Exploring Good and Evil: Where Do We Draw the Line?

  • Thread starter mikelus
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Line
In summary, Good and Evil are abstract notions that are defined by each individual's personal perspective of what role the cause-event and each of its effects play in their surroundings. The concept of Good and Evil as absolutes is not feasible as it would require a universally agreed upon definition, which is not possible.
  • #36
"Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats
Too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking
I had something to protect
Good and bad, I define these terms
Quite clear, no doubt, somehow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now."
-Bob Dylan, My Back Pages



Njorl
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
returning to the question at hand, ill take a stab at responding. evil is the lack of virtue, not its opposite. one can't be perfectly evil in a comprehendable way, only pure good. it is similar to light. darkness is but a measurement we invented involving the absence of light. light is infinite in maximum amount: there can be an uncountable amount of photons streaming in. however, darkness is just the absence of photons, so you can't measure darkness.
in short, evil is lack of good. this might help a bit. I'm sorry if i sound a bit too sure on this, but i think that this is correct in the context of the first post.
 
  • #38
evil is the lack of virtue, not its opposite. one can't be perfectly evil in a comprehendable way, only pure good.

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

I agree totally.
 
  • #39
is evilness the protection of pain? If we realize our selfs through restrictions of love, it forms control and patterns over ourselfs or others. These are external convictions caused by Unfillfilled desires based on the protection of pain and who you are.
 
  • #40
Hi

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its bad to be selfish, lazy, steal etc.

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

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

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

Regards,
Ken
 
  • #41
Originally posted by ken
This is my 1st go on this forum, I hope it gets to the right place.
Welcome and yes, it did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by ken
It would seem then, this mind/entity invented morality and has put it in humans as possibly the only mechanism be which humans can recognise the existence of such an entity. If this entity invented morality surely, only this entity can have final right of judgment on this morality.
I agree, in a sense.
The entity that created this sense of morality is the only one capable and worthy of judging it.
The enitity that created it, however, is the individual.
Therefore, the only one that can truly judge your morals is you.
 
  • #42
It looks to me that neither of you have ever read "The Selfish Gene" or learned about evolutionary altruism. Crudely,we will die for our family because our kids, and even their cousins, carry on our genetic heritage, and it's only the genes that get maximized by evolution, not the individuals. This explains the "sociology" of bee hives and ant hills, which your simple wolf pack analogy doesn't.

But I agree that now that we have minds we can misuse them to the detriment of our bodies.
 
  • #43
This explains the "sociology" of bee hives and ant hills, which your simple wolf pack analogy doesn't.

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

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

To use an animal as a model is to aim for the lowest level of morality available, we are human. We have the capacity for evil no animal could imagine - our responsibility is to morality because we hold the Earth in the grip of it.
 
  • #44
So let's go around and collect the moral codes and try to reduce them to a common standard. And what do we get?

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

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

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

And so on. All the big basic ideas have exceptions, and the exceptions vary from culture to culture.
 
  • #45
Hi One_Raven


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

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


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

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

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



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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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



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


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

Reply:
Not in my experience, its the thousand and one little things every day, I like to tease and joke but each tease carries a barb. I know that I should encourage and build up others but what do I do, I sting the ones I love with little barbs for my amusement, maybe to show I'm cleaver. Really think, is what you do the best or simple self serving. Can you get through even one selfless day only doing good to others with no reward to yourself, maybe even looking foolish or stupid for the sake of anothers? Sometime I do what I know is good, other times I do the opposite If it were not so, there would be no guilt or at least only guilt from having to choose between conflicting priorities. That should be easily dealt with by reason. Instead people get torn up by it, paralysed by it and suffer mental and physical illness from guilt. We all know we have done wrong.
 
  • #46
Rest of reply:

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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

If however morality is an invention of society (interaction between individuals), to claim yourself as the inventer is to ignore the input of your society and the many generations of social development that have gone before. What you have learned from your society and by interaction with others would have to be the greater part than any truly original thought of anyone individual simply by weight of experience. Therefore your society would have the greater part of ownership of the moral code and by the same logic have greater right to moral judgment.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by mikelus
whats good and what's evil? what are the border lines of the two if any?

