I think humans are evil creatures. Because i believe all of us are egoists by nature. Yes some of us help others or make favors. But i believe these are selfish acts too. Because in return we take some kind of pleasure. And this pleasure makes us more helpful. But it doesn´t make us less selfish. We help people to take this selfish pleasure. So our favors don´t depend on a moral basis but they depend on a selfish and immoral basis. A moral act must only depend to a social duty and we should not feel pleasure or anything in return of this act. Then we can say it is moral. All of us help the people we love but only a few of us help the people we hate. And it is logical but immoral because it is selfish.We take pleasure in return. We give something but we take pleasure. It is like a trade. And it is two sided. But a real moral act must be only one sided. You have to give something and get nothing in return. If you examine the people you call evil you can see they help the people they love too. So this proves helping the people you love isn´t a very high moral principal. It is very common.

I want to give an example:

When you give someone some money you can feel three emotions in return

a) some kind of a pleasure because you like or pity that person(selfish)

b)both pleasure and pain because you like or pity that person but you are now in a bad situation because you gave your money (selfish)

c)only pain because you gave money because you felt you were obliged to give it because of the social duty (unselfish)

a is selfish because we take pure pleasure in return. b is also selfish because pain and pleasure balance themselves. We are bearing the pain because of the pleasure. c is unselfish because we have pain in return. We are bearing this pain because we feel it is our ethic duty. We don´t take any pleasure in return. And there is another possibility when we give money to someone and it is "not to feel" anything. It is also moral because you give but take nothing in return. It is like the Budhist or Jedi way

I don´t say you "do not to help the people you love". Because i help them too. But i want you to know that this can be a selfish act according to your situation. As all of you know selfishness or egoism are evil according to our common  ethics. So we humans are evil creatures. But i believe being selfish is not an evil thing as long as you don´t harm others for your purposes.

So what do you think?

I dont think helping people is a kind of selfishness; I like to help..it makes me pleasure, indeed, but at the same time it keeps my mind and soul alive; think a little, please, all great discoveries were made for helping humanity; maybe one of them were made by trying to see the personal capacities of work and understanding, but in the end all were for everybody. Im very proud by myself when I can help somebody (of course, I am human being and I have my  moments of selfishness)...but when I help a smile rise on my face and Im feel so good..

 You take pleasure when you help. You feel proud, you feel good, it keep your mind and soul alive. So you take pleasure. And you want to help more people because of taking this pleasure. So you are helping people for yourself. This is egoism. But as i said i don´t think egoism is always a bad thing. It can be a good thing too. But common ethics blame you of being evil(selfish) if you do something to please yourself. We must redefine ethics.

so..why do you help the others...I wonder,,,

 So you read Kant ? Kritik der reinen Vernunft ?

 What you dont understand dear ? You must help for the sake of helping not for the pleasure you feel after helping.

 I started thinking about egoism after i had read Ayn Rand´s works. And these ideas came to my mind. Then i read the Will Durant´s The Story Of Philosophy. And i found Kant´s ideas about this matter.I took only this social duty term from Kant. I have never read any of Kant´s works. But i will soon. We are thinking same way i guess. But i don´t think Kant defends egoism. I am defending it. Because Ayn Rand effected me very much.

 I help others because i am an egoist. I am doing it for myself to take some kind of pleasure.I think there are two kind of egoism. One is positive, one is negative. Positive one is constructive and creative, negative one is harmful and destructive. I am a positive egoist like you. And i am immoral

The mistake that a lot of people make in their reasoning is about the definition of "selfish". Feeling good about an act doesn´t make that act selfish. In my opinion, if you for example do something because of the social pressure, it is a selfish act. You are just doing it because otherwise it would make YOU worse of. If you do something and it makes you feel good, that doesn´t make you selfish. Perhaps you feel good simply because you see that others are happy. This is not selfish at all. You get joy, simply because others are feeling better. It´s not about being proud of yourself or anything. It is getting a good feelig from seeing the smiles on other people´s faces.

Only selfish people can not understand that feeling, and describe the good acts of others as selfish, simply because they don´t understand.

 I dont know maybe Kant defend this but i dont defend it. I dont defend helping people for the sake of help. Because then you shouldn´t help the people you love or you pity. Because you will take pleasure if you help them. In this situation you should only help the people you hate or you don´t know. But this can cause a destruction in society. Because our first duty should be helping the people we love or pity. So i defend we must help others for the sake of pleasure we feel after helping. So we should be egoists. Only that way we can help who we want to help. I am defending egoism and immorality. Because they are more constructive and useful.

 Good point. But you should understand this we help people only we want to help. This is selfish. Nobody helps the people they hate. Why? Because in return they feel pain or they don´t feel anything. People only help people who they will have pleasure in return. It is an selfish act. Do you understand me?

Most of the time doing an act because of social duty is an selfless act because you give something but  in return you take nothing. Maybe you feel pain. But you bear it because of social duty. This is an selfless act. But you can also feel happy when you give someone something because of social duty. This is an selfish act too. Because you take some kind of pleasure.

Nobody can force you to do your social duty if it is not a law. And most of people prefer not to do it. But some do it. Because they feel they are obliged to do it. And they take no pleasure in return. This is pure selfless act. But if the person thinks other people will celebrate him/her in return if he/she does his social duty it is selfish too.

For example most of the people send their old parents to nursing homes. But some of them take care of them even they don´t want and it is unbearable. Because they think it is a social duty to take care of them. This is an selfless act.

But i don´t approve this kind of selfless act. Because you don´t want to help them. But you feel you are obliged to. I dont find it is sincere. I aprove the selfish act. You should take care of them if you want, you shouldn´t take care of them if you don´t want. This is more honest.

 there is a quote in my country: a good thing is immoral, illegal or putting on weight 

And why do we hate this people? Perhaps because they are undeserving of our love or attention. This has nothing to do with selfish or not, but with right or wrong. I feel joy to see a hungry child smile, after he gets a meal... Even though I do not know this child at all. I do not feel joy when I see a crazy child-killer smile, after he has just admitted that he has killed several children.... Even though I do not know this man at all. I´d rather give food to the hungry child, than help the crazy killer out of jail. Even if I would be unable to have feelings of joy, I would make this choice. Why? This is simply because I believe one is more deserving than the other, and there is a connection of justice to it.

PS: interesting thread

Does having a need to satisfy make you selfish?  Also, as you have defined selfishness....it sounds like a good thing...not evil.  Does being selfish automatically mean you are evil?  What is evil?  I think evil is the: 1.  Intent to harm 2.  Gaining pleasure from harming someone else.   

Hummmm....now I feel like I am in philosophy class again.  Thanks gokuyum...you have me contemplating the universe again.

