I've been thinking about some stuff and some things and this thought struck me. Figured I'd ask what ya'all think about it. I have my ideas, but they're largely baased upon personal experiences. Anyhoo, take a whack at the question if ya don't mind.
Though, I'd have to check back to studies done on feral children and the like to confirm this. I do remember that they do still have senses of empathy and sympathy, of course, despite their lack of human contact, but I'm not sure if I ever read whether these senses were up to par with those of persons who had been appropriately socialized.
So, do you think a conscience is something innate to human beings or is it created by familial and social education? Is a conscience something you can 'teach'?
I've been thinking about some stuff and some things and this thought struck me. Figured I'd ask what ya'all think about it. I have my ideas, but they're largely baased upon personal experiences. Anyhoo, take a whack at the question if ya don't mind.
I think it depends on how you are defining "conscience."
Umm ... that little thing in your brainz that makes you not wanna do bad things?
What is that little thing? Why do I get the feeling RM is going to make a joke about it?
the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience
Let's use this instead:
the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience
Sure, you can create a "conscience" using this definition. It all depends on how the person (or machine) is defining "right" or "wrong." If you teach someone that it is right to punch people in the face who disagree with you then they may punch you in the face because their conscience tells them it is the right thing to do. If on the other hand you teach them that it is alright to disagree with people and it is bad to punch people in the face for disagreeing with you then you would probably avoid getting punched in the face.
the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience
Your going to have another problem (that H_S pointed out), you need to define what is right, and what is wrong.
Right and wrong can be nebulous for the purpose of this discussion, no? We can take a look at two paths, though: right/wrong can mean societally defined or what some consider inherently right/wrong. I guess. Heh.
Right and wrong can be nebulous for the purpose of this discussion, no? We can take a look at two paths, though: right/wrong can mean societally defined or what some consider inherently right/wrong. I guess. Heh.
Not if part of your definition for "conscience" contains:
"impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience."
It appears to be everything "conscience" does.
We just seem to be calling it "conscience" when it comes to social behaviour and give it another name when it relates to other things that people can be taught. We don't call it conscience when you know basic math, but we call it conscience when you know that randomly stabbing people in the face is undesirable behaviour.
But what's truly the difference? In both cases you're taught something and remember it and learn to apply that knowledge. Granted, one situation is a bit more complicated then the other, but you're still looking at a situation, making a judgement, and acting to according what you think is the right path. Whether you are solving a basic multiplication or determining whether or not to punch someone in the face after insulting you.
I'm pretty sure you can teach these things to people. And if you don't, they'll teach themselves. Whether or not you agree with their consciences at that point though, is a big guess.
I think the conscience itself is an innate thing that you are born with. What your conscience nags about (what you consider to be right and wrong) is learned. You may learn it through being taught, observating others, or you may come to determine your own set of morals, but regardless it is learned.
I'm curious, when you define "conscience" as an innate thing, are you defining it as a noun or a verb?
I think the conscience itself is an innate thing that you are born with. What your conscience nags about (what you consider to be right and wrong) is learned. You may learn it through being taught, observating others, or you may come to determine your own set of morals, but regardless it is learned.
This is more or less where I was going to go with the subject.
As far as the title question: yes, to a degree, empathy and self-criticism can be created, and can also be destroyed. A not-uncommon symptom of many mental illnesses is a break in the capacity to accurately guage the rightness or wrongness of one's own actions (self-criticism) and the impact of those actions on others (empathy). Turning those switches back on is a long and difficult process, but not impossible.
It can also be expeditied with hallucinogenics (notably empathogens, psychedellics, and dissociatives) under a controlled setting.
On a certain level, our brains are somewhat hardwired for certain things like a sense of empathy and sympathy. This is why people who aren't able to experience those things are sent to asylums. It is our developed sense of social relation that has allowed us to become the dominant lifeform on this planet, and so the biological traits that improve that have been genetically selected for. However, I believe that it is interaction, education, and other forms of socialization that further develop these senses to the levels at which we usually think of them.
That's a load of crap. Anyone that's done any kind of long term research on social animals will know that animals have this exact same kind of interaction. What allows us to 'dominate' the planet is our intelligence and our ability to build cities and works of art. Of course it could be argued that the dolphins 'dominate' the world because all they do is play around in the water and have fun. It just depends on goals. So we are the most 'dominate' if you measure it by creating cities and having 'power' over others of our kind. If you measure it by the amount of fun you have, guess what? dolphins win hands down. The only difference between us and animals is goals...
Though, I'd have to check back to studies done on feral children and the like to confirm this. I do remember that they do still have senses of empathy and sympathy, of course, despite their lack of human contact, but I'm not sure if I ever read whether these senses were up to par with those of persons who had been appropriately socialized.
Nope, they had the kind of empathy instilled in them by the animals they grew up with. For instance there was a girl that grew up with dogs. She acted like a pet when she interacted with people... empathy scientifically is a learned trait that happens in early early life...
Anyone that's done any kind of long term research on social animals will know that animals have this exact same kind of interaction.
Yes, and we are such social animals.
What allows us to 'dominate' the planet is our intelligence and our ability to build cities and works of art.
That's certainly a big part of it, yes, but we're awesome because we can use our intelligence and creativity in such an immensely collaborative manner. Our ability to be social is an integral part of our dominance. Without it, even if we still had everything else that we have, we would not be nearly where we are.
Nope, they had the kind of empathy instilled in them by the animals they grew up with.
They didn't all grow up with animals. But it's been a while since I've looked over such studies, so you may be correct that those that did had a better sense of empathy than those that didn't.
Perhaps you would feel better if I had instead said that we do seem to have some innate biological affinity for learning empathy? I think we can agree that at least that much is true.
Anyone that's done any kind of long term research on social animals will know that animals have this exact same kind of interaction.
Yes, and we are such social animals.
Yes, but so are many other social animals.
What allows us to 'dominate' the planet is our intelligence and our ability to build cities and works of art.
That's certainly a big part of it, yes, but we're awesome because we can use our intelligence and creativity in such an immensely collaborative manner. Our ability to be social is an integral part of our dominance. Without it, even if we still had everything else that we have, we would not be nearly where we are.
If our goals were not to dominate the world, but to eat, sleep, breed, and crap (as it is in the animal kingdom) then we would just be another animal group akin to monkeys and apes. Really what seperates us from them is our goals...
Nope, they had the kind of empathy instilled in them by the animals they grew up with.
They didn't all grow up with animals. But it's been a while since I've looked over such studies, so you may be correct that those that did had a better sense of empathy than those that didn't.
Perhaps you would feel better if I had instead said that we do seem to have some innate biological affinity for learning empathy? I think we can agree that at least that much is true.
Yes that would be more accurate, but many primates have this as well as dogs and cats. I mean my pets know what mood I'm in and try to help me out of it (if its a negative one) or take advantage of it (if its a good one). So they can empathize probably better than most people, they also don't carry the prejudices that Humans carry...
My answer is yes. If we did not have the innate ability to recognize good/evil right/wrong, we would have never have been able to make that distinction ever as a species.
So, do you think a conscience is something innate to human beings or is it created by familial and social education? Is a conscience something you can 'teach'?
Using a very general definition of conscience, (the ability to discern right from wrong) suggests it is something different than pure instinct. I believe that humans and higher ordered social animals always have the ability to form a conscience, and they probably most always do. I believe conscience is formed mostly from socialisation as well as the environment thus being "taught."
I believe some possible exceptions might be unsocialized humans and higher order animals as well as artificial intelligences. It might also be interesting to discuss if the aforementioned have consciousness.
Isn't this question really "Is there such things as good and evil and do we have the ability to innately recognize it?"
My answer is yes. If we did not have the innate ability to recognize good/evil right/wrong, we would have never have been able to make that distinction ever as a species.
Good and evil are relative. What you consider good and evil can be taught.
Isn't this question really "Is there such things as good and evil and do we have the ability to innately recognize it?"
My answer is yes. If we did not have the innate ability to recognize good/evil right/wrong, we would have never have been able to make that distinction ever as a species.
Good and evil are relative. What you consider good and evil can be taught.
Sure, but it had to originate from somewhere.
Isn't this question really "Is there such things as good and evil and do we have the ability to innately recognize it?"
My answer is yes. If we did not have the innate ability to recognize good/evil right/wrong, we would have never have been able to make that distinction ever as a species.
Good and evil are relative. What you consider good and evil can be taught.
Sure, but it had to originate from somewhere.
I've yet to read about the "goodness" gene being found. It's possible, but I'm not holding my breadth.
Maybe it's not a gene.
Maybe; however, if not a gene, what else would it be?
Maybe it's not a gene.
Maybe; however, if not a gene, what else would it be?
If I had all of these kinds of answers, I would have provided them by now and I probably wouldn't be working in the software field.
Maybe it's not a gene.
Maybe; however, if not a gene, what else would it be?
If I had all of these kinds of answers, I would have provided them by now and I probably wouldn't be working in the software field.
You can still toss out some theories.
You can still toss out some theories.
I could, but I don't have anything. I believe that there is a reason for our existence and that the truth lies somewhere within spirituality and science. I believe that the origins of good and evil are held there as well.
I don't know if it matters whether man made good and evil or it was always there. I cannot say that I have seen animals actually committing an evil act, however I have certainly seen that they are capable of committing good acts. Is that from training? It's hard to say. Family dogs have pulled children from certain death when they were not trained to, so I would say that training is not mandatory. So there is some force there that is compelling enough that other species acts upon it other than humans.
I am always looking for answers. I have been all my life. I expect that I will be for the rest of my life. This is just one of those questions that I just don't have a theory on. I just know that I have seen good and evil in this world and it had to originate from somewhere. And if animals are capable of good acts, that would lead one to believe that the concept of good (and thus evil) transcends our existence.
Meh. Do alot of animals innately possess such a thing? Yes. Can it be taught to something that has no innate understanding of social structure? If it is unintelligent, then no. If it is smart enough? Mabey, atleast an academic understanding. We would have to find more examples to know for sure. Kilishorn seems to suggest that it is possible.
People who 'lack concience' are not people who have an innability to understand it (barring sever mental retardation or what-not.) they are individuals who have a sense of behavior that centers on a diffrent group (themselves, perhapes, like Goldy. Or themselves and a few close loved ones, like Plushy. Or inanimate objects like Kilishorn. Or women, like Erato.) or who have expectations for their own actions and that actions of others that significantly differ from the norm for their group (like myself, lokair, or R_H) It is no more possible nor impossible to change their morals to match your own than for them to change your morals to match theirs in the case of the latter group. In the case of the former group, you would somehow need to get them to care about a wider group of people to get them to behave in what you deem an acceptable manner, or make it clear to them that failure to live up to standards they have no belife in with regards to people they do not care about will negatively impact the group they do care about.
Family dogs have pulled children from certain death when they were not trained to, so I would say that training is not mandatory.
Why is that a good act, exactly? Why is it that animals of similiar or superior intelect pulling human children to certain death is, in your estimation, not an evil act?
Family dogs have pulled children from certain death when they were not trained to, so I would say that training is not mandatory.
Why is that a good act, exactly?
If you can explain how it's not a good act, I'll entertain your explanation.
Why is it that animals of similiar or superior intelect pulling human children to certain death is, in your estimation, not an evil act?
I missed the part where I made that claim. I said that I have not seen it.
You can still toss out some theories.
I could, but I don't have anything. I believe that there is a reason for our existence and that the truth lies somewhere within spirituality and science. I believe that the origins of good and evil are held there as well.
I don't know if it matters whether man made good and evil or it was always there. I cannot say that I have seen animals actually committing an evil act, however I have certainly seen that they are capable of committing good acts. Is that from training? It's hard to say. Family dogs have pulled children from certain death when they were not trained to, so I would say that training is not mandatory. So there is some force there that is compelling enough that other species acts upon it other than humans.
I am always looking for answers. I have been all my life. I expect that I will be for the rest of my life. This is just one of those questions that I just don't have a theory on. I just know that I have seen good and evil in this world and it had to originate from somewhere. And if animals are capable of good acts, that would lead one to believe that the concept of good (and thus evil) transcends our existence.
My sister had a cat that basically grew up with her kids, he was at least 10 years old. One day they were all going inside the house (they live out in the woods) when a snake tried to strike one of the children. The cat (his name was Samson) slapped the snake down and chased it off saving one of the kids. I don't know if the snake was poisonous, but I've never heard of a cat doing something like that before (or after)
If you can explain how it's not a good act, I'll entertain your explanation.
I made no assertion that it is not a good act. I'm simply curious why you deem it to be one, and what factors contribute to it being a good act. Is it because it was a child? A human? Was it because the child grew up to be a benifitial member of society? I have no particular trap in mind, just looking for some more information.