Hi Mikelus, If it helps at all I can tell you that I believe "good and evil" exist only to evoke emotions where as "positive and negative" exist for balance. With this in mind I could go as far as saying that the border lines for "good and evil" when associated to the human race are simply "good=continued existence" and "evil=...
 
  • #48
Concepts like ethics, good and evil and morality do seem to have an outside source. They are human reflections of a larger system.

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

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

When everything seems out of balance and has been destroyed it is, more often than not, a part of the survival of the greater whole. We are a part of an incomprehensibly infinite balancing act that ensures the survival of a phenomenon we have been fortunate enough to observe and classify as "existence".
 
  • #49
I do not believe in any entities or forces of good or evil. I believe good and evil is simply what we humans do to each other.

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

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

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

One thing I have found is that it is generaly a negative thing among any species to execute one's own offspring. Life is geared against that activity. Personally, I suspect that a good chunk of our drives and such a based in biology/evolution, and that being the case, we might say that the prohibition against killing our own offspring might be considered an absolute moral.
 
  • #50
Originally posted by Bernardo
We need to leave animals out of this. They do serve a purpose to the medical community - but for any sociological issue sorry.
First of all, you are an animal.
You are a mammal, just like a wolf, monkey, lion, mouse, etc.
Why the distinction?
What really makes us different, physically?
Opposable thumbs?
Even if that were true it really would not matter. I can come up with a dozen distinct physical features that different animals have right off the top of my head. Our thumbs would be no more significant than these distinctions. (it isn't true, by the way... koalas, opposums and Bornean Oranguntans are a few animals with opposable thumbs)

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

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

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

Originally posted by Bernardo
We have the capacity for evil no animal could imagine - our responsibility is to morality because we hold the Earth in the grip of it.
Without drawing too much attention to the fact that we have no clue what animals could imagine, I can't see how the belief that humans can and do have a capacity for evil far greater than any other animal in nature could possibly be an argument AGAINST using them as "role models".
If you think that humans have the capacity for evil that other animals do not have, then you would be saying that other animals are "good" as opposed to "evil" humans.
Wouldn't mimicing their behavior and using their values and social systems as a moral yardstick then make us "better" than we are?
 
  • #51
Originally posted by ken
Hi One_Raven
Hi, Ken.
Sorry it took so long to reply.
I have been on vacation from work, and I rarely (if ever) go online from home.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

If however morality is an invention of society (interaction between individuals), to claim yourself as the inventer is to ignore the input of your society and the many generations of social development that have gone before. What you have learned from your society and by interaction with others would have to be the greater part than any truly original thought of anyone individual simply by weight of experience. Therefore your society would have the greater part of ownership of the moral code and by the same logic have greater right to moral judgment.
It is not about it being an original thought.
I am little more than a collection of my experiences in life and what I have learned.
My experiences are very different in many ways when compared to your experiences.
That is what makes us indivduals.
We are very much shaped by our environment.
I decided upon my own moral code based on what I persoanlly value, and everyone else should do the same.
 
  • #52
Originally posted by one_raven
As far as we can tell, they do not live under the influence of absurd human inventions such as religion, morality, social graces, envy, shame, pride and all the other socially imposed garbage that influence our lives and minds everyday.

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

I'm not sure how you can counter me, by agreeing with me?
 
  • #53
Originally posted by Bernardo
That's exactly my point, so they make a poor model for understanding our social makeup.

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

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

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

If we look at human social structures beneath the superficial mores and traditions they have quite a few similarities to many other species in the animal kingdom, and that source of observing unadulterated underlying social structures is invaluable.
 
  • #54
If we truly are the only animal capable of abstract thought and objective reasoning, that would mean that we are also the only animal capable of stupidity (evidence of our vast stupidity is readily available and I think far outweighs the evidence of our intelligence) therefore we should be the LAST species that we look to as a "moral yardstick".
 
  • #55
after reading the rest of the posts it seems like we feel a little disassociative to nature. Why is it that we always compare the amimal kingdom to good and evil? Could it be that nature has no real good and evil for their is no cop?
 
  • #56
Hi One Raven

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

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


Exactly! :)
It is unnatural.

Ken Reply:
Yes indeed morality is not from the natural world we know.
If you say there is only a physical reality then everything must be produced by natural physical events. There can be nothing that is unnatural including humans or any aspect of humans.
 