Answer to your question they are both evil and good. In my opinion, with a phisophical approach, there is no goodness, badness, mercy or love actually, these are human beings´ classification and definition of our behaviours and senses, we name them and create them in fact, no human being no good or evil act, they are meaningless. Evil or good acts evolve relatively depandant to the conditions. Human nature is of course selfish, inclined to greed, arrogance, egoism etc, but the thing that human race differ from other livings, they try to withstand those tendencies...

Protogoras -a wise man from many hundreds of years ago put it this way: "Man is the measure of all things." 

Just like all other living things, humans are opportunistic by nature. Opportunism is one of the most vivid indicators of intelligence. Nature without intelligence is just a string of phenomena occuring in perfect spontaneity. Humans, animals and even plants turn this spontaneity into a form which is more predictable and thus controllable creating centers of intelligence relentlessly fostering processes benign to them and mitigating those that would undermine their existence. A forest transforms the terrain on which it exists and introduces a system which fosters elements supportive of its own existence and eliminates those that are a threat for it. Humans are very much that way too. Nevertheless, it is virtually impossible to isolate  human from society. Humans exist in social groups and their qualities develop as a result of complex interaction with society. Remembering what Protogoras said, they are basically measurement instruments but what they measure or how they measure is not completely at their discretion. The definition of malice for a nun in a monastery is not the same as that believed true by a party girl. A truly wicked person could be considered as an angel by his friends in the mafia. Likewise, someone whom you admire could be detested by another. All these prove that we need reference points to determine what is good and any judgement made that way is valid only within a certain context.

In nature, there is no good or bad. There are just phenomena and their consequences. Good and bad exist in people´s minds. People have founded institutions which they declared instrumental in determining what is good. Religion is one of them,the justice system is another. Once you get into one of them, you must follow their path and make decisions filtering out certain aspects of life. At the end of the day, you may feel content having done the right things thus becoming a good person. But these instutions too change over time. The laws are lifted when they are overdue, religions are reformed when they can´t keep up, and no book of ethics can remain in circulation for more than a few decades. From a universal perspective, what we are actually seeking is a quick and dirty decision that will give us the contendness we need.

Not only are we the judges of others, we also like to be judged from time to time. That´s why we ask questions about being right or wrong. We sometimes need confirmation, a tapping on the shoulder that will set us on the right track.

There is the well-known concept of tabula rasa which holds that man is like an empty board at birth. Therefore he is essentially neither good nor bad. Accordingly, good and bad are two concepts that come to life as one gains knowledge. A Biblical scene depicts the moment when Adam eats the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge introduced mortality, self-awareness and a string of other human qualities. According to the Bible, man has the potentiality of making mistakes or committing crimes. The Christian faith considers man bad by birth and requires him to be baptized to get rid of that primeval sin. Christian God feels compassion for man despite his mistakes and sins and offers instant salvation to repentful souls.

 Most of the time we hate people who challenges  our ego. We can easily hate people when they don´t agree with us or criticize us. Because they defy our ego. You say you feel joy when  you see a hungry child smile and don´t feel joy when you see a crazy child killer smile. As i said you want to feel joy when you help someone in return. So you help people to feel that joy.This is egoist. But it is not a bad thing. I call this positive egoism. I am defending it. But Kant says you must help people for the sake of helping. He says this is the moral one. And according to common ethics he says the truth. But i don´t defend this kind of idea. I am defending positive egoism. We should help the people we love or pity and have pleasure in return. There is nothing wrong with this. We are egoist creatures. And egoism is not always an evil thing. I called humans evil creatures according to common ethics. Because egoism is evil according to it. But good and evil is relative. I am trying to show egoism is not always a bad thing.

All the big artists,inventors, scientists are egoist people. Because they followed their ideas by not paying attention to public opinion.Their whole purpose was creating or discovering something new. Because only this way they would be happy. As you see their egoism was positive.

 If you do an action to satisfy yourself it is selfish. But sometimes you can´t know if an action will satisfy yourself or not. You can only decide whether it is satisfying or not after you acted. If the result is satisfying you will go on doing this action.Because you will want to feel this satisfying or pleasure again. This is called operant conditioning by Skinner. So the intention is important. But most of the time we know whether an action will satisfy and make us happy or not. And we do an action to satisfy ourselves. This is egoism. But it is not an evil thing always. Read the posts above i explained this.

I think you are selfish if you do an action, which MAIN goal is satisfy yourself. If you help somebody else, and your biggest goal is not to satisfy yourself, it is not persé selfish. Satisfying yourself might be a nice side effect of helping somebody else, but this does not make the act selfish.

By the way, I have never hated anybody because they hurt my ego My ego is not easily hurt I think that is a very ego-centric vision on hate, to view hatred as something that only comes from hurt ego´s.

What made you choose "evil" instead of "bad" ? "Evil" sounds on my ears like "demonic". How can you use such a word as opposite of "good" ? . You must bare too much hate in your soul... Geçmiş olsun!

 1)I agree with you. But if you examine human behaviors you will see our main goal is always satisfy ourselves. You said yourself you feel joy when you see a smile on a child´s face. But you don´t feel any joy when you see a smile on a serial killer´s face. So you choose people you want to help. This is egoist. A serial killer is a human too. And his smile is not different from a child´s smile. If he is in jail, there is no obstacle to help him and make him smile. Because if you want to make  a bad person good one you must help him. I am sure Jesus would approve this. You can see a lot of serial killers or rapers became good Christian believers in prisons. There are priests in prisons also helping criminals. So it is a moral thing to help them. According to common ethics you should not choose people you want to help.

2) You say you have never hated anyone who hurt your ego. Let me prove you are wrong with your words. You talk like you hate or don´t like serial killers? Have you ever asked yourself why? Because they hurt your ego.There are two types of ego. One is the normal ego, other is super ego. The superego is the aspect of personality that holds all of our internalized moral standards and ideals that we acquire from both parents and society--our sense of right and wrong. The superego provides guidelines for making judgments. According to Freud, the superego begins to emerge at around age five.(1) So we can say superego is a representative of society in ourselves. A serial killer´s crimes challenges our superego. We don´t accept them because we are taught they are bad. So we don´t like serial killers. Generally we hate them. Because thinking their crimes makes us sad and scared. They challenge our super ego. But you know soldiers also can kill a lot of people. But you don´t hate them. You love them.Why? Because you are taught they are the people who protect you. You think they will never harm you. You trust them. This pleases your superego.

3) So everything is about ego. Freud saw these and called humans evil or bad by nature. But i don´t agree with him. Being egoist is not always a bad thing.

