I think what Emily is saying is that even though we may be predisposed to kill each other in the precivilized state (define it however you will), it is nevertheless inevitable and in our basic human nature to move away from that by creating the social contract.
I should add that I say "in our basic human nature" since humans tend to congregate and be social. We can all agree on that, right? Look at monkeys. :P
This tendency towards social behavior combined with our level of intelligence naturally leads to agreements and suppression of chaotic behavior. But this a generalization--not a rule. Wars and stuff--those are times when intellect fails to solve basic conflicts. So why don't many other animals have the social contract? Because they either 1) lack the intelligence to do so or 2) are not social enough to warrant it (the UMich Wolverine comes to mind).
In short, I don't know how possible it is to identify a chaotic "state of nature" when it is so ingrained in us to avoid it. It seems like the Homo sapiens' "state of nature" would be some form of civilization--not some form of anarchy. As a corollary to that, it almost seems like if you had to go back far enough to find a chaotic "state of nature", you would have to go back to a time when we were not Homo sapiens.
And here's a line from Wikipedia:
"The first modern philosopher to articulate a detailed contract theory was Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), who contended that people in a state of nature ceded their individual rights to create sovereignty, retained by the state, in return for their protection and a more functional society, so social contract evolves out of pragmatic self-interest."
Yeah, Andrei, there are isolated examples like that. But looking at the whole of history (like you said), it's pretty clear that at any given time in the world the majority of humans lived in peace as opposed to war.
Ghengis Khan might've killed a bunch of people across Asia and Europe, but still--that doesn't mean that everybody in the world was running around killing each other while that was happening.
Kidnappings, 5 kids dead in NO, 9/11... these are horrible things, but they are NOT things that regular humans do.
Actually, I concede that these ARE things that people do, but only in the short term. For example, if we had another Katrina but there was no outside interference, I think there would be violence and killing and raping and looting etcetera, but I think it wouldn't last forever. Something would happen--some kind of order would be set up eventually.
"...simple necessity whose main objective seems to be violence and often, the killing of their fellow men..."
I don't understand how you came to this conclusion. This is simply not true. Gangs don't exist to kill people, the mafia doesn't exist to kill people, and neither do Sunni or Shiite tribes in the middle east.
I mean, they kill people, but they don't kill people just for the sake of killing people.
And looking at the big scheme of things--yeah, gangs and stuff represent social contracts. But social contracts get absorbed into other social contracts. I think if the US Government suddenly vanished, we'd form our own little governments along the way (see: Somalia). And I think that with things like the Mafia and street gangs, there is a certain pressure for them to integrate themselves into existing, peaceful society. If not, we wouldn't see them as a Bad Thing--certainly not go after them with police.
8 Comments:
I think what Emily is saying is that even though we may be predisposed to kill each other in the precivilized state (define it however you will), it is nevertheless inevitable and in our basic human nature to move away from that by creating the social contract.
I should add that I say "in our basic human nature" since humans tend to congregate and be social. We can all agree on that, right? Look at monkeys. :P
This tendency towards social behavior combined with our level of intelligence naturally leads to agreements and suppression of chaotic behavior. But this a generalization--not a rule. Wars and stuff--those are times when intellect fails to solve basic conflicts. So why don't many other animals have the social contract? Because they either 1) lack the intelligence to do so or 2) are not social enough to warrant it (the UMich Wolverine comes to mind).
In short, I don't know how possible it is to identify a chaotic "state of nature" when it is so ingrained in us to avoid it. It seems like the Homo sapiens' "state of nature" would be some form of civilization--not some form of anarchy. As a corollary to that, it almost seems like if you had to go back far enough to find a chaotic "state of nature", you would have to go back to a time when we were not Homo sapiens.
And here's a line from Wikipedia:
"The first modern philosopher to articulate a detailed contract theory was Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), who contended that people in a state of nature ceded their individual rights to create sovereignty, retained by the state, in return for their protection and a more functional society, so social contract evolves out of pragmatic self-interest."
Yeah, Andrei, there are isolated examples like that. But looking at the whole of history (like you said), it's pretty clear that at any given time in the world the majority of humans lived in peace as opposed to war.
Ghengis Khan might've killed a bunch of people across Asia and Europe, but still--that doesn't mean that everybody in the world was running around killing each other while that was happening.
Kidnappings, 5 kids dead in NO, 9/11... these are horrible things, but they are NOT things that regular humans do.
Actually, I concede that these ARE things that people do, but only in the short term. For example, if we had another Katrina but there was no outside interference, I think there would be violence and killing and raping and looting etcetera, but I think it wouldn't last forever. Something would happen--some kind of order would be set up eventually.
"...simple necessity whose main objective seems to be violence and often, the killing of their fellow men..."
I don't understand how you came to this conclusion. This is simply not true. Gangs don't exist to kill people, the mafia doesn't exist to kill people, and neither do Sunni or Shiite tribes in the middle east.
I mean, they kill people, but they don't kill people just for the sake of killing people.
And looking at the big scheme of things--yeah, gangs and stuff represent social contracts. But social contracts get absorbed into other social contracts. I think if the US Government suddenly vanished, we'd form our own little governments along the way (see: Somalia). And I think that with things like the Mafia and street gangs, there is a certain pressure for them to integrate themselves into existing, peaceful society. If not, we wouldn't see them as a Bad Thing--certainly not go after them with police.
wow, this has gotten really insane.
hi guys!!
**waves**
Nike Ole
apparently...
Post a Comment
<< Home