The Myth of Myths

As it were, human nature is part of Nature ; Nature gave rise to Human Nature (Albert Jacquard calls this humanitude). So, as it were, we cannot say that empathy, or compassion even, is unnatural. We may be able to say that NOT helping others who find themselves deprived of necessities behave contrary to nature -- and those who consciously deprive others for their own gain not only behave contrary to nature, but are committing a wilful act of violence. In Nature's law then, as our ancestors would have done, greedy people would be excluded from the group - not rise to be the leaders of it.

:dry:

That is natures law, not mine, thankfully we live in a society that dosn't agree withn nature, we all need help from time to time. My point is about stealing and is there a justification for it, i dont think so but hopefully we continue to live in a society which is giving and caring.

The fact is they Perish, this happens daily in this world we live in. Men, women and children are dying each day as the worlds governments stand by an watch, this is a fact of life. They only interfere when they feel their way of thinking is comprimised. In nature, man can be the cruelest of beasts yet the most forgiving. Which brings me back to my origonal point on Myths, they dont feed the staving millions or provide shelter and protection, if the aforementioned are trials then you can keep your Myths.

If someone was in a position of requiring help, let say for example they have no food and no way to earn money, and felt that stealing was their only option to feed themselves, would that be a justification? Perhaps if as Alexandre says "nature gives rise to human nature", is stealing a means of survival too? Is someone who is strong and succesfully stealing from the weak the "fittest" and therefore their survival is justified? It happens in "animal" nature after all.

Greed is a human trait, in nature there is very rarely the concept of sharing, for example why does a dog bolt its food quickly, simple, its scared the other dogs get to it before he does. Is this greed, no, just instinct telling it to survive.
Human nature have evolved beyond that of "mere" animals and to compre the 2 isnt quite right, similarities, yes, same as no.
Man has certainly become a breed apart.

So if greed is not a fear of lack, what is it?

The only thing which one attempts to clarify is that human nature and Nature are not different things. Nature gave rise to our Reason, but it is our de-Reason which makes us act contrary to Nature and thus also contrary to our own nature. Our societal laws are not 'natural' ones ; this gives rise to many of our social problems.

Greed is a learnt behaviour, not an inherent one. When one steals in order to fulfil some learnt desire (hypothetical), then most certainly that is abject behaviour. The easiest way to recognise this is when one steals something which has only 'instrumental' value (we can easily live without it). On the other hand, taking what is needed for living when one is put into the position of not being able to provide for oneself - and/or by extension, one's family - then I could not really qualify this as 'theft'. Not really ...

Nozick would say, actually he did say, that taxation was 'theft'. I could not agree. When one is given the liberty to not share with the less fortunate the benefits of one's labour, then one is acting in contradiction to natural laws and it could be prudent to treat that person for it - as one would 'treat' any psychopath. And greed is as psychopathic as lying and physical violence.

Please understand, I'm not necessarily talking about very average income families who are already under financial burden (namely consumer debt) having to worsen their situations by trying to help out all of the homeless of a city. On the other hand, I am questioning the morality of extreme fortunes and the ruling elite. If we are really going to base an economy on John Locke's philosophy, then let's do it according to what Locke really said.

Even if we have not come to any conclusions about right and wrong - gods know we philosophers have been baraguouining on about it for thousands of years - since ethics is such a persistent subject, like religion, it must also be inherent and natural to the human animal.

Society can't be giving and caring unless the individuals it unites are. If the individuals are selfish, miserly and apathetic, the society ... well, read/listen to/watch the news.

So, I'm not going to continue to insult you here with humanist considerations. If you really want to debate these things, it would be better to have more solid arguments than opinions (please provide support for what one states is a "fact"). I would suggest getting to know John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Robert Nozick, John Rawls, Dan Batson, Martha Nussbaum, Peter Singer &c. Otherwise we can't really have a conversation.

To return to the topic, myths are cautionary tales, they are not real accounts, nor are they merely 'stories which are not true'. They give us guides for living well. Myths are inherent to us, they do reflect a sort of shared value base. Modern myths often have stealing and killing in them : Star Wars, Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings. And in all of these stories, we see the same recurrent themes as in classic mythology. It is not only because they are well marketed that these have become cult classics - it is because they respond to some basic need in the human psyche.

Most of society is just too domesticated to realise it.

WilliamHaining wrote: Which brings me back to my origonal point on Myths, they dont feed the staving millions or provide shelter and protection, if the aforementioned are trials then you can keep your Myths.

And, what of the myth of WilliamHaining?

Myths are there to transfer a point...

Me: "Son dont go swimming, there is a strong undercurrent"

Son: "What is that?"

Begin lengthy disertation on tidal currents...

Now, lets try that with a myth...

Me: "Son, dont go swimming there, there are monsters"

Son: "uh, really? ok..."

Now obviously this is a bit basic and simple but I think you get the point...

I have yet to see anyone put, " faith before anything else"...

You are hung up on the word 'myth' I think...

Try looking at it 'big picture style'....

+++++++++++++++++++++
Regarding 'nature's laws'...

You ever hear the term, "against nature's laws"?

Sure, but where are these? What are these?

These are 'laws' and rules of order that man has applied to the natural order... And when nature acts counterdictory, they exclaim, "thats against the laws of nature"...

As it is nature that acts this way, then it is not going against it's own law...

Because, in my opinion, it doesnt have any...

WilliamHaining wrote: "That is natures law, not mine"

Yea, if you subscribe to it, and think it real, it is yours just as much...

Just like a speed limit is 'man's law'... If you dont speed, you agree and take it as your own...

Whereas if you speed, you do not care for 'man's law' and do not take it for your own...

+++++++++
Stealing is wrong in the eyes of man...

It is against mans law...

I dont give a fig for mans law... I do what I feel is right, and what I can live with...

I think abortion is wrong (not the right thread, but I have a point), so I will not abort a pregnancy if I am ask...

Whether I can afford to pay for that baby or not...

I mighta used a condom, the pill, and pulled out... Trying to avoid a baby...

But ya know, "nature's law' () is "it will find a way/ will not be denied"...

So, while I have to play nice to live in society, please dont jack with my family... (not you, and indivdual)

I may have to break one of 'man's' laws and show a brother what hell really is...

++++++++++++++++++++
I do have a question, WilliamHaining...

You call yourself a "free thinker", but bind your thoughts by the laws of man, and nature?

WilliamHaining wrote: If you cant afford to feed your children, then don't bring a life into the world. To steal is inexcusable, period.

People get sick, lose jobs, lose money, are injured in accidents ....

You can't come up with a single scenario where stealing is justified?

It is easy to judge when one sets in a position of comfort.

I don’t think it is reasonable to create blanket rules/judgments. Each position is unique and I don’t feel anyone will understand another’s motives until they have walked in their shoes.

It is said, “give a man a fish and feed them for a day, teach a man to fish and feed for life.” But what good would it do to teach someone on deaths door how to fish when what they really need is a meal?

Sometimes you have to do both.

The same is true about condemning ones actions. I can tell you that it is wrong for you to steal, but is it not “more” wrong for me to stand by and watch one starve?


I feel that it is unrealistic to try and create rules that will cover all circumstances. And wonder if society might not be better off if we were taught a moral standard which we could draw from to evaluate the individual situation. :huh: