good and evil

[mikelus]

whats good and whats evil? what are the border lines of the two if any?

[hamlet69]

i think this depends on what your view point is "like most things" , one person says "i'm doing good for the world by commint this act", but the act is evil to the person it is happening too.

i think this question can only be answered by the moral's of the person doing this evil or this good,

but then again "WHY" if there is a god does evil exist , an answer would be to show what good is.

thats about as far as i can go can anyone else go on?

[cassiopeiae]

Good and evil are only two opposite extremes of the same thing. The only boundaries lie in one's perception.

[physicskid]

It depends on whether your action
brings any positve or negative outcome
to yourself and the others.

[Another God]

Good/Evil = Ethics = Value Theory Forum.

[physicskid]

There's one thing I would like to say.
Without good, we would not know what is bad,
and vice versa.

[Bernardo]

In order for evil or good to exsist there must be a God. I'll explain...

If all we have is ourselves to determine what is evil then can it really exsist? Lets say 50 years ago it was considered evil to eat pie. Anyone who did so was evil. Now time passes and pie is no longer evil - it's perfectly fine for you. If something can loose it's evilness - was it ever really evil?

God exsists seperate from creation and His standards of evil do not change with time. What was evil - is still evil. What shifts to see evil as not being evil is simply identifing itself as agreeing with the evil and therefore evil itself.

The argument is the same for the good side of the coin.

So what do you think? Can there be evil or good without God. If so how?

[selfAdjoint]

This is certainly a popular position, dating from Nietzsche I suppose. Camus expressed it vividly. But I wonder.

I have been toying with the idea that morality is an emergent property of community. As such it cannot be "seen" by logic, a feature of the individual mind, any more than temperature can be "seen" by the colliding particles in a gas.

The idea becomes non trivial when we think of interacting with our own communities, and the fact that we may belong to more than one communitiy (church, state,class) with different moralities, and then that we as individuals and through us, our communities, can perceive and react to other communities.

I think I can get from this idea to the fact that we have come to believe that genocide is evil. Why it wasn't perceived before, and how it is reasonable for us in one community to care about the fate of others in an alien community.

[THANOS]

Good and Evil is a more complex form of the animal's sense of pain and pleasure. Thus we humans needed good and evil to stop our wild and violent disputes over simple things like territory and food. So good and evil as changed along with our ever changing society. Good and evil was created by us and still grows with us. So it makes sense to think that once it was evil to eat pie or chocolate.

It's just a simple mental invention created by us and used by most of us to make life easier like any other inventions purposes. To create something to make life easier.

[Another God]

my last exam is tomorrow. After that I will finally get my butt into gear and write my little excerpt (it will be like 3000 words probably) on what ethics are, and how good/bad are created. (from my point of view anyway. I mean, this paper will be my theory, entirely open to debate)

[Bernardo]

"I take what I desire, for I am THANOS"

I'm not taking a shot at anyone here Thanos, this is a thread on good and evil and I could not help but notice your signature and it got me thinking.

I believe something as well - evil does not start with "e" but with "I", while Good ends with "U".

[Another God]

yeah, like "I will kill you" and "I hate you" and so forth [;)]

[one_raven]

Originally posted by Bernardo
In order for evil or good to exsist there must be a God.
This viewpoint assumes that Good and Evil exist as absolutes.
If all we have is ourselves to determine what is evil then can it really exsist?
No.
That is the point.
Good and Evil do not exist within the confines of the context you are referring to "exist" in.
First of all, they are not two seperate qualities, they are at either ends of a single scale.

Cause and effect:
Every event is a cause.
One of the many effects of that cause could be an emotional reaction within the observer(s) of said event.
Each of the other effects also has the potential to cause an emotional reaction in the observer(s).
Due to individuality of the observers and their past experiences that shaped who each of them are, their perspectives (therefore their emotional reactions) will widely vary.

Where one's reaction to the original cause-event falls on that scale is nothing more than that individual's personal perspective of their surroundings and what role that cause-event and each of its effects to plays in their surroundings.

The simple fact that the Bible says "Thou shall not kill" is not proof that killing is a universal Evil.
It is a simple everyday fact of nature in the animal kingdom.
Is a Lion Evil for eating a Zebra?
Of course not.
The fact that indescriminate killing is widely (almost universally) seen as a detriment to a productive society does not make it a universal Evil.
The Bible also says that you shouldn't have pre-marital sex, on my personal scale, pre-marital sex is right at the very end of the good side.

In order for Good and Evil to exist as absolutes (as opposed to abstract notions) they would have to be universally defined, which is simply not possible.

[mikelus]

I believe something as well - evil does not start with "e" but with "I", while Good ends with "U". [/B][/QUOTE]

Please explain beter thanks

[one_raven]

Originally posted by mikelus
I believe something as well - evil does not start with "e" but with "I", while Good ends with "U".

Please explain beter thanks
I am pretty sure he meant...

Selfish = thoughts/intentions begin with "I" = Evil
Selfless = thoughts/intentions begin with "You" = Good

[THANOS]

Nothing selfless about helping someone. Every action one does ultimately does for oneself. Whether one does it for money or does it because it the right thing to do. You are doing it because in some sense it's for yourself. Money is more direct and to the point when actions are done to make it. But doing it because you know it's the right thing to do, but it doesn't help you with things that you are aware of, it still serves it's purpose by satisfying your mind by the regrets you'll get later for not helping. So call me selfish for helping or for not because in some sense we all are. It's all based on our values and some value mind over body, so when faced with a "selfless" act we tend to sway towards the minds want instead of the body (materialistic) wants.

[stressedout]

Good and evil are not ideas that can really be defined. What's good in one culture may be evil in another culture. Good and evil are primarily based on society and the way they deem actions and thoughts as being good or being evil. It is not one general idea, but rather ideas based on your perception of the world you live in. The border line between good and evil exists but is not clear. Good and evil tend to overlap each other so no real distinction can be made. Evil spelled backwards is the word live. We, as human beings have both good and evil inside of us. To live is to be both good and evil, whatever they may be.

Originally posted by THANOS
Nothing selfless about helping someone.

I have heard this before. It may be true, perhaps it is in our subconscious and we may or may not realize that in helping someone else we are in effect helping ourselves as well.

[Iacchus32]

Good is only good so long as it remains in context with truth. Whereas evil would have you believe just about anything to maintain what it wants.

Life is the "good" of which "truth" is the context which binds it together.

[Bernardo]

That's good I like it,

but I see a loop hole, what happens if your truth tells you that your boss is an idiot. Does that make keying his car or shooting his dog OK?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Bernardo
That's good I like it,

but I see a loop hole, what happens if your truth tells you that your boss is an idiot. Does that make keying his car or shooting his dog OK? Sounds to me like your boss is an egotistical maniac and would have you believe just about anything in order to get what he wants. I would have as little to do with him as possible, unless risk the possibility of becoming the very thing that I hate.

We all get angry, which suggests we all have the capacity to do evil, but it's what we do with this anger which, is typically brought on by some injustice -- initially -- that determines whether we ultimately do good or bad. Perhaps the worst thing we could do is let it build up and fester, as resentment, in which case we may never get rid of it.

