[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 707 KB, 2245x1497, 1362403756505.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5585094 No.5585094 [Reply] [Original]

Do you think humans in general are more sadistic or more compassionate?

If you took a random sample of ordinary people and gave them absolute power over a complete planet, to rule it like a demigod - would this result in more torture for the beings or more happiness?

>> No.5585096

>>5585094
by "beings" I mean the inhabitants of the planet over which the human rules

>> No.5585098

>>5585094
If we say sadistic = chaotic and compassionate = order, then we can say we all fluctuate somewhere in between.

>> No.5585101

>>5585094
Define those terms and then make a census.

>> No.5585106

>>5585098
>>5585101
>sadistic = chaotic and compassionate = order
No, I mean more in terms of sadistic = intentionally making others suffer and compassionate = intentionally making others happy/preventing them from suffering, all else equal

>> No.5585113

>>5585094
most people would have no idea how to rule a planet and would probably just make the inhabitants slaves or whatever

>> No.5585115

>>5585106
Become psychologist, analize people behavior, make some statistics and show us result. Stop asking /sci/ dumb stuff like this.

>> No.5585118
File: 1.30 MB, 264x200, 1361893398479.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5585118

>reducing the behavior of the ultimate species to peasant adjectives

>> No.5585119

>>5585113
Let's say they do have an idea. Imagine them having "advisor tools" to make everything run as they wish it. And if they wish that the inhabitants live in misery, then they will live in misery, and if they wish the inhabitants have a neverending party, then that works out too.

My question is about the intentions of the average human toward others in general, not about their organization skills.

>> No.5585121

>>5585106
Theres still no "general" consensus. Because all normal humans shift between sadistic and compassionate all the time. Both are evolutionary products. If things go smoothly for the next 1000s years or so without any major disasters/violence, then our species as a whole might be more attuned to compassionate on greater level. If things don't go smooth and are driven by constant strife but still enough traces of civilization left, we will be more sadistic but will still have small forms of compassion(amongst family). If things fuck up all the way, then sadistic behaviors will be more rampant and familial/social structures will break down.

>> No.5585122

>>5585115
>>5585118
Stop giving dumb answers, asshole.

>> No.5585151
File: 84 KB, 1024x768, mandelbrot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5585151

chaos theory states that we cant possibly predict all outcomes. I think, in trying to do the right thing, the person would fuck up the planet. I know I would. Not on purpose mind you, just through the simple fact that we cant truly understand the scope of our actions. Me being the cynical bastard that I am would know this and not do anything, just let the world burn

>> No.5585160

>>5585151
Chaos theories is usually true over long periods but on small scale, its not that important. Theres a saying "todays solution is tomorrows problem" or maybe its "yesterday's solution is today's problem". So we have to juggle between whats important now vs what maybe important in the future.

>> No.5585187

>>5585160
>>5585151
This is a good argument against central planning and overconfidence in your ability to affect the world in a certain way.

But in terms of expectation value, there still is a difference.

Let's say you could torture a hungry kid now, or give a healthy meal to the kid.

Yes the kid might turn out to be the next Hitler, but it could also become the inventor of a cure for HIV. Probably nothing so extreme.

The point is, from your limited knowledge in space and time, giving the meal to the kid has a higher expectation value of happiness-over-suffering than torturing the kid, all else equal.

The question is would most people rather see the kid suffer? Not many people would admit this, but I'm wondering where the true intentions of most humans lie, on average.

>> No.5585247

>>5585187
Everyone is a solipsist. Rather than care if it's fed or wanting to see him suffer they'd rather just not have to worry about either option.

>> No.5585264

>>5585247
This would mean they're neither very sadistic nor very compassionate.

However, they would still care about their own future wellbeing, albeit with time discounting.

So you'd have a mild benevolence of this sort, that everyone cares for themselves, and the sadism and compassion toward others would more or less cancel out

So the human-caused suffering we see today would then mosty be a means-to-an-end thing and with future much better technology we would then see a lot less torture

Is this a plausible prediction?

>> No.5585292

>>5585187
This issue is highlighted in mahayana Buddhist tradition.

Can a person kill another being to bring peace? The answer is no. Normal person do not know the extent effects of their or another's actions. What about a being like Bodhisattva(buddha to be) who can see the extended effects of another's action and their own, can they kill someone? The answer is yes but as you have guessed, tis a very controversial answer. Although they can kill, that does not mean they are without any negatives. All beings in samsara incur karma, so likewise the bodhisattva incurs karma(negative behavior/habit). Many see Buddhist principles as similar to utilitarianism, which to some degree is true imo.