Is
capitalism based on greed as some people say?
Are people naturally selfish and competitive? If so, what about the studies mentioned in this article? Do you notice any flaws? If the system that we have now is making
some people very rich while others starve, what can be done about it, if
anything?
This article has shown me interesting facts and ideas. Nevertheless, I think that people are neither naturally selfish nor born kind nor ready to help anybody. The reason for either being kind or selfish is different. My main idea is that our behaviour is based on the situation we get into.
ReplyDeleteI consider it evident to everybody that from the point of view of the whole society it would be better if the people were kind and considerate to each other. However, from the concrete person’s perspective it is not clear at all. An ideal example is our commenting the political situation and politicians. Everybody screams corruption, stealing, thieves, liars and all the words I cannot write. But would not we also have tendency to do something similar if we were in their position? The reason for that is our instinct that makes us see ourselves on the first place. I do not say that everybody would make such huge frauds as some of those politicians do.
Nonetheless, we might tend to do something minor, too. Also in the school canteen students as me sometimes look at those glasses of lemonade or milk despite we have already drunk one and also in spite of the paper next to those glasses which states that everybody is allowed to have maximally one glass of lemonade or milk. Although I am usually very thirsty, I often manage to persuade myself not to take another glass. It happens after my brainstorming possible consequences as imagining me in the situation of one who would not get his/her drink because of me. I think that this is similar to the experiment mentioned in the article where a tested person was offered to give up money in order to avoid complete strangers to receive electric shocks. I assume that they had also carefully thought about their losing money but the strong emotion of imaging electric shocks had persuaded them.
The proportion makes the decision. The proportion of the profit we gain and consequences we cause. Moreover, we are the ones who balance this profit and the consequences. Therefore it is rather subjective decision which depends also on actual mood and experience. If the already mentioned politician has done some minor fraud before, he/she might be likely to move to next level towards something bigger. Furthermore, in case I have seen other people taking a spare glass of lemonade I would not be so afraid to take one too.
This is the reason for having some control unit to set some basic rules to omit the major frauds. The control unit would be for a given group of people, a society. We already have something like that. Actually, state, speaking more concretely, justice fulfils this function. It is a tool to make a society behave in a way that any individual does not harm any another.
All in all, I think that people are neither born selfish nor kind. They behave
according to the situation, the feelings it prompts in them and their experience. Therefore it is necessary to have proper institutions like a state and justice which would take care of the society and its individuals to behave according to some basic rules, not being harmful towards the others. Moreover, it is up to us to use these systems correctly and effectively, so that everybody can be in the society happy with equal opportunities to succeed.
Firstly, I reckon that a human is an absolutely flexible and formable being and thus can be altered and moulded to a wide range of manners. Even to, for example, compassion.
ReplyDeleteLet me carry on further with this. I, personally, believe that human nature is inherently selfish. From the most basic point of view, we would never be here now if we did not care for ourselves, did not fight for our own survival and if my or your great-grandfathers did not selfishly win your and my great-grandmother we would physically not exist. However, I am not saying the study that was done by University College of London does not prove that humans are selfless, I am only suggesting that it is so only because we are from our birth exposed and raised to be compassionate and to care about others and not as it was claimed, genetically.
Now, in my opinion, when a person stands in front of a decision, he has two possible ways to deal with it. One being selfish and caring for your own or people´s close to you good, or the one that is for the greater good. And as we all know, it depends on a wide variety of things as even Juraj above me mentioned, but also, it depends on the social pressure on the individual. And I actually think this is the point where the UCL study faulted. Because alright, people did not know the others, but for example there were some people watching, weren´t there? And this leads us back to the beginning - the pressure of society, which makes the individual protect himself and
thus shows us his true – selfish - nature.
Nevertheless, I absolutely agree with the point the article is making about capitalism. It indeed is the absolute example of greed and selfishness in the world. And thanks to the current state of the world (the fact that 67 richest people own the same amount of money as the lowest 3.5 billion is just astounding) we can clearly see that capitalism is in its prime. It is quite easily defendable that the today´s situation is already over the top too - for example the fact that the gap between the richest and poorest keeps getting bigger and bigger, and this surely is not because of our kindness and selflessness. However, I do not think this is anyhow able to be stopped, because nobody from those people is breaking any law, are they?
To conclude, I am really sceptical about the evidence that is taken from the research in this article and I have my own opinion which has not yet been challenged. However, I too believe that the world´s “greed” and capitalism overall is just going too fast.
Which of the two theories is the right one? I came to a conclusion that both of them. From evolutionary point of view the best chance to reproduce had individuals who were selfish and also compassionate. They look contradictory at the first glance but they are not. From long-term point of view you could only survive only if you helped others and if they helped you - they needed to be selfless. On the other hand if there was some immediate life-threatening danger only the ones who firstly looked after themselves had a chance to survive. So we have biologically handwritten both of these traits in us.
ReplyDeleteMatúš’s disapproval of the women that did not want to have sex with selfish men is not right. In the years when the most of evolutionary process took place there was not formed a concept of property as we know it today yet. Only the men who cared about others could be respected. The men who did not care were excluded from the group.
I also disagree with Mark Hunter that we cannot change the system because of our biological handwriting. But in contrast I believe it for different reasons. I think that we can change the system but not in spite of the biological handwriting but because of it. We have both of the traits we are selfish and also selfless. It on our decision which trait we choose to nurture.