Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: A8TOOL on September 15, 2010, 01:44:25 AM
-
Are people in general ..... GOOD IN NATURE :angel: or Bad :devil
-
both, equaly.
-
Call it "shades of gray", very very few are pure evil (all black) or pure goodness (all white)
So if you broke it down to 100 marbles, on average I suspect that it would be more light than dark.
But not an overwhelming majority or anything.
We all have our "spots" where we are not as good as we could or should be.
-
(http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk121/TheAmish/church20lady.jpg) hummmmmmmmmmmmm
mostly good?
-
It depends on the environment in which the human grew up. A good person can become bad and vice versa under the right conditions.
I'd say, 60% good generally.
-
Inherently selfish.
-
90 % bad
10 % pretending not to be bad
-
Good or bad, I still hate 90% of them.
-
It depends on the environment in which the human grew up. A good person can become bad and vice versa under the right conditions.
I'd say, 60% good generally
I believe we are all born pure and innocent with only survival instincts intact (Think of twins in the whom). The core of humanity begins at birth and develops from there. Without guidance, which side do you think they would choose? I believe as we develop it becomes easier for us to distinguish between right and wrong but even knowing we don't always make the right choice.
Inherently selfish.
100% True
90 % bad
10 % pretending not to be bad
Switch the numbers and change the word "pretending". Self control requires a lifetime of practice but not always realized
both, equaly.
Ahhhh, Nature verses Conscious ...........or consciousness of our surroundings.
:old: My grandfather once said "It's easy to be an ashole.... anyone can do it. The hard part is trying to be good"
He also said " If I stood on a corner and handed out dollar bills... half of them would complain! Either they waited to long or didn't get enough. You can't make everyone happy but it will never cost you anything to say Thank You"
-
All born good. Till we are about 10 we are at the mercy of how good our parents are.
After 10 we chose our own route based on intelligence, or lack thereof, and what was instilled by our parents.
-
Switch the numbers and change the word "pretending". Self control requires a lifetime of practice but not always realized
Nah, if they were good it would not require practice would it? Don;t confuse the fact that people that don't want to get in trouble with the law and society behave. Think how they would act if they knew they could not get in troble that no one would ever know about what they did.
-
I'm good.
No, really, I am.
What will it TAKE with you people?? :furious
-
I agree, it's complicated and in shades of grey at best. People, their attitudes, and beliefs are forged and then constantly molded in reaction to their environment and experiences.
Best example I can find within myself is my nature towards women over the many years I've been interested, attracted and persued them. It's not a bitterness or resentment that I've developed towards them, just a lack of serious interest or as I put it "no desire to keep putting my hand into the meat grinder", or "tired of rushing through all the bad ones, plenty of time now to wait and go through looking for a good one". I'm not giving up on them or writing them all off, and I have more close female friends than male, but at first when I was younger and more naive I was definitely an openly nice guy that wouldn't give anyone (male or female) a doubt or my last dime... but being burned badly once and singed by nothing but a bunch of bad ones since has definitely changed my outlook on the whole lot of them; they're more trouble than good and a complete waste of my time and effort until they can minutely prove otherwise to me. This has been a most noticable change over time amongst my friends in my social group; from being on top of opening a door for a pretty lady halfway across the room to grabbing an armful of ladies I stumbled across to introduce to my buds... none of that anymore, it's just been flogged out of my nature.
-
Living and growing and self-awareness have a large impact on a person's "goodness". The realization that actions have consequences on multiple levels will affect a person's decisions.
"I am you and you are me and what I see is Me." Know this and understand it and you will be a good person.
-
I'm good.
No, really, I am.
What will it TAKE with you people?? :furious
(http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/596/youpeople.jpg)
What do you mean "You People"?
-
Im 70% good, 20% lazy, 10% perv
-
Ahh...the age old Nature of Man question.
Being a conservative I hold the view that the nature of man is inherantly BAD. I enjoy arguing with those who feel the opposite is true and love watching them struggle to come up with examples.
-
Your question is subjective on its face because of it's predicate assumption that "Good" and "Bad" are clearly defined...
"Good" and "Bad" are not defined....and impossible to define...
Take for example a dirty night smock Jihadist...to him...flying civilian air transport into sky scrapers is "Good"...
