Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

The question of human nature.

LatentDebater
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 11:40:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here is a question that has me torn. (I made it of course)

You and a six year old boy are the sole survivors of a plane crash on a not-so-desert island which happens to be inhabited by highly intelligent chimpanzees.

They communicate with you through expression and hand gestures and let you know that you are not welcome on their land.

They then raise their sticks and rock-ended spears to the air and are ready to beat you both up.

Suddenly the boy begins to run away and they all charge for him.

They all go for him and when they've got him walk away totally forgetting you.

They seem to have not built any boats nor have any civilisation of some kind. You are trapped, that seems certain.

So do you hide for the rest of your life as a silent killer and scavenger or try and fight them in order to die a far less painful death than the one you probably would do due to lack of food and water very soon?

One coice would mean the boy probably would be burnt on a fire and eaten, and then you would be hunted down for a long time.

The other act would mean that you would have been more merciful on yourself and the boy to the best of your ability in that instant but have given up any hopes of survival later on.

This is the real moment where we see if our emotions or instincts are the real subconscious motivators in our lives since emotions are merely sophisticated instincts to begin with.

Don't be so stupid to think self-preservation instinct wouldn't force you to choose the first, as well as the urge to survive but the love for the boy, the fear of what's next and the hatred of the chimps for how they had intimidated you wouldn't drive you to act on a whim.

I'd like to think I'd be smart enough to do the first but I don't like to think that my emotional self is so dead already that it has no control over me at its extreme power.
I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.

People who think they know everything are extremely irritating to those of us who do.

"If you believe in a god, just tell me why you don't believe in all the other gods. The reasons you give will be why I don't believe in yours." - Ricky THEGENIUS Gervais
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 1:32:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It seems like a two-sided question.

On the one hand there's the utility calculation regarding your own well being. Do you die quickly helping the boy or (possibly) die slowly of starvation/thirst. The reason I say possibly is because scavenging/hiding is of course a possibility. To me, the former option seems more utilitarian (from my narrow viewpoint at least). Leaving to hide your entire life with no possibility of getting off the island (while eating scraps of food you might be able to find) doesn't seem like a meaningful or enjoyable existence so I might as well take a few of them with me amirite?

The other question is whether you have a moral obligation to help the boy or whether it would be permissible to leave and let him die. I'd assume (both for the sake of argument and considering it would happen anyways in all probability) that the kid would die regardless of what I did. So I wouldn't feel like I would be morally *required* to do anything. Unless of course motivation is how the moral worth of an action is calculated which I don't particularly think. All in all though the emotional/instinctual response would still probably be to try to help him.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 1:53:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 11:40:40 AM, LatentDebater wrote:
This is the real moment where we see if our emotions or instincts are the real subconscious motivators in our lives since emotions are merely sophisticated instincts to begin with.

Human emotions aren't merely sophisticated instincts. Some of them are maladaptive and serve no purpose besides reinforcing themselves. E.g. spite. Humans are the only creatures which behave out of spite.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 1:56:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Btw what does this have to do with human nature?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 2:51:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 11:40:40 AM, LatentDebater wrote:
Here is a question that has me torn. (I made it of course)

You and a six year old boy are the sole survivors of a plane crash on a not-so-desert island which happens to be inhabited by highly intelligent chimpanzees.

They communicate with you through expression and hand gestures and let you know that you are not welcome on their land.

They then raise their sticks and rock-ended spears to the air and are ready to beat you both up.

Suddenly the boy begins to run away and they all charge for him.

They all go for him and when they've got him walk away totally forgetting you.

They seem to have not built any boats nor have any civilisation of some kind. You are trapped, that seems certain.

So do you hide for the rest of your life as a silent killer and scavenger or try and fight them in order to die a far less painful death than the one you probably would do due to lack of food and water very soon?

One coice would mean the boy probably would be burnt on a fire and eaten, and then you would be hunted down for a long time.

The other act would mean that you would have been more merciful on yourself and the boy to the best of your ability in that instant but have given up any hopes of survival later on.

This is the real moment where we see if our emotions or instincts are the real subconscious motivators in our lives since emotions are merely sophisticated instincts to begin with.