(1)http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/personalityelem.htm

I want to say something. You are objecting me with the arguments which my inner voice objected me. It is very interesting to hear same objections. I also objected myself with these arguments but i convinced myself. Hope i will convince you too. Bye.

And please read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning

 You can use bad instead of evil.

 "bad" is not the same with "evil" ..maybe in Turkish you dont have the difference between these 2 words but in English you have !

 then forgive my ignorance.

I don´t believe people are either good or evil by nature because the idea of good and evil does not exist as the universal truth. Whether or not something is good/evil depends on the point of reference, subjective judgement or circumstantial criteria.

What I believe in is that we, being animals, care primarily about survival of our species. Hence the need to pass our genes and to make sure that we organise our world in such a way that our offsprings can survive.

That´s why we tend to organise ourselves in groups - we form countries, nations, religious organisations or clubs - it´s all to be a member of something bigger because bigger is more likely to win the fight of survival. We tend to help the people we don´t perceive as threat to our lifestyle, laws or existence. That´s why we don´t help serial killers. And we only help people because it´s not a situation where we have to choose whether it is us or our kin that survives or it is a stranger.

The ideas promoted by religions, ie. imposing their point of view as for what is moral/immoral, are like laws with the only difference being that people responsible for making the law do not claim it came from an invisible being who will be cross if, for example, you do the dishes on Saturday laws are to help our species to breed in peace, religion was invented to sort of assist law. Of course, things have gone wrong and now we have religious groups fighting with one another. However, I believe that the fight is not really about religion per se, it´s about gaining strength for a group so that it may survive. Usually people who do not follow what we believe in might be perceived as a threat and one of the ways to feel safe is to get rid of the threat

So, essentially, I don´t believe in good and evil as universal concepts and, logically, find people animals fighting for the survival of their species. If they´re required to help others, they will as a group is only as strong as its weakest member; and if they feel threatened, they´ll come up with bazillion idiotic reasons to attack/annihilate the individuals or groups that constitute risk.

It was very nice to read all posts...

In my opinion we can rather talk about situations.

Imagine two thiefs. And they are very close friends. Theft is sth. evil but watching over your friend is good. 

Lets assume one thief is cought. If the other one protects his friend at the risk of his own life, how can we describe his act? Where does evil ends and good begins or reverse in that case?

Different societies and relationship structures create and build up different situations. Although individuals acts differ according to their tendencies, genes, environments etc. their acts are mainly the results of the social acknowledgement which fit the situation. Otherwise how could we explain the same individiuals´ evelish and seraphic acts which he has done in just one hour time? So, in my opinion society creates the evil and good itself.

That is why, the matter is, how can a well organised society being established where individuals wouldn´t tend to act evilish or would feel being good is more profitable

 I cut a bit in the following quote:

 1) I said I do not feel joy seeing the smile on his face, confessing the MURDER of children. There are different smiles And I would not find joy in his smile after he would not be convicted for example, because of a technical error. This is a smile of injustice, that doesn´t give me joy. I do get a fuzzy feeling from smiles of criminals who work with street-dogs. (Just saw the documentary on discovery )

2+3) In my opinion Freud was a bit of a quack, especially during his last years  (quackery is şarlatanlık). Okay, quack is a bit overstated. I think 80% of his ideas were totally crazy. When I first started to study psychology I thought "wow, interesting, I never realised that" with what I read from his work. Most people quote Freud, so I thought he MUST be right. But as I started to read more and more of his work, and learned about his life, I started to totally disagree with his views. The guy was a total nutcase (with a deadly fear of the number 62), and connected almost every single problem a person could have with sexuality.

Gok-m, loved your initial post. Agree.

People are evil, esp. Dutch, English, American, Turkish, Polish... 

No, I do not think humans are all evil....but certainly, some are. Humans can be the highest of the high, or the lowest of the low.

When we see cases of psychopathic personality....I´d call that pretty evil...

errare humanum est sed perseverare diabolicum

Alameda, you are so humanist. All humans are equally evil, including you alameda.

 I think all humans are evil according to common ethics. But they are not equally evil. Not everybody is a Hitler or Stalin. I call them negative egoists. Because their egoism is destructive.

I defend only one thing all humans are egoists.

 As much as i know Freud is an important man.He is the founder of the psychoanalytic school of psychiatry. Freud thought human is a puppet of his brutal and sexual wills. He thought human is a destructive animal. So he called humans evil. But i don´t agree with him. I don´t think humans are always destructive. He defends there are only two motives under our behaviors: sex and brutality. Maybe he thinks all kinds of pleasures(being proud, feeling good) are some kind of sexual emotions. I am not sure. But i think there is one motive too it is "to know". People always wanted to know more along the history. And they didn´t care whether others condemn them or not. The will of knowing generally makes people creative and constructive. But not always. The will of knowing whether the atom would break up or not caused atom bombs to be made.

I think the important question here why people always want to know more? Because people are egoist creatures. We always want to have more. More money, more women, more dignity and more knowledge. We can never satisfy our wills for a long time. Always the new ones will show up. Maybe Freud thought this would cause destruction in the society in the end. But we also help more people to satisfy ourselves more. So wanting something more is not always destructive. Wanting to know more is the motive of scientists. And thanks to it, we live these comfortable lives.

So egoism is not always bad

I think this is also a debate about definitions. I think "selfish" means that you put your own joy above that of everybody else, and you only care about if YOU are happy. Your happiness can even come to the expence of other peoples happiness, you don´t care! Therefor, helping somebody else is 99% of the times not selfish. A truly selfish person will not get any joy from helping somebody else, because a selfish person will not get any joy from seeing somebody else happy.

Egoism is slightly different. I guess egoism is more about thinking that you are the centre of the universe, and having the utmost interest for yourself. Perhaps helping can be a part of egoism, if part of the egoistic ideal somebody has for him/herself is "the hero who helps others".

Of course, gok-m, you dont perceive as I do. All humans are equally evil according to Bible.

And yes, I agree, we are all selfish 100%

Barba, I hate reading your posts. You are such a New Age child! When you helped Haitans, you didn enjoy it. You informed us of your good deed. You always share about your good deeds. I dont think you ever suffered to make someone happy. You are very very selfish!

 i dont agree. i told my reasons.

No actually... It turns out that Haiti only got about 10% of the money it was promised up till now. The money that people have donated is not reaching the people in Haiti. I´m feeling a bit like *bleep* because I know the situation there is not getting any better, and the people there REALLY feel like *bleep* for being in the situation. In the end, nobody is really happy. (Except for perhaps a corrupt person who´s cashing in the money.) And no, I didn´t feel superduper from sending a bunch of money. I only mentioned it on here, so others would also give money, since it was and IS needed. It wasn´t to toot my own horn. What a negative way to view the world, to just assume the worst intentions.