[Bernardo]

No my boss in not referred to in the post - I was just asking in a very round about way - what is this truth you see that good rests on?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Bernardo
No my boss in not referred to in the post - I was just asking in a very round about way - what is this truth you see that good rests on? When we speak of the truth, we speak of the original design or intent. Therefore when we slander the truth, or lie, we hijack the good (take it out of context) and use it to serve some "ulterior motive."

[THANOS]

If you can't handle the truth i'll just tell you half of it.

We are good people.

there thats half of it.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by THANOS
If you can't handle the truth i'll just tell you half of it.

We are good people.

there thats half of it. Why would we need the reassurance, if it weren't a lie?

Actually, I don't think people are capable of doing good, except to the extent that they can get their big fat egos out of the way, and only then can they allow the good to pass by "unharmed."

It's funny because I can see the evil in myself, even as I speak.

[selfAdjoint]

I am reading Hannah Arendt's old book On Revolution. I am up to chapter three, and it's a wonderful read, dense with intertwining ideas on every page.

Here's her take on Scocrates and Macchieveli on hypocrites.

Socrates has a problem with the idea that somebnody might commit a crime in secret "unknown to men or gods". This is because the gods of ancient Greece could not see into the human heart.

Socrates solves this problem by inventing the conscience. He says there is inside each of us a self that has purposes and does things, and also a self that observes what the first self does and judges it. So no crime can go unkown, at least the conscience of the perpretator sees it. Thus Socrates, according to Arendt.

Come now to Macchieveli. He is a Christian (yes he is!), and for him God sees into the human heart. The conscience is God's agent in this. So M. says, consider a hypocrite in public life - what we would call a politician. He is not really virtuous as he pretends to be. Is that bad? No, says M. for to pretend to be virtuous he has to visibly do good deeds, and they are a positive good for the community. Whereas his true nature, whatever it is, will not go unpunished, since God sees it. So, Macchieveli, according to Arendt.

She does all of this in the course of discussing Robespierre "the incorruptible" leader of the French Revolution who, after "stripping the mask off of French society" (the nobiity) and showing its corruption, became suspicious of everyone in his circle that they were secretly not what they pretended to be, friends of the Revolution, but really hypocrites planning to undermine it. So he had them all executed, in the famous Terror.

[THANOS]

If you can't handle the truth i'll just tell you half of it.

We are evil people.

there thats half of it.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
She does all of this in the course of discussing Robespierre "the incorruptible" leader of the French Revolution who, after "stripping the mask off of French society" (the nobiity) and showing its corruption, became suspicious of everyone in his circle that they were secretly not what they pretended to be, friends of the Revolution, but really hypocrites planning to undermine it. So he had them all executed, in the famous Terror. And what a bloody awful mess the French Revolution was! Something no doubt got misconstrued somewhere!

[selfAdjoint]

Basically she says the reason the French revolution went the way it did, compared to the American one, is the discovery of les malheureuses, the wretched of the earth. Once their interests and demands were brought into the question, once Rousseau's sentimental identification of the poor with the pure in heart, then the logic of necessity took over and the players were unable to manage the streaming tide. The people could not be seen as individuals, only as a mass. This was an entirely new thing in human history.

In America, on the other hand, the only malheureuses were the slaves, who were next to invisible to the founding fathers. So they could see the lower classes of white workers as individuals and did not find anything wrong with their essentially classical Greek and Roman models for government.

This, she said, is the reason the American Revolution did not become a model for the future, while the French one did. The American one took place in circustances that rendered it a very special case. No impoverished masses, bowed down by centuries of unjust oppression.

[Bernardo]

He is not really virtuous as he pretends to be. Is that bad? No, says M. for to pretend to be virtuous he has to visibly do good deeds, and they are a positive good for the community. Whereas his true nature, whatever it is, will not go unpunished, since God sees it. So, Macchieveli, according to Arendt.

I do have a bit of a problem with this idea. It is true that very selfish people can do works of good if only for the praise.

These good works will equal anything a truly good person would do. The differance in the heart will become obvious with time. I think this is the reason was have so many scandles in politics. People try so hard to live the visible good public life - they need to display honesty somewhere, and their private lives always tell the tale.

The truly good person is good when no one is watching. I believe this is the only sustainable good - true internal good.

[selfAdjoint]

Oh I agree, and perhaps Hannah Arendt would agree, although she might be skeptical that it could be sustained. But it's like geniuses and masters of the arts. If the world had to wait for saints in order to work, it would be a desert. As the founders of the US were perfectly clear, politics is made of real people, who have real faults.

[Bernardo]

If the world had to wait for saints in order to work, it would be a desert.

Very sad, but very true.

I'm not sure who said this but, "the only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing."

and this happens far too much.

Here's a question - Is being 'politically correct' an excuse for moral weakness? I think it is.

[THANOS]

Ahh... but a truely good pretender will do good when no one watches incase of prying eyes.

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by Bernardo
If the world had to wait for saints in order to work, it would be a desert.

Very sad, but very true.

I'm not sure who said this but, "the only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing."

and this happens far too much.

Here's a question - Is being 'politically correct' an excuse for moral weakness? I think it is.

I think it is an excuse for laxness, at least. If you feel so strongly about a social issue, why don't you roll up your sleeves and Do something about it? Instead of setting up silly rules and enjoying your priviledged position.

Getting back to Hannah Arendt again (one you start with her, you can't get away!) she carefully differentiates COMPASSION, PITY, and SOLIDARITY (her book was written before the Polish revolt). Compassion is indeed a passion; you see the injustice and can't help feeling it. It is essentially static, compassion for X today is the same as compassion for X tomorrow.

Pity is a sentiment. It is boundless, and malleable; we can meke it do what we want. And here's Hannah: it is PLEASANT! it is self satisfying, and therefore the pitier has a vested interest in maintaining the state which aroused pity. (when I read that I said to myself How cynical! How true!). PC belongs to the category of pity.

Solidarity is the only one of these which is both positive and effective. It doesn't go around making invidious distinctions, it unites people of different classes, sexes, nations, whatever. It is the real road to successful social change. Solidarity was those white kids getting beat up and murdered in Dixie for the sake of black votes.

[Bernardo]

selfAdjoint,

well said.

[mikelus]

any type of response or action that hurts you or others deals with a sense of evilness. Causing either physical or mental pain for you or others.

[Njorl]

"Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats
Too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking
I had something to protect
Good and bad, I define these terms
Quite clear, no doubt, somehow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now."
-Bob Dylan, My Back Pages



Njorl

[seeker03]

returning to the question at hand, ill take a stab at responding. evil is the lack of virtue, not its opposite. one cant be perfectly evil in a comprehendable way, only pure good. it is similiar to light. darkness is but a measurement we invented involving the absence of light. light is infinite in maximum amount: there can be an uncountable amount of photons streaming in. however, darkness is just the absence of photons, so you cant measure darkness.
in short, evil is lack of good. this might help a bit. i'm sorry if i sound a bit too sure on this, but i think that this is correct in the context of the first post.

[Bernardo]

evil is the lack of virtue, not its opposite. one cant be perfectly evil in a comprehendable way, only pure good.

Have you ever read C.S. Lewis? He has very similar views on the topic.

I agree totally.

[mikelus]

is evilness the protection of pain? If we realize our selfs through restrictions of love, it forms control and patterns over ourselfs or others. These are external convictions caused by Unfillfilled desires based on the protection of pain and who you are.

[ken]

Hi

This is my 1st go on this forum, I hope it gets to the right place.

C.S. Lewis had a few things to say about the origins of good and evil,
it runs something like this though I can't do his original work full justice in such a short space.

All human societies have a concept of morality, good and evil.
with the exception of a very few individuals, this is a basic componant of being human. However it is not like something you would expect from evolution because you would expect evolution to equip for survival and therefore end up with a morality that favours the individuals welfare. OK you might say the individuals survival depends on the groups survival and you would be right but the same is true of a wolf pack. In a pack, the highest ranking individuals get everything, the lower ones especially pups get whatever is left if anything at all. When that happens in human society, it defiles our sense or morality. Also if this was a survival mechanism, we would obey it implicitly, it would drive our actions. We find instead that our actions are at odds with our morality. We believe we ought to do something but do not do it.

If morality came from ourselves, we would just please ourselves and do what we thought we ought to do. Morality then seems to come from somewhere outside ourselves.

The basic concepts of morality are common to all societies. I don't mean the details of application, just the basic concepts like:

Its good to: share, love, be considerate, thoughtful etc.

Its bad to be selfish, lazy, steal etc.

This suggests, morality comes from a single origin otherwise, the basic concepts would differ according to the individual invention of separate originators.

Morality is concept, thought, not attributes you can ascribe to the inanimate but something that has something like a mind.
Lets call it an entity.

It would seem then, this mind/entity invented morality and has put it in humans as possibly the only mechanism be which humans can recognise the existance of such an entity. If this entity invented morality surely, only this entity can have final right of judgment on this morality.

Regards,
Ken

[one_raven]

Originally posted by ken
This is my 1st go on this forum, I hope it gets to the right place.
Welcome and yes, it did.

Originally posted by ken
All human societies have a concept of morality, good and evil.
Agreed.

Originally posted by ken
with the exception of a very few individuals, this is a basic componant of being human.
How can anyone know that?
What makes a component of being human rather than simply being an animal?
Or a mammal, at least?
The complexity of the various social systems in the animal kingdom are continuously surprising researchers, not to mention the complexity of animal behavior and apparent thought processes.

Originally posted by ken
However it is not like something you would expect from evolution because you would expect evolution to equip for survival and therefore end up with a morality that favours the individuals welfare. OK you might say the individuals survival depends on the groups survival and you would be right but the same is true of a wolf pack.
Yes, I would say that.
And I agree, the same IS true of a wolfpack, which causes me to believe that we are not quite as distinct as some others believe.

Originally posted by ken
In a pack, the highest ranking individuals get everything, the lower ones especially pups get whatever is left if anything at all. When that happens in human society, it defiles our sense or morality.
That is simply false.
Wolves feed their young by regurgitating food much the same way that birds do.
Wolf pups are among the best cared for young in the animal kingdom.
More human children go hungry than wolf pups.

Originally posted by ken
Also if this was a survival mechanism, we would obey it implicitly, it would drive our actions. We find instead that our actions are at odds with our morality. We believe we ought to do something but do not do it.
If you believe that, you would have to conceed that humans have NO survival instincts whatsoever.

We jump out of airplanes and off bridges for the thrill.
We fast for religious beliefs.
We commit suicide.
We commit murder.
We take substances that are poison to our bodies because of the feeling of euphoria it gives.

We purposely place ourselves in the way of danger for a multitude of "reasons" because we have the ability to reason.
This is the double edged sword of rational and analytical thought.
We have the power to override survival instincts if we think we want to.

Originally posted by ken
If morality came from ourselves, we would just please ourselves and do what we thought we ought to do. Morality then seems to come from somewhere outside ourselves.
We do.
That is the point.
We do what we think we ought to do.
What I think I ought to do, however, may not (in all likelihood will not) be the same as you think.

Originally posted by ken
The basic concepts of morality are common to all societies. I don't mean the details of application, just the basic concepts like:

Its good to: share, love, be considerate, thoughtful etc.

Its bad to be selfish, lazy, steal etc.
Would the typical modern Westerner think it is moral to sacrifice virgins to Gods?
Would the typical American think it is moral for a young woman to be gang raped by a council of elders for kissing a man she wasn't married to?
Would a Buddhist think it is moral to perform product testing on animals?
Does the Amerivan legal code allow for public canings of youth?
These are more than just minor detals of application.
I could go on and on.

Even within our own culture.
There are far more than the derranged few that believe that stealing is not wrong in many circumstances.
Many people see the rewards in selfish inconsiderate thinking and actions and base their morals on that.
It is wholly subjective.

Originally posted by ken
Morality is concept, thought, not attributes you can ascribe to the inanimate but something that has something like a mind.
Lets call it an entity.
Agreed.

Originally posted by ken
It would seem then, this mind/entity invented morality and has put it in humans as possibly the only mechanism be which humans can recognise the existance of such an entity. If this entity invented morality surely, only this entity can have final right of judgment on this morality.
I agree, in a sense.
The entity that created this sense of morality is the only one capable and worthy of judging it.
The enitity that created it, however, is the individual.
Therefore, the only one that can truly judge your morals is you.

[selfAdjoint]

It looks to me that neither of you have ever read "The Selfish Gene" or learned about evolutionary altruism. Crudely,we will die for our family because our kids, and even their cousins, carry on our genetic heritage, and it's only the genes that get maximized by evolution, not the individuals. This explains the "sociology" of bee hives and ant hills, which your simple wolf pack analogy doesn't.

But I agree that now that we have minds we can misuse them to the detriment of our bodies.

[Bernardo]

This explains the "sociology" of bee hives and ant hills, which your simple wolf pack analogy doesn't.

We need to leave animals out of this. They do serve a purpose to the medical community - but for any sociological issue sorry.

There in no animal in all of nature that accurately reflects the complexity of human society or intelligence. Monkeys don’t go to school, ants don't pray and rabbits do not get married.

To use an animal as a model is to aim for the lowest level of morality available, we are human. We have the capacity for evil no animal could imagine - our responsibility is to morality because we hold the earth in the grip of it.

[selfAdjoint]

So let's go around and collect the moral codes and try to reduce them to a common standard. And what do we get?

It's wrong to kill people, except when it isn't.

You mustn'nt marry your sister, unless it's OK.

Don't steal from others, unless you have permission.

And so on. All the big basic ideas have exceptions, and the exceptions vary from culture to culture.

[ken]

Hi One_Raven


Well you certainly made many comments about my post but I found I can't address them all in one post so I'll break up my replies.
This has the potential to get really big and complex to the extent
we may forget the original train of logic (or otherwise).

May I suggest C.S. lewis book "Mear Christianity". It is not a long read and only the opening chapters deal with this issue. That would save us many long posts. The book was written from a series of radio talks in the 40s so it is somewhat dated but accounting for this I think it is very well thought out and much of the logic still valid.


How can anyone know that?
What makes a component of being human rather than simply being an animal?
Or a mammal, at least?
The complexity of the various social systems in the animal kingdom are continuously surprising researchers, not to mention the complexity of animal behavior and apparent thought processes.

Reply:
Well I am restricting my argument to people because we are people and as such are privy to inside info on what it is to be human. We can't know how it is for other animals, what they think of feel.
I thought that a given.

In my post, I made reference to evolution which implies transforming into another species over generations. Perhaps natural selection would be a better term because that implies the survival of individuals.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ken
In a pack, the highest ranking individuals get everything, the lower ones especially pups get whatever is left if anything at all. When that happens in human society, it defiles our sense or morality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That is simply false.
Wolves feed their young by regurgitating food much the same way that birds do.
Wolf pups are among the best cared for young in the animal kingdom.
More human children go hungry than wolf pups.

Reply:
Well what you say of the pack is true in normal conditions. We are however looking at natural selection which implies conditions that overwhelm the pack beyond its ability to accomodate the survival of all individuals. The packs best chance of survival lies with the best hunters and fighters of breading age, not low ranking individuals. This is an analogy I added to try to explain a point in more concrete terms. It's accuracy is not important to the argument.
The point at issue is that what is best for survival does not agree with peoples morality. I do not mean the morality that is reasoned but that which we feel and affects us on an emotional and spiritual level. Many parents will sacrifice themselves for their childrens survival even if the children are not likely to survive long after while the parent almost certainly would have survived and could have produce more offspring. Even if parents do choose their survival over the children, they are plagued by guilt. In many cases this destroys the relationships that could lead to procreation.

In short morality opposes survival logic. It is not what you would expect natural selection should produce even by passing learned values.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ken
Also if this was a survival mechanism, we would obey it implicitly, it would drive our actions. We find instead that our actions are at odds with our morality. We believe we ought to do something but do not do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you believe that, you would have to conceed that humans have NO survival instincts whatsoever.

We jump out of airplanes and off bridges for the thrill.
We fast for religious beliefs.
We commit suicide.
We commit murder.
We take substances that are poison to our bodies because of the feeling of euphoria it gives.

We purposely place ourselves in the way of danger for a multitude of "reasons" because we have the ability to reason.
This is the double edged sword of rational and analytical thought.
We have the power to override survival instincts if we think we want to.

Reply:
No I do not conceed we have no survival instinct. I find life a continual battle between what I feel is right, what I desire and what will prosper me, my family and society. One time I turned down a job I wanted because though I felt my family needed the income, I knew my friends need was greater and so chose his welfare over mine but the desire for my families welfare is very strong indeed. What I am saying is if there was only survival instinct, there would not be such conflict and guilt over doing what is logically best, instead we find there is something else that tells us the needs of others ought to be weighed equally, sometimes even to the detriment of the group.
This can not be explained by survival instinct nor logical thought.
It is something else again.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ken
If morality came from ourselves, we would just please ourselves and do what we thought we ought to do. Morality then seems to come from somewhere outside ourselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We do.
That is the point.
We do what we think we ought to do.
What I think I ought to do, however, may not (in all likelihood will not) be the same as you think.

Reply:
Not in my experience, its the thousand and one little things every day, I like to tease and joke but each tease carries a barb. I know that I should encourage and build up others but what do I do, I sting the ones I love with little barbs for my amusement, maybe to show I'm cleaver. Really think, is what you do the best or simple self serving. Can you get through even one selfless day only doing good to others with no reward to yourself, maybe even looking foolish or stupid for the sake of anothers? Sometime I do what I know is good, other times I do the opposite If it were not so, there would be no guilt or at least only guilt from having to choose between conflicting priorities. That should be easily dealt with by reason. Instead people get torn up by it, paralysed by it and suffer mental and physical illness from guilt. We all know we have done wrong.

[ken]

Rest of reply:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ken
The basic concepts of morality are common to all societies. I don't mean the details of application, just the basic concepts like:

Its good to: share, love, be considerate, thoughtful etc.

Its bad to be selfish, lazy, steal etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Would the typical modern Westerner think it is moral to sacrifice virgins to Gods?
Would the typical American think it is moral for a young woman to be gang raped by a council of elders for kissing a man she wasn't married to?
Would a Buddhist think it is moral to perform product testing on animals?
Does the Amerivan legal code allow for public canings of youth?
These are more than just minor detals of application.
I could go on and on.

Even within our own culture.
There are far more than the derranged few that believe that stealing is not wrong in many circumstances.
Many people see the rewards in selfish inconsiderate thinking and actions and base their morals on that.
It is wholly subjective.

Reply:
I am not talking about the application and practice of moral codes, of course these vary culturally. I am talking about the values upon which each cultures moral code is built. Values like generosity, selflessness, patience. These are the constants across all human cultures. These every person understands regardless of how they are applied. I remember hearing of a tribal group who laughed and laughed thinking Judas the hero of the gospel. In their culture cunning and trickery were highly valued, it is how a person bettered their position in society so for them, Judas was the winner. When it was explained the descipled saw Jesus as the awaited mesiah, they understood immediatly Judas betrayal of his God and his people and were very angry. Though these peoples moral system was very different, they still had no trouble understanding the same basic values we all do. For them you could betray your neighbour but never your tribe. Only the extent of and method of application is different.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ken
It would seem then, this mind/entity invented morality and has put it in humans as possibly the only mechanism be which humans can recognise the existance of such an entity. If this entity invented morality surely, only this entity can have final right of judgment on this morality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree, in a sense.
The entity that created this sense of morality is the only one capable and worthy of judging it.
The enitity that created it, however, is the individual.
Therefore, the only one that can truly judge your morals is you.


Reply:
Well I think that conclusion is valid only in the condition where the entity is truely the soul inventer of it.

If however morality is an invention of society (interaction between individuals), to claim yourself as the inventer is to ignore the input of your society and the many generations of social development that have gone before. What you have learned from your society and by interaction with others would have to be the greater part than any truely original thought of any one individual simply by weight of experience. Therefore your society would have the greater part of ownership of the moral code and by the same logic have greater right to moral judgment.

[JackRaven]

Originally posted by mikelus
whats good and whats evil? what are the border lines of the two if any?

Hi Mikelus, If it helps at all I can tell you that I believe "good and evil" exist only to evoke emotions where as "positive and negative" exist for balance. With this in mind I could go as far as saying that the border lines for "good and evil" when associated to the human race are simply "good=continued existence" and "evil=......

[Unkaspam]

Concepts like ethics, good and evil and morality do seem to have an outside source. They are human reflections of a larger system.

The designation of good and evil is the human attempt at re-engineering the efficiency of the physical universe. Although, we have tended to use reverse engineering to arrive where we are today.

Balance is the crux of those systems of chaos and order found in the universe which we mimic here on our depleted ant hill, earth. Whatever maintains balance survives as a system (or anomaly) as long as it supports the survival of the greater whole.

When everything seems out of balance and has been destroyed it is, more often than not, a part of the survival of the greater whole. We are a part of an incomprehensibly infinite balancing act that ensures the survival of a phenomenon we have been fortunate enough to observe and classify as "existence".

[Adam]

I do not believe in any entities or forces of good or evil. I believe good and evil is simply what we humans do to each other.

To the Spartans, it was good to toss deformed, small, or otherwise weak babies off a cliff. I can see the value in this. For a society requiring warriors for survival, it's probably a good idea. Today, however, many people might consider it "evil".

Some might consider suicide evil. Yet some animals will do it to protect their young.

Some might consider it evil to go around executing babies. Yet many species do just that, and it is for the best.

One thing I have found is that it is generaly a negative thing among any species to execute one's own offspring. Life is geared against that activity. Personally, I suspect that a good chunk of our drives and such a based in biology/evolution, and that being the case, we might say that the prohibition against killing our own offspring might be considered an absolute moral.

[one_raven]

Originally posted by Bernardo
We need to leave animals out of this. They do serve a purpose to the medical community - but for any sociological issue sorry.
First of all, you are an animal.
You are a mammal, just like a wolf, monkey, lion, mouse, etc.
Why the distinction?
What really makes us different, physically?
Opposable thumbs?
Even if that were true it really would not matter. I can come up with a dozen distinct physical features that different animals have right off the top of my head. Our thumbs would be no more significant than these distinctions. (it isn't true, by the way... koalas, opposums and Bornean Oranguntans are a few animals with opposable thumbs)

Secondly, other animals (non-human) are invaluable resources for sociology.
Possibly the most valuable resource we know of.
As far as we can tell, they do not live under the influence of absurd human inventions such as religion, morality, social graces, envy, shame, pride and all the other socially imposed garbage that influence our lives and minds everyday.
Other animals are us without the skewing distortion of ego.
They serve as a sort of control group or the margin that lies between nature and nurture.
We can guage our actions influeneced by "reason" against what would be "natural" for us to do.

Originally posted by Bernardo
There in no animal in all of nature that accurately reflects the complexity of human society or intelligence. Monkeys don’t go to school, ants don't pray and rabbits do not get married.
These are ridiculous human inventions and are only one part of Sociology/Anthropology.

Originally posted by Bernardo
To use an animal as a model is to aim for the lowest level of morality available, we are human.
I would say that using other animals' behavior as models for morality would be to aim for the purest level of morality and natural truth available.

Originally posted by Bernardo
We have the capacity for evil no animal could imagine - our responsibility is to morality because we hold the earth in the grip of it.
Without drawing too much attention to the fact that we have no clue what animals could imagine, I can't see how the belief that humans can and do have a capacity for evil far greater than any other animal in nature could possibly be an argument AGAINST using them as "role models".
If you think that humans have the capacity for evil that other animals do not have, then you would be saying that other animals are "good" as opposed to "evil" humans.
Wouldn't mimicing their behavior and using their values and social systems as a moral yardstick then make us "better" than we are?

[one_raven]

Originally posted by ken
Hi One_Raven
Hi, Ken.
Sorry it took so long to reply.
I have been on vacation from work, and I rarely (if ever) go online from home.

Originally posted by ken
May I suggest C.S. lewis book "Mear Christianity". It is not a long read and only the opening chapters deal with this issue. That would save us many long posts. The book was written from a series of radio talks in the 40s so it is somewhat dated but accounting for this I think it is very well thought out and much of the logic still valid.
Sounds interesting.
I will check it out.
However, it will be a while before I will be getting to that in my list of "to reads", so we will have to continue this without that benefit.
Sorry.

Originally posted by ken
Well what you say of the pack is true in normal conditions. We are however looking at natural selection which implies conditions that overwhelm the pack beyond its ability to accomodate the survival of all individuals. The packs best chance of survival lies with the best hunters and fighters of breading age, not low ranking individuals. This is an analogy I added to try to explain a point in more concrete terms. It's accuracy is not important to the argument.
I can understand that.
But, what you seem to be failing to see (or, more accurately, what I am failing to recognize an understanding of in your posts) is that the pack is simply a microcosm of the species.
What is best for the species is best for the pack and what is best for the pack is best for the individual.
It is not in the individual's best interest (in some situations) to kill off its healthy young.
Granted, the strongest members and best providers are of very high importance, but without the young, there is no sustainability.
The young do not go hungry because they are the ones that will grow to be the providers and protectors.

Originally posted by ken
The point at issue is that what is best for survival does not agree with peoples morality. I do not mean the morality that is reasoned but that which we feel and affects us on an emotional and spiritual level.
Aha!
See that's where we go off on very seperate tracks, and is the crux of my whole argument that good and evil do not exist as anything more than a human personal abstract scale.
What I am trying to say is that ALL morality is reasoned, and I am looking for someone to offer something that might change that belief in me.
I have not seen it yet.
Things that affect us "on an emotional and spiritual level" are simply affecting us that way because of what we have been told, what we have been raised around and what we have observed/experienced in life. Nothing more.

Originally posted by ken
Many parents will sacrifice themselves for their childrens survival even if the children are not likely to survive long after while the parent almost certainly would have survived and could have produce more offspring. Even if parents do choose their survival over the children, they are plagued by guilt. In many cases this destroys the relationships that could lead to procreation.
Do me a favor...
Try and find that in the animal kingdom.
That is a perfect example to support my assertion that "morality" is not a natural or instinctual wisdom of some sort that we are endowed with.
It is a flawed, intellect-driven human invention that often (perhaps as often as not) works against natural instincts, survival and benefit of the individual/species.

Originally posted by ken
In short morality opposes survival logic. It is not what you would expect natural selection should produce even by passing learned values.
Exactly! :)
It is unnatural.


Originally posted by ken
No I do not conceed we have no survival instinct. I find life a continual battle between what I feel is right, what I desire and what will prosper me, my family and society.
...
This can not be explained by survival instinct nor logical thought.
It can very well be explained by logical thought and reasoning.
That's exactly what it is.
Human reasoning is not perfect.
We often make mistakes, we make choices against our better judgement, we are quite often wrong and we are quite often confused.
As you said, if it were instinctual, there would be no confusion (though I am not sure why you think there would be no guilt.
You are making my point for me, if morality were instinctual, there would be no confusion, there would be no argument, many things that are commonly seen as "moral" go AGAINST our nature.
When was the last time you were confused and couldn't decide if you should:
breathe? eat?
When a large dog bears its teeth at you and growls menacingly, do you have to decide whether you should fear for your safety, is there any confusion?
That, is instinct.
No confusion, no gray area, no weighty decisions or dilemmas.
You "know", not "think" what your instincts tell you.

Originally posted by ken
Not in my experience, its the thousand and one little things every day, I like to tease and joke but each tease carries a barb. I know that I should encourage and build up others but what do I do, I sting the ones I love with little barbs for my amusement, maybe to show I'm cleaver. Really think, is what you do the best or simple self serving. Can you get through even one selfless day only doing good to others with no reward to yourself, maybe even looking foolish or stupid for the sake of anothers? Sometime I do what I know is good, other times I do the opposite If it were not so, there would be no guilt or at least only guilt from having to choose between conflicting priorities. That should be easily dealt with by reason. Instead people get torn up by it, paralysed by it and suffer mental and physical illness from guilt. We all know we have done wrong.
We have done what we were taught is wrong, and we feel guilty about it because those that we did it to were taught to feel bad about it.
We are taught that it is wrong to be selfish, (based on reasoning that it is easier and more productive for existing in a large society to have compassion and consideration of others) it is natural to behave selfishly.
The guilt of acting selfishly is an emotional response to reasoning.
It is man-made.

Imagine I walked up to a fat man and said, "You are fat."
If that man ends up being hurt by what I said, I might feel guilt about that, right?
Well, wht WOULD he be hurt by that?
It is a simple observation and a true statement.
He IS fat.
However, he has a reaction to what I said based on his past experiences, what he has learned, what he has been told and how he has been treated his whole life.
If he is hurt because he was teased about his weight his whole life, my comment may have triggered an emotional reaction because it serves as a reminder that he never "fit in" due to his weight.
His reaction, although it IS an emotional one, is based on reasoning.

Originally posted by ken
I am not talking about the application and practice of moral codes, of course these vary culturally. I am talking about the values upon which each cultures moral code is built. Values like generosity, selflessness, patience. These are the constants across all human cultures. These every person understands regardless of how they are applied.
I disagree.
Generosity? Not only is that not universally valued, it is a practical rarity.
Selflessness? I covered that above, I think.
OK...
Think of it this way.
If it is natural and instintcual (rather than reasoned and taught) then infants would display these values.
When was the last time a 4 month old child went through the night without crying because it would be selfish to wake Mommy and Daddy over a simple case of uncomfortable diaper rash?
When was the last time you met a patient infant? If they don't eat instantaneously they will not die, but they continue crying and screaming even thought they see the bottle coming. Why?? Because it is not natural for them to sit patiently and quietly while waiting for theur food. They are taught that later. Why are they taught that?? Because it is reasonable to wait and be considerate of others if you want to live in a civilized society.


Originally posted by ken
Well I think that conclusion is valid only in the condition where the entity is truely the soul inventer of it.

If however morality is an invention of society (interaction between individuals), to claim yourself as the inventer is to ignore the input of your society and the many generations of social development that have gone before. What you have learned from your society and by interaction with others would have to be the greater part than any truely original thought of any one individual simply by weight of experience. Therefore your society would have the greater part of ownership of the moral code and by the same logic have greater right to moral judgment.
It is not about it being an original thought.
I am little more than a collection of my experiences in life and what I have learned.
My experiences are very different in many ways when compared to your experiences.
That is what makes us indivduals.
We are very much shaped by our environment.
I decided upon my own moral code based on what I persoanlly value, and everyone else should do the same.

[Bernardo]

Originally posted by one_raven
As far as we can tell, they do not live under the influence of absurd human inventions such as religion, morality, social graces, envy, shame, pride and all the other socially imposed garbage that influence our lives and minds everyday.

That's exactly my point, so they make a poor model for understanding our social makeup.

I'm not sure how you can counter me, by agreeing with me?

[one_raven]

Originally posted by Bernardo
That's exactly my point, so they make a poor model for understanding our social makeup.

I'm not sure how you can counter me, by agreeing with me?
With the content of the rest of my post.

Those absurd human inventions are collectively only one part of Sociology/Anthropology.

There is also the social structure that lies beneath all that garbage.
The source.

If we look at human social structures beneath the superficial mores and traditions they have quite a few similarities to many other species in the animal kingdom, and that source of observing unadulterated underlying social structures is invaluable.

[one_raven]

If we truly are the only animal capable of abstract thought and objective reasoning, that would mean that we are also the only animal capable of stupidity (evidence of our vast stupidity is readily available and I think far outweighs the evidence of our intelligence) therefore we should be the LAST species that we look to as a "moral yardstick".

[mikelus]

after reading the rest of the posts it seems like we feel a little disassociative to nature. Why is it that we always compare the amimal kingdom to good and evil? Could it be that nature has no real good and evil for their is no cop?

[ken]

Hi One Raven

Well I don't have time to reply to every thing you wrote.

Originally posted by ken
In short morality opposes survival logic. It is not what you would expect natural selection should produce even by passing learned values.


Exactly! :)
It is unnatural.

Ken Reply:
Yes indeed morality is not from the natural world we know.
If you say there is only a physical reality then everything must be produced by natural physical events. There can be nothing that is unnatural including humans or any aspect of humans.

[Njection]

whats good and whats evil? what are the border lines of the two if any?

I personally believe morality is a mere binary opposition constructed by humans. "Good" and "evil" are its two poles.

[ken]

"I personally believe morality is a mere binary opposition constructed by humans. "Good" and "evil" are its two poles."

OK, but why do you believe that?
What are your supporting arguments?


Regards,
Ken

[THANOS]

Enough claiming that morality was constructed by humans. All animals have morality. Otherwise they would be extinct. Humans just added man-made items and papers to prove that something which existed before our time belongs to us to our morality.

[one_raven]

Originally posted by THANOS
Enough claiming that morality was constructed by humans. All animals have morality. Otherwise they would be extinct.

Care to elaborate?

[THANOS]

Well for one thing i'va seen a dog rip a cat apart but the very same dog sniff a kitten and leave it alone. There is some sense of morality there. Loins may get pretty rough but they do not hurt there own kind unless a new leadership is in question. Honey bees work their lives away and give thier lives to protect the hive so that the queen can make more bees, Is that not morality? Wolves will leave behind thier wounded, but they think not for that individual but for the sake of thier pack. It was always the strong who survive but for humans strenth was no longer measured by only brute force due to the smart being able to lead wars and create better techonology. Now we do not really know what these animals or insects really think when they do these actions but they all follow these rules and thats all we really know. Humans may be a bit more complex on this morality stuff due to technology, and communication with a more broad link between each other. Before we were pretty much eat, live, fight, and make babies.

[p-brane]

On the molecular level, what's good or evil about a pile
of (reactive) molecules?

(Initiate lack of opinion here)

[one_raven]

Of course, no one could ever say with any real objective certainty, but here's my opinion:


Originally posted by THANOS
Well for one thing i'va seen a dog rip a cat apart but the very same dog sniff a kitten and leave it alone. There is some sense of morality there.
I see that as simple survival.
The dog correctly senses no immediate threat from the kitten.
Not so from the cat.

Originally posted by THANOS
Loins... Honey bees... Wolves...

All these examples seem to me to point to simple basic instinct...
All living species seem to have a base instinct that governs and influences all of its reactions to its immediate environment.
Survival of the species.
I don't see any reason to induce anything further than that from your above examples.

The only reason I think that humans are sometimes the exception is because our egos allow us to reason that survival of the individual is more impoartant than survival of the species and our "advanced" intelligence allows our reason to override instinct.

More Here (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15576)

[p-brane]

Originally posted by one_raven
Of course, no one could ever say with any real objective certainty, but here's my opinion:



I see that as simple survival.
The dog correctly senses no immediate threat from the kitten.
Not so from the cat.



All these examples seem to me to point to simple basic instinct...
All living species seem to have a base instinct that governs and influences all of its reactions to its immediate environment.
Survival of the species.
I don't see any reason to induce anything further than that from your above examples.

The only reason I think that humans are sometimes the exception is because our egos allow us to reason that survival of the individual is more impoartant than survival of the species and our "advanced" intelligence allows our reason to override instinct.

More Here (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15576)

Sex is a good example of how instinct works. Most people attribute the pursuit of sex as an individual seeking self gratification.

That's how sex, and thusly, survival of the species, works. It makes you think you need to gratify your sex drive or your sense of individual sexual ego when actually it is a trick designed specifically to perpetuate the species. When you satisfy your drive for sex, you are actually giving in to the instictual drive to perpetuate the species.

Similarily with hunger. Eating keeps you alive long enough to reproduce and perpetuate the species.

Simlarily with communication. Communication often leads to a stronger, integrated gene pool. This leads to the continuation of the species.

Similarily with ethics. Ethics help preserve the species.

Similarily with the idea of good and evil. These concepts, good and evil, have come into being helping the organism identify danger and loss of life situations helping it continue to perpetuate the species before its death.

How a pile of molecules became this complicated, I don't know!

[one_raven]

I was with until here:
Originally posted by p-brane
Similarily with ethics. Ethics help preserve the species.

Similarily with the idea of good and evil. These concepts, good and evil, have come into being helping the organism identify danger and loss of life situations helping it continue to perpetuate the species before its death.

The problme is that often (possibly more often than not) the human concept of Ethics and Good/Evil are directly contrary to instinct and propagation and strengthening the species.

Allowing the sick and infirmed to die - Wrong, but it strengthens the gene pool.
Rape - Wrong, but it broadens the gene pool.
Pre-marital sex - Wrong
Medical science - Right, but it weakens the immune systems and the gene pool
Captial punsihment - Wrong
Corporal punishment - Wrong

The reason most of what Religion and Modern Western Society tells us is "Wrong" still runs rampant is not because people are "Bad" and can't follow the rules, it is because all these rules go against the very nature and instinct of man.

[p-brane]

Originally posted by one_raven
I was with until here:


The problme is that often (possibly more often than not) the human concept of Ethics and Good/Evil are directly contrary to instinct and propagation and strengthening the species.

Allowing the sick and infirmed to die - Wrong, but it strengthens the gene pool.
Rape - Wrong, but it broadens the gene pool.
Pre-marital sex - Wrong
Medical science - Right, but it weakens the immune systems and the gene pool
Captial punsihment - Wrong
Corporal punishment - Wrong

The reason most of what Religion and Modern Western Society tells us is "Wrong" still runs rampant is not because people are "Bad" and can't follow the rules, it is because all these rules go against the very nature and instinct of man.

I see your point.

However, rape weakens the social matrix (which, in any advanced mammalian group, is the preferred methodology of maintaining the species) in several ways: Fatherless children are less likely to continue the genetic line or more likely to rape and create more fatherless children or be gay (with even less likelyhood of genetic successors)

Pre-marital sex produces more of the same. If you just need 2 million soldiers with poor social and moral values to run a war for you... rape and pre-marital sex are just what should be prescribed.

However, war tends to indiscriminantly lessen the diversity of the gene pool of the species. Therefore, the societal and ethical rules surrounding rape and pre-marital sex have a judicial root in preserving and perpetuating the human species.

Medical Science: it has its good points and bad points. I don't see any other mammalian species practising medicine yet, they did well until we got so advanced as to invent medicine and guns and pollution and infringement. So, I'll agree with you. If you can't lick the medical condition with your tongue, leave it be.

Capital Punishment: Hypocracy. "Its wrong to kill, so we're going to kill you". Better to put these killers to use in some way. Perhaps generating power for an IBM. (See: Hamster Wheel)

Corporal Punishment: This used to mean being busted from a higher rank to Corporal. I could see a punishment called Corporeal Punishment where one is busted from being spirit to human.

Each and every one of your points is debatable in terms of what degree and intensity the conditions occur. I'm not good at sweeping generalizations when it comes to people's lives and livelyhoods. So, I leave you with what I've written.

[one_raven]

After reading your reply and giving it some further thought I think that rape was a bad example.

I stand by the rest of what I said, however.
So far.

[Dlanorrenrag]

In general terms, my hunch is that morality is an absolute value. Indeed, as mortals, somewhere between nothing and infinity, we seem to have no choice but to make or effect value based choices---even though it is rare that we can be perfectly pure in either our intentions or our acts. It helps to intuit or identify with an intangible or spiritual purpose that is more enlightened than a cramped philosophy of personal selfishness. It can also help to rationalize agreement on three basic moral purposes: respect or love God or Being (Great Commandment), try to treat others as you would want them to treat you (Golden Rule, Rule of the Veil, Categorical Imperative), and follow your bliss (from Joseph Campbell). Just trying to harmonize those three guideposts would seem to lead towards a host of other commendable virtues. Reflection might make such purposes nearly self evident. Decent methods of socialization might strengthen application, but not perfection. Disregarding such fundamental purposes leads easily to personal and social ruin. Although evaluating specific, contextual applications is uncertain, making an honest, introspective, self defining effort is generally essential.

[THANOS]

i was watching T.V the other day on lions, and i noticed that there was this one lion who lost her cub over the night. The next day she went on looking for it and left the pride. 2 Weeks later she still sees no clues but suspects that this other lion was responsible. She killed the lion she blamed and then left again in search of the cub. She died trying to find that cub also. Now something tells me that this is more then just basic instinct.

[selfAdjoint]

After the whole story, your evidence is just that "something tells you". We have humans have a gift for seeing patterns - even if they aren't there!

[p-brane]

Originally posted by one_raven
After reading your reply and giving it some further thought I think that rape was a bad example.

I stand by the rest of what I said, however.
So far.

As long as you're not standing IN what you said!-)

Good and evil... hmmmm.

There are good points about evil where there don't seem to be any evil points about good.

Good things about evil:

1.)Evil results steer people toward good behavior.
2.)Evil contrasts and makes good look even better.
3.)Evil is alway recycled into good (Nazi's, Edi Amin, Rawanda, etcetra provide examples of what to look out for in people)

Evil things about good:

1.)You can get too much of a good thing?
2.)?
3.)?

[Denim Tent]

what is the ultimate basis for ought?

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Unless there is an absolute truth on conduct, ethics and morality, good and evil is purely subjective. Thus, uniform concepts of good and evil, a relative sense of absoluteness, are limited to certain cultural groups or person(s). In other words, good and evil cannot be defined universally, only interpreted and espoused by people. For example, many Muslims believe Osama Bin Laden is good but many Christians (if not all) believe he is evil. Perhaps one day humanity will have the ability and luxury to agree on universal principles of ethics. So that certain concepts of good and evil are universally understood and accepted. Then maybe good and evil will cease to be subjective and become absolute. At least for us, that is.

[Dlanorrenrag]

At the beginning of our existence, is not the being of each of our transient identities self evident? Then, is not the being of other consciousnesses within existence at least strongly intuitive? From that, can we not intuit a sort of pyramid of general moral values? At the top would seem a sort of “Great Commandment” responsibility to the material and spiritual Environment that nurtures us. Under that, might there fall a sort of “Golden Rule” or “Rule of the Veil” that commands responsibility for fulfilling our present, potential, mutual, and enlightened bliss? Such precepts would not seem inconsistent with a sort of fundamental, Perennial Philosophy relating to our regard for God, our selves, and each other---although adherents often clash over semantics or metaphors.

However, as we come to build up, associate with, and respect Traditional Emotional Investments in various arts, our general values take on more specific manifestations---often becoming manifested in conflicts within ourselves and against others as we tear between how to protect traditions and how to transcend them.

Speaking generally, it might be unavoidable that conflicts will continue to arise based on our differing investments in traditions and arts. But, can we at least resolve to try to avoid conflicts that are fired or based mainly on mistaken apprehensions about metaphors? Can we try to move to a higher, common ground for values, where we can appreciate our mutual concern for reconciling ourselves with each other and with our material and spiritual environments?

Can science help us move past limited, nonsensical, falsifiable metaphors for small time, totalitarian god beliefs that impose irrational, inconsistent sanctions based on literalistic notions that simply defy common sense or common experience? At a minimum, can we at least try to avoid killing each other over whose “God” metaphor for an Ultimate General Source Of Values is “really” correct?

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Dlan, your bombastic post failed to answer the thread topic question. What is "good and evil"? In all its verboseness, it failed to even answer its own question.

I shall try to rectify this with a worthy response. Good and evil is really all about opinion. However, there are some basic concepts of what is good and evil that all humans share. Yet as of yet there is no uniting factor.

I don't think science can help us "move past" our so called "limited" metaphors (whatever you mean by that). That is up to humans, not the things we manufacture, like science and other philosophies. So far I haven't seen any indication the human race, in its inherent nature, stemming from biological form is about to change. However, we can change through the accruement of knowledge, thus becoming able to augment our abilities and change our physical nature.

As for moving past our "limited" nature, that is very much a matter of opinion. What defines "limited" and what defines the correct philosophy? It's all very subjective. For instance, in your post you express nothing but your opinions but that's the world view you seem to regard as true.

So, what I have concluded from this thread and my post is "good and evil" is derived from human decision, not something inherent. Yet, oddly all humans share some basic concepts of what good and evil is. Finally, we will continue on this path of ontological inquery until we can all agree on a unified value/ethics system. Either that or we become like the borg, and then "good and evil" becomes irrelevant. As a species we have a lot of potential but we'll never grow out of our current behavior if we remain the same as we have for thousands of years. Whether we achieve difference from this homogenous and repetitive pattern through a change in philosophy or through science has yet to be seen.

[Dlanorrenrag]

Thanks for recognizing my bombast and verbosity. I would not have minded if you had also mentioned my confusion and uncertainty. Even so, I hope I see part of your point, about progressing through "knowledge."

But what happens when we reach the point where it becomes strongly intuitive that what we can learn from knowledge is simply not going to be enough? What happens when we realize that there must exist some explanations that will simply forever be beyond our finite perspective? On old maps, perhaps they wrote, "beyond here there be dragons." Nowadays, instead of dragons, we think, "beyond here there be aesthetic, parsimonious metaphors."

If science can arrive at a point of being comfortable with a "final" explanation based on aesthetic metaphors (like under string theory), then why cannot philosophy recognize the possibility of an aesthetic metaphor that underlies our relativistic notions about values? Cannot scientific theories and philosophical values meet at a parsimonious point of aesthetics?

Apparently, scientists, in their faith, do not see ultimate aesthetic metaphors as being devoid of meaning or value. So, I am simply wondering whether an honest concsideration of parsimonious aesthetics as an ultimate justification for values might also be worthwhile? Might it: allow us to be more honest about needing to rely on faith about ultimates that we cannot know; about recognizing needs that can reinforce communities in search of common moral guidance? Kept at a general, parsimonious level, would that be a bad thing?

[Dayle Record]

In one book of pictures of Galaxies, there is a most arresting image. One huge spiral galaxy, intersects another at right angles, and surely there is some destruction on a grand scheme there. I am sure this is far away, and long ago, and who knows what the ultimate outcome will be? What would the good/evil of it be? I mean, does the one galaxy get a ticket, for running into the other one, or is the injured galaxy in a no parking zone? I think the good and evil construct, is about victim vs victor mentality. We would do much better if we applied compassion, rather than moral judgement. Then there would be no victims or victors.

[Polly]

We would do much better if we applied compassion, rather than moral judgement. Then there would be no victims or victors.

Beautiful, I totally agree.

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Dlan: 'Parsimonious metaphors'

I have no doubt the human race will one day be able to agree on certain ethics. However, in the human world, most of existence is subjective. Since every individual is unique and there will always be different ideas on what is correct, I'm not sure if philosophy will reach an end point, your parsimonious metaphor.

Science itself, is a never ending chain of discovery, rediscovery, change in both understanding and method. It is so much like the rest of philosophy in some ways, that I don't think it will reach an end point either. The Universe itself is always changing and so are our ideas on it.

The tricky part about both science and other philosophies is that everything changes, both the physical world and our ideas, as I have said above.

Now, what will happen if we decide to abandon our human form and become robotic? The human race, like the Universe, is constantly evolving and diverging into new paths.

Along string theory, there is an idea that there was a Universe before the big bang. Since new scientific ideas about existence, some have questioned if there ever was a state of nothingness but always a Universe.

Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of a never ending cycle of creation and destruction, whereby branes or other universes collide perpetually? If one believes in God or some creator(s), then that makes sense. Why create a existence, only to see it destroyed finally? If one were conducting a lab experiment, they would want it to repeat itself and perhaps even, in endlessly new forms.

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Dlan: 'Parsimonious metaphors'

I have no doubt the human race will one day be able to agree on certain ethics. However, in the human world, most of existence is subjective. Since every individual is unique and there will always be different ideas on what is correct, I'm not sure if philosophy will reach an end point, your parsimonious metaphor.

Science itself, is a never ending chain of discovery, rediscovery, change in both understanding and method. It is so much like the rest of philosophy in some ways, that I don't think it will reach an end point either. The Universe itself is always changing and so are our ideas on it.

The tricky part about both science and other philosophies is that everything changes, both the physical world and our ideas, as I have said above.

Now, what will happen if we decide to abandon our human form and become robotic? The human race, like the Universe, is constantly evolving and diverging into new paths.

Along string theory, there is an idea that there was a Universe before the big bang. Since new scientific ideas about existence, some have questioned if there ever was a state of nothingness but always a Universe.

Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of a never ending cycle of creation and destruction, whereby branes or other universes collide perpetually? If one believes in God or some creator(s), then that makes sense. Why create a existence, only to see it destroyed finally? If one were conducting a lab experiment, they would want it to repeat itself and perhaps even, in endlessly new forms.

So here is good and evil, ideas caught between a constantly changing world and human ideals.

[Dlanorrenrag]

Psycho Fish:
I think I agree with your inference that life might be nearly intolerable if we all shared the same tastes and values in the same degrees. If God exists, I assume God needs variety, even upon the risk of war. So, I do not expect that agreement on a common point of parsimonious reference for moral values should end controversy or conflict. Even so, a natural point of agreement in principle from which to try to find ways to resolve conflicts short of all out war would seem a good thing. So, my query is: might we ever intuit a common pyramid of general values?

At the top of such a pyramid, might there be a sort of “great commandment” responsibility to the material and spiritual environment that nurtures us, resting on a “golden rule” or “rule of the veil” that commands responsibility for fulfilling our present, potential, mutual, and enlightened bliss? Such precepts would not seem inconsistent with a fundamental, perennial philosophy, and most other virtues or values would seem amenable of being rationalized under them.

At a minimum, were we to find some such beginning point of reference, however ambiguous, might we then at least hope to avoid killing and terrorizing each other over whose “God” metaphor for an Ultimate General Source Of Values is “really” correct?

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

I believe the human race will find common ground, in terms of some ethics, some day. However, it isn't ideology we fight over most, it is economic interests. Thusly, a world united by economy is one with common values.

Globalization is becoming ever more prevalant, fast mass communication and efficient transportation across large distances is becoming more advanced.

Therefore, by force of economy and accessibility, the human race will mix more and I believe there will be a starting "point" to resolve issues by. A sort of secular Ten Commandments, an agreed upon course of conduct. Yet this won't come over night and it won't come easily.

After all, it took a century of religious warfare in Europe for philosophical tolerance to arise.

[Dlanorrenrag]

Your points make considerable sense to me. Thanks.