Why is it that animals of similiar or superior intelect pulling human children to certain death is, in your estimation, not an evil act?
I missed the part where I made that claim. I said that I have not seen it.
So, if you have not been their in person to witness predation, you do not have any reason to suspect that it happens, or something. Seems a bit early in the discussion to go that deep into word games.
What if it wasn't a dog pulling a human away from certain death, but a dog pulling another dog away from a lion. Is that a good act? Defense of family is a valuable and commendable trait, but how that is evidence of some as yet undefined well of universal morality: I'm having alot of trouble following that line of reasoning.
My sister had a cat that basically grew up with her kids, he was at least 10 years old. One day they were all going inside the house (they live out in the woods) when a snake tried to strike one of the children. The cat (his name was Samson) slapped the snake down and chased it off saving one of the kids. I don't know if the snake was poisonous, but I've never heard of a cat doing something like that before (or after)
Cats often attack snakes. My grandmother tells me my aunts wiener dog (long since deceased) used to hunt snakes all the time, and once attacked an alligator in the back yard.
My sister had a cat that basically grew up with her kids, he was at least 10 years old. One day they were all going inside the house (they live out in the woods) when a snake tried to strike one of the children. The cat (his name was Samson) slapped the snake down and chased it off saving one of the kids. I don't know if the snake was poisonous, but I've never heard of a cat doing something like that before (or after)
Cats often attack snakes. My grandmother tells me my aunts wiener dog (long since deceased) used to hunt snakes all the time, and once attacked an alligator in the back yard.
Sure but this cat actively protected my nephew, it would have been a better strategy for the cat to let it strike and while it was striking attack it and kill it, but instead it intercepted the strike of the snake and let it get away...
(Really, the rotten ones are the pet owners that consider the animals a piece of furniture while the pets look up to them as part of their family)
As to whether or not it's a good deed, that's the question... many animals have strong bonds with their pack or herd and will go a long way to protect them, but is it truly because they want to do a good deed by saving members, or is it because they understand that the herd needs to protect its own to survive?
And for people conscience, it's often the same. Are you not a homocidal maniac because you are a genuine good person, or are you not a homocidal maniac because you know you wouldn't be able to get away with it? When people talk about good deeds, they should keep in mind that good actions don't neccesarily come from good intentions.
I made no assertion that it is not a good act. I'm simply curious why you deem it to be one, and what factors contribute to it being a good act. Is it because it was a child? A human? Was it because the child grew up to be a benifitial member of society? I have no particular trap in mind, just looking for some more information.
Those are all good enough reasons for me.
So, if you have not been their in person to witness predation, you do not have any reason to suspect that it happens, or something. Seems a bit early in the discussion to go that deep into word games.
You are the one making an assumption of what my "estimation" is. If you don't want word games, don't put words in my mouth.
What if it wasn't a dog pulling a human away from certain death, but a dog pulling another dog away from a lion. Is that a good act? Defense of family is a valuable and commendable trait, but how that is evidence of some as yet undefined well of universal morality: I'm having alot of trouble following that line of reasoning.
That's why it is important to keep the example of a dog rescuing a human. And some stories are not just of dogs, and some of the people they saved were not just their owners. Stories 4, 3, and 2 are particularly interesting.
I missed the part where I made that claim. I said that I have not seen it.
A dingo ate my baby!
Seriously, though, intelligent and social animals attack and kill people all the time. Some do so for food, some do so because they are injured and others ... well, they just do so. Read about African man eaters sometime. It's also quite common for our lovely pet cats to grab and torture (sometimes to death, sometimes just a good ol' fashioned maiming) other animals for their own amusement.
Regarding loyalty in pets, in most (if not all) cases, that's a trait that we bred for. So, I guess it is innate but it's innate by design.
I'm going to talk about mental illness for a moment here, but bear with me it'll come around to consience.
Mental illness is one of the more difficult concepts for the western world to cope with because they blur the distinction between personality and affliction. Anyone who has struggled with mental illness can tell you about the identity crisis that they face with their meds. "What if I'm actually just a mean, sad person, are the pills making me into someone that I'm not and isn't that basically lying to everyone else and myself? Is this me talking, or is this my depression talking? If I were myself then would I want to take my pills, but because I'm sick I don't want to take them? What if I become someone who isn't me?"
It's not a very fun game to play.
Now, mechanically our brains are made up of trillions of tiny switches that form something analogous to a city's roads, and just like those roads there are some pathways that are used to pass a lot of traffic through.
There are, within the brain, a finite number of these high-traffic areas that handle the processing and contextualization of information. A break at any one of these switches results in most or all of the information passing through being mis-interpreted, mis-contextualized, or mis-filed. In practical terms this means that you miss your bus, the signal for worry is sent from one part of the brain to all the parts that need to react, but it passes through a broken switch and as it does so it gets misinterpreted. Instead of being sent out as "okay, we missed our bus, no big deal, quickly formulate a new plan, is there another bus we can catch, or ar we stuck and have to wait?" which would trigger a small release of adrenaline and seratonin it's sent out as "HOLY **** WE'RE GOING TO DIE!"which trigges a huge surge of seratonin and adrenaline. At that point everything in the brain wakes up and starts looking for the lion that's trying to eat yo ass, but can't find it, and so the brain starts to argue with itself as various systems insist there needs to be a lion because otherwise why would they be on all alert while other systems are all "dude, seriously, I can't see a lion anywhere." And that's a panic attack.
This idea, that there's a finite number of switches, is the very new and important concept and it's created a new model for mental illness and the brain as a whole. Up until veyr recently the model for human behaviour and mental illness has been a fuzzy cloud of argument about the specific relationship between genetics and upbringing, nature vs nurture. We now know that it looks like this:
On one side we have genetic disposition, and on the other side we have environmental factors (which includes everything that isn't the genes you were born with: heartbreak, chemical exposure, victimization, &c.). In all cases of a break there are always both involved, but the degree of each is highly maliable. You could have a very steep genetic disposition, at which point fairly minor environmental factors will trigger a break. On the flip side you might have almost no genetic disposition, but after being kidnapped and tortured (steep environmental factor) you develop PTSD. When this happens those nerological switches in your brain physically break.
Alright, how does this apply to consience?
This model tells us a lot about the connection between the physical structure of the brain, our composition as humans, and the personality that results from it. Conscience, and all aspects of human interpretation, consists of a physical collection of switches in the brain specialized to handle, manage, and direct that type of information as well as the resulting interpretation of that information.
Physically humans have the hardware for managing and interpreting moral code. This is the same cluster that holds the empathic heirarchy of similarities (we're more sympathetic to things that look more like us: family>strangers>people from other races>hominids in general>soft mammals>ugly mammals>birds/reptiles/amphibians>insects>plants>inanimate objects). Aswell, just like with the switches that cause mental illness, these switches can be broken or altered through genetic disposition and environmental factors. In yes/no terms, yes, all humans are supposed to be born with the hardware for conscience, but what that conscience means can potentially be completely rewired by raising and is likely even designed with that in mind: as far as genetic progenation is concerned, only the basic empathic heirarchy is mandatory to minimize familicide and tribicide, beyond that it's more advantageous to be disposed to adopting the predominant moral code of those around you, since tribal survival depends on cooperation.
Of course it's also prudant for long term survival to have individuals who are wired to question, doubt, and challenge the tribe. Otherwise you end up with ideological and genetic stagnation, at which point you're as useless as a panda bear.
As for conscience I don't think it is a human only thing and I don't think it's genetic. Or at least not genetic in the sense of we automatically know what's wrong or right from day one. Rather I think the sense of conscience is partially based on one's environmental constraints and the community that one lives within.
For instance it is right for some animals to steal to live. It is right for alphas of species of harem monkies & apes to kill all the babies of the troupe once he first becomes alphas. It is right for us to punish someone if they murder another person.
One's environment will dictate how one can survive and will likely influence group culture. The culture of a group will more and likely have society rules that help enforce success of the group thus more guaranteed survival of the species. Now thinking about that there are tons of different kinds of natural societies within the animal kingdom. If we were to humanize the animal kingdom most of all animals would violate human rights on a day to day basis. More so in some animal societies than others. But that is just comparing them to us humans. Or more specifically to the western world. I personally think that a huge influence is from society. Partially from the community as a whole (peer pressure and societal norms) as well as by the influence of power.
I'm not sure if this act I'm about to talk about is seen as right by chimps and gorilla but it seems to happen in their groups often. The alpha females of these species have on several occasions have been witnessed committing cannibalism via the eating of infants belonging to other females in the group. It's been seen in other primate groups as well and is always the alpha female who commits the act. I don't think she's ever stopped. The mother is upset or heartbroken but watches as her superior I guess is asserting herself or something. This seems to be their normal behavior so is it right? Are these species just wrong? Because we see this action as wrong does that mean they have no conscience? We could say that but within their own groups they do show a whole gambit of emotions that range from praise and regret. I do think they have a conscience but that their society's conscience standards are different and foreign from ours.
Why might it be easy for me to believe this? Well partially because we humans here on this planet in different countries have some very different meanings of right and wrong. There are only a very few things most of the world can agree is wrong such as murder but then again we have a bit of different definitions as to what constitutes such. Something that might be seen as murder in the west might be seen as ok in the mid east or far east or in africa.
So, do you think a conscience is something innate to human beings or is it created by familial and social education? Is a conscience something you can 'teach'?
I've been thinking about some stuff and some things and this thought struck me. Figured I'd ask what ya'all think about it. I have my ideas, but they're largely baased upon personal experiences. Anyhoo, take a whack at the question if ya don't mind.
On a certain level, our brains are somewhat hardwired for certain things like a sense of empathy and sympathy. This is why people who aren't able to experience those things are sent to asylums. It is our developed sense of social relation that has allowed us to become the dominant lifeform on this planet, and so the biological traits that improve that have been genetically selected for. However, I believe that it is interaction, education, and other forms of socialization that further develop these senses to the levels at which we usually think of them.
That's a load of crap. Anyone that's done any kind of long term research on social animals will know that animals have this exact same kind of interaction. What allows us to 'dominate' the planet is our intelligence and our ability to build cities and works of art. Of course it could be argued that the dolphins 'dominate' the world because all they do is play around in the water and have fun. It just depends on goals. So we are the most 'dominate' if you measure it by creating cities and having 'power' over others of our kind. If you measure it by the amount of fun you have, guess what? dolphins win hands down. The only difference between us and animals is goals...
Basically +1
What has allowed us to dominate the planet is not so much our intelligence but rather how we apply it. We are the only animals that change our environment at such a large scale.
Other animals however show evidence of great amounts of intelligence. An example would be with octopi. They learn quick! For instance there was a team that had an octopi learn how to work through some puzzles to get to food. They then captured an octopi from nature and set it in an adjacent tank where it would watch the trained octopi. It would watch them once and from that solve the puzzle the same exact way on their first try without fail or pause. They did this every time! blanking intelligent if you ask me. IMO humans aren't as smart as these octopi were showing they were. So why aren't they ruling the world? They can thrive without shaping the world around them is more than likely the answer. If what they are now and what they do now is 100% successful there is no reason for an evolutionary change or a reason to morph ones environment around one's self.
There are other examples of animals showing great amounts of intelligence and the more the animal kingdom is studies the more and more these things are showing up.
Isn't this question really "Is there such things as good and evil and do we have the ability to innately recognize it?"
My answer is yes. If we did not have the innate ability to recognize good/evil right/wrong, we would have never have been able to make that distinction ever as a species.
I would disagree and my view is up above but I can sum it up here. In my opinion right and wrong are dependent on a group's norms of which some are dictated by what peers see as good for survival and what the power structure deems as good for survival.
Basically good/acceptable for (group) survival = good. bad/detrimental to (group) survival = evil.
For social animals these grow into being a part of their communities societal norms. A part of their culture.
I feel fairly confident the existence of sociopaths pretty much confirms that at least a part of what determines one's conscience is biological.
ehhh maybe. it's not that they don't know right from wrong. it's more that they just don't care. that is unless you're saying conscience = guilt then yeah but sociopaths are fully capable of understanding and following laws and society's rules if it benefits them. They just don't care if it's right or wrong to break laws and whatnot. And yeah I'm kinda using laws as a rough guideline of right and wrong.
On a certain level, our brains are somewhat hardwired for certain things like a sense of empathy and sympathy. This is why people who aren't able to experience those things are sent to asylums. It is our developed sense of social relation that has allowed us to become the dominant lifeform on this planet, and so the biological traits that improve that have been genetically selected for. However, I believe that it is interaction, education, and other forms of socialization that further develop these senses to the levels at which we usually think of them.
