Humans vs. "Animals" - Part Two
I recently came across an interesting excerpt from Aristotle’s Politics that might be a helpful addition to the still-unresolved part one.
A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends.
His point seems especially powerful because it combines the two sides that people were arguing for. Human beings are the most advanced animals and therefore have the ability to do the most good. However, without the bindings of a state and society, this capacity is squandered to fuel less virtuous acts.
We will probably never know how a human being acts if they live their entire life separated from modern society, so I hesitate to describe the “lust and gluttony” of human beings as an intrinsic feature. It is possible that these undesirable features arise as overcompensation to the restrictions of our current lives.
In any case, the suggestion that the controls of a state channels the most advanced potential of humans seems logical.
Atul
Feb 22, 04:06 PM
I think the reason that humans have the capacity for being dangerous separated from civilization is that we can imagine beyond the basics. This creativity can lead to evil thoughts having to do with more than security, food, and shelter. Animals just live without imagining, to get by, accepting their state, or perhaps not wanting to change it. Humans, by contrast, have the intrinsic ability and desire to think beyond their current state. This is where the benefits of greed and violence become apparent to individuals. I don’t think the lust and gluttony itself is intrinsic. One could argue that if it were, all humans would be lustful and gluttonous.
Atul
P.S. On a lighter note, see my post about animals and humans on my blog…
http://uh2l.blogs.com/things_ive_noticed/2006/02/random_animals_.html
Karmadude
Feb 22, 04:56 PM
I feel Aristotle is wrong is assuming that without laws and justice, we would be the worst of animals. For his sake even with laws and justice, some of the crimes committed today might make him want to retract that statement. His point is only valid as long as a person follows the laws.
But then why assume we would be the worst without laws, even with just the natural laws, I feel we would still find a balance, because even our goal is to survive and keep the species going.
We really don’t have to go back in time to cave man days to test this theory, we just have to take a look at some of the indigenous people around the world, and ask, “are they really that worse off?”, there mere existence today should be proof enough that it might not be as worse as Aristotle concluded within his little-well-of-thought!
D Whit
Jan 24, 09:30 AM
I disagree with the writing by Aristotle. Perhaps that was how it appeared to be in his day and age, but today it seems the laws are not stopping people from devious and hurtfull acts. In other words, one does not have to do illegal acts to hurt someone, and this type of hurt is all to common today.
This seems to be a result of an over developed society in which the majority of people live today.
It is my firm belief society today is overdeveloped and should regress to a social structure that is actually sutainable long term. In our current path we as a global society are heading, we will surely destroy ourselves within the next 100 years, unles major advances are made or major regressions are made.
The thing to keep in mind is we humans done know what will occur as a result of an even more advance/developed society. This next major advance, if it occurs, could bring more problems with it than it appears to solve, just like the industrial age.
The only way to be sure our species will survive long term is to regress not progress.
Ask yourself this the next time you hear someone say “developing” or “underdeveloped” nation, are they underdeveloped or are we overdeveloped?
BrutalCapitalist
Apr 2, 02:16 AM
That D must stand for Dim.
Lets look at the underdeveloped (as defined by common use of the word) nations and then we’ll look at the overdeveloped (by your use of the word) nations. Look at the HIV/AIDS prevalence in Africa, look at the quality of life problems in Africa. Newborn mortality rate anyone? How about raw sewage spilling through dirt streets? Cannabilism look attractive?
Tribal society remains tribal because it is full of small groups. These groups remain small because of their infant mortality rate and overall death rate due to large amounts of wars with other tribes. A large group cannot be sustained in a tribal setting (large as in 300,000,000).
Lets look at more “perks” to indigenous tribes. Mysticism, stupid superstitions and worship of trees, tribal leaders (so you’re still not getting rid of government, you’re just making it a theocracy), ostracism for refusing to follow tribal law, unsustainable lifestyle in many parts of the world today.
If given the choice between that and a race towards death via industrialized society, I say, “gentlemen, start your engines.”
On a separate note, how would you post poorly thought out posts on forums and blogs without partaking in the “overdeveloped” nation.
KarmaDude, interesting choice of words when you say you “feel” we would find a balance. I say this because it’s quite obvious that you don’t think much which means that at least the word choice was appropriate. Other than that, read above to find out everything wrong with a lawless or tribal society.
David
Dec 1, 07:27 PM
BrutalCapitalist,
You seem proud to be brutal?
You seem to think a life of atomic bombs, mad cow disease, pollution, global warming, overpopulation, overuse of resource and world wars is better than tribal life?
I have lived with a tribe in Africa and I know first hand that the mentality is one of respect. The people live with what they have and they have the utmost respect for their fellow tribesman AND the nature in which they live.
You strike me as someone who will take and take as much as you can get in your lifetime (money, experience, attention, food… children?) so long as it falls within the “laws” of modern society.
You go on about superstitions and worshiping trees but how is that any stranger than modern day religions and laws?
Yes, small tribes do stay small… but isn’t that how we NEED it to be? We would still have a beautiful, nature-full, peaceful planet if there were less people.
And to bring us back to the original topic…
In this modern society humans think only about themselves and what they want out of life making it is easier to pretend that animals are less important than people are.
In undeveloped tribes… people have respect for animals and they only eat what they need. They don’t farm and kill millions of animals to provide a lavish choice of meat products.
The “tribes” you talk about must be the developed population of Africa that have been poisoned by capitalistic westerners like yourself.