And yes, I have suffered to make somebody happy, and no, I will not discuss that here because it´s private. The moment I tell people on here they will mess it up and make it some twisted point of discussion about how I´m really selfish, even though I suffered.

And my final point... If helping people is New Age, than call me New Age, and I will be proud to be New Age. Jesus must have been the biggest hippy around, with his whole curing diseases and stuff.

Jesus helped other people, so he must have been a totally selfish egoist right?

So ...  are these philanthropists selfish if they keep their billions or selfish if they give half of it away?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/04/us-billionaires-half-fortune-gates

Seeing this news item made me ponder other questions.  How much money does one human being need in order to be happy? Do people with billions, or just simply more money than they would ever need, feel they have nothing left to work towards in business? Is this why some turn to philanthropy? A new focus.

An interesting thread Gok

 I´ve wondered about that myself. I´ve been thinking it´s really some type of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder like Hoarding. It´s just that in the case of the wealthy, it´s socially acceptable.

Here is an example with no comments:

For a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him [Jesus—KB], and she came and fell at His feet. The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.” Then He said to her, “For this saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter.” And when she had come to her house, she found the demon gone out, and her daughter lying on the bed (7:25-30; see also Matthew 15:21-28).

 Answer: God complex

I think that some very very very rich people have almost everything that money can buy, and feel like buying absolutely everything money can buy will not make their lives any better. Perhaps for some rich people this kind of charity is to fill a void in their lives, but I think there is a difference between simply donating money, and being actively involved. Bill Gates has been actively involved in his charities, and this has become a full-time job for him. But keep in mind that there are enough billionaires who do very little for other people with their money. They give some cash to good causes, open a hospital-wing with their names on it, just so people will stop complaining about them Being involved with charity and giving a cheque to charity are two very different things.

By the way, if you have a 50 million dollar and you give half away, you´ll have 25 million to live your life. Come on If you have 25 million you won´t starve! Your life will probably not change that much at all. If you have 500 dollar, and you give half away, than you´ll simply starve. Giving is much easier when you have so much money, that the interest on that money itself is worth multi-millions per year.

yes, unfortunately the peoples life are going around their money; we are happy with a few money, or with more, but..why we become the happiest when we get a lot of money; maybe is a kind of selfish, or maybe is just a part of human being

People want money because money is power and money helps to have an easy life for you and your children. It increases the chances of survival in today´s world. people who do not have money and claim to be happy deceive themselves. How can a mother be happy if she cannot afford a good school for their children or a safe house? Deception is one of the ways of dealing with reality we´re unable to change. It´s easier to convince oneself to believe that  "I´m happy although I don´t have money" than "I´m a failure because I´m not able to provide for my family"

Of course money does not grant you happiness, but neither does the lack of it

I disagree a bit. I have had a different youth than many of my friends. We had very hard times financially when I grew up. However, when I compare my childhood to that of my spoiled friends, I think mine was happier. One of my friends got a LOT of material things. Expencive gifts, lots of money for clothes. I did not get these things, but I did receive a lot of love, support, and fun times with my parents. My friend however never had this kind of loving relationship with her parents. If I had to choose between my poorer childhood full of fun and love, or her richer childhood but with less family connections, I would choose mine for sure. I have many more happy memories than my richer friend. An expencive car can´t give you a nice warm memory. Singing songs and dancing with your parents in the living room can And it´s free!

I do agree that there is however a certain limit. My parents had to struggle, and ofcourse this led to tensions. I think if money can make life easier. But it is not sufficient. You can have all the money in the world and still be unhappy.

Right, that´s why I said money neither grants happiness or lack of it

Not all rich families are cold and unloving, not all poor ones are full of love and understanding. But I think children from rich families tend to do a bit better in life than those from poor ones - they have the connections, social expectations to fulfil, confidence in their worth and money for good education and/or impression. It´s harder for children from poor families to succeed as they have more obstacles to overcome, usually they end up repeating the pathology they come from. It is true however, that the children from poor families who are determined to succeed have more perseverance than the rich kids who have everything given to them.

My point was whether or not your family is functional/disfunctional does not really depend on how well-off you are. And being able to choose whether to be born in a functional rich family or an equally functional rich family, I´d choose the latter. It is worst when you come from a family that´s both poor and disfunctional...

I come from an average middle-class family (do people still use the classes to talk about people´s backgrounds?). My parents did not need to strive to survive or provide us with food/clothes but still I felt sort of jealous of people whose parents did not have university degrees like mine but were smart enough to make money and could afford sending their children to study abroad, which was out of the question for me. i guess i´m just bitter

Ah, don´t be bitter I guess that being "poor" has also taught me things. It has made me very smart with money, has taught me what is most important (good food is more important than new clothes), and has taught me the true value of things. It has also given me a drive to never be in that position later on with my own kids I do have to say, it is a struglle sometimes, with this age of "networking". It is very frustrating when it seems that "what you can do" is half as important as "who you know". But even then I´m not bitter, and just work harder. I guess it´s a matter of personality on how you deal with a lack of money. It can give you an extra drive, or it can hold you back, just as you said!

Money does make life easier.  I had no idea my parents were poor when I was growing up.  We never went without the basics and my parents never really talked about money around us.  It wasn´t until I got to high school that I noticed!  I remember being the only girl at University that had a full time job.  It did make me strong, but my peers who came from money had a much easier time getting through a full course load and had social connections to get jobs after they graduated....I had to work my way up the ladder...(which sucks, by the way!)  

 I have known some spectacularly wealthy people who were quite miserable. Money doesn´t make one happy. Of course, it´s nice to have enough means to be able to take care of one´s basic needs, but fabulous wealth does not make one happy.

 Yes, but now you have also learned to work hard. My spoiled friend is having a very difficult time finding a job, because she has never worked a day in her life. Now that she is trying to find a job, she has no resumé, which is really a MUST to find a job in Holland. The job that she did find, she got fired from after 2 weeks, because of her work ethics. She can´t live on her parents money for ever, ad she will have a very hard time in the future because she´s not used to any kind of work at all.

I think a balanced life is the best. If I had a kid, I would make it work in weekends, or for example during the summer months anyway, even if I was very very rich. I am lucky that I was able to get through university without having a full time job (thank you Dutch grant system!!), but I did work once in a while through a student-job agency, and I worked through my summers. That has taught me so much! It would suck however if I had to work full-time through exam weeks and such.

This is an interesting issue. Is there a relationship between income level and happiness?

In my opinion, if ones basic needs like healthcare, education, security, justice, permenent job etc. are met, the rest of the happinness is fullfilled by social relations and spiritual confidence. 

