[ikurei]

So many laws go against human nature; those might be the most important laws.

I don't expect the greedy and powerful to change, but as a society we should do more to protect whistleblowers, the same way we protect threatened witnesses.

Also, more solidarity between workers, although not always possible, would go a long way. So many Google employees can definitely afford to quit in solidarity, or strike. Not saying it's easy, I recognize it isn't.

[c0brac0bra]

You might even say that ALL laws go against human nature. If it was in our nature to follow a certain law we probably wouldn't need it codified.

[stjohnswarts]

Other than basic needs is there "human nature" ? Some people will give you the last bite of food, others will lie to you to add to their hoard. I think laws are to make sure we all are on an even playing field (as much as possible) and to deter from the worst aspects of -some- humans who tend to be bad actors. Obviously that's ideally. A lot of times laws enacted by dictators/oppressive religions are there to keep people miserable and afraid and power for the elite (whether communists, capitalists, religiofascists, etc)

[fuzzfactor]

When you do the math it's really the vestigial remnants shared with inhuman primates, which have not been completely overcome by the process of civilization so far, that underlie the need for so many laws that would be completely un-necessary if everyone was fully steeped in extreme true humanity and behaved that way all the time.

Too bad we are not evolved enough to have left all of this inhumanity behind along with the extinct hominids, but you have to play the hand you are dealt.

When you think about it though, what most people usually call "human nature" is actually really inhuman nature which has not been fully surpassed.

They wouldn't say it if it wasn't false ;)

Also widely regarded as an excuse to begin with even if not fully recognized as such.

It's always been plain to see the world would be a better place the more inhumanity has been eradicated, but there have always been those who favor more inhumanity not less anyway.

Maybe some people have always been concentrating on their limitations rather than their possibilities, and that's been the limit of their horizon historically since the dawn of man. Others, not so much.

Full "human nature" would be the complete absence of inhumanity in thought & deed.

[verisimi]

Laws are for thee, not for me.

They are a control mechanism for the masses, nothing to do with right or wrong, which is written in our hearts. But, if you want to disempower the individual, take his money (tax), use that money against him (police, tax inspectors) you need some authorised hymnsheet for the feeble minded to get behind. And that is law.

[pixl97]

>nothing to do with right or wrong, which is written in our heart

It's just quite unfortunate we're all reading from different heart books.

[NemoNobody]

I don't think we are reading different heart books at all - we are taught that we are but we are pretty much exactly the same when it comes to matters of the heart

[pixl97]

[Looks at the DSM-5]

No, no we are not.

[verisimi]

The dsm is hardly the authority of the heart.

It might be the authority of the pharmaceutical industry with regards to what treatments can be provided more psychiatric conditions.

And even then you have to wonder about their criteria - a doubling of diseases with every edition, all those 'chemical imbalances' and not one physical test!

[verisimi]

Really? Or is it that you've never looked, and take the poor imitation instead?

Funny, btw. But, not all truth has to be found in a book.. Arguably, no truth is.