On 1 Feb., 00:57, mdj  wrote:
>
> The point I was disagreeing with was that people will always be
> corrupt because it's human nature.

I apparently was unclear with the wording but for me corruption
is really a result and not because of some bad genes or something.
Corrupt behaviour is a means to get some other objective (more
money, power etc.).

> In reality I'd argue that the number of 'corrupt' individuals isnt'
> really any higher than the number of 'criminal' individuals.

Corrupt people are often criminals ;-)

> Both are minority groups, and neither is useful as a measure
> of what it means to be human :-)

You are arguing with the "human ideal" which coexists in nature
with everybody and everything peacefully. I don't - for me a
human is a skin sack filled with water, cells and funny things
like bones - just like any other animal.
What makes us special is the (artificial) thing called "civilization"
which is a *method* that has evolved to ensure and maximize
the well-being of the people (with more or less success).
If you don't keep civilizing people there will be jungle out there
and instincts taking their leading role again.

> And it's terrible. Is this however because *we* are corrupt, or the
> system (that evolved more than it was designed) is flawed ?

This works because of three reasons: The people not wanting to
high wages (to maximize profit or to simply exist on the market), the
companies using these services striving to pay less and less (like
with materials) and, thirdly, the people accepting this kind of work.
Of course: Lots of temporary workers simply have no other choice.
And though it is far from illegal it isn't exactly "right" either.

> IMO civilisation is an emergent property of our Darwinian origins;
> cooperation increases the chances of survival and the quality of life.
> If I called it artificial I'd have to call myself artificial, and
> since I'm virtually certain I have no creator, I'm forced to conclude
> I'm 'natural' ;-)

There are actually three parts one would have to answer:

1) How were you reproduced?
There's the natural reproduction which is still number one ;-)
There is so-called artificial reproduction as it uses test-tubes
but the "real process" (the egg being fertilized by the sperm)
is still natural.
And there are certain techniques that modify the egg or genes
to get certain results. I consider *this* artificial reproduction.

2) How came the reproduction process into being?
For many this is the real question. If your opinion is that a
higher being created this process to let man blossom on
(the equally willfully created) earth - like many people
believe - then this creation process would be artificial.
Even if "God" or whatever is his name decided to let his
"nature" (sandbox system) do the job in developing the
process...
If you - as your reasoning suggests - believe in evolution
and no higher being having a hand in the decision process
then the creation process is natural.

3) If you define yourself as the person you are now today
with all the education and experiences you had - would you
call this person a "naturally evolved person"?
How much of the upbringing of a child is artificial?
IMHO this is equally tough to answer...

Civilization however, isn't a personal choice alone: Authorities
usually enforce it (to some extent) and if you misbehave you
may end up not being part of the civilized society anymore.
Of course you can argue with Darwin again but being an outcast
still doesn't stop you from successfully reproducing yourself.
Your offspring may even better than yourself - less criminal -
and therefore more valuable for the society...
(I hope you don't misunderstand the part with the "you"! ;-)

> As to wars, I'm yet to see an example where the protagonists were not
> trying to enforce some misogynistic authoritarian regime. Prejudice,
> which is one of our ugliest artificial constructions, is the cause of
> much misery, no?

Absolutely - prejudice is used as a powerful tool for much misery!
Perhaps the most powerful of them all because it seems to work
without the people realizing it.
Racial, ethnical or religious prejudices - when used as a reasoning
for enforcement of laws or justification for wars etc. you can nearly
get every result you want. It worked several times in man's history
- on very large scales, in "modern" times with the Nazis, too, and
*damn* it still works: Just look at those African countries where they
slaughter themselves and the UN does shit about that!

> Not everything. Suffering is universally disliked by those who suffer.
> Pleasure is universally appreciated by those who indulge in it. There
> may well be as the saying goes "a fine line between pleasure and pain"
> but a line nonetheless exists. A line line also exists between light
> and dark; the light bringing warmth, growth and safety. The dark
> bringing coldness and death. You will find humans have a universal
> appreciation of fire when placed in a cold dark forest ;-)

Yes, but the position of the line is relative! ;-)

> Of course, our language is full of colourful relativistic adjectives.
> At times, the fact that we can describe something in relative terms
> tricks us into believing it really is so.
>
> How many of us havn't stood atop a tall building, and marvelled at how
> the people below look like ants...

Absolutely! Perspective is not only a visual phenomenon!

> It's the breaking of artificial taboos that's artificial, not the
> feeling of guilt. When you hurt another person, it's the realisation
> of how you'd feel were the roles reversed that prompts the feeling
> of guilt.

This is were I differ fundamentally. In my book you "learn" guilt
from your parents (socialization): They prime you and give you
fundamental right/wrong, good/evil, black/white principles.
In the cases where this job isn't done right (and our civilization
is based on the people doing this job well) you know the outcome:
People who kill mercilessly for pennies, their clan or their "honor".
They have a completely different perspective on right and wrong.
You don't have to look into one of these infamous favelas to see
this in action - other ghettos will do, too.

Of course, breaking taboos is willfully done - and hence artificial,
too.

> Here you are saying: "Most people aren't corrupt, but they're afraid
> of what will happen if they force the corrupt people to change". That
> pretty much sums up how I feel about it too

We saw that last week in Germany: The justice system has given
an ex-CEO a slap on the wrist for tax fraud (about a million Euro).
He got away with a fine of a million and two years on probation.
This is a joke and there are several stories and rumors making
the circle that his case has been delayed and the sum reduced
by exactly that much to spare him a prison sentence.

If this was the case and the verdict based on a deal - why would
I call the judges corrupt? Because they accepted the confession
(nowadays called "admittance") of the accused and spared the
system an appeal - and the fear to lose the case completely.
This - in very popular wording - sucks!

bye
Marcus
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32