I would surmise that to most people, the opposite of "Good" is "Bad"...
What is "Good" to one, is often "Bad" to another...
Thus "Good" and "Bad" can only be 'characterized' by the respondent...a "Human"...as he prepares to respond to the question...
Therefore, any response is flawed, because it filtered through the inherent bias of the respondent...
Thus the question is circular in it's assumptive reasoning...
The scary thing is that in the end... "Good" == "Bad" resolves to true...thus the never ending conflicts of Man...
Oneway
-
Ahh...the age old Nature of Man question.
Being a conservative I hold the view that the nature of man is inherantly BAD. I enjoy arguing with those who feel the opposite is true and love watching them struggle to come up with examples.
I concur...being a conservative...
-
In all seriousness, who gives a %@$^ what the nature of man is? The nature of man is what you make it to be. The real question is, "Who are you, and what do you want?" You've got options, you pick the one you like best. I did.
-
Ahh...the age old Nature of Man question.
Being a conservative I hold the view that the nature of man is inherantly BAD. I enjoy arguing with those who feel the opposite is true and love watching them struggle to come up with examples.
Good.
Or more accurately neither, because morals are defined by individual cultures not all of humanity.
-
Many bad deeds have been done by people actually believeing they are doing the right (good) thing...
-
Good.
Or more accurately neither, because morals are defined by individual cultures not all of humanity.
Your 180 is showing...
Touche'
I would add that the granularity of 'definition' as it applies to defining 'morals' doesn't stop at the cultural level...and has many waypoints before it finally finds its definition within the individual...
-
It is not a question of culture...the question is the nature of man generally.
Is man inherantly good or bad?
If the answer is good please give me examples of why you think man is inherantly good.
-
It is not a question of culture...the question is the nature of man generally.
Is man inherantly good or bad?
If the answer is good please give me examples of why you think man is inherantly good.
That question cannot be answered nakedly because of the subjective nature of defining "Good" and "Bad"...
It is impossible to answer, even if suffixed with qualifiers...because the qualifiers are offered by the the inquisitor...and are subject to the same problems and bias that the respondent produce in finally attempting to answer the question...
Mensa nailed it with...."Neither"...in fact he hit it out of the park...
-
He hit a sqibbler down the first base if anything with his "Good...no wait...neither" answer.
Ask me a question...any question and I will give you back your answer and request you define every adjective in your question. Makes for a lame argument.
-
He hit a sqibbler down the first base if anything with his "Good...no wait...neither" answer.
Ask me a question...any question and I will give you back your answer and request you define every adjective in your question. Makes for a lame argument.
I will give you two to work on...
What do you define as "Good" ?...and is your definition of "Good" definitive for all of mankind?
-
OK I amended my response within seconds. It isn't a no wait, it's an or. By your definitions I think good, but if analyzed further I don't think there is an inherently good or bad.
I wasn't trying to throw a catch all in, Curval.
I said good because evolution has made it necessary for us to love each other. A good counter example would be when placed in competition; men, like all animals, will become ruthless. However I am interpreting inherently to mean by themselves and not in a stage of conflict. I think that all people, with the exception of those with genetic defects, will be good to others given the choice. Sharing [and caring] was an important evolutionary development.
-
OK I amended my response within seconds. It isn't a no wait, it's an or. By your definitions I think good, but if analyzed further I don't think there is an inherently good or bad.
I wasn't trying to throw a catch all in, Curval.
I said good because evolution has made it necessary for us to love each other. A good counter example would be when placed in competition; men, like all animals, will become ruthless. However I am interpreting inherently to mean by themselves and not in a stage of conflict. I think that all people, with the exception of those with genetic defects, will be good to others given the choice. Sharing [and caring] was an important evolutionary development.
Really?
Then evolution, if one accepts the principal at large, has some 'splaining to do then...
Take for instance a male Lion on the plains of Africa...who after taking over a another male's harem kills (but does not eat) his predecessors offspring...
What choice...?
-
You are being pedantic, but okay...
We are not talking about individuals or their personal traits and biases. It is a philospohical question. The "man" in this question is not John Smith or Li Long Chow or Henje Cronje. It is the Platonic representation of man, the essence, the core if you will.
Think of it this way, if all mankind (including women..thank you brother..or sister) could be somehow liquified and distilled, from a massive ocean, to a huge lake, to a small pond and eventually down to a glass-full and then down to a single drop...that drop would represent the "man" I am referring to. Similarly think of good and bad being distilled (philosophically) to the drop of its respective nature. Which would mix better with man? The good drop or the bad one?
If you choose good then explain why.
lol mensa...just joshing. But good answer. I'll buy into that when I sit down and strum "cum bay yah" with all my hippie buddies. Love is not necessary for procreation however...just sex.
-
Everything in existence is in balance perfectly. Equaly. Good and bad exists equaly and generaly all people have an equaly light and dark side to their nature. If this were not true then very quickly the imbalance would cause existence to become saturated one way or the other and the answer would be plain to see.
Let me explain the way I see it another way, if you would.
The common human conception of Heaven and Hell is a prime example of us trying to apply absolute to something that has unavoidable equilibrium. The notion that we get one or the other depending if we tip the scales to good or bad over a whole lifetime is ludicrous.
"Well, you said you were sorry for the 45% bad and managed to total 55% good, ok, you're going to eternal paradise."
The idea of what Heaven and Hell represents is probably accurate. The only missconception I see is that we get one or the other, instead of both at the same time, all the time. All good will leave the soul feeling satisfied in an afterlife and all bad will leave a permanent guilt on the soul. The balance is always there. To be 100% light or dark is a violation of Nature.
-
Everything in existence is in balance perfectly. Equaly. Good and bad exists equaly and generaly all people have an equaly light and dark side to their nature. If this were not true then very quickly the imbalance would cause existence to become saturated one way or the other and the answer would be plain to see.
This is a great response.
But I disagee.
I think the imbalance is evident throughout mankind's existence. Open up today's newspaper for example....
-
Ok so you have not defined GOOD and BAD. It just a bunch of pontification unless you define terms.
-
Everything in existence is in balance perfectly. Equaly. Good and bad exists equaly and generaly all people have an equaly light and dark side to their nature. If this were not true then very quickly the imbalance would cause existence to become saturated one way or the other and the answer would be plain to see.
This is a great response.
But I disagee.
I think the imbalance is evident throughout mankind's existence. Open up today's newspaper for example....
Yep....
You raise an interesting observation...because humans in general choose preponderantly to "report" on 'Bad' or 'Evil' over 'Good' does that indicate or implicate human nature at large ?
-
You are being pedantic, but okay...
We are not talking about individuals or their personal traits and biases. It is a philospohical question. The "man" in this question is not John Smith or Li Long Chow or Henje Cronje. It is the Platonic representation of man, the essence, the core if you will.
Think of it this way, if all mankind (including women..thank you brother..or sister) could be somehow liquified and distilled, from a massive ocean, to a huge lake, to a small pond and eventually down to a glass-full and then down to a single drop...that drop would represent the "man" I am referring to. Similarly think of good and bad being distilled (philosophically) to the drop of its respective nature. Which would mix better with man? The good drop or the bad one?
If you choose good then explain why.
lol mensa...just joshing. But good answer. I'll buy into that when I sit down and strum "cum bay yah" with all my hippie buddies. Love is not necessary for procreation however...just sex.
Not exactly, having two adults to take care of offspring results in a higher number of offspring reaching sexual maturity. It doesn't matter how many babies you make, just how many live to make more babies. Love, is the answer to that problem, by tying both mother and father to the child (and possibly to each other), it ensures a higher chance of survival for the child.
Therefore, a female (who must carry the child to term), would not allow a male that does not love her to inseminate her. This is because a child is a very energy instenive investment for the female, but not so for the male. By making the male stay with the child, the female can ensure that the offspring have a better chance at survival.
Therefore, love is not necesscarily the absolutely altruistic idea that has been portrayed thus far, but rather an evolutionary adaptation which allows more offspring to reach sexual maturity.
-Penguin
-
Yep....
You raise an interesting observation...because humans in general choose preponderantly to "report" on 'Bad' or 'Evil' over 'Good' does that indicate or implicate human nature at large ?
