What is the most fundamental of humanity?

[kvnchrist]

@bben46; THanks for those hints, ill try to keep them in mind, I suppose I really wanted to have a philosophical discussion about why man acts the way it does and perceives both itself and its surroundings in such an acute and defined manner, my only point of debate here is that man is little more than a developed organism and that moral values are both incidental, and meretricious

 

@kvnchrist; I don't think its that ethics and morals are fine in "developed societies", rather that developed societies strive with more endeavour to and have the resources to subjugate its inhabitants to a greater and much greater degree. Take for example Africa and its comparatively high crime rate and low resources with Sweden which has the exact converse. The terrible vitality of the human spirit is ever present, however, as resource levels drop, the relationship between said resources and the crime rate is actually recursive, that is, it decreases, which is not to be confused with the concept that it is not there at all. Furthermore, if you consider that the act of murder itself poses inherent danger to obviously the victim, but to also the murderer and also accepting that murder is NOT in self-defence and that justifiable homicide does not fall under any known definition of murder, then it can only be deduced that murder is of a person generally innocent in a contextual manner (two people who do not know each other may murder each other but are not necessarily deserving of it prior to the murder), the murder itself, especially in developed countries, further increases the intrinsic entropy of the murderer and also increases the overhead likeliness of incurred damages to the murderer and thus, is against one's evolutionary instincts.

Dude you asked a question on the topic title "What is the most fundamental of humanity?" and then you went off into left field with this murder kick. My response to your query was survival with out which nothing else matters.

 

The act of taking another's life is a simple choice of values. Is ridding yourself of a person justifiable for what he has or will do to you? Is doing so worth any possible penalty, if caught? Ethics and morals can and do exert psychological and cultural pressure on any decision when dealing with human nature. This includes the taking of lives and in some cultures, it demands the removal of life.

 

In many cultures the value of a person is determined by their birthright or skin color or religious views or one of 1000 other irrelevant ways of separating human beings for human beings. Does this effect, in the eyes of the public at hand wither a person is murdered if they are killed or simply removed from life? My answer is, to them it matters more than anything, because to them, you are not human if you aren't accepted into that society. Does this fact mean these people are not apart of humanity? No, it doesn't but, the value of life is determined by the person observing it. That is not imo, in any way fundamental aspect of humanity. It is fundamental to survival and survival is the most important aspect of life and we can't have humanity without living humans.

 

Thus, my answer. Survival.

[screendrop]

 

@bben46; THanks for those hints, ill try to keep them in mind, I suppose I really wanted to have a philosophical discussion about why man acts the way it does and perceives both itself and its surroundings in such an acute and defined manner, my only point of debate here is that man is little more than a developed organism and that moral values are both incidental, and meretricious

 

@kvnchrist; I don't think its that ethics and morals are fine in "developed societies", rather that developed societies strive with more endeavour to and have the resources to subjugate its inhabitants to a greater and much greater degree. Take for example Africa and its comparatively high crime rate and low resources with Sweden which has the exact converse. The terrible vitality of the human spirit is ever present, however, as resource levels drop, the relationship between said resources and the crime rate is actually recursive, that is, it decreases, which is not to be confused with the concept that it is not there at all. Furthermore, if you consider that the act of murder itself poses inherent danger to obviously the victim, but to also the murderer and also accepting that murder is NOT in self-defence and that justifiable homicide does not fall under any known definition of murder, then it can only be deduced that murder is of a person generally innocent in a contextual manner (two people who do not know each other may murder each other but are not necessarily deserving of it prior to the murder), the murder itself, especially in developed countries, further increases the intrinsic entropy of the murderer and also increases the overhead likeliness of incurred damages to the murderer and thus, is against one's evolutionary instincts.

Dude you asked a question on the topic title "What is the most fundamental of humanity?" and then you went off into left field with this murder kick. My response to your query was survival with out which nothing else matters.

 

The act of taking another's life is a simple choice of values. Is ridding yourself of a person justifiable for what he has or will do to you? Is doing so worth any possible penalty, if caught? Ethics and morals can and do exert psychological and cultural pressure on any decision when dealing with human nature. This includes the taking of lives and in some cultures, it demands the removal of life.

 

In many cultures the value of a person is determined by their birthright or skin color or religious views or one of 1000 other irrelevant ways of separating human beings for human beings. Does this effect, in the eyes of the public at hand wither a person is murdered if they are killed or simply removed from life? My answer is, to them it matters more than anything, because to them, you are not human if you aren't accepted into that society. Does this fact mean these people are not apart of humanity? No, it doesn't but, the value of life is determined by the person observing it. That is not imo, in any way fundamental aspect of humanity. It is fundamental to survival and survival is the most important aspect of life and we can't have humanity without living humans.

 

Thus, my answer. Survival.

 

I actually did attempt to bring this back down to a tangible level by reiterating my question on page two