Though, I'd have to check back to studies done on feral children and the like to confirm this. I do remember that they do still have senses of empathy and sympathy, of course, despite their lack of human contact, but I'm not sure if I ever read whether these senses were up to par with those of persons who had been appropriately socialized.
There have been studies done and some children who were locked away with little or no human contact early on were not able to feel and understand certain things and were never able to learn it later.
There have been studies done and some children who were locked away with little or no human contact early on were not able to feel and understand certain things and were never able to learn it later.
I'm aware. What I'm not sure of, because I haven't looked at those studies in quite a while, is what exactly those certain things were. I think maybe it was depending on exactly the sort of feral child now that I'm thinking about it more... Either way, I don't think that discounts the idea that human being at least have some innate biologically programmed affinity towards learning those things given the most minute of opportunities, in ways that I still don't think at least most other animals could match.
I missed the part where I made that claim. I said that I have not seen it.
A dingo ate my baby!
Seriously, though, intelligent and social animals attack and kill people all the time. Some do so for food, some do so because they are injured and others ... well, they just do so. Read about African man eaters sometime. It's also quite common for our lovely pet cats to grab and torture (sometimes to death, sometimes just a good ol' fashioned maiming) other animals for their own amusement.
Regarding loyalty in pets, in most (if not all) cases, that's a trait that we bred for. So, I guess it is innate but it's innate by design.
All this tells me is they are as complex socially as people. Some animals test relatively high on non-language IQ tests. Chimps score in the 70-80 range on those tests which means they are equivalent to stupid people (but not retarded people). Really I think they are as intelligent as us, but they have different goals...
Are you not a homocidal maniac because you are a genuine good person, or are you not a homocidal maniac because you know you wouldn't be able to get away with it?
For the sake of my self estime I refuse to acknowledge a diffrence between these things. (Keeping in mind that if your definition of 'getting away with it' means noone knows, well, you know, so for that to count as 'getting away with it' you must not include yourself in the group in question.)
That's why it is important to keep the example of a dog rescuing a human. And some stories are not just of dogs, and some of the people they saved were not just their owners. Stories 4, 3, and 2 are particularly interesting.
Fine Jhari. Have it your way. My posting time is much less than it once was, and I will not waste it in this manner. Should you feel compelled to overcome your cowardice and discuss your position reasonably I will be very happy to participate in that conversation. I shall waste no further effort trying to understand it from your vague and defnsive snipits of text, however. Make the most of whatever enjoyment they give you.
Fine Jhari. Have it your way. My posting time is much less than it once was, and I will not waste it in this manner. Should you feel compelled to overcome your cowardice and discuss your position reasonably I will be very happy to participate in that conversation. I shall waste no further effort trying to understand it from your vague and defnsive snipits of text, however. Make the most of whatever enjoyment they give you.
Amazing that no one else has a problem with the discussion or understanding what I've said.
Cowardice? Grow up a bit, TA. Surely you could find a more controversial thread to troll.
Fine Jhari. Have it your way. My posting time is much less than it once was, and I will not waste it in this manner. Should you feel compelled to overcome your cowardice and discuss your position reasonably I will be very happy to participate in that conversation. I shall waste no further effort trying to understand it from your vague and defnsive snipits of text, however. Make the most of whatever enjoyment they give you.
Amazing that no one else has a problem with the discussion or understanding what I've said.
Cowardice? Grow up a bit, TA. Surely you could find a more controversial thread to troll.
Good for them, I guess.
Are you not a homocidal maniac because you are a genuine good person, or are you not a homocidal maniac because you know you wouldn't be able to get away with it?
For the sake of my self estime I refuse to acknowledge a diffrence between these things. (Keeping in mind that if your definition of 'getting away with it' means noone knows, well, you know, so for that to count as 'getting away with it' you must not include yourself in the group in question.)
Getting away with it essentially meaning that you're not suffering the usual drawbacks for your actions. Whether that be because nobody knows or because nobody cares is irrelevant, but would you truly pass on a chance to do evil knowing that you will never be judged or inconvenienced for what you did that day?
That decides whether you are a truly good person, imho.
Getting away with it essentially meaning that you're not suffering the usual drawbacks for your actions. Whether that be because nobody knows or because nobody cares is irrelevant, but would you truly pass on a chance to do evil knowing that you will never be judged or inconvenienced for what you did that day?
That decides whether you are a truly good person, imho.
I think this would indicate whether you are a bad person or not, not whether you are good.
If you contrariliy had the same logistics except you had the opportunity to do a good act, would you? That would be the test of good.
That, also. If you could bring bad things upon your own head to do the right thing, but nobody would ever know, would you do it?
15 years ago, probably not. Today, definitely.
Are you not a homocidal maniac because you are a genuine good person, or are you not a homocidal maniac because you know you wouldn't be able to get away with it?
For the sake of my self estime I refuse to acknowledge a diffrence between these things. (Keeping in mind that if your definition of 'getting away with it' means noone knows, well, you know, so for that to count as 'getting away with it' you must not include yourself in the group in question.)
Getting away with it essentially meaning that you're not suffering the usual drawbacks for your actions. Whether that be because nobody knows or because nobody cares is irrelevant, but would you truly pass on a chance to do evil knowing that you will never be judged or inconvenienced for what you did that day?
That decides whether you are a truly good person, imho.
Im baising my opinion baised off my own definition of consceince that I posted up the other day. Holding a set of standards for proper actions within a group. What you would call a 'truly good person' is what I would call a person who wants to actually be a member of whatever group, in his own eyes. [That group being whatever: Good person, Human, Christian, Muslman, ect.]
Edit: One benifit of my way of thinking is that it does not require diffrent circumstances for good/bad as your discussion with Jhari does. Either you did what member of group X should do or you did not.
Are you not a homocidal maniac because you are a genuine good person, or are you not a homocidal maniac because you know you wouldn't be able to get away with it?
For the sake of my self estime I refuse to acknowledge a diffrence between these things. (Keeping in mind that if your definition of 'getting away with it' means noone knows, well, you know, so for that to count as 'getting away with it' you must not include yourself in the group in question.)
Getting away with it essentially meaning that you're not suffering the usual drawbacks for your actions. Whether that be because nobody knows or because nobody cares is irrelevant, but would you truly pass on a chance to do evil knowing that you will never be judged or inconvenienced for what you did that day?
That decides whether you are a truly good person, imho.
If there is nobody to judge your actions can your actions really be classified as good or evil?
IMHO a good person is one who lives within and obeys all of the rules of their community. If there is no community to judge them is anything they do bad? In this case I'd have to say yes, but with the community being themselves bad would be something harmful to themselves and anything beneficial to their success would be good. But that is just my thinking of that our definitions of good and evil are just fussy rules based upon our societal norms and cultures because even here and now on earth good for one culture is evil in another. If we humans don't even have a black and white consensus of what good and evil is then all this stuff about right and wrong, and what a conscience is and does is all quite a bit fussy.
Hmmm maybe an example. Many people would probably see infadility as wrong. I'm sure quite a few would see it as quite sinful and by proxy evil. It is estimated that infidelity rates in America are possibly around 60%. That is roughly 60% of married individuals will engage in infidelity at some point. Is this to mean that a majority of Americans are bad people and possibly evil people? Or is this just to say that most Americans are hypocrites cuz I'm sure most of them would say they're against infidelity.
Would such an act be seen as wrong if there were no laws or societal rules against such behavior? That is to say that would it still be wrong, sinful and/or evil to do such if it were normal and socially accepted in (a) society to wife/husband swap or have mistresses and whatnot?IMHO a good person is one who lives within and obeys all of the rules of their community.
Sorry, I don't subscribe to this. By this theory, terrorists could be considered good depending on where they live and Nazis were good. Jails are communities, most people residing within are not good. The list could go on and on. Contrarily, people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, amongst many others that stood up against oppression would be considered bad people.
Let's use this instead:
the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience
it is taught.
we all have an innate feeling that compels us of doing the right thing, but what is 'right' or 'wrong' is taught.
ref to archetype bully with bad parents (very low wrong border).
IMHO a good person is one who lives within and obeys all of the rules of their community.
Sorry, I don't subscribe to this. By this theory, terrorists could be considered good depending on where they live and Nazis were good. Jails are communities, most people residing within are not good. The list could go on and on. Contrarily, people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, amongst many others that stood up against oppression would be considered bad people.
Clearly you subscribe to the "my group is right" theory, then. A very popular one, to be sure.
Sorry, I don't subscribe to this. By this theory, terrorists could be considered good depending on where they live
ever heard the expression "One man's terrorist is an other man 's freedom fighter?"
Either way. terrorists, nazis, ... they consider themselves good. they consider what they do is right.
the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.
So they too have and use their concience
Im baising my opinion baised off my own definition of consceince that I posted up the other day. Holding a set of standards for proper actions within a group. What you would call a 'truly good person' is what I would call a person who wants to actually be a member of whatever group, in his own eyes. [That group being whatever: Good person, Human, Christian, Muslman, ect.]
It's an interesting definition for sure.
It also means I have pretty much no conscience
I hardly ever "strive" to be a part of a group, I just occasionally naturally fit into one for a bit.Clearly you subscribe to the "my group is right" theory, then. A very popular one, to be sure.
Clearly not. But you haven't been following what I have been saying from the beginning. See my next post and see if you can figure it out.
Sorry, I don't subscribe to this. By this theory, terrorists could be considered good depending on where they live
ever heard the expression "One man's terrorist is an other man 's freedom fighter?"
Either way. terrorists, nazis, ... they consider themselves good. they consider what they do is right.
the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.
So they too have and use their concience
It is not about what is considered good and bad. It is about what IS good and bad.
My interpretation of what is good and bad may or may not be accurate and is completely irrelevant.
"I don't know how to define evil, but I know it when I see it."
Stating that certain things can be universally considered Good or Evil generally means one of three things. You either subscribe to "my group is right" or you feel that everything in the world is Evil, or you don't look at situations clearly enough.
Or that good and evil transcends what we are capable of truly understanding, but we strive to understand.
Maybe, but I've in my life never seen an example of anything that can be considered "universally" good, only subjectively good.
Or you have but you don't recognize it as being universally good.
I'm not sure which of the two I like better
Could be the case. In that case humanity as a whole is oblivious and ignorant.
I'm not sure which of the two I like better
Considering that humanity, as a whole, has been rather oblivious and ignorant about much throughout history, that concept is not all that far-fectched.
It is not about what is considered good and bad. It is about what IS good and bad.
My interpretation of what is good and bad may or may not be accurate and is completely irrelevant.
"I don't know how to define evil, but I know it when I see it."
you might notice that the last sentence clearly contradicts the first: it implies judgement of an action by the speaker. Which makes it HIS judgement, not general truth.
Or that good and evil transcends what we are capable of truly understanding
I don't agree.
Action are. they happen. It is we who give it a moral value.
If we are not able to give an action the tag '100 percent good', then no action will have that value, and thus will not exist
If we're going with the whole good and evil is subjective thing, let's stop the "we're better than the terrorists" bit and just start bombing entire countries back to the stone age when they piss us off.
You could do that, but that would make your subjectively evil according to your own standards
You'll have to change your attitude and morals first, then bomb countries to the stoneage second.you might notice that the last sentence clearly contradicts the first: it implies judgement of an action by the speaker. Which makes it HIS judgement, not general truth.
That may be your interpretation. Mine is that the speaker does not understand what evil is, but when he experiences it firsthand, he can surely recognize it. In other words, it impacts him in ways that are outside of logic, hence why he cannot define it.
I don't agree.
Action are. they happen. It is we who give it a moral value.
If we are not able to give an action the tag '100 percent good', then no action will have that value, and thus will not exist
And where did the concept of moral value originate from? It had to start somewhere. If it started within man, then what was the seed that was planted. While mankind has evolved and shaped moraility, it must have existed before we started twisting and molding it.
If we're going with the whole good and evil is subjective thing, let's stop the "we're better than the terrorists" bit and just start bombing entire countries back to the stone age when they piss us off.
You could do that, but that would make your subjectively evil according to your own standards
Not necessarily. As long as both are accomplished the order doesn't really matter. As soon as people change their minds, history gets rewritten and we become the good guys again!
Well, unless they have really bad PR, anyway.
That's also a possibility. Ultimately the winners are the good guys, regardless of what they did.
Well, unless they have really bad PR, anyway.
Hmmm...evil white settlers vs Native Americans, Spanish Conquistadors vs Mayans, no the winners don't always get viewed as the good guys.
Hmmm...evil white settlers vs Native Americans, Spanish Conquistadors vs Mayans, no the winners don't always get viewed as the good guys.