Somehow, there is an interesting negative correlation between income level and social relations or more materialist opportunities and spiritual confidence. Interestingly, the more we get richer the more we turn to be alone and unhappy.

I think the state must focus on to meet basic social needs with a very high quality. Many people can abondon an important amount of their income to live in a safer, healhier, literate and justice place. In order todays world, and todays economic system, capitalism, charge the individuals to meet their those vital needs, individiuals turn to focus on to earn more money. That competition or ambition of money makes people to ignore their social and spiritual needs. However its not easy to measure the contrubution of a nice and calm chat with a family member or a friend, or the serenty after the shift ends etc. May be those contrubution is higher than the tastiest banana when the subject is happiness.

To conclude, i support an economic system that meets individuals basic needs with a high quality and also let them to live in a socially interacted environment. 

That issue is an important field of debate in development economics. So i will post an article that i like about that subject for the ones who care.

ECONOMICS OF HAPPINESS

PATRICK TRUMPY∗

Abstract

This paper criticizes the neoclassical economic approach to happiness. One way in which it does so, is by questioning the belief that more money means more goods that in turn, produces greater subjective well being. By observing the income happiness relationship, and the results of several happiness surveys, it becomes apparent that income cannot be used as an exclusive indicator of happiness. In addition, it will be hinted that income’s association to happiness is not solely a materialistic one, which neoclassic theory predicts, but rather income can increase happiness because of its effects on social happiness determinants, such as health, matrimony and education. The second part of this paper addresses the question of rationality and happiness. The neoclassical school believes that people will make rational decisions with perfect cognition and information. However, this paper finds that, in reality, this is not always the case. By looking at the apparent lack of self control performed by many members of the community in certain instances, it seems evident that some economic agents do not choose to maximize their utility. The final section of this paper will briefly offer insight into the possible economic theory and real life implications of the content of the paper.

I. INTRODUCTION

The economic approach to happiness and income is both a complex and controversial issue. Traditionally, economics has taken a very materialistic view towards happiness; that, in essence, entails that more money means more goods, which in turn results in greater subjective well being. However, surveys that, until fairly recently, have been ignored by economists, have shown that this is not necessarily the case. Increased income does not always increase happiness at the expected rate. This evidence would indeed appear, to run contrary to popular economic belief. This essay will look into the income-happiness relationship, and offer insight into explaining this apparent paradox. In addition, it will be shown that income association to happiness is not solely a materialistic one, which neoclassical theory predicts, but rather income can increasehappiness because of its effects on related social determinants. The correlation between income and happiness is thus strengthened because of the relationship between income and other determinants of happiness. Still, the inequality of happiness across nations and individuals with similar incomes shows that there are other determinants of happiness besides income. In addition, it will examine the association of unhappiness with dissatisfaction. This paper will argue that many of these variables are still related to economics. The second part of this paper addresses the question of rationality and happiness. It attempts to offer insight into the question of whether a person’s decisions reflect what will actually maximize that individual’s welfare. By looking at the apparent lack of self-control performed by many members of the community, it seems evident that some economic agents do not maximize their utility in some instances. The final section of this paper will briefly offer insight into the possible economic theory and real-life implications of the findings of the paper.

II. HAPPINESS AND ITS RELATION ON ECONOMICS

Happiness, a term used interchangeably with subjective well-being, satisfaction, utility and welfare, can be defined as the current evaluation by an individual of his or her own satisfaction with life (Easterlin 2001). It is important not to conflate this definition of happiness with its use in unified utilitarian theory. Under unified utilitarian theory, happiness is differentiated from utility because happiness is the realization or actual utility opposed to hypothetical utility (Sheng 2004). For instance, consider going to a restaurant and ordering a hamburger. Utility would be the expected satisfaction that one would suppose they would receive by ordering the hamburger. Happiness would be the actual amount of satisfaction that the individual receives from consuming the burger. In this essay these two connected concepts will be called expected happiness and actual happiness. However, both forms of happiness have a common attribute that they are both subjective concepts. This makes it difficult to compare different individuals’ levels of happiness or tell if the individual is testifying truthfully (Sheng 2004). Although Bentham attempted to put quantitative values to happiness in the seventeenth century, this approach has been generally abandoned because, for the most part, happiness today is looked upon as a relative, rather than an absolute concept (Gertham and Johannesson 1997).

There are variables in the happiness function that make the study of this matter important for economics. The prevalent connection between economics and happiness is the role that economics has adopted in exploring the maximization of welfare and quality of life (Easterlin 2003).

Traditionally, this has been attempted by financial analyses, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, because of the neoclassical view of utility that is concerned primarily with material outcomes that are affected by fiscal traits, such as income, costs and prices. Recently, however, with increased investigation into human behaviour, it has become increasingly obvious that other methods could contribute to creating a more comprehensive and accurate reflection of quality of life. Still, economic variables such as income and prices do have a huge impact on happiness, as is demonstrated in the paper. Research conducted in Europe indicates that increased happiness increases accountability, effectiveness, stability and rule of law: all attributes that provide for a healthy economy (Frey and Stutzer 2002). Consequently, the effects that happiness has on the economy should be mentioned within the paper.

III. METHODOLOGY AND DATA

By nature, happiness is an emotion, and basic logic concludes that an individual experiencing the feeling knows what they are feeling best. Both the neoclassical and behavioural theories predict that preferences can differentiate among different individuals. For this reason, one of the most accepted tools for measuring happiness is surveys that have intensive databases such as the General Social Survey (GSS), World Value Survey, Eurobarometer Surveys, and Satisfaction with Life Scale (Frey and Stutzer 2002). Although psychologists and sociologists have been documenting and analyzing the data from surveys for years, social questionnaires have, for the most part, been neglected by economists (Oswald 1997). A typical questionnaire would pose a question such as “All things considered, would you describe yourself as very happy, pretty happy or not happy these days” (Oswald 1997). When conducting a survey across societies, the question could be revised accordingly to each respected culture, such as replacing “happy” with “satisfied” (Oswald 1997). For the most part, these surveys are not used to determine absolute levels of happiness, but rather relative level or to resolve the determinants of subjective well-being. It is interesting to note that across cultures, the determinants of ‘levels of happiness’, are fairly constant (Easterlin 2001). Some people have criticized the relevance and transitivity of this form of assessment. The wording, ordering and scaling of questions asked can all have effects on the outcome. Another problem with trying to determine the reasons for happiness is the intertwining of characteristics of happiness. For example, suppose that studies show that people who volunteer report higher happiness levels than people who do not volunteer. Additionally, suppose that extroverts report higher happiness levels than introverts and thatextroverts are more likely to volunteer than introverts are. In this instance, it would appear inconclusive, if volunteering or an outgoing nature or both make an individual happy (Frey and Stutzer 2002). A somewhat similar problem occurs when different groups are surveyed. Suppose that older people report higher happiness than younger persons. This could be a result of older people encountering higher well-being, or this could just be an effect of different interpretation and outlook, which alters their responses to questions. Still, despite these concerns, there is a clear trend of the importance appropriately of living levels, family, heath and employment across diverse cultures (Easterlin 2001).

