I stand over here

[andrewducker]

[Poll #378355]

Comments

[freemoore.livejournal.com]

society is an aggregate of lots of human natures all at once, and they shape and reshape each other constantly.

[derumi.livejournal.com]

Human nature is not necessarily a pretty thing. But I believe it both shapes and is shaped by society.

[kimberly-a.livejournal.com]

I believe that both are true, to varying degrees depending on the situation and the aspect of society being discussed.

If everyone acted exactly as they wished all the time, we would be unable to reap the benefits of cooperation. Through cooperation, we keep the roads paved, the streetlights lit, the money system (to some extent) functional, etc.

Perhaps I have a dim view of human nature, but I would imagine a society that conformed entirely to human nature would be full of people who refused to make sacrifices (pay taxes, stop at red lights, etc.) when it didn't suit them.

On the other hand, the formation of a society has to take human nature into account. For example, communism, socialism, and capitalism all look better on paper than they work in reality, because of various elements of human nature ... usually the greedy element of human nature.

Actually, now that I think on it, I'm probably not making any sense. It's very late here and I must go to bed. Please disregard all of the above. :)

[hfnuala.livejournal.com]

Argh! Neither!

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

It's a tough call. Both are true at different times. I think the latter is more important, because 'human nature' changes slower, and is harder to change, and in many ways is currently not well-adapted to our society.

[blackmanxy.livejournal.com]

That raises the question of how much of human nature is actually natural.

[dalglir.livejournal.com]

Its basic human nature to be selfish: me and mine first. Socialization teaches us behaviours (shapes our human nature) which allow us to live in societies. If society was shaped to human nature there would be no society.

minirant

[freemoore.livejournal.com]

and anyway, 'human nature'?

i behave the way i want to as much as i can. when i want to run around naked in public covered in butter, i tend to confine myself to merely thinking about it because i want to be socially accepted. Why is the second desire not counted as part of human nature? why, when you see people being utter bastards to each other because their self-interest doesn't extend to others, do you say 'it's just human nature' - what about when you see couples kissing passionately in the street, or people being basically kind to each other, or forming groups to bring about some change they think will benefit the whole group or society around them - why are these things not 'human nature' as well?

Re: minirant

[andrewducker]

Of course they are. I've found the "human nature is just selfishness" comments singularly baffling.

Re: minirant

[kimberly-a.livejournal.com]

I believe you're referring to my own comment. I'll plead extreme cynicism in the face of recent U.S. events. I'm sure I would have been less negative a week ago.

[nickys.livejournal.com]

No, neither one to the exclusion of the other.

Sometimes human nature is good, sometimes it's bad.
Sometimes society provides a necessary restraint against bad things, at other times it represses harmless things.

[themongkey.livejournal.com]

Um, neither. What a daft question.

[lproven.livejournal.com]

Neither my arse.

Bit of both.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

There's no "shoulds" here. Society shapes human nature and vice versa.