I think all along I missed something critical.
Yes, it might be in our DNA to selfless, and though that may be selfish in itself, the definition of selfish that I have pinned to the word is so broad that anything that one does would be selfish; that is because I made it as if humans do not have free-will. Therefore, if humans are 'programed' to be selfish than that is all they can be. We are simply robots programed to do as their genes do.
I am sure most people would not take that as the definition of the human being - people like to view the human being as a person that can do what it wishes, that can 'go against' its 'selfish' nature. That is precisely why I would assume many find my previous post controversial.
Throughout my argument in the previous post I made certain suppositions that most people would not agree with; but they are suppositions that nonetheless I find hard to disprove using logic.
That, regardless, is a topic that I will perhaps touch upon in the future.
But suppose it is in our gene's to be selfless (i.e. it is selfish to be selfless) than would that mean that humans by nature are good? For if it weren't true, if selflessness were not part of our nature, than would man be evil?
Perhaps that is the core of the argument:
There are those who think man by nature is evil because he is selfish
There are those who think man by nature is good because he is inherently selfless.
No comments:
Post a Comment