The winners viewed themselves as the righteous at that time since the natives were considered to be just savages. Of course successful, native, war parties were not prize winners either.
I refuse to comment on my observation of this topic as you humans would consider it a heavily biased perspective.
The winners viewed themselves as the righteous at that time since the natives were considered to be just savages.
Which supports my belief that history can always be rewritten later.
Of course successful, native, war parties were not prize winners either.
Which is nicely swept aside in many school lessons so that we can feel guilty for them having been killed.
That may be your interpretation. Mine is that the speaker does not understand what evil is, but when he experiences it firsthand, he can surely recognize it. In other words, it impacts him in ways that are outside of logic, hence why he cannot define it.
its not logic that is the problem but personal bias.
The viewer wil see an certain action and will give it the moral value 'evil'.
That means the viewer considers the action evil
"I don't know how to define evil, but I know it (being, what I consider to be evil) when I see it."
But in your first sentence you say that It is not about what is considered good and bad. It is about what IS good and bad.
We can't judge without personal bias. Not even computers can (as someone needs to give them initial values).
And where did the concept of moral value originate from? It had to start somewhere. If it started within man, then what was the seed that was planted.
As i said before
we all have the need to do the right thing. But what is 'right' is thought by parents, sociaty, ...
what was the seed? euh...my guess? sociopaths (those who don't have the need to do good) were kicked out of sociaty, and thus had lower survival chance. add evolution and voila.
That, also. If you could bring bad things upon your own head to do the right thing, but nobody would ever know, would you do it?
That, also. If you could bring bad things upon your own head to do the right thing, but nobody would ever know, would you do it?
15 years ago, probably not. Today, definitely.
Hmmm, interesting question, Plu. My answer is different than Jharii's. 20 years ago I "suffered in silence" for doing the right thing. As I got older I did some bad things, and now I let folks no everything including the good, the bad, and the ugly.
I'd like to switch that around though, if you could get away with it by keeping your mouth shut, would you do a "wrong" thing? (The "you"s and "your" in this sentence is general.
To-may-to, To-mah-to.
yup
IMHO a good person is one who lives within and obeys all of the rules of their community.
Sorry, I don't subscribe to this. By this theory, terrorists could be considered good depending on where they live and Nazis were good. Jails are communities, most people residing within are not good. The list could go on and on. Contrarily, people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, amongst many others that stood up against oppression would be considered bad people.
terrorists do see themselves as good while those outside of their community see them as evil and misguided.
Hitler I believe saw himself as evil (just didn't seem to care), but quite a few nazis saw themselves as good and much of the german people at the time saw what they supported as good and righteous although apparently much of them didn't know about the concentration camps.
People are usually only held in jail for a day or two at most. There is no time to build any sense of community.
MLK, RP and NM where seen as bad law breaking menaces to society by many many people around them. However their long fight against oppression and getting seen by people outside of their southern communities (south africa for NM) where they able to get their situation turned around. If there was no country outside of the southern US there would have been no successful movement by MLK or Rosa. They would have failed and would have been written down in history as bad people.
And those that stand against oppression are seen as bad people. That is until they successfully when in which case they are seen as good people now and their oppressors go from being seen as the good guys to being the bad guys.
The winners always write the history. The winner is always the good guys but the winner never lasts forever. Settlers vs Natives for example. the Natives were seen as savages for a few hundred years. It's not until recently time that Natives have been seen in better light and white people are being taught to feel bad about what their ancestors did.
And I just can't comprehend some kind of universal good or evil. Why? because if it was universal and unquestionable this thread should have just pretty much ended with every post in agreement. If it was universal every nation should be in agreement of what's good and bad. There shouldn't be oppression. There shouldn't be most of the evils in the world and those that are bad should recognize that they're bad of which almost in every case in history they in fact see themselves as the people in the right. If it was universal and we all understand it on some level this whole discussion should be nonexistent.
Also if it is universal there should be some evidence or examples of such.
IMHO a good person is one who lives within and obeys all of the rules of their community.
Sorry, I don't subscribe to this. By this theory, terrorists could be considered good depending on where they live and Nazis were good. Jails are communities, most people residing within are not good. The list could go on and on. Contrarily, people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, amongst many others that stood up against oppression would be considered bad people.
terrorists do see themselves as good while those outside of their community see them as evil and misguided.
Hitler I believe saw himself as evil (just didn't seem to care), but quite a few nazis saw themselves as good and much of the german people at the time saw what they supported as good and righteous although apparently much of them didn't know about the concentration camps.
People are usually only held in jail for a day or two at most. There is no time to build any sense of community.
MLK, RP and NM where seen as bad law breaking menaces to society by many many people around them. However their long fight against oppression and getting seen by people outside of their southern communities (south africa for NM) where they able to get their situation turned around. If there was no country outside of the southern US there would have been no successful movement by MLK or Rosa. They would have failed and would have been written down in history as bad people.
And those that stand against oppression are seen as bad people. That is until they successfully when in which case they are seen as good people now and their oppressors go from being seen as the good guys to being the bad guys.
The winners always write the history. The winner is always the good guys but the winner never lasts forever. Settlers vs Natives for example. the Natives were seen as savages for a few hundred years. It's not until recently time that Natives have been seen in better light and white people are being taught to feel bad about what their ancestors did.
And I just can't comprehend some kind of universal good or evil. Why? because if it was universal and unquestionable this thread should have just pretty much ended with every post in agreement. If it was universal every nation should be in agreement of what's good and bad. There shouldn't be oppression. There shouldn't be most of the evils in the world and those that are bad should recognize that they're bad of which almost in every case in history they in fact see themselves as the people in the right. If it was universal and we all understand it on some level this whole discussion should be nonexistent.
Also if it is universal there should be some evidence or examples of such.
Here's an example: Cold blooded murder. Pretty much everyone thinks its evil (including the perpetrator). There you go a universal standard... I'm sure we can come up with a universal 'good'
How bout a person that gives a starving child half of their meal. I think pretty much everyone can agree that is a 'good' act...
Here's an example: Cold blooded murder. Pretty much everyone thinks its evil (including the perpetrator). There you go a universal standard... I'm sure we can come up with a universal 'good'
How bout a person that gives a starving child half of their meal. I think pretty much everyone can agree that is a 'good' act...
Define "cold blooded" murder.
And I just can't comprehend some kind of universal good or evil. Why? because if it was universal and unquestionable this thread should have just pretty much ended with every post in agreement.
That is some really bad logic. Essentially you are saying that it doesn't exist because you don't think it exists and some others do as well therefore the opposite cannot be true.
If we followed your logic, everything ever debated would be null and void because both sides of the argument would be invalidated by default just because there was a topic for debate and opposing sides exist.
The reason this topic is being discussed is because some people believe in it and some people don't.
Here's an example: Cold blooded murder. Pretty much everyone thinks its evil (including the perpetrator). There you go a universal standard... I'm sure we can come up with a universal 'good'
How bout a person that gives a starving child half of their meal. I think pretty much everyone can agree that is a 'good' act...
Define "cold blooded" murder.
Someone without reason or povocation takes someone elses life...
Here's an example: Cold blooded murder. Pretty much everyone thinks its evil (including the perpetrator). There you go a universal standard... I'm sure we can come up with a universal 'good'
How bout a person that gives a starving child half of their meal. I think pretty much everyone can agree that is a 'good' act...
Define "cold blooded" murder.
Someone without reason or povocation takes someone elses life...
There is always a reason. Even if it's just to watch them die, it is still a reason.
Here's an example: Cold blooded murder. Pretty much everyone thinks its evil (including the perpetrator). There you go a universal standard... I'm sure we can come up with a universal 'good'
Lets see ... with 5 minutes of thought
Sociology/ Political
you mean cold blooded murder, which suddenly creates a spike of awareness in the people, which spikes awareness in politics/government/leadership, which leads to preventing more murders?
Unless of course it's a murder nobody knows about, at which point nobody is around to give it moral value, and thus is also not evil.
Economically
If that person had a job, this means someone else can now get his job to feed his family. or didn't have a job and now the gov can stop paying for him.
And the weapon had to be made, and sold (good for economics. Ref how many wars are good for economics )
And of course a murder helps against the problem that people are getting older & older (pension wise, the victim paid for it, but the gov now doesn't need to pay him)
And of course the media hype creates lots of income
...
Biological
... you might note how humans aren't the best influence on the planet.
Conclusion: This action you talk of, while sad in it's own, and has many evil facets, isn't universally evil.
It does not mean taking the actual act of the stone being thrown into the pond and interpreting every ripple made from that stone. It simply means that there is a universal law of what is good and evil. In other words, good and evil is simply not a manmade concept. You need to interpret the act itself.
There was nothing good about the World Trade Centers being attacked by terrorists. The act was evil. Just because there was good that derived from that evil does not make the act any less evil. In actuality, it only lends credence to the point that there is a universal good and evil, since the evil act initiated good actions, which tends to be the way good reacts to evil.
There was nothing good about the World Trade Centers being attacked by terrorists. The act was evil.
some people will disagree with that ... (like, the people who attacked it)
Perhaps this can help (from wikipedia):
A fundamental question is whether there is a universal, transcendent definition of evil, or whether evil is determined by one's social or cultural background.[citation needed] C. S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, maintained that there are certain acts that are universally considered evil, such as **** and murder. However the numerous instances in which **** or murder is morally affected by social context call this into question. In fact, many acts now considered evil have been termed as acceptable in some societies at different times.[citation needed] One might argue, nevertheless, that the definition of the word **** necessitates that any action described by the word is evil, since the concept refers to causing sexual harm to another. Up until the mid-19th century, the United States — along with many other countries — practiced forms of slavery. As is often the case, those transgressing moral boundaries stood to profit from that exercise. Arguably, slavery has always been the same and objectively evil, but men with a motivation to transgress will justify that action. The Nazis, during World War II, found genocide acceptable, as did the US Union Army's massacre of "savage" Native American Indians and the Hutu Interhamwe in the Rwandan genocide.[4][5] One might point out, though, that the actual perpetrators of those atrocities probably avoided calling their actions genocide, since the objective meaning of any act accurately described by that word is to wrongfully kill a selected group of people, which is an action that at least the victimized party will understand to be evil. Universalists consider evil independent of culture, and wholly related to acts or intents. Thus, while the ideological leaders of Nazism and the Hutu Interhamwe accepted (and considered it moral) to commit genocide, the belief in genocide as "fundamentally" or "universally" evil holds that those who instigated this genocide are actually evil.[improper synthesis?] Other universalists might argue that although the commission of an evil act is always evil, those who perpetrate may not be wholly evil or wholly good entities. To say that someone who has stolen a candy bar, for instance, becomes wholly evil is a rather untenable position. However, universalists might also argue that a person can choose a decidedly evil or a decidedly good life career, and genocidal dictatorship plainly falls on the side of the former.
Views on the nature of evil tend to fall into one of four opposed camps:
- Moral absolutism holds that good and evil are fixed concepts established by a deity or deities, nature, morality, common sense, or some other source.[6]
- Amoralism claims that good and evil are meaningless, that there is no moral ingredient in nature.
- Moral relativism holds that standards of good and evil are only products of local culture, custom, or prejudice.
- Moral universalism is the attempt to find a compromise between the absolutist sense of morality, and the relativist view; universalism claims that morality is only flexible to a degree, and that what is truly good or evil can be determined by examining what is commonly considered to be evil amongst all humans. Author Sam Harris notes that universal morality can be understood using measurable (i.e. quantifiable) metrics of happiness and suffering, both physical and mental, rooted in how the biology of the brain processes stimuli.[7]
Plato wrote that there are relatively few ways to do good, but there are countless ways to do evil, which can therefore have a much greater impact on our lives, and the lives of other beings capable of suffering. For this reason, philosophers such as Bernard Gert maintain that preventing evil is more important than promoting good in formulating moral rules and in conduct.[citation needed]
There was nothing good about the World Trade Centers being attacked by terrorists. The act was evil.
some people will disagree with that ... (like, the people who attacked it)
Just because people may disagree does not make them correct, nor does it invalidate the concept that good and evil transcends our interpretation of it.
Here is different than not here, no? Forgive me for not being so arrogant as to think I've some sort of real influence on this planet, too.
On the planet, no. But on the people around you, you should have some
(Whether it's a good one, is open for debate)On the planet, no. But on the people around you, you should have some (Whether it's a good one, is open for debate)
That impact is incidental to my being here. Once I'm gone, it may remain but that means nothing to me. And once they're gone, it means nothing to anyone.
We still know who Ghenghis Khan was. While it may mean nothing to him, part of his remains still, and means something to many people.