Don't be so stupid to think self-preservation instinct wouldn't force you to choose the first, as well as the urge to survive but the love for the boy, the fear of what's next and the hatred of the chimps for how they had intimidated you wouldn't drive you to act on a whim.

I'd like to think I'd be smart enough to do the first but I don't like to think that my emotional self is so dead already that it has no control over me at its extreme power.

Uh.....what...?
lit.wakefield
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 5:34:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't care about the boy. But as for the monkeys... they must die. I will kill them all even if I must do it one by one, even if I must hide constantly and barely scrape by. I will kill them all through traps and with my cunning. Or they will get me and I will die, but if I succeed, then I shall enact my plan to get off the bloody island and return home and be given the title "Monkey Slayer," but I seriously think my preservation instincts would kick in and I would run like hell. Or I might kill myself. Depends.
"There are only two things in the world: nothing and semantics."
- Werner Erhard
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 7:07:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The obvious answer is to learn the chimpanzee's language so you can earn their trust and then exploit factionalism within the chimpanzee camp to start an internal power struggle. After that's over you just finish off the remaining chimps (or befriend them, depending on level of trust) with their own weaponry that you've been learning how to build.

Or just sell them weaponry in exchange for the boy.

Another option would be impregnate one of their females giving her child the intelligence of a human with the physical strength of a chimp - a deadly combo.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 7:19:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 1:32:42 PM, Noumena wrote:
It seems like a two-sided question.

On the one hand there's the utility calculation regarding your own well being. Do you die quickly helping the boy or (possibly) die slowly of starvation/thirst. The reason I say possibly is because scavenging/hiding is of course a possibility. To me, the former option seems more utilitarian (from my narrow viewpoint at least). Leaving to hide your entire life with no possibility of getting off the island (while eating scraps of food you might be able to find) doesn't seem like a meaningful or enjoyable existence so I might as well take a few of them with me amirite?

The other question is whether you have a moral obligation to help the boy or whether it would be permissible to leave and let him die. I'd assume (both for the sake of argument and considering it would happen anyways in all probability) that the kid would die regardless of what I did. So I wouldn't feel like I would be morally *required* to do anything. Unless of course motivation is how the moral worth of an action is calculated which I don't particularly think. All in all though the emotional/instinctual response would still probably be to try to help him.

You know, this reminds me of a part of The Walking Dead videogame. SPOILERS AHEAD:

You are trying to get supplies from a pharmacy as stealthily as possible. Suddenly a girl runs into the middle of the road screaming while surrounded by zombies. From the website: "A girl is surrounded by walkers; she cannot survive.
Do you leave her or do you shoot her and risk the undead chasing you?"

The statistics for this are interesting. 40.9% shot her. 59.1% did not shoot her. I did not shoot her.

It's interesting to think about whether or not you should try to make someone's death less painful at the cost of your own death. I don't think that you have an "obligation" per se, but it wouldn't be a morally neutral thing to do.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 7:20:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 7:07:00 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The obvious answer is to learn the chimpanzee's language so you can earn their trust and then exploit factionalism within the chimpanzee camp to start an internal power struggle. After that's over you just finish off the remaining chimps (or befriend them, depending on level of trust) with their own weaponry that you've been learning how to build.

Or just sell them weaponry in exchange for the boy.

Another option would be impregnate one of their females giving her child the intelligence of a human with the physical strength of a chimp - a deadly combo.

That's how evolution works kids.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 7:47:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 11:40:40 AM, LatentDebater wrote:
Here is a question that has me torn. (I made it of course)

You and a six year old boy are the sole survivors of a plane crash on a not-so-desert island which happens to be inhabited by highly intelligent chimpanzees.

They communicate with you through expression and hand gestures and let you know that you are not welcome on their land.

They then raise their sticks and rock-ended spears to the air and are ready to beat you both up.

Suddenly the boy begins to run away and they all charge for him.

They all go for him and when they've got him walk away totally forgetting you.

They seem to have not built any boats nor have any civilisation of some kind. You are trapped, that seems certain.

So do you hide for the rest of your life as a silent killer and scavenger or try and fight them in order to die a far less painful death than the one you probably would do due to lack of food and water very soon?