  • #57
whats good and what's evil? what are the border lines of the two if any?

I personally believe morality is a mere binary opposition constructed by humans. "Good" and "evil" are its two poles.
 
  • #58
"I personally believe morality is a mere binary opposition constructed by humans. "Good" and "evil" are its two poles."

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


Regards,
Ken
 
  • #59
Enough claiming that morality was constructed by humans. All animals have morality. Otherwise they would be extinct. Humans just added man-made items and papers to prove that something which existed before our time belongs to us to our morality.
 
  • #60
Originally posted by THANOS
Enough claiming that morality was constructed by humans. All animals have morality. Otherwise they would be extinct.

Care to elaborate?
 
  • #61
Well for one thing i'va seen a dog rip a cat apart but the very same dog sniff a kitten and leave it alone. There is some sense of morality there. Loins may get pretty rough but they do not hurt there own kind unless a new leadership is in question. Honey bees work their lives away and give their lives to protect the hive so that the queen can make more bees, Is that not morality? Wolves will leave behind their wounded, but they think not for that individual but for the sake of their pack. It was always the strong who survive but for humans strenth was no longer measured by only brute force due to the smart being able to lead wars and create better techonology. Now we do not really know what these animals or insects really think when they do these actions but they all follow these rules and that's all we really know. Humans may be a bit more complex on this morality stuff due to technology, and communication with a more broad link between each other. Before we were pretty much eat, live, fight, and make babies.
 
  • #62
On the molecular level, what's good or evil about a pile
of (reactive) molecules?

(Initiate lack of opinion here)
 
  • #63
Of course, no one could ever say with any real objective certainty, but here's my opinion:


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

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

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

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

More Here
 
  • #64
Originally posted by one_raven
Of course, no one could ever say with any real objective certainty, but here's my opinion:



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



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

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

More Here

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

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

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

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

Similarily with ethics. Ethics help preserve the species.

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

How a pile of molecules became this complicated, I don't know!
 
  • #65
I was with until here:
Originally posted by p-brane
Similarily with ethics. Ethics help preserve the species.

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

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

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

The reason most of what Religion and Modern Western Society tells us is "Wrong" still runs rampant is not because people are "Bad" and can't follow the rules, it is because all these rules go against the very nature and instinct of man.
 
  • #66
Originally posted by one_raven
I was with until here:


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

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

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

I see your point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each and every one of your points is debatable in terms of what degree and intensity the conditions occur. I'm not good at sweeping generalizations when it comes to people's lives and livelyhoods. So, I leave you with what I've written.
 
  • #67
After reading your reply and giving it some further thought I think that rape was a bad example.

I stand by the rest of what I said, however.
So far.
 
  • #68
In general terms, my hunch is that morality is an absolute value. Indeed, as mortals, somewhere between nothing and infinity, we seem to have no choice but to make or effect value based choices---even though it is rare that we can be perfectly pure in either our intentions or our acts. It helps to intuit or identify with an intangible or spiritual purpose that is more enlightened than a cramped philosophy of personal selfishness. It can also help to rationalize agreement on three basic moral purposes: respect or love God or Being (Great Commandment), try to treat others as you would want them to treat you (Golden Rule, Rule of the Veil, Categorical Imperative), and follow your bliss (from Joseph Campbell). Just trying to harmonize those three guideposts would seem to lead towards a host of other commendable virtues. Reflection might make such purposes nearly self evident. Decent methods of socialization might strengthen application, but not perfection. Disregarding such fundamental purposes leads easily to personal and social ruin. Although evaluating specific, contextual applications is uncertain, making an honest, introspective, self defining effort is generally essential.
 
  • #69
i was watching T.V the other day on lions, and i noticed that there was this one lion who lost her cub over the night. The next day she went on looking for it and left the pride. 2 Weeks later she still sees no clues but suspects that this other lion was responsible. She killed the lion she blamed and then left again in search of the cub. She died trying to find that cub also. Now something tells me that this is more then just basic instinct.
 
  • #70
After the whole story, your evidence is just that "something tells you". We have humans have a gift for seeing patterns - even if they aren't there!
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
902
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
805
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
21
Views
637
  • General Discussion
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
13
Views
380
Replies
22
Views
843
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
17
Views
907
Back
Top