But I imagine during life he had a great time, just for trying ^^There was nothing good about the World Trade Centers being attacked by terrorists. The act was evil.
some people will disagree with that ... (like, the people who attacked it)
Just because people may disagree does not make them correct, nor does it invalidate the concept that good and evil transcends our interpretation of it.
, but don't forget, disagree goes both ways. YOU are the one disagreeing with them.
apparently what you see as There was nothing good about it. The act was evil. someone else sees as There was nothing evil about it. The act was justified. It proves good and evil are in the eye of the beholder.
Or take cold blooded murder. A [insert race/religion/... of victim]-hater will tell you that was not an evil act.
if you say good and evil transcends our interpretation of it, if that is so, who are you to decide an action was evil? who is any of us? if good and evil transcends our interpretation of it, they are useless concept, like 'blue' and 'red' in a world where everyone is colorblind.
It proves good and evil are in the eye of the beholder.
No, it doesn't prove that at all. One group could be correct and one group could be incorrect. Both cannot be correct, but both could be wrong.
Or take cold blooded murder. A [insert race/religion/... of victim]-hater will tell you that was not an evil act.
Again, that proves nothing.
if you say good and evil transcends our interpretation of it, if that is so, who are you to decide an action was evil? who is any of us? if good and evil transcends our interpretation of it, they are useless concept, like 'blue' and 'red' in a world where everyone is colorblind.
As I have said from the beginning, all I can give is my interpretation, just like anyone else. If my definition of good and evil coincides with the universe's, then so be it.
Just because mankind tries to interpret good and evil does not mean it is manmade. Also, mankind is notorious for misinterpreting and misrepresenting all sorts of things throughout history.
Here's an example: Cold blooded murder. Pretty much everyone thinks its evil (including the perpetrator). There you go a universal standard... I'm sure we can come up with a universal 'good'
How bout a person that gives a starving child half of their meal. I think pretty much everyone can agree that is a 'good' act...
Define "cold blooded" murder.
Exactly!
Although more specifically I'm sure every culture would say cold blooded murder is bad, however they'd all have different definitions of what cold blooded murder is. This means what one culture would see is bad or evil another would see as justifiable or even good.
Irrelevant. When the lights go out for me, they go out for everything. I am the center of the universe. Once I cease to be, so does it.
This reminds me of Schrodinger's theory behind quantum physics especially his thought experiment with the cat. The idea was that you don't know the truth until you observe but until you do it can exist in both (or all possibly) states. So for the cat it is both alive and dead before you look and it is either one or the other once you actually do. Another physicists however made the idea of how do we know the observer exists if nobody is observing them? Basically it turned into an idea of it's possible for nothing to exist if there is no consciousness. Or rather it's possible that the reason why things do exist is because there is consciousness and the reason why it exists the way it does is because it has been observed. going more into theory there are some that subscribe to the idea that the universe as we know it was created by conscious thought.
point is that physics is some interesting stuff.
EDIT:
It proves good and evil are in the eye of the beholder.
No, it doesn't prove that at all. One group could be correct and one group could be incorrect. Both cannot be correct, but both could be wrong.
and how come they couldn't both be correct?
if you say good and evil transcends our interpretation of it, if that is so, who are you to decide an action was evil? who is any of us? if good and evil transcends our interpretation of it, they are useless concept, like 'blue' and 'red' in a world where everyone is colorblind.
As I have said from the beginning, all I can give is my interpretation, just like anyone else. If my definition of good and evil coincides with the universe's, then so be it.
Just because mankind tries to interpret good and evil does not mean it is manmade. Also, mankind is notorious for misinterpreting and misrepresenting all sorts of things throughout history.
it also doesn't mean that it's not manmade. and mankind is known for doing that because everything is in the truth of the observer and everyone comprehends a different truth.
It proves good and evil are in the eye of the beholder.
No, it doesn't prove that at all. One group could be correct and one group could be incorrect. Both cannot be correct, but both could be wrong.
interesting... why exactly is that?
because, from my point of view, they can. just like hot and cold, a inuit can find 15 degrees celcius hot, a egyptian can find 15 degrees celcius cold, and both will be right, because they hace different context.
a american can find 9/11 evil, a terrorist can find it good. because the have a different moral context (or whatever you want to call it)
if there would be something as universal good, what would it be? some action that all of us (even those we label as insane) find to be good? because that does not exist. And once we start ignoring the moral compas of those that don't agree with us ... then universal good is no longer universal, but 'our camp'-good
As I have said from the beginning, all I can give is my interpretation, just like anyone else. If my definition of good and evil coincides with the universe's, then so be it.
universe? i thought you were talking about universal.
you might notice that the universe is a collection of atoms. It acts according to the laws of physics (per definition of physics). It doesn't have a concious, and thus no definition.
interesting... why exactly is that?
because, from my point of view, they can. just like hot and cold, a inuit can find 15 degrees celcius hot, a egyptian can find 15 degrees celcius cold, and both will be right, because they hace different context.
a american can find 9/11 evil, a terrorist can find it good. because the have a different moral context (or whatever you want to call it)
From the side of a universal good/evil it is black and white as to which is each. So if something is good it can't be evil and if it's evil it can't be good. This basically is by definition of the view point. That's pretty much how. To understand it you have to look at it through their perspective and not your own. But once you look at it through different goggles it starts to fall apart.
As I have said from the beginning, all I can give is my interpretation, just like anyone else. If my definition of good and evil coincides with the universe's, then so be it.
universe? i thought you were talking about universal.
you might notice that the universe is a collection of atoms. It acts according to the laws of physics (per definition of physics). It doesn't have a conscious, and thus no definition.
some theoretical physicists (that aren't taken too seriously) would argue with you on whether or not the universe is conscious.
And the laws of physics aren't perfect. They are our human models of how the universe worked based upon our observations. But to be a law our models pretty much have to succeed every time it's tested.
universe? i thought you were talking about universal.
you might notice that the universe is a collection of atoms. It acts according to the laws of physics (per definition of physics). It doesn't have a concious, and thus no definition.
You think too small. Universe also means all that is in existence.
the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space
Your other examples are repeating everything you have said before and they still fail to prove anything except that man is a flawed creature.
Let's look at the number 1. Pretty much everyone is in agreement that the number 1 is the number 1. Just because someone else believes that the number 1 is actually the number 2 does not make them right, no matter how much they believe it and no matter how much they believe that they are right. It's still the number 1.
As things grow more complex than just the number 1, it does not mean that they are any less true just because we cannot interpret them because of their complexities. It simply means that they are beyond the bounds of our current understanding. Good and evil is highly complex, as is evident by debates and philosophies about it since man could debate.
This reminds me of Schrodinger's theory behind quantum physics especially his thought experiment with the cat. The idea was that you don't know the truth until you observe but until you do it can exist in both (or all possibly) states. So for the cat it is both alive and dead before you look and it is either one or the other once you actually do. Another physicists however made the idea of how do we know the observer exists if nobody is observing them? Basically it turned into an idea of it's possible for nothing to exist if there is no consciousness. Or rather it's possible that the reason why things do exist is because there is consciousness and the reason why it exists the way it does is because it has been observed. going more into theory there are some that subscribe to the idea that the universe as we know it was created by conscious thought.
point is that physics is some interesting stuff.
That's pretty much how the D&D universe works, isn't it? Things do not exist, unless the consciousness of the PCs observes them, at which point they spring into being. Until such time they remain in their state of quantum truth, where they are all possible things at the same time, until they finally converge into whatever is best for the story.
Makes you wonder who the PCs are in this universe of ours... and how many levels of existance you might be able to hop up before you reach the end.
Let's look at the number 1.
The number 1 is man made, actually. Is doesn't have any meaning beyond that assigned to it by us. You can easily call what one man calls 1, 2 and be fully right from the meaning you've assigned to it.
10 is frequently 2 when working with computers, for example.
This reminds me of Schrodinger's theory behind quantum physics especially his thought experiment with the cat. The idea was that you don't know the truth until you observe but until you do it can exist in both (or all possibly) states. So for the cat it is both alive and dead before you look and it is either one or the other once you actually do. Another physicists however made the idea of how do we know the observer exists if nobody is observing them? Basically it turned into an idea of it's possible for nothing to exist if there is no consciousness. Or rather it's possible that the reason why things do exist is because there is consciousness and the reason why it exists the way it does is because it has been observed. going more into theory there are some that subscribe to the idea that the universe as we know it was created by conscious thought.
point is that physics is some interesting stuff.
That's pretty much how the D&D universe works, isn't it? Things do not exist, unless the consciousness of the PCs observes them, at which point they spring into being. Until such time they remain in their state of quantum truth, where they are all possible things at the same time, until they finally converge into whatever is best for the story.
Makes you wonder who the PCs are in this universe of ours... and how many levels of existance you might be able to hop up before you reach the end.
Pretty much. With D&D the universe is what the DM makes it but it expands with every action of the PC and not until such time does anything become set in stone. it's all getting deep man. deep i tell ya.
Let's look at the number 1.
The number 1 is man made, actually. Is doesn't have any meaning beyond that assigned to it by us. You can easily call what one man calls 1, 2 and be fully right from the meaning you've assigned to it.
10 is frequently 2 when working with computers, for example.
not only is it man made the symbolic logic proof for 1 is a book in and of itself.
However it's also been proven that 1 = 2 as well without violating any mathematics rules. For instance being able to cut up a sphere in such a way as to make two spheres of the exact same size and volume.
And with the 10 to 2 with computers that's because it's going from decimal to binary so basically just a different counting system. But it's not really that it's value or meaning is changing just its representation and usability.
As things grow more complex than just the number 1, it does not mean that they are any less true just because we cannot interpret them because of their complexities. It simply means that they are beyond the bounds of our current understanding. Good and evil is highly complex, as is evident by debates and philosophies about it since man could debate.
It also could mean that because it's beyond our comprehension it in fact might not exist or more finitely it doesn't exist. Whoa what a revelation!
It all boils down to one simple thing. Inside this mystery box could be anything. It could even be a boat!
It also could mean that because it's beyond our comprehension it in fact might not exist or more finitely it doesn't exist. Whoa what a revelation!
Of course that's a possibility. I don't think I ever said it wasn't a possibility. As with anything that cannot be proven, one chooses a belief. I am just sharing my own personal beliefs and philosophy on the subject.
However it's also been proven that 1 = 2 as well without violating any mathematics rules. For instance being able to cut up a sphere in such a way as to make two spheres of the exact same size and volume.
Oh yeah. One of those gaps in modern math. I was pretty confused the first time I read about that one.
And with the 10 to 2 with computers that's because it's going from decimal to binary so basically just a different counting system. But it's not really that it's value or meaning is changing just its representation and usability.
But it does mean that the number 10 can have many meanings, all of them correct at the same time. There is not one thing that can be called 10, and one thing only.
Im baising my opinion baised off my own definition of consceince that I posted up the other day. Holding a set of standards for proper actions within a group. What you would call a 'truly good person' is what I would call a person who wants to actually be a member of whatever group, in his own eyes. [That group being whatever: Good person, Human, Christian, Muslman, ect.]
It's an interesting definition for sure.
It also means I have pretty much no conscience
Yup, which is why I called you out by name as an individual potentially lacking in conscience. It's not that you lack the ability, it's that you have a lack of common group. You care about yourself and the few people closest to you (emotionally), and noone else (according to statments you have previously made on some thread or other). You will do what you think (or rather, will want to do what you think) is right for you and yours, and if that requiers you to go on a mass killing spree, so be it. That is conscience, in its own way.
universe? i thought you were talking about universal.
you might notice that the universe is a collection of atoms. It acts according to the laws of physics (per definition of physics). It doesn't have a concious, and thus no definition.
Let me just correct you right there. The universe doesn't act according to the 'laws of physics'. The 'laws of physics' describe how the universe works. So if say everyone on the planet decided the laws of gravity needed to be updated and only worked at half power, would gravity start working at half power? No, it would continue to function exactly as it has for countless millenia.
Also according to Quantum Physics they acknowledge a higher intellegence exists. Heck modern science indirectly says a higher conciousness exits by stating their odds of things happening. Heck I think by their definition life happening anywhere in the universe is akin to the chance of you being struck by lightning on a clear day, while simultaneously being hit by a meteorite, while at the same time getting hit by a car, bus, train, AND airplane...
Clearly you subscribe to the "my group is right" theory, then. A very popular one, to be sure.
Clearly not. But you haven't been following what I have been saying from the beginning. See my next post and see if you can figure it out.
Following? Not sure what you mean by that. (Following as in keeping tabs on as opposed to following as in understanding.)
At any rate, no, I have not understood what you have attempted to say, and had my requests for further information rudely denied. Since asking what you mean, and asking if you mean x, are both things you seem to consider highly insuliting, I'm just gonna go with my gut and assume you mean what I think you mean unless you explain otherwise. Easier that way.