One coice would mean the boy probably would be burnt on a fire and eaten, and then you would be hunted down for a long time.

The other act would mean that you would have been more merciful on yourself and the boy to the best of your ability in that instant but have given up any hopes of survival later on.

This is the real moment where we see if our emotions or instincts are the real subconscious motivators in our lives since emotions are merely sophisticated instincts to begin with.

Don't be so stupid to think self-preservation instinct wouldn't force you to choose the first, as well as the urge to survive but the love for the boy, the fear of what's next and the hatred of the chimps for how they had intimidated you wouldn't drive you to act on a whim.

I'd like to think I'd be smart enough to do the first but I don't like to think that my emotional self is so dead already that it has no control over me at its extreme power.

Human nature is based in reality, not farcical imaginary scenarios. I would wake up from my weird dream about chimpanzees that can communicate their "feelings about land" through sign language that I know nothing about or have ever seen but was able to somehow understand it.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 1:55:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 11:40:40 AM, LatentDebater wrote:
Here is a question that has me torn. (I made it of course)

You and a six year old boy are the sole survivors of a plane crash on a not-so-desert island which happens to be inhabited by highly intelligent chimpanzees.

They communicate with you through expression and hand gestures and let you know that you are not welcome on their land.

They then raise their sticks and rock-ended spears to the air and are ready to beat you both up.

Suddenly the boy begins to run away and they all charge for him.

They all go for him and when they've got him walk away totally forgetting you.

They seem to have not built any boats nor have any civilisation of some kind. You are trapped, that seems certain.

So do you hide for the rest of your life as a silent killer and scavenger or try and fight them in order to die a far less painful death than the one you probably would do due to lack of food and water very soon?

One coice would mean the boy probably would be burnt on a fire and eaten, and then you would be hunted down for a long time.

The other act would mean that you would have been more merciful on yourself and the boy to the best of your ability in that instant but have given up any hopes of survival later on.

This is the real moment where we see if our emotions or instincts are the real subconscious motivators in our lives since emotions are merely sophisticated instincts to begin with.

Don't be so stupid to think self-preservation instinct wouldn't force you to choose the first, as well as the urge to survive but the love for the boy, the fear of what's next and the hatred of the chimps for how they had intimidated you wouldn't drive you to act on a whim.

I'd like to think I'd be smart enough to do the first but I don't like to think that my emotional self is so dead already that it has no control over me at its extreme power.

Our natural inclinations would have of thinking of ways to survive. There is something about the human will that wil not go out with a fighht if faced with life threatening danger.

The chimps would be hunted down one by one like someone else said, and killed in ordere for me to survive.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 6:39:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 1:53:19 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/31/2013 11:40:40 AM, LatentDebater wrote:
This is the real moment where we see if our emotions or instincts are the real subconscious motivators in our lives since emotions are merely sophisticated instincts to begin with.

The Fool: Firstly The reason why instincts is Dropped in science or philosophy, is its to broad that it could mean anything. Its like The Bogus Scholastic Notion Substantial Forms. Which today is Better described today at "its nature." In the same way every answer about anything living was answered with "its because its their natural instinct."

Long ago when scholastic ruled the Schools"

Child: Why does the Rock fall down, to the ground?

Theologian: Because its within its nature to do so.

Child: Why the ground?

Theologian: Because that is its natural place.

Child: Why does x do that, act or is someway?

Theologian: Because of its substantial form. AKA Because of its nature.
AKA because of its natural instinct. Because it Naturally wants to do that.

The Fool: The Problem is that they are Trivial And useless answers to what they the Person wants to know. But just like then we still fall for it now. With different Terms. People are Fooled by this answer.

Rewind that Back".

Child: Why?

Theologian: because it is what it is.

Child: NO SH!T. Obviously I know that it is if I am asking the question, But I am Asking WHY Or how or what causes it to be or happen that way?

Theologian: Oh, Yeah, God!

Child: I seriously Hate you Theologian..

Theologian: What I am not a theologian I am a Philosopher of Religion.

Child: YOU"RE A FVCKING FRAUD!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL