Where Do We Draw the Line Between Good and Evil?

[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 accommodate 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 separate 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 truly 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 truly original thought of anyone 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 what's 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 their lives to protect the hive so that the queen can make more bees, Is that not morality? Wolves will leave behind their wounded, but they think not for that individual but for the sake of their 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 that's 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

 

[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

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 into 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]

Values, God Metaphors, And Science

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]

Aesthetic Bombast

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.