As for the quoted segment, it directly equals "Other sets of morality could cause people I say are bad to be good and people I say are good to be bad and so they cannot be correct, because then I would be wrong." Very common.
If we're going with the whole good and evil is subjective thing, let's stop the "we're better than the terrorists" bit and just start bombing entire countries back to the stone age when they piss us off.
Can't. We want to be seen as the BIG AWESOME GUY of the 'civilized nations', not the 'No longer part of' the civilized nations guy. In order to pull that off we must have justification provocation of some sort.
Here's an example: Cold blooded murder. Pretty much everyone thinks its evil (including the perpetrator). There you go a universal standard... I'm sure we can come up with a universal 'good'
How bout a person that gives a starving child half of their meal. I think pretty much everyone can agree that is a 'good' act...
Please define. Your cold blooded murder is the next guys justified homocide, the next guys satisfaction, and the guy after him sees it as a blood feud or the removal of malifactors leading to a stronger community.
And I just can't comprehend some kind of universal good or evil. Why? because if it was universal and unquestionable this thread should have just pretty much ended with every post in agreement.
That is some really bad logic. Essentially you are saying that it doesn't exist because you don't think it exists and some others do as well therefore the opposite cannot be true.
If we followed your logic, everything ever debated would be null and void because both sides of the argument would be invalidated by default just because there was a topic for debate and opposing sides exist.
The reason this topic is being discussed is because some people believe in it and some people don't.
It is atleast as logical as your position that stories about dogs saving babies making you go "daawww!" is somehow proof that a well of universal morality exists...
Here's an example: Cold blooded murder. Pretty much everyone thinks its evil (including the perpetrator). There you go a universal standard... I'm sure we can come up with a universal 'good'
How bout a person that gives a starving child half of their meal. I think pretty much everyone can agree that is a 'good' act...
Define "cold blooded" murder.
Someone without reason or povocation takes someone elses life...
There is always a reason. Even if it's just to watch them die, it is still a reason.
Doing something without a reason is usually called an accident. Manslaughter, perhapes.
It is atleast as logical as your position that stories about dogs saving babies making you go "daawww!" is somehow proof that a well of universal morality exists...
LOL. Now you're just grasping.
As for being rude... pot, kettle. You got in return what you gave to me.
Doing something without a reason is usually called an accident. Manslaughter, perhapes.
No, an accident is when you don't do something on purpose; without intent. Not doing something without reason does not categorically absolve intent.
Also according to Quantum Physics they acknowledge a higher intellegence exists. Heck modern science indirectly says a higher conciousness exits by stating their odds of things happening. Heck I think by their definition life happening anywhere in the universe is akin to the chance of you being struck by lightning on a clear day, while simultaneously being hit by a meteorite, while at the same time getting hit by a car, bus, train, AND airplane...
So, small chance per second, times huge number of subjects, over inconcievably vast span of time. Yup, tottally says 'musta been rigged!' to me. No other explanation here.
LOL. Now you're just grasping.
'must be universal good/evil because otherwise X I consider Y would be X and isnt X because they are Y' + 'a person just knows when they see it' + 'this story is an example of good for no discernable or explainable reason (I just feel it to be so)' has a high probability of equaling 'this thing made me feel good so it is good and anyone who disagrees is categorically wrong because if it was not universally good nothing would have caused me to feel it was good in the absence of any logical reason'
As for being rude... pot, kettle. You got in return what you gave to me.
If you say so. People frequently seem to call it rude when you question the logical framework they like to rest their belifes upon. I don't get it, but I often don't get why people think they way they do. (Would be easier if they would explain it instead of get huffy, but if they where inclined to explain it instead of getting huffy there would be no cause to explain why they don't just explain it any more now would there?)
Doing something without a reason is usually called an accident. Manslaughter, perhapes.
No, an accident is when you don't do something on purpose; without intent. Not doing something without reason does not categorically absolve intent.
If you intend to do something the the reason you did it was because you intended for it to happen. "I killed him so that he would die" "I took his car so that it would not be where it was when I took it" these things are reasons. Stupid reasons, but reasons all the same. "I droped that hammer on my foot because I thought it was right" is a reason whearas "I droped that hammer on my foot on accident" is the abscence of a reason. You did not have a reason to do it, you had no intent to do it, you did it anyways. An accident.
Also according to Quantum Physics they acknowledge a higher intellegence exists. Heck modern science indirectly says a higher conciousness exits by stating their odds of things happening. Heck I think by their definition life happening anywhere in the universe is akin to the chance of you being struck by lightning on a clear day, while simultaneously being hit by a meteorite, while at the same time getting hit by a car, bus, train, AND airplane...
Not really. It opens up such possibilities but Quantum Physics is an area of physics that physicists know absolutely very little about in the whole scheme of things. Quantum physics opens up the possibility of universal consciousness, but it's not agreed how that would manifest if such is true or possible. Does the universe have a consciousness of it's own or is the universal consciousness a collective consciousness of all conscious beings which means there is no universal conscience without living beings to spring it into being.
As for the odds of of life and the universe. Scientists are starting to think life is a very common thing just not intelligent life. But life on a cellular or bacterial level might be a very common thing throughout the cosmos. Currently the odds of the universe existing as it does with out current models is about 1/10100 odds or something like that. Maybe smaller. Some see that as a miracle and thus proof of god. Others see it as coincidence. Even more see it as a clue that we might need to refine some of our theories about the universe.
And no not everyone in the scientific community believes that any scientific theory proves or disproves an existence of god or any sort of higher power. Any such universal consciousness is seen more as a means of connectedness or telepathic communication which has lead to experiments that indicate that people can have shared experiences while isolated from each other and through this universal consciousness be able to choices now based upon future experiences.
This of course leads off into beliefs that there has to be at least a 4th sort of spacial dimension that we can't consciously interact with but that we can and do unconsciously interact with. There is a lot of studies and evidence for group thought, sympathy and empathy between humans and whatnot.
Some might use such studies to scream "god exists". I on the other had just see it as a way that we as a community or rather species are connected and probably for good reason. Without such a connecting it might ultimately be harder to survive.
Side note:
Some of the studies where interesting. It seems humans have a very good ability to know when they're being watches especially if being thought about when being watched. We seem to react to be able to consistently emotionally react to emotionally charged photos when a huge selection of photos are shown to us on random before the emotionally charged photo is actually shown. Always about 5 seconds before it appears. Humans also seem to be able to share experiences if the experiences we have (which cause electrical impulses in our head) travel along a magnetic field plane to another person's head. there is even a project set up around the world where there are tons of random number generators in different locations. The idea here is that if there is powerful enough group thought (we all start thinking the same thing) our thought pattern can interfere with the random number generators and start to create a sense of pattern in the numbers generated. During every major disaster since they've been put in place there has been large standard deviations in the random number deviations. 911 was the only time that the deviations started before the incident. The deviations also climbed for the entire day.
anyways just some interesting stuff us humans.
If you say so. People frequently seem to call it rude when you question the logical framework they like to rest their belifes upon. I don't get it, but I often don't get why people think they way they do. (Would be easier if they would explain it instead of get huffy, but if they where inclined to explain it instead of getting huffy there would be no cause to explain why they don't just explain it any more now would there?)
Quite disingenuous, considering that is not all you did. Whatever. I think I'll just place you on ignore.
some theoretical physicists (that aren't taken too seriously) would argue with you on whether or not the universe is conscious.
that their fine right, but as I said, they are defining blue and red in a world where everyone is colorblind.
universe? i thought you were talking about universal.
you might notice that the universe is a collection of atoms. It acts according to the laws of physics (per definition of physics). It doesn't have a concious, and thus no definition.
You think too small. Universe also means all that is in existence
Then you're back to square one. A terrorist will have a different definition of good and evil then an american or ... a swallow (both african and european).
If Universe means all that is in existence, then the universe does not have a consistant definition
Let's look at the number 1. Pretty much everyone is in agreement that the number 1 is the number 1. Just because someone else believes that the number 1 is actually the number 2 does not make them right, no matter how much they believe it and no matter how much they believe that they are right. It's still the number 1.
i disagree. the symbol writen by a small diagonal line and a long vertical line, represent (for modern, western sience) the increment of zero*. it has nothing to do with belief.
*: 'increment' as used in the definition of natural numbers, not as "+1"
for example, in japanese '1' is some other kanji. the symbol '-' is the increment of zero
As things grow more complex than just the number 1, it does not mean that they are any less true just because we cannot interpret them because of their complexities. It simply means that they are beyond the bounds of our current understanding. Good and evil is highly complex, as is evident by debates and philosophies about it since man could debate.
that's circulair logic:
person 1: look, this bottlecap is beyond our understanding.
person 2: what? no, its just a bottlecap.
person 1: see! it is beyond our understanding.
The theory of 'it could be complexer' starts with the premise that 'it could be complexer'. the only thing that is evident of the debates and philosophies is that people are stubborn and like to discuss.
But if you can bring no actual evidence of the theory, it belongs with the incomprehensible bottlecaps.
Makes you wonder who the PCs are in this universe of ours... and how many levels of existance you might be able to hop up before you reach the end.
now start wondering how '4e moving diagonally' and not being able to stand less then 5ft from each other, are as logical to the PCs as euclidean math is to ours ...
However it's also been proven that 1 = 2 as well without violating any mathematics rules. For instance being able to cut up a sphere in such a way as to make two spheres of the exact same size and volume.
much like there are as much integers (..., -1, 0, 1, ...) as there are (positive) natural numbers (0, 1, 2, ...)
you might notice that the universe is a collection of atoms. It acts according to the laws of physics (per definition of physics). It doesn't have a concious, and thus no definition.
Let me just correct you right there. The universe doesn't act according to the 'laws of physics'. The 'laws of physics' describe how the universe works
Indeed. sry 'bout that.
Then you're back to square one. A terrorist will have a different definition of good and evil then an american or ... a swallow (both african and european).
If Universe means all that is in existence, then the universe does not have a consistant definition
That's hardly the case, but nice try. Your example is faulty, also. You're limiting yourself to human definition of a swallow. We are not the ones that make the rules, we simply try to interpret them.
i disagree. the symbol writen by a small diagonal line and a long vertical line, represent (for modern, western sience) the increment of zero*. it has nothing to do with belief.
*: 'increment' as used in the definition of natural numbers, not as "+1"
for example, in japanese '1' is some other kanji. the symbol '-' is the increment of zero
You're complicating it for no real reason. I am talking about 1, not any symbol. Besides, trying to muddle that up that really does nothing but proves that human beings are just really bad at interpreting things.
that's circulair logic:
No, it's quite linear, the line simply is beyond what we can see.
But if you can bring no actual evidence of the theory, it belongs with the incomprehensible bottlecaps.
I've brought as much as evidence as you have. Also, just because we do not have evidence of something's existence does not mean it doesn't exist.
Then you're back to square one. A terrorist will have a different definition of good and evil then an american or ... a swallow (both african and european).
If Universe means all that is in existence, then the universe does not have a consistant definition
That's hardly the case, but nice try. Your example is faulty, also. You're limiting yourself to human definition of a swallow. We are not the ones that make the rules, we simply try to interpret them.
First, I'm limiting myself to the monty python definition of a swallow.
And how do you figure that we aren't the ones that make the rules?
No, it's quite linear, the line simply is beyond what we can see.
explain to me how your logic is linear. Because you haven't shown any of that
As I said, the argument you give boils down to:
person 1: look, this bottlecap is beyond our understanding.
person 2: what? no, its just a bottlecap.
person 1: see! it is beyond our understanding.
If you like, bottlecap doesn't need to be the physical thing, but it can be a concept I thought of myself (so, by definition, man made), which I called bottlecap.
I've brought as much as evidence as you have.
I have provided you with facts that good and bad are in the eye of the beholder (a american vs a terrorist).
Look, this universal axis we can't persive/comprehend/... with good at one end and and evil on the other; and one person (the one in line with this axis) would be correct and the other being wrong. ...
It's just silly ... because, for all we know, this universal axis turns in a way that says drinking lemonade is universal evil, and shooting yourself in the foot is the universal good.
If we can't persive/comprehend/... the universal good & universal evil, what's the point at calling them 'universal good' & 'universal evil' ? Since the words good and evil are already concepts we can persive/comprehend/... and might have nothing to do with their universal counterparts.
You're complicating it for no real reason. I am talking about 1, not any symbol. Besides, trying to muddle that up that really does nothing but proves that human beings are just really bad at interpreting things.