This is simple to answer, we are more adept at remembering bad things, and have stronger emotional reactions to them.
For example, would your reaction be stronger to this:
Finding a check, addressed to you for $1,000
Or this?:
Having $1,000 in your wallet, and then leaving it at the mall by accident
-Penguin
-
Everything in existence is in balance perfectly. Equaly. Good and bad exists equaly and generaly all people have an equaly light and dark side to their nature. If this were not true then very quickly the imbalance would cause existence to become saturated one way or the other and the answer would be plain to see.
Let me explain the way I see it another way, if you would.
The common human conception of Heaven and Hell is a prime example of us trying to apply absolute to something that has unavoidable equilibrium. The notion that we get one or the other depending if we tip the scales to good or bad over a whole lifetime is ludicrous.
"Well, you said you were sorry for the 45% bad and managed to total 55% good, ok, you're going to eternal paradise."
The idea of what Heaven and Hell represents is probably accurate. The only missconception I see is that we get one or the other, instead of both at the same time, all the time. All good will leave the soul feeling satisfied in an afterlife and all bad will leave a permanent guilt on the soul. The balance is always there. To be 100% light or dark is a violation of Nature.
So were does personal choice fit in and how do you define each good or bad action by %? Your implying that there is no Personal choice.
So Hitler Murderd lots of peolpe please show his other 50% good that he did.
-
This is simple to answer, we are more adept at remembering bad things, and have stronger emotional reactions to them.
For example, would your reaction be stronger to this:
Finding a check, addressed to you for $1,000
Or this?:
Having $1,000 in your wallet, and then leaving it at the mall by accident
-Penguin
Fair enough...
But I think the reporters and their editorial directors who are in turn dictated to by their management "choose" to report the bad crap because it sells more copy...
Greed...self interest...Bad ?
-
lol
Okay, forget what I said about newspapers. Read any history book.
-
I know for a fact that there are good people in this world. i try my hardest to be one of them. i've met others out there also. some of them actually being in this game too. i also know that out there there are too many bad people to count. others will seem nice but will try anything to get ahead also
-
Ultimately I think it boils down to this:
If a fellow man asks for help...and you answer his call...do you choose so unconditionally...or do you expect pay back...?
Back to the the original posters question...and re-couching it...
Do you believe the majority of mankind on an individual case by case analysis would assist their fellow man with no expectation of beneficial return or contingent reciprocity ???
Hmmmm
-
I think the imbalance is evident throughout mankind's existence. Open up today's newspaper for example....
Yes Curv! I am right with you on that point. The problem with equilibrium is that it can mean hugely rich people on one scale balanced by many more less rich people on the other scale. The balance is not always obvious but in most cases can be geussed at such as this example. A feeling of imbalance could be blamed on being part of the negative side of the balance, if that makes any sense. Equilibrium defining not equality amoung existence at all, just that existence is a 4 and will always be constructed on a 2:2 format if it intends to continue existing.
-
Has someone been reading Lord of the Flies? :D
-
Yes Curv! I am right with you on that point. The problem with equilibrium is that it can mean hugely rich people on one scale balanced by many more less rich people on the other scale. The balance is not always obvious but in most cases can be geussed at such as this example. A feeling of imbalance could be blamed on being part of the negative side of the balance, if that makes any sense. Equilibrium defining not equality amoung existence at all, just that existence is a 4 and will always be constructed on a 2:2 format if it intends to continue existing.
You have already stated that every thing is perfectly balanced and people are 50% 50% so there is no way you can have equilibrium as some people that are not balanced.
-
So were does personal choice fit in and how do you define each good or bad action by %? Your implying that there is no Personal choice.
So Hitler Murderd lots of peolpe please show his other 50% good that he did.
I said people 'generally' are constructed of a rough balance of good and bad. There will always be exceptions to any law of nature. I did not intend to imply we had no choice which parts to exagerate about our nature. I am not sure actualy where you think I implied it. But not mentioning it of course I opened that door way of interpretation for you to walk through. Of course we have choices.
Hitler is a nice choice of study. Does the fact that he has been made an icon of 'evil' by our society not make everything we think we know about him biased? I am sure there were some positive actions in his life. The true evil of what he became is true. But ethnic cleansing happens still today globaly. If you take away the horrors of the concentration camps Hitler was just another capatalist expansionist doing a little better at it than the rest of the world.
