give my life to Jesus. I began wondering if he had a traumatic experience in life or if he had committed some kind of crime or foolishness that he couldn't forgive himself for. It would make sense after all...what better way of accepting forgiveness than believing that the ultimate power accepts you for who you are and what you've done. It must be significantly easier to go on living with moderate guilt. Regardless, that's not what I want to talk about.
The idea of human nature would imply some kind of ethical principle that dictates what is moral or immoral. Two concepts that are more than difficult for me to understand...I'd like to propose that neither actually exist. Bear with me on this one and hang on until the end.
What has been deemed moral and immoral has fluctuated on a radical level throughout human history. Keeping the conversation in the modern period it's easy to compare political systems' influence on the evolution of morality. I'm sure growing up in the Hitler Youth would produce a completely different ethical perspective than those who have grown up in an overtly accepting society like a nation similar Canada (not to inject bias into the argument :p).
I think the easiest principle to address is the value of human life. I'm sure those living in China or even Russia would have a completely different perspective on the sanctity of life than those in North America (excluding American foreign policy). Altering perspectives surrounding an 'ethical principle' such as respecting human life would suggest that there is no absolute moral principle that governs humanity - morality is, instead, dictated by socialization. This theory would also suggest that a person who is juxtaposed with a nation's moral principles is not 'corrupted' by the principles of another nation; A standard in which to base 'corrupted' from 'uncorrupted' can not exist. People's morality simply is. A conservative capitalist society, one like America, would promote short term gain over possible long term consequence. It's better to make a million dollars in a month that would hinder thousands of people than performing some kind of responsible action that would turn a profit over a significantly longer period of time. I think many people would view that morality as 'corrupted' or 'immoral'...despite its encouragement throughout North America.
This entire rant is not to be taken as a justification any action kind of action, regardless of how it either 'positively' or 'negatively' affects humanity. Instead, it's more of a critique over judgement of others. One person's morality can't be 'better' or more 'valid' than someone else's because there's no real base to judge its validity.
Where does this leave us? I don't know. If anyone pretends to have all of the answers they're probably selling something. Despite this, I'd rather play with concepts like morality than try and follow any kind of socially accepted principle without thinking about it. This isn't some kind of pretentious, deep argument. It's more like a series of questions...where can we stand and what should we do about it?
Just a little food for thought I guess.
Talk to you later