The only thing in the universe that is 1, is the universe itself. Everything else is a blur, that our minds seperate for us, so that we may gain an understanding of how things work. The concept of "this is me, and this is not me" is something our minds add, that doesn't really exist. Everytime you stand up from your seat, a tiny part of "you" remains as dead skin while a part of "not you" leaves with you as dirt specks, but we don't think about that, because it would be a truly maddening experience.
There are no clear borders in reality but those that we put up, there are only gradients.
I have provided you with facts that good and bad are in the eye of the beholder (a american vs a terrorist).
Opinions are not facts.
If we can't persive/comprehend/... the universal good & universal evil, what's the point at calling them 'universal good' & 'universal evil' ? Since the words good and evil are already concepts we can persive/comprehend/... and might have nothing to do with their universal counterparts.
And finally a glimmer of light in the darkness.
Just because there are things that we will never understand does not mean we stop trying to understand them.
Just because there are things that we will never understand does not mean we stop trying to understand them.
I know, that bottlecap is quite the puzzle. Will we ever understand it?
Just because there are things that we will never understand does not mean we stop trying to understand them.
I know, that bottlecap is quite the puzzle. Will we ever understand it?
It's not a puzzle. It's nothing but displaying differences of opinion, neither of which change whether something exists or not.
What purpose does a universal good/evil serve? If we cannot understand it, what 'good' does it do us? If it's just there but we ignore it because of whatever reason, it may as well not be there. Cuz if it's ignored for any reason at all, it doesn't matter.
Just because you ignore something doesn't mean it does not have an impact or a purpose. You weren't aware of the concept of gravity until 2nd or 3rd grade (maybe sooner, maybe later), but it certainly had an impact on you and you followed its "rules."
Just because you ignore something doesn't mean it does not have an impact or a purpose. You weren't aware of the concept of gravity until 2nd or 3rd grade (maybe sooner, maybe later), but it certainly had an impact on you and you followed its "rules."
I had to. Gravity cannot be ignored.
I get what you're saying. I happen to disagree, but I understand where you're coming from. Something like gravity has a physical impact on us. Good/evil does not (IMO). To me, it's just like a lot of other human concepts: without humans, they do not exist. They're a construct. If we never thought up gravity, it'd still be here doin' it's thing. I just don't see good/evil the same way.
EDIT: A simpler form? Gravity was here before we were. Good/evil are here because we are.
EDIT: A simpler form? Gravity was here before we were. Good/evil are here because we are.
Which I tend to disagree with, but that's the reason why we're discussing it.
Question: If there is sentient, conscious life on another planet and they also have philosophies and laws on good and evil, how would that change your view? After all, it would be extending beyond us at that point.
Question: If there is sentient, conscious life on another planet and they also have philosophies and laws on good and evil, how would that change your view? After all, it would be extending beyond us at that point.
I suppose - given evidence of that nature - I'd at the least have to reconsider. I mean, it could be a one in a bajillion coincidence, too. But yeah, it'd certainly give me something to think about. Er, so long as our philosophies matched (as in what's good is good and what's evil is evil - as far as anything can universally be so). It could also simply mean that there's a universal need to perceive things in a way that gives us a good and evil. Meh, there's a lot of possibilities. But yes, I'd have to think about it.
I suppose - given evidence of that nature - I'd at the least have to reconsider. I mean, it could be a one in a bajillion coincidence, too. But yeah, it'd certainly give me something to think about. Er, so long as our philosophies matched (as in what's good is good and what's evil is evil - as far as anything can universally be so). It could also simply mean that there's a universal need to perceive things in a way that gives us a good and evil. Meh, there's a lot of possibilities. But yes, I'd have to think about it.
Damn you for being reasonable.
Heh, no worries. I'm not always reasonable. I'm certain my stubborn refusal to budge on something else in the future will give you plenty to rail at me about.
You mean like the eating brains parts?
Well yeah. We kinda hafta do that.
I think I've figured out your sleeping problem. You have been trying to feed on human brains. You live in the U.S. Unfortunately, we seem to be going through a shortage of brains. You must be starving.
Where would I go, though? Nobody's really got any brains worth an international flight these days.
Where would I go, though? Nobody's really got any brains worth an international flight these days.
You may not find high quality brains, but you will find higher than U.S. quality brains. You can harvest a few and bring them back to supplement that puny brains you find here. Kind of like adding an octane buster to your gas tank when you fill up.
You may not find high quality brains, but you will find higher than U.S. quality brains. You can harvest a few and bring them back to supplement that puny brains you find here. Kind of like adding an octane buster to your gas tank when you fill up.
Meh, it's still travel, ya know? I think I'll jus' keep workin' on the population here. There's gotta be one or two that are above the bottom. Er, so long as I stay away from Washington. And the Sowf.
A zombie trying to find an intelligent brain is like a blind squirrel trying to find a nut.
That's why I'm plural, baby. More chances to have chance work out. ;)
You may not find high quality brains, but you will find higher than U.S. quality brains. You can harvest a few and bring them back to supplement that puny brains you find here. Kind of like adding an octane buster to your gas tank when you fill up.
Meh, it's still travel, ya know? I think I'll jus' keep workin' on the population here. There's gotta be one or two that are above the bottom. Er, so long as I stay away from Washington. And the Sowf.
There are no brains in Washington. I read somewhere that there is a brain killing wave that obliterates any intelligent thought.
Yeah, plus if you go there you'll probably be murdered. And raped. In that order. And then someone will sell your corpse some crack. And then they'll sell your corpse. Friendly town all around, or so I hear.
I hear that's how politicians are made.
Yep, but I believe the process also involves poo. Lots an' lots o' poo.
That explains the smell whenever a politician speaks.
whenever politicians speak. Them being full of it is only one among the many.Question: If there is sentient, conscious life on another planet and they also have philosophies and laws on good and evil, how would that change your view? After all, it would be extending beyond us at that point.
if they have objects to close their containers, does that proof some uncomprehensable level of existance of bottlecaps?
Er, so long as our philosophies matched (as in what's good is good and what's evil is evil - as far as anything can universally be so).
who is this our you talk about? (or more importantly, what the heck is our philosofy ?)
If you say so. People frequently seem to call it rude when you question the logical framework they like to rest their belifes upon. I don't get it, but I often don't get why people think they way they do. (Would be easier if they would explain it instead of get huffy, but if they where inclined to explain it instead of getting huffy there would be no cause to explain why they don't just explain it any more now would there?)
Quite disingenuous, considering that is not all you did. Whatever. I think I'll just place you on ignore.
Eh? What else have I done. No matter, do as you wish.
that's circulair logic:
No, it's quite linear, the line simply is beyond what we can see.But if you can bring no actual evidence of the theory, it belongs with the incomprehensible bottlecaps.
I've brought as much as evidence as you have. Also, just because we do not have evidence of something's existence does not mean it doesn't exist.
Have you?
cats saving people and saying it is because I believe it is doesn't seem like a whole lot of evidence and the first one doesn't seem a whole lot stable*.
Those that seem to believe that conscience is only or mainly influenced by society have talked about quite a few things for support. They have compared different morality standards of different societies, humans raised by animals and how their behavior was not human. They have talked about ****, murder and infallibility and how it could be seen as ok or good under certain situations or societal norms or even how all these might be bad in probably every nation on the earth but not every nation would define them the same way.
To me that's a lot of evidence having been discussed for one side. The other side seems to consist of no evidence other than belief and the simple statement of "why couldn't it be universal?"
If that is all there is to talk with then there isn't much to talk about.
I have provided you with facts that good and bad are in the eye of the beholder (a american vs a terrorist).
Opinions are not facts.If we can't persive/comprehend/... the universal good & universal evil, what's the point at calling them 'universal good' & 'universal evil' ? Since the words good and evil are already concepts we can persive/comprehend/... and might have nothing to do with their universal counterparts.
And finally a glimmer of light in the darkness.
Just because there are things that we will never understand does not mean we stop trying to understand them.
Starting to sound like a scientist there.
What purpose does a universal good/evil serve? If we cannot understand it, what 'good' does it do us? If it's just there but we ignore it because of whatever reason, it may as well not be there. Cuz if it's ignored for any reason at all, it doesn't matter.
Just because you ignore something doesn't mean it does not have an impact or a purpose. You weren't aware of the concept of gravity until 2nd or 3rd grade (maybe sooner, maybe later), but it certainly had an impact on you and you followed its "rules."
We were quite aware of the concept of gravity as it works here on earth well before Sir. Isaac Newton put a name and theory to it. Without that concept most of what we use and understand wouldn't have been able to be made. Slings, bows, trebuchet, running water, aqueducts, etc etc. Even when we're young the understanding that something is there is important for us to learn to walk or even play catch with our father. The concept is there but the knowledge of the mysterious power might not be.
And gravity doesn't have "rules". "rules" or "laws" are used to describe the behavior of something physical so as to help us better model the physical world.
__________________________________
*I'm sure some kind of scientists that studies behavior and whatnot has looked at such behavior in animals and can use lots of research to support a social influence for conscience.
Have you?
Yes. Absolutely nothing. No one has offered any proof of anything. This entire conversation is theory and philosophy.
Those that seem to believe that conscience is only or mainly influenced by society have talked about quite a few things for support. They have compared different morality standards of different societies, humans raised by animals and how their behavior was not human. They have talked about ****, murder and infallibility and how it could be seen as ok or good under certain situations or societal norms or even how all these might be bad in probably every nation on the earth but not every nation would define them the same way.
To me that's a lot of evidence having been discussed for one side. The other side seems to consist of no evidence other than belief and the simple statement of "why couldn't it be universal?"
To you that's evidence? To me, those are opinions and conjecture revolved around human interpretation, which I think we all agree that human beings aren't very good at interpreting things to begin with. Either way, they proove nothing and certainly disprove nothing as well.
If that is all there is to talk with then there isn't much to talk about.
No one is making you. And if you have noticed, the conversation has grown stagnant over the last couple of days.
We were quite aware of the concept of gravity as it works here on earth well before Sir. Isaac Newton put a name and theory to it. Without that concept most of what we use and understand wouldn't have been able to be made. Slings, bows, trebuchet, running water, aqueducts, etc etc. Even when we're young the understanding that something is there is important for us to learn to walk or even play catch with our father. The concept is there but the knowledge of the mysterious power might not be.
I don't care how far back you go with the individual. You will find a point where you had no knowledge or concept of gravity. That did not make gravity any less real.
And gravity doesn't have "rules". "rules" or "laws" are used to describe the behavior of something physical so as to help us better model the physical world.
Semantics. That's why I put it in quotes. *shrug* But apparently your comprehension failed anyhow... I am obviously talking about the "rules" that we must abide by when it comes to gravity, not any "rules" gravity has to abide by.
Look, people are going to have their beliefs. This conversation is simply interesting in and of itself. No one is going to be right or wrong as a result of anything presented in this discussion, and no one needs to be either.
Have you?
Yes. Absolutely nothing. No one has offered any proof of anything. This entire conversation is theory and philosophy.
what the heck are you talking about? 9/11 isn't theory or philosophy; Neither are the nazis or native americans. it's practice. it proofs that people have different oppinions of what is good, what is evil, what is justified, etc ...
If you want proof, hey, I know people who think that the holocaust was justified (I know strange people, I know); if you don't believe me, I recon there are tons of neo-nasi websites etc ...
More proof; there exist studies of people who were raised by animals, who showed a entirely different moral compas then us.
I don't care how far back you go with the individual. You will find a point where you had no knowledge or concept of gravity. That did not make gravity any less real.
actually, find me a point where gravitiy is not relevant for the observer. (simplified example, in a spacecraft). At that point, people can argue that gravity doesn't exist.
Because: the universe only exists what we can observe. if we can't observe it, it doesn't exist.
While I'm typing this, you possibly don't exist. You can't proof to me you exist (because there is no interaction between us).
So you should agree, that its possible you only pop into existance the breef moments one of your post appears.
See how absurd "you can't disprove that, you should agree that that is a possibility" is? You know Occam's razor?
Other then that, I assert that string theory is way off, because it's not strings of energy, but mineatures flying dwarfs. With tiny swords. (mineature flying dwarves don't use axes or hammers ... seriously, what are you thinking?)
what the heck are you talking about? 9/11 isn't theory or philosophy; Neither are the nazis or native americans. it's practice. it proofs that people have different oppinions of what is good, what is evil, what is justified, etc ...
If you want proof, hey, I know people who think that the holocaust was justified (I know strange people, I know); if you don't believe me, I recon there are tons of neo-nasi websites etc ...
More proof; there exist studies of people who were raised by animals, who showed a entirely different moral compas then us.
Again, that is not proof of anything other than human interpretations, nothing more. They neither prove or disprove the existence of a universal good and evil.
See how absurd "you can't disprove that, you should agree that that is a possibility" is? You know Occam's razor?
See, that's the problem. I am not trying to prove anything. I am just trying to have a philosophical discussion. You and frank seem to be caught up in the proof of it all, which just won't happen in this type of discussion. And I am certainly not trying to get anyone to agree. It's just a conversation.
I am just trying to have a philosophical discussion.
ok
correct me if I am wrong , but, as universalist, there are three options:
- egoist* "my way is the right one, the others are wrong"
- nihilist* "i do what i want, since nobody knows what's really 'good' or 'evil' anyhow"
- hypocrit* "nobody knows what's really 'good' or 'evil', but I judge you to be evil"
*: when put in a negative light
The thing with a philosophy about something that is provably unprovable, it's that it's mostly a waste of time because nothing good or bad can come from it, other then the time wasted having the discussion.
It's subjective whether it is a waste of time or not. And last I checked, no one is forcing anyone to take part in the conversation. So whoever feels they are "wasting their time" has no one to blame but themself.
The thing with a philosophy about something that is provably unprovable, it's that it's mostly a waste of time because nothing good or bad can come from it, other then the time wasted having the discussion.
define good.
I don't care how far back you go with the individual. You will find a point where you had no knowledge or concept of gravity. That did not make gravity any less real.
So you talking about before I existed or in the case of living beings before any of us existed?
Anyways to move on. Jharii I'm not trying to prove squat. I'm laying down evidence to explain my point of view on the topic and as to how that shows (implies? points to?) one outcome and not another. You however (since there is now evidence to strengthen your own view since it is 100% faith based) can do nothing but try and knock down any structure to my view so that it's on the same level as yours. That way they're both equal possibilities.
Since this is all that's been happening for a while there really is no point to continue. I'm sure ZB got what he wanted out of the thread. People can go back to believing what they want to believe whether we have evidence of it or just blind faith.
I don't care how far back you go with the individual. You will find a point where you had no knowledge or concept of gravity. That did not make gravity any less real.
So you talking about before I existed or in the case of living beings before any of us existed?
With the individual. When you were born up until the point that you became conscious of what gravity was and had it defined for you.
Anyways to move on. Jharii I'm not trying to prove squat. I'm laying down evidence to explain my point of view on the topic and as to how that shows (implies? points to?) one outcome and not another. You however (since there is now evidence to strengthen your own view since it is 100% faith based) can do nothing but try and knock down any structure to my view so that it's on the same level as yours. That way they're both equal possibilities.
Like I have said, I have acknowledged the possibility that good/evil is manmade. However, there is no evidence available to us that can prove that as fact, just like there is no evidence available to prove that it is a universal force. Just because human beings interpret good/evil differently does not automatically mean that we are the creators of all good/evil.
Since this is all that's been happening for a while there really is no point to continue. I'm sure ZB got what he wanted out of the thread. People can go back to believing what they want to believe whether we have evidence of it or just blind faith.
No one's forcing you to continue. FYI, it's not "blind faith." There is a logic to it. If you've missed it, sorry, but it has been stated.
I don't care how far back you go with the individual. You will find a point where you had no knowledge or concept of gravity. That did not make gravity any less real.
So you talking about before I existed or in the case of living beings before any of us existed?
With the individual. When you were born up until the point that you became conscious of what gravity was and had it defined for you.
just because you're not conscious of what something is doesn't mean that you're not unconsiously aware of it. You don't have to know something to interact with it. From a very early point we know it's there without knowing it's there.
just because you're not conscious of what something is doesn't mean that you're not unconsiously aware of it. You don't have to know something to interact with it. From a very early point we know it's there without knowing it's there.
From the point you were born up to that "very early point" then. It does not change the fact that there is a period of time where you are unaware of it. It does not matter if it is a second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year.
] With the individual. When you were born ...
which raises an other philosofical question: does the past exist? (something which can't be proven)
Like I have said, I have acknowledged the possibility that good/evil is manmade. However, there is no evidence available to us that can prove that as fact
what if a human grows up without human social circle? During the age of enlightenment, there much debate and research toward the noble savage concept.
Most children seem to take over the habits of the animals that raised them, instead of showing signs of human reasoning (or if you will, morale) ...
unless of course, universal good / evil = (dirived) pack mentality ...
FYI, it's not "blind faith." There is a logic to it. If you've missed it
other logic then "you can't prove me wrong ?"
Blind faith = belief without true understanding , perception, or discrimination.
do i recall beyond our understanding? and lack of proof?
How is believing in universal good/evil NOT blind faith
what if a human grows up without human social circle? During the age of enlightenment, there much debate and research toward the noble savage concept.
Most children seem to take over the habits of the animals that raised them, instead of showing signs of human reasoning (or if you will, morale) ...
Pretty irrelevant since it's still human interpretation.
other logic then "you can't prove me wrong ?"
I have never once said it in that context and demanded you prove me wrong. I have stated that the "proof" that you have provided does nothing to prove me wrong. I have also said that I can't prove it's not manmade.
As for logic, as I have said, the seed had to be planted from somewhere in order for man to begin interpreting good and evil. It also stands to reason that if there is another civilization out there in the cosmos, and they also have a sense of good and evil, that it transcends our existence.
Both sides of this debate are equally viable since neither can be proven or disproven. So it just comes down to what you choose to believe.
Blind faith = belief without true understanding , perception, or discrimination.
do i recall beyond our understanding? and lack of proof?
How is believing in universal good/evil NOT blind faith
Because I have perception and logic. "True understanding" no one really has.
But even if you do not agree with my perception and logic, by the literal definition you have provided, believing that good and evil is manmade is also blind faith.
which raises an other philosofical question: does the past exist? (something which can't be proven)
Not just the past, but how about time in general?
what if a human grows up without human social circle? During the age of enlightenment, there much debate and research toward the noble savage concept.
Most children seem to take over the habits of the animals that raised them, instead of showing signs of human reasoning (or if you will, morale) ...
Pretty irrelevant since it's still human interpretation.
however it does give us insight of good and evil*.
it is anectodal evidence that good and evil* are defined by society.
*: or what you call human interpretation of good and evil.
As for logic, as I have said, the seed had to be planted from somewhere in order for man to begin interpreting good and evil. It also stands to reason that if there is another civilization out there in the cosmos, and they also have a sense of good and evil, that it transcends our existence.
unless of course, universal good / evil = (dirived) pack mentality ... that would explain everything, whithout supernatural requirement.
think about it. the unjustified harming/... of people you identify/... with ; this is something we all consider evil.
- Americans put themselves in the same group as 9/11 vicims (americans say 9/11 is evil).
- Nazis don't put them in the same group as jews (Nazis say holocaust was not evil)
- edit: sociopaths (or what-ya-call-m) don't put anyone else in their group
As for logic, as I have said, the seed had to be planted from somewhere in order for man to begin interpreting good and evil. It also stands to reason that if there is another civilization out there in the cosmos, and they also have a sense of good and evil, that it transcends our existence.
Both sides of this debate are equally viable since neither can be proven or disproven. So it just comes down to what you choose to believe.
are you honestly claiming that uncomprehencable supernatural is equally viable as an unknown logical reason?
Blind faith = belief without true understanding , perception, or discrimination.
do i recall beyond our understanding? and lack of proof?
How is believing in universal good/evil NOT blind faith
Because I have perception and logic. "True understanding" no one really has.
what perception, what logic? "the seed had to be planted from somewhere"? that's not perception nor logic. Its a premise. From that to universal good/evil ... you're missing more then a few steps...
But even if you do not agree with my perception and logic, by the literal definition you have provided, believing that good and evil is manmade is also blind faith.
you might have noted I asserted disbelief in anything that I can not perceive (including you and the past). Believing that good and evil is manmade is not as much blind faith as it is Occams razor.
are you honestly claiming that uncomprehencable supernatural is equally viable as an unknown logical reason?
If good and evil are actual forces, then they would not be supernatural.
Everything else... you're just rehashing old arguments. You know my stance, I know yours.
OK so there is at least a second, minute, hour or day that one would not be aware of gravity in some way or whatever. What does that have to do with your argument in the first place? Are you implying that good and evil (conscience) are tangible forces that have very real, observable and measurable effects on every day society that can be scientifically proven and understood? If not then I fail to see how gravity is relevant. Sorry but should have asked this earlier since I seemed to have missed the reason why it was brought up in the first place.
I have never once said it in that context and demanded you prove me wrong. I have stated that the "proof" that you have provided does nothing to prove me wrong. I have also said that I can't prove it's not manmade.
It's not about proving anything. It's about supporting one's ideas. One's beliefs. You can lay down lots of evidence to show that something is very very plausible without proving anything. In truth nothing is provable. Not even your or my existence or our very discussion we've been having. This can all be debatable as being nonexistent, but we can use evidence to suggest that it does exist and that we have had it. Same with this talk. One side has been trying to use a lot of evidence to suggest that one view point is a very likely and reasonable conclusion. Sure it can't be proven but so far in this discussion the social view has more supporting evidence than the universal view.
As for logic, as I have said, the seed had to be planted from somewhere in order for man to begin interpreting good and evil. It also stands to reason that if there is another civilization out there in the cosmos, and they also have a sense of good and evil, that it transcends our existence.
If there is another planet of beings and they have a sense of good and evil it does not make it universal. I'm sure they'll desiagree with us on what is good and evil just as how we disagree with ourselves on what's good and evil. All it would mean for their society to have such a concept is that their society has it's own culture and societal rules for what's acceptable and what's not based on the evolutionary needs and demands of the species and their environment as they evolved.
Both sides of this debate are equally viable since neither can be proven or disproven. So it just comes down to what you choose to believe.
Not quite. Lets go back to gravity I guess. Its existence can't be proven or disproven but through much supporting evidence through observation we can come to the conclusion that it should be there and follows XYZ general rules.
Nothing is provable. Only supportable. The thing that can be supported in a more concrete manner has more validity. So far one view in this thread has gotten much support. The other has gotten very little to nil. Sure the one view can't be proven however it can gain much more validity which would make it a more reasonable conclusion than the other.
OK now I'm going to try and be done with this thread for good. Probably wont happen but I'll try.
OK so there is at least a second, minute, hour or day that one would not be aware of gravity in some way or whatever. What does that have to do with your argument in the first place? Are you implying that good and evil (conscience) are tangible forces that have very real, observable and measurable effects on every day society that can be scientifically proven and understood? If not then I fail to see how gravity is relevant. Sorry but should have asked this earlier since I seemed to have missed the reason why it was brought up in the first place.
The point was that a force could exist and have an impact on you without you having any knowledge or awareness about it.
are you honestly claiming that uncomprehencable supernatural is equally viable as an unknown logical reason?
If good and evil are actual forces, then they would not be supernatural.
Now you are just grasping straws.
This is actual force. ... unless you mean meta-physical* force?
*: meta as in super and physical as in natural?
Heck, I find my derived pack menality theory very logical, and applicable in all senario's (even nazis and sociopaths).
So ... are you honestly claiming that uncomprehencable metaphysical concept is equally viable as a logical reason?
Now you are just grasping straws.
No I am not. You are the one trying to put things into categories. Things exist that we do not understand. It does not make those things any less real, or natural, just because we do not understand them.
So ... are you honestly claiming that uncomprehencable metaphysical concept is equally viable as a logical reason?
I have explained my logical reasoning. Just because you do not find something logical does not mean it is not logical. Just as you have found flaws in my logic, I have explained where the flaws are in your logic.
So no, I am not claiming that at all. I choose my logical reasoning over your logical reasoning.
Considering that I have already stated on multiple occasions that it is entirely possible that good/evil are manmade (and have never denied it was not a possiblity), I sincerely do not understand what you are trying to accomplish. So at this point in time, I'll just chose to move on from this thread. Thanks for the discussion.
I sincerely do not understand what you are trying to accomplish.
post162
I choose my logical reasoning over your logical reasoning
Then I leave you with the simple question "Why?" *
As this is a philosofical discussion, some reflection isn't bad
*: I simply can't see why yours would be more logical then me
Then I leave you with the simple question "Why?" *
As this is a philosofical discussion, some reflection isn't bad
*: I simply can't see why yours would be more logical then me
*You don't have to, nor have I been trying to enforce my beliefs and logic upon you. I have simply provided mine. I don't think I have called your viewpoint wrong or illogical one single time.
You think your logic is more sound than mine and I think my logic is more sound than yours.
You think your logic is more sound than mine and I think my logic is more sound than yours.
then indeed this discussion is over, as I fail to see how metaphysical would look more sound then part of evolution.
Heck, I find my derived pack menality theory very logical, and applicable in all senario's (even nazis and sociopaths).
As do I!