In response to the disapproval of direct satisfaction surveys, alternative forms of testing happiness have been created. One such form is by asking questions such as, “have you been thinking of yourself as a worthless person” and then, allowing psychiatric experts to analyzing the results (Oswald 1997). This method has been criticized because on the inconsistency of the psychoanalytic assessment. A second approach involves looking at related statistics. An example of this could be the number of suicides per capita. (Oswald 1997). Clearly, taking ones own life could be interpreted as extreme unhappiness, if one assumes a positive relationship between the value of life and happiness. However, this method encounters a problem because it can represent only extreme emotions and may be affected by social norms. As a matter of fact, in Denmark, one out of every 3,000 deaths is a suicide, while in Britain, the number is one out of every 1,200 deaths, does not necessarily mean that generally one country’s citizens are more happier than the other. Because of inadequate alternatives, and the frequent consistency, and great sample size of surveys, surveys are the resource used for the findings expressed in this paper.

Gross National Product

The relationship between income as Gross National Product (GNP) per capita and happiness may be surprising to some people. By looking at the connection of income and happiness in its static state, as shown in Figure 1, one can derive two important observations. First, there seems to be a connection between GNP per capita and happiness. In its fixed state, the relationship could be described as marginal decreasing happiness returns to income, which takes a curvilinear shape. In other words, happiness exponentially decreases at a lesser rate than income does. This observation would appear to be in line with conventional economic belief. A second important observation from this static graph is that happiness varies across countries with similar income levels and income fluctuates acrosscountries with comparable happiness levels. This would seem to indicate that although there is some relation between GDP per capita and happiness, it is not the only factor.

Figure 1. Mean Happiness

Although Richard A. Easterlin recognizes the decreasing marginal utility when comparing countries in a static state, he is unconvinced that this relationship holds when income and happiness are compared dynamically. Comparing income increases across time does not result in a similar manner. In fact, GDP per capita after a certain level only slightly increases happiness. Easterlin uses periodically consistent studies performed in Japan to demonstrate the great increase in wealth since the 1960’s. In Figure 2, the two boundaries suggest the growth path of Japan based upon the neoclassical theory derived from comparing different countries’ income and happiness. The dots connected by a regression line show the actual measured happiness felt by the Japanese during this period of substantial GDP per capita growth. Although, this does not follow what could be expected from a stagnate, cross-country analysis.

countries with comparable happiness levels. This would seem to indicate that although there is some relation between GDP per capita and happiness, it is not the only factor.

Mathematical regression can be used to prove this point further.

1.

Happiness = 0.1255 ln(Y) + 0.9804 yields an adjusted regression squared of .917

2.

Happiness = 0.0692 ln(Y) + 5.9331 yields an adjusted regression squared of .042

Y = real GNP per capita and Equation 1 represents the static cross-country analysis and Equation 2 represents the dynamic single-country analysis. The significant co-efficient of Equation 1 suggests that there is decreasing marginal happiness with income whereas Equation 2 proves that there is no marginal utility due to increased income because the co-efficient is insignificant. Understandably, individual data on happiness over time also shows that happiness plateaus after a certain point (Easterlin 2001). This data disagrees with the conventional idea that increased income increases happiness at a marginally decreasing rate. For this to be the case; it appeared that neoclassical utility is based on inaccurate assumptions.

There are two mainstream arguments attempting to explain why increased income insignificantly increases happiness after a certain point. The first is that aspirations increase as income rises (Easterlin 2001). Easterlin suggests that income rises at a similar rate to aspirations and thus the two offset themselves, leaving the individual at a similar level of subjective well-being. For example, as a result of a person’s increasedincome, he or she may not receive the same satisfaction from driving his or her old vehicle. In order to observe the same satisfaction, the person would have to purchase a more expensive car.

The second argument attempting to explain why income does not induce more happiness is that it is relative. This can be looked upon as people compare their income to society, other specific persons or themselves. An example illustrating the relative element of income and happiness is an experiment conducted by Richard Layard. He asked graduating Harvard students if they earned $100,000 a year, would they prefer the average pay for everyone else to be $50,000 or $200,000? The majority answered that they would rather the average be $50,000 (Layard 2003). Although neither theory of explaining the dynamic income happiness relationship is conclusive, they both offer insight into its explanation.

Other independent variables

The neoclassical assumption of income increasing happiness because of increased availability of goods is further weakened because of income’s positive effects on other happiness determinants. Three major determinants of happiness are briefly discussed below, along with their relation to income. The first, debatably, and one of the most influential determinants, is personal health. Surveys indicate that health is positively related significantly to happiness. Basic intuition about health should back up this concept further. In their study, the relationship between happiness, health and social economic factors: results based on a Swedish micro data, Gerdtham and Johannesson incorporate health into the utility function and then produce a function for health, written h=f (H,M) (Gertham and Johannesson 1997). Where h represents health, H denotes health goods such as Medicare, availability of medicine; M represents the initial state of the heath of an individual. Although some health problems are obviously genetic and unpredictable, significant portion of health is directly connected to monetary issues. Increased funding improves prevention rates of illness, increases the rate of successful treatments and the comfort of dealing with sickness. A report to the United Nations states that the major determinants of health are health care access and quality (Case 200. Clearly there is a connection between these determinants of health and income. In addition, increased finances have been proved to increase consumption of more nutritious food, offer better housing and safer environments, all increasing the probability of improved fitness (Case 200. It is a further stretch, but by no means unconceivable, that increasedincome can cause reduced stress, and therefore, lessen the likelihood of sickness.

Several surveys and data back up the income’s relation to health. For example, generally speaking, people in wealthier countries have lower morbidity rates and longer life spans then those situated in poorer regions (Case 200. There is some question, however, of the causal effect of this. For example, if a person is unhealthy, then he or she will not be able to work as much, and therefore, will have a reduced income. This argument, though valid, seems to be overwhelmed by studies suggesting that income generally increases health. It is worth mentioning that the demand of heath care is also affected by its price. If medical costs were lessened, then it would seem apparent that more people would purchase medicine and other health goods.

