On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> I come from a more Hobbesian perspective and assume that war of all
> against all is the natural state, so the question I ask "howcome some
> people do not engage in acts of such a war, but instead show some
> restraint or even cooperation?" That question also implies a certain
> range of answers that imply that behavior showing any restraint or
> cooperation is essentially good - the only issue is - to what degree?
>
There is no empirical basis for this dark view of human nature. Are people capable of nasty behavior (e.g., blowing up their enemies)? Sure. But is this the "natural" state of humans, once we peel away the veneer of civilization? No way. Think about it for just a second: if humans were incessantly brutal to each other, how could the species have survived for so long? In order to survive in a difficult world, humans have the capacity to cooperate and help one another. There's no way humans could have survived on this planet if they were Hobbesian malevolent brutes.
--And consistent with this argument, we find relatively low levels of aggressive and malevolent behavior in most hunting & gathering societies. Thus Woj presents a nice example of presentism and ethnocentrism here ("we're like this, so that must be how it's always been").
Miles