Human nature

[SingingAnalyst]

I vote option 2.

Certain human behaviors (e.g., helping strangers who cannot reciprocate) can only be explained (it seems to me) by a fundamental genetic goodness in human nature (and that of other animals as well) (or possibly a Jungian collective memory).

[Person Man]

3. If it was different, we would be living in a world of predetermined outcomes, without free will. And there are theologies and scientific theories that allude to that possibility of a perfectly predictable universe but though no expirement has disproved it, there are still many unresolved and contradictory observed facts and ideas.

[pbrower2a]

We can choose good or evil, but a wholesome environment will lead most people to good. That is the qualification. There's a big difference between a Quaker world and a Nazi world.

So what leads people to be good? Appropriate inculcation of values -- like empathy, a good work ethic, respect for human difference, a desire for justice, and a rejection of excess. Of course there have been some very sick societies that bring out the worst. But those sick societies have a tendency to self-destruct.

[The_Doctor]

Donald Trump is a walking indictment of human nature. Obviously, people need to be restrained (and by extension, governments).

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Other. Human behavior is determined by a combination of genetic predispositions, socialization processes, and (to a limited extent) "free will".

[Person Man]

Other. Human behavior is determined by a combination of genetic predispositions, socialization processes, and (to a limited extent) "free will".

[pbrower2a]

Donald Trump is a walking indictment of human nature. Obviously, people need to be restrained (and by extension, governments).

Donald Trump is a walking indictment of the worst part of his class, people who believe that the rest of the world exists to enrich and indulge him. This is a man without empathy or scruples. At the low social end, one's upbringing brings about an Alton Coleman (serial killer) or Charles Manson (murderous cultist). In the social middle one might end up with sexual sadists (Ted Bundy, John Gacy) who end up killing people to hide their deviance for a while or a scammer like Bernie Madoff or Ken Lay. At the 'high' end the absolute worst were aristocrats of central Europe who perpetrated the Holocaust to destroy Jewish dissent with exploitative ideologies.

Unless sociopathic tendencies are genetic in nature, most people can learn some suitable values. A good society inculcates those values with active teaching and viable incentives.    

[Antonio the Sixth]

Option 3 (normal).

Defining human nature as fundamentally good or evil means depriving these concepts of any meaning.

[RFayette]

A combination of options 4 and 5.  Harsh punishments must be meted out, but a government too large is liable to cause problems given human nature.

[vanguard96]

I picked 3rd but perhaps consider #2 to a degree based on the idea of natural rights. I would have to read more on various takes on this topic.

[The Self]

The third option is the only option compatible with human freedom and dignity.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The third option is the only option compatible with human freedom and dignity.

How would a person ever choose what they want to be?

[The Self]

The third option is the only option compatible with human freedom and dignity.

How would a person ever choose what they want to be?

People choose who they are constantly. All life is a choice.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The third option is the only option compatible with human freedom and dignity.

How would a person ever choose what they want to be?

People choose who they are constantly. All life is a choice.

People make what we call "choices" based on a set of predispositions, circumstances, and values systems. Most decisions arrived at are thusly the result of preexisting factors or absurd chance. As such, I would say it's very inappropriate to claim people simply choose to behave certain ways. "Free will" is a hedonistic fantasy.

[The Self]

The third option is the only option compatible with human freedom and dignity.

How would a person ever choose what they want to be?

People choose who they are constantly. All life is a choice.

People make what we call "choices" based on a set of predispositions, circumstances, and values systems. Most decisions arrived at are thusly the result of preexisting factors or absurd chance. As such, I would say it's very inappropriate to claim people simply choose to behave certain ways. "Free will" is a hedonistic fantasy.

I'm simply not interested in your opinion on the subject. Sorry.

[Del Tachi]

Option 5.

[Starpaul20]

Option 3.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The third option is the only option compatible with human freedom and dignity.

How would a person ever choose what they want to be?

People choose who they are constantly. All life is a choice.

People make what we call "choices" based on a set of predispositions, circumstances, and values systems. Most decisions arrived at are thusly the result of preexisting factors or absurd chance. As such, I would say it's very inappropriate to claim people simply choose to behave certain ways. "Free will" is a hedonistic fantasy.

I'm simply not interested in your opinion on the subject. Sorry.

Then what are your interests? Perhaps I could play more to those instead.

[The Self]

The third option is the only option compatible with human freedom and dignity.

How would a person ever choose what they want to be?

People choose who they are constantly. All life is a choice.

People make what we call "choices" based on a set of predispositions, circumstances, and values systems. Most decisions arrived at are thusly the result of preexisting factors or absurd chance. As such, I would say it's very inappropriate to claim people simply choose to behave certain ways. "Free will" is a hedonistic fantasy.

I'm simply not interested in your opinion on the subject. Sorry.

Then what are your interests? Perhaps I could play more to those instead.

Freedom. And as you don't value it very highly (though I'm sure you make an exception for your own), I'm afraid we're going to remain at loggerheads.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I am unsure where I indicated that I hate freedom, but that is no reason to hate your fellow man!

[Antonio the Sixth]

This free speech vs determinism argument always struck me as silly. Sure, when you get down to it, everything is determined on a basic level. All particles interact according to predictable rules (well, not quite when you get to quantum physics, but it's hard to see quantum physics as the basis for free will). Still, for all intents and purposes, on the level of perception at which everyday human beings interact, we seem to be able to make conscious choices that can't be deterministically traced to a proximate cause. If we took determinism seriously, individuals would act and society would be organized in a way that would strike everybody as nonsensical and immoral. So obviously free will must exist.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

If we took determinism seriously, individuals would act and society would be organized in a way that would strike everybody as nonsensical and immoral.

Exactly. If free will were to exist, people would act far more logically and in a more similar fashion.

[Kingpoleon]

A combination of options 4 and 5.  Harsh punishments must be meted out, but a government too large is liable to cause problems given human nature.

Agreed, but the potential redemption of mankind makes me also lean towards option 3.


TL;DR: The poll is over-simplifying a very complex issue.