Savagery of Mankind and its darker instincts

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2003-01-14 12:23am

Hi

I just reread Lord of the Flies by William Golding. For those who have not read it, it is the descent of a group of boys stranded on a tropical island into anarchy and paranoid madness, with civilization, reason, and order represented by Piggy, a highly intelligent, fat, asthmatic boy(someone who in the primitive world of the hunter gatherers would never survive), and the chaos and anarchy of the Hobbesian view of savagery represented by Jack, the charismatic leader of the hunters.

If the presence of this savagery is true, and the basic instincts including the survival instinct formed a hot underlayer to all civilized minds, would it mandate forms of Hobbesian Justice-namely, punishment for all crimes, preferably punishment which all can understand i.e. pain?

However, as I believe that it is possible for people to control this savage presence, I am a more firm believer in Humian morality, which relies on moral emotions such as guilt rather than fear in order to create order and security.

Any comments?

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-01-14 12:25am

A system of laws which punishes crimes through guilt alone is insane. Would you arm your police with passive/aggressive behaviour traits?

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-14 12:25am

What we need is a perfect balance between savagery and civilization. Best of both worlds.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » 2003-01-14 01:01am

Guilt?

Most people don't have morals. Pain and fear are all most understand and they must be implemented to the fullest

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-14 01:14am

Guilt?

Most people don't have morals. Pain and fear are all most understand and they must be implemented to the fullest

Are you pulling that out of your ass? Prove how did humanity invent laws in the first place if what you just said is true.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-14 01:20am

IMHO, the majority of people are ethical hedonists; they do things for their own pleasure (in the end). They treat people nicely so they will be treated nice, which makes them feel good. They don't lie so others won't lie to them, etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseam. There are some people with a more highly developed ethical sense who will recgonize that other people have rights equal to their own, and that those rights must be respected. They are the ones who originally developed laws and most of civilization.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-14 01:26am

IMHO, the majority of people are ethical hedonists; they do things for their own pleasure (in the end). They treat people nicely so they will be treated nice, which makes them feel good. They don't lie so others won't lie to them, etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseam. There are some people with a more highly developed ethical sense who will recgonize that other people have rights equal to their own, and that those rights must be respected. They are the ones who originally developed laws and most of civilization.

Exactly. I was thinking that Orion maybe doesn't understand this.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » 2003-01-14 01:26am

Prove how did humanity invent laws in the first place if what you just said is true.

My point exactly. Laws carry with them set penalties that are executed upon those who brake them. A degree of fear is implemented in that. You might think twice before commiting an "Enron" because you fear having to attend "please don't fuck me in the ass prison."

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-01-14 01:29am

Laws are required in order to bolster a set of guidelines and values that should have been instilled by parenting and socialization. For those who are truly evil, laws don't stop them. For those who are unfettered by law (eg- white collar criminals for whom capture and prosecution are mild threats at best), guidelines and values don't stop them. You need both.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » 2003-01-14 01:29am

I understand that concept just fine. But not all adhere to a set code of morals or the golden rule and that's where fear of punishment or pain for said actions comes into play.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-14 01:30am

My point exactly. Laws carry with them set penalties that are executed upon those who brake them. A degree of fear is implemented in that. You might think twice before commiting an "Enron" because you fear having to attend "please don't fuck me in the ass prison."

I'm talking about the people who invented the laws in the first place, not these that the law applies to.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » 2003-01-14 01:35am

Those who first conceptualized laws may have actually had morals, a set honor code. Out of a great need to retain order in their societies. But many don't follow things like these. That's why laws carry with them punishments for their rupture. As I said before, fear and pain are all many understand or can grasp as a concept worthy of consideration when weighing their options. I.E. Enron scenario ^

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-14 01:37am

Those who first conceptualized laws may have actually had morals, a set honor code. But many don't follow things like these. That's why laws carry with them punishments for their rupture. As I said before, fear and pain are all many understand.

How did these "morals" develop in the first place? They couldn't have pulled these out of their asses for all we know.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » 2003-01-14 01:46am

How did these "morals" develop in the first place? They couldn't have pulled these out of their asses for all we know.

Yes they could have, look at the ten commandments, a document with the precise intent of controlling people under the authority of fear, braught on by the threat of eternal damnation. This one example retained order in society and gave a hell of a lot of control to those of "greater" religious enlightenment.

You don't have to agree with me. I don't have a very posotive outlook on humanity, I tand to think all people are inherently evil.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-14 01:55am

Yes they could have, look at the ten commandments, a document with the precise intent of controlling people under the authority of fear, braught on by the threat of eternal damnation. This one example retained order in society and gave a hell of a lot of control to those of "greater" religious enlightenment.

You don't have to agree with me. I don't have a very posotive outlook on humanity, I tand to think all people are inherently evil.

Yes, and some people saw it as evil and repressive so they changed the rules in order to benefit the greatest people possible so they would feel better. Humans do things for their own self-gain, despite what socialists (like my sister

) say.