Another major determinant of happiness is one’s matrimonial situation. Constantly, people in a marital union are happier than people who are not married (Easterlin 2004b). Furthermore, there have been dynamic surveys that indicate that people are happier after getting married and less happy after separation. Figure 2 (Easterlin 2003) testifies that happiness is related to marriage. However, these surveys do not take into account that people will separate or divorce if the marriage makes them less happy. Therefore, it is self-fulfilling that married persons will report greater happiness. The economic connection to marriage may be surprising to some. Many experts, including Becker, have argued that women’s increased role in the work place has resulted in marriage being less appealing (Smock and Manning 1997). However, empirical evidence does not necessarily agree with the negative effect on women working on marriage. Evidence does suggest, however, a man’s economic situation directly corresponds to both the likelihood of marriage and the probability of it being sustained (Smock and Manning 1997). If, as suggested, income increases the likelihood of a successful marriage and matrimony increases happiness, then there is a non-materialistic link between income and happiness that is overlooked in neoclassical economics.

The third influential factor on happiness is education. Studies and surveys suggest that people who complete their high school Diploma are happier than those who fail to do so. This can be shown on Fig 4 from (Easterlin 2003).

There are two reasons for income’s relation to happiness. Firstly, people who have a higher education on average make more money then those with lower education (Pyror and Schaffor 1999).The second reason why education is so close to income is because richer individuals are more likely to pursue higher education then lower income persons. A study in India concluded that youth coming from higher income families expected their income to increase with education (Dhesi 2001). Additionally high-income families can pay for expensive post-secondary education and are more likely knowledgeable about subsidies and bursaries. Because income allows for higher education and reflects greater learning, it is important to inspect this relationship to determine its effects on the happiness income correlation.

The effect income has on seemingly non-economic happiness determinants such as family size, marriage, obesity, health, and education should not be disregarded when considering happiness incomerelationship. These factors could play an important role in both the explanation and prediction of economic analysis and public policy. It seems that conventional economics have over emphasized the effect of income on happiness but have underestimated other variables that impact happiness.

IV. HAPPINESS AND RATIONALITY

In economics, a major concern, is if people have the ability to make choices to maximize their happiness. Generally, with regard to happiness, rationality requires both that individuals can maximize their happiness, and will make the appropriate choices that do so (Simon 1978). The neoclassical theory makes several rationality assumptions. The foremost of these is that people know the full impact of each of their decisions. As a result, there cannot exist any methodical errors in the decision making. If any sporadic mistakes do occur, these random errors can be disregarded because they are aggregated and thus offset themselves. Humans are assumed to know how much utility they will achieve and be able to compute the present value of future satisfaction. This conventional theory assumes that people are perfectly informed, act completely freely, choose to maximize their happiness, and therefore, have no self-control issues. Moreover, the neoclassical theory contends that every choice made by a human is rational. For example, smoking and unhealthy eating are happiness maximizing rational decisions (Frey and Stutzer 2006). Behaviour economics disputes the neoclassical implied assumption that people always make decisions that maximize subjective well-being maximizing. It does so by attempting to separate the decision from what the individual actually wants. By assuming that people’s choices reveal what they truly desire, conventional theory does not allow for their rationality to be questioned. Although most behaviour economists believe that often revealed preferences will equal preferred preferences, there are many instances were they do not; one example is the natural lack of self-control apparent in some people. Both myopic behaviour and procrastination hints toward economic agent’s lack of restraint (Frey and Stutzer 2006). As a result there is a difference between what people want and what would maximize their utility.

To show how self-control issues conflict with revealed preference, Frey and Stutzer examine smoking, obesity and television watching. Studies on smoking suggest that eight out of ten smokers would like to quit. Additionally, on average, smokers attempt to quit once every eight and half months and most fail to sustain restraint smoking. The neoclassical theory would suggest that an increased cost of smoking woulddecrease utility if there were no externalities because people know what they want. A model that incorporates self-control problems suggests that an increase in cost to cigarette smoking could actually increase happiness. When a fifty-cent tax was introduced in Canada and the United States, there was a reported overall increase in happiness among those smoking at the time (Frey and Stutzer 2006). The increased cost to smoking further discouraged new entrants from consuming cigarettes.

Similar evidence arises when observing obesity. Over the last three decades, the body mass index research has indicated massive increases in obesity over most of the Western World (Frey and Stutzer 2006). A major reason for this is the decreased costs of high calorie foods relative to low calorie options. Again, the neoclassical theory predicts that since people’s choices represent their maximized utility, increased obesity increases happiness. After all, people could choose to eat healthy because the absolute value of healthy foods did not rise. A behavioural economic model that incorporates flawed self-control predicts that despite people’s decisions to eat less healthy, and therefore, increase body weight, there could be a decrease in happiness. A study of 8,000 women suggests the latter theory to be the more accurate. Increased obesity decreases satisfaction between the individual and partner, work, society and family (Frey and Stutzer 2006). There is also a link between stress, depression and obesity, but because it is unclear which is the cause and which is the effect, it is difficult to blame obesity for these additional damaging factors.

A third instance of apparent lack of self-control is concerned with television watching. In some countries people watch as much TV as they spend time performing paid work. Neoclassical theory predicts that this increase in television watching will necessarily increase utility, while the behavioural economics is not so certain. Some economists contend that the reason why so many people watch so much television is because of the immediate benefits without apparent costs. This means that one hour of additional viewing is not detrimental, but many accrued hours of screening can greatly hurt individuals. Costs such as sleep loss, social isolation, educational disadvantages and career limitation do not necessarily appear in the short run. In addition, some contend that television watching appears to create dissatisfaction with life. An example of this is Canada; because of its sheltered location was unable to receive TV signals until the early 1970’s. Studies conducted by Tannis MacBeth Williams indicated that after the television was introduced to the home, overall happiness decreased (Frey and Stutzer 2006). This is not to say that the optimal amount of viewing is zero but rather to indicate that increased watching can have adverse effects on happiness. The underlining commondenominator of all three of these examples is that people chose alternatives that did not maximize their subjective well being.

Frey and Stutzer go further to suggest four instances when a selection is overvalued and as a result people do not choose happiness maximizing behaviour. The first is concerned with human’s constant underestimation of their coping ability. The inability to forecast their adaptation capabilities applies to both positive and negative scenarios. For example, a graduate student will claim to be devastated if he or she does not receive tenure. Studies show that the student, over five years, is just as likely to be happy with or without the tenure (Frey and Stutzer 2006). The same underestimation is applicable with managing hardships, such as deaths of significant others. The second tendency is for agents to overvalue or undervalue options due to the distortion of memories. It is necessary for humans to resort to related memories when facing a decision for insights on the “right” choice. Unfortunately, people have an inclination to refer to their most memorable and emotionally intense moments. As a result, humans perform biased and inaccurate assessments and are inclined to overvalue and undervalue options. A third tendency that causes the over and underestimation of options is people’s inclination to rationalize. People are constantly explaining the reasons for their choices to both themselves and others. As a result, options whose value is easily articulated tend to be overvalued and those, less expressible, undervalued. The fourth and final reason for inaccurate choices is that people do not necessarily know what makes them happy. This is a very vague and complicated issue. Indeed, people are influenced by multiple factors. At any given moment they are often unsure which factor is giving them the emotion. A simplified example is a group of friends watching a hockey game. One comrade feels good and this person may think he feels good because of the game, when really, he feels this because the companionship of his friends. A fifth factor that should be mentioned is the concept of procedural utility. This is the case when individuals not only care about the outcome, but also the process and conditions that lead to the outcome (Benz 2005). For the most part, neoclassical economics in solely concerned with outcomes, and ignore procedural utility. These five reasons for the wrongful judgment of happiness help explain human’s non-happiness maximizing behaviour; a notion that neoclassical theory denies existence.

