Response: Basic Needs

In response to Justine Cozza's post on 4/20/12:

It is certainly true that some aspects of human behaviour are not products of choice, but are instead due to biological needs.  However, I think that these aspects are far fewer in number than many may believe.  For example, even the seemingly innate tendency to take care of one's own children does not exert such a strong influence that one cannot choose to ignore it.  People do neglect, abandon, or otherwise mistreat children every day.  Many other seemingly biological urges are similarly malleable or variable.  The urge to engage in physical conflict with those one dislikes may be somewhat innate for most people, but the majority of people learn fairly early on to ignore or otherwise divert that urge.  The urge to engage in sexual activities is also innate, and quite strong, for most people, and in many cases ignoring it can cause psychological problems and sometimes physical problems.  However, some people lack this urge, or find it relatively insignificant, so that choosing not to act upon it does them no harm.  Similarly, as far as I know, all human beings require sleep, but the amount of sleep they require varies widely.  As a straightforward example, the ideal amount of sleep I must get in order to function at full capacity is between seven and eight hours, whereas one of my friends requires only between four and five hours.  This makes 'human needs' very difficult to identify.  In the end, we may end up only with a very vague and extremely basic list including such things as air, food, water, sleep, and company (all variable in quantity, and the last only virtually universal).

Response: Abnormal Humanity

In response to Andrew Nelson's post "Q&A: What are the Limits of Human Freedom?" (April 20, 2012):

We've discussed the social nature of humanity before in class, and the idea that solitude can be a kind of hell does follow quite nicely from that.  However, it also caused me to think about another point, that of humans with abnormal natures - for example, psychopaths (not sociopath, who have normal natures but act abnormally due to outside influences).  Are such humans inherently social as well?  Certainly they initially require the presence of other humans in order to survive, but once reaching maturity they often seem to have no emotional need for the presence of other humans.  I am not a psychologist myself, but I am interested in this issue, so I'd appreciate any opinions.

Downsides of Collectivism

Both Marx and Plato supported the idea of collective child-raising.  While I agree that this approach does solve many of the problems of family-based child-raising (possible brainwashing/indoctrination with harmful beliefs, many forms of abuse, and a sense of obligation to continue unhealthy relationships), it also deprives children of emotional connections which are important for unproblematic development.  Of course, these connections are not absolutely essential; some people who, even in contemporary society, did not have the chance to develop such connections (for example, those who as children moved from one foster family to another) have become relatively well-adjusted, overall healthy individuals.  However, the statistics are not at all in their favour, and even the best off usually had to overcome at least some psychological trauma prior to obtaining a satisfactory mindset and lifestyle.  As such, it would certainly be best to try and allow emotional connections to develop.

I am not certain yet, but at the moment I think that the ideal situation for raising children would be a modified family system, with improved education (to prevent brainwashing), heightened regulatory measures (to prevent abuse), and changed social norms (to prevent people from feeling they must remain in unhealthy relationships purely for familial reasons).

Q&A 9, Second Answer

My question is: Is it possible to hypothesise an economic structure wherein nobody is required to work?

Yes, but such a structure would only be ideal in the relatively distant future.  As the world is now, many methods of producing goods are automated; more could be so if people did not protest against mechanical production due to fear of losing their jobs.  If we could make such methods self-sustaining (and we have the ability to do this now; we simply do not because it would upset the current economic structure) we could offer the goods produced by them free of charge, and devote our labour and money to other areas.  This change in economic focus would help accelerate progress, and more systems could become automated.  Working would become less necessary, not only to survive, but to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle.  As a result, less people would choose to work, but that would be okay, because there would be less jobs necessary.  Eventually, all or virtually all careers would no longer exist, because they would all be performed by machinery.  At this point, society could actually become communist, and everyone could enjoy equal fruits of the labour of machines.  However, such a society is currently very far away from implementation, so in modern times, socialism (wherein nobody is required to work in order to survive, but where most people would probably choose to work so that they could enjoy better lifestyles) is a more practical option than communism.

Q&A 9, First Answer

The basic form of my question is: In a communist society, what would happen to those who chose not to work?

Marx seems to have supposed that humans are innately predisposed to, under the right conditions, enjoy working.  I do not agree with this; while I do think that, with ideal conditions, many humans would choose to engage in some sort of lucrative work, there would still be some whose 'perfect life' would consist of engaging in relatively unproductive pursuits, such as playing chess all the time.  There is nothing wrong with this, but it does make the idea of a society wherein everyone works productively infeasible.

As such, I think that in order to make such a society work, there would have to be some sort of consequence for not working.  However, that is barely any better than capitalism, as it still forces everyone to work, and in careers they might not have chosen for themselves (playing chess can be a career, but in such a society it would likely not be available).  The only difference would be that wealth would be more evenly distributed, but that is not significant enough of an improvement to justify implementing the system.  I imagine that if Marx had held different views of human nature, he might have come up with a slightly different idea, or have stopped at the idea of socialism (wherein people can choose not to work, and as a consequence simply live a very Spartan lifestyle).