From: [email protected]

{snipped - see 036a, 036b}


In article <[email protected]>,
  [email protected] wrote:
>
> 2. You can achieve a synthesis by convincing yourself that human
>    nature is something other than what it is, as I believe some of the
>    posters to the group that Owleye gets infuriated with are trying
>    to do.

I haven't picked up what features of human nature are being referred to
here. 

FWIW I am having trouble with the apparent presumption that we are
generally a 'nice' social animal. On your website, Phil, there was some
reference to the question of why we turn out more like Mother Theresa
than Josef Stalin and my answer would be that we don't and that there are
still people who think of Stalin as the saviour of their forebears rather
than a monster. 

I think there is an intellectual danger in presuming that
we are as our ideals ask us to be, or to put it another way "Believing
our own press releases". Is it really charitable, humane and generous for
countries which spend _trillions_ of dollars on weapons to _lend_ money
to countries stricken by famine? Is it really a just and right moral
position to take for countries which throw millions of tonnes of food
away every year to impose economic sanctions on countries which are
already poor because their leader is (cough) less than appealing, thus
causing the malnourishment or death of many of that country's children? I
find the fundamental thesis of human beings being surprisingly 'selfless'
and interested in the well-being of the broad scope of humanity is not
well made. There is something to it, yes, but there are many other
factors involved and self-interest of various sorts is served by much of
this supposed selflessness.


{snipped - see 036d}