V. IMPLICATIONS

The implications of findings showing that individuals do not, in fact, follow the neoclassical or conventional view of happiness can havesignificant implications. Since these consequences could run into almost every conceivable facet of life, only those directly and obviously applicable to this paper will be discussed. Because income does not significantly increase happiness after a certain point, it can be argued that there should be greater income distribution from the high to the lower income ranges. In addition, perhaps, economics should focus less increasing welfare by focusing on income and prices and more on other variables that are related, but respectively unique. For example, unemployment should not only be seen as an unused resource but also as a significant indicator of overall happiness. If the evidence that is suggested in this paper is correct, a person on welfare would be less happy than an employed person earning the very same amount, ceteris paribus. In addition, economic policy could be changed to increase both the likelihood and the sustainability of marriage because by doing so it is increasing welfare. Education does not only generally produce a more effective and knowledgeable workforce, but it also increases the subjective well-being. There is much literature on the affects of health on workplace productivity, but what is often overlooked is the effect health has on happiness. The findings discussed in this essay would conclude that affordable health care option for all is not just a justice or an equality issue, but also one that maximizes utility. In Physiology, the set point theory emphasizes that individuals’ happiness is a factor of both personality and genetics, and will remain the same no matter what throughout a person’s life (Easterlin 2004). In contrast, the neoclassical economic theory stresses that material substance is the determinant of happiness. However, after looking at the data, it would seem that a comprise of the two ideals would be most accurate in determining and explaining actual human behaviour. The implications of the rationality of happiness also have seemingly far-reaching effects. The evidence in this article would encourage the use of taxes and other government interventions to help people maximize their own utility. In many instances, people don’t want to consume a product, but they lack the self-control not to indulge. Perhaps educating people of the consequences of negative characteristics such as obesity, television-watching and smoking can help maximize happiness. The economic model should consider that people are flawed. It ought to show that outcomes are not necessarily the source of all happiness, but that the process of achieving a certain outcome also can affect utility. Of course, all these arguments are debatable because of the multiple ramifications of each, but even so, it is important to discuss and recognize their existence.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

The conventional view of happiness seems to be in need of revision or reconstruction, in light of the increasing information gathered from surveys and data. The materialistic marginally decreasing happiness returns to increased income contrasts with empirical evidence that suggests happiness plateaus after a certain level. Furthermore, the income happiness relationship seems to be the result of not just the possession of the quantity and quality of goods, but also of income’s relationship to other happiness determinants such as health, marriage and education. This intriguing finding can offer important insights into welfare economics. The ability of people to maximize their own utility can also be disputed because of lack of self control. By examining certain scenarios that show people making the “wrong” choices, economics can benefit and contribute to other sciences which have already offered insights into this seemingly irrational behavior. There seems to be a great need for altering current mainstream economic assumptions and predictions. Unfortunately, identifying a problem is rarely as daunting as ratifying one.

I wouldn´t delimit humans in good or bad/evil.

Take a sociological experiment. A person is put to apply electric shocks to an another one, as punishment. Of course, in reality the other one does not get shocks, but through sounds, imitates being electrocuted. It was shown that, while having pressure on from others to increase the voltage, a person is capable to induce a voltage to an another which would fry the latter. This means killing, under pressure and knowing that what one does is just, correct. Is this person, who applies electric shocks good or bad?

Therefore I would rather delimit humans in loving or scared. If loving, no love can exist without self-love, because, at a higher level, love is supposed to be universal, a state of being. If one does not love him/herself, he/she tries to grasp love from outside. But we know 

that parents die, loves end, sometimes are mere illusions. (Just to take a dudu...). 

If we would not love ourselves, how we would survive losts? Apostle Paul said, we are empty without love. Scared humans are those who do not love. When we are scared, we classify, we judge and we victimize. Good, bad... Pope John Paul forgived the man who attented on his life. He loved. He did not judged. He forgived. He forgived the agressor probably considering that the agressor did not know what he was doing ("forgive them because they do not know what they´re doing"). There are not many persons like this, regardless of their religion. Yet, there are. These people, in a way or another teach love... So, in my opinions, we dwell into harmful and useful acts, which results might be good or bad, but we are merely, in a way to speak, unconscious beings. If we dig up a childhood, we see that we are, in a cognitivist way of saying, programmed. Then we deprogram (or not) ourselves, make or adopt other programs. The bare - and maybe sad truth is, that our mind is in a way computer-like, filled with programs, and thoughts. We think. We think all the time, emit opinions and grow in importance. Then we realize we might be mistaken and change opinion, but with the same conviction. We cherish our convictions, because they relfect our values, love for good, for truth, for correct judgement, etc., etc. We apply our convinctions on ideas, even if, through the years we sometimes end up sustaining opposite beliefs. We keep busy all the time. But there are people who transcend good or bad through love, forgiveness and gratitude. I think humans are marvellous, creators of thoughts and dreams and, at an ultimate level, able to transcend values through love. This is the royal crown of humans. Last, but not least, love develops pleasant feelings through neurotrnsmitters, which stimulate brain functions. Why are we fighting between good or bad? I guess not becase we have limited life. Animals have it, too, yet they fight for survive, not for immortality and they accept and know their death. I think we ramble between good and bad, being neither, because we have to survive, tend to write history, our own, the humankind´s´, the planet´s, even the universe´s if possible. If we fail in our lives even, we feel miserable. It is the trap of mind and knowledge. We want to know everything and through knowledge, rule. Maybe this will change humankind. And maybe in a "good" way. I was not scientific on this, I hope I was with common-sense though. Rambling ideas preceed science. BTW, nowadays it has been shown that even water mollecules modify their structure depending on emotions, words that are addressed to - and love and gratitude create crystal-like regular shapes in water molecules.

So the question I would put is: Humans - are they loving or frightened beings?

cheers!