As to definition of good and bad? You decide what you can live with yourself about. We are just animals there are no rules when we are dead.
-
You have already stated that every thing is perfectly balanced and people are 50% 50% so there is no way you can have equilibrium as some people that are not balanced.
read again Fire! You are forming a habbit of putting words into my mouth here
-
Everything in existence is in balance perfectly. Equaly. Good and bad exists equaly and generaly all people have an equaly light and dark side to their nature
No i am trying to understand what you are saying. Everything in existence is in balance perfectly. Except some humans? and for those that are unbalanced there would have to be others to and equal amout that are unbalanced.
Seems like the second guy has no choice he must be balanced based on the choice of the one that came before.
Do you see my point if some humans are unbalanced then EVERYthing In existence is not in balance. Further more if one human is unblanced were would you get the balance when the other person has not been born yet?
-
ok, i see.
think of it like this.
Person A. Has an equaly light a dark nature. But they never go to either of the extremes and they never really do much at all. The worst thing they are capable of is equal to the best thing. So as they are of no impact to anything.
Person B. Has an equaly light and dark nature. They are so extreme that they may go to extreme lengths to love and cherish one as pect of existence while happily letting the extreme of their dark/bad side murder or rape.
Person C. Has an equaly light and dark nature. They are moderate. They donate to charity but they also excesively punish their dog. This is the average person. Trying to do as many good things as possible but generally always having shortcoming of their own that create bad behaviour. We all try to pretend we have more good than bad but it often works about about even.
Person D. An exception Where they are perfectly good or perfectly bad without a known opposite nature. Sometimes just because the opposite nature is not visible perhaps, other times a genuine expection to the law.
see what im saying?
-
triple post
-
ever heard of moral relativity?
people will do what they personally feel is within morals, which may hardly be moral to another person.
-
If there are some that are unbalanced there are others that are extra balanced... I guess I don't understand what is so hard to understand about the concept?
-
people will do what they feel is within personal morals, which may not always be moral by another persons standards.
-
.
-
If there are some that are unbalanced there are others that are extra balanced... I guess I don't understand what is so hard to understand about the concept?
-
If there are some that are unbalanced there are others that are extra balanced... I guess I don't understand what is so hard to understand about the concept?
Where do you get the Magic to balance. The second guy would have no choice about being balanced or unbalanced.
-
People are good at birth, but unfortunately, they learn quickly. :devil
-
Hey you don't have to agree of course, but I think you still dont grasp the concept of balance I am describing.
I'm speaking in generalizations about the broad scale of existence. It has little really to do with individuals which is a subject you have diverted me onto with your interpretation of what I said.
-
Im just trying to stay in context of the O.P. .Maybe that's why I'm having trouble grasping your concept.
I dont think i am responsible for diverting you with my interpretation of individuals that's what A8tools post is about people. People are individuals.
-
the OP could be considered from two angles.
1) are 'people' (individuals) good or bad?
2) are 'people' (humanity as a whole) good or bad?
Good discussion anyhow, I'm enjoying the topic.
-
ok, i see.
think of it like this.
Person A. Has an equaly light a dark nature. But they never go to either of the extremes and they never really do much at all. The worst thing they are capable of is equal to the best thing. So as they are of no impact to anything.
Person B. Has an equaly light and dark nature. They are so extreme that they may go to extreme lengths to love and cherish one as pect of existence while happily letting the extreme of their dark/bad side murder or rape.
Person C. Has an equaly light and dark nature. They are moderate. They donate to charity but they also excesively punish their dog. This is the average person. Trying to do as many good things as possible but generally always having shortcoming of their own that create bad behaviour. We all try to pretend we have more good than bad but it often works about about even.
Person D. An exception Where they are perfectly good or perfectly bad without a known opposite nature. Sometimes just because the opposite nature is not visible perhaps, other times a genuine expection to the law.
see what im saying?
I grasp the concept of what your saying. The examples you gave are of specific individuals. How can I think anything Else. Persons A ,B ,and C are all the same you only changed the strength of their good and bad. Person D is unknown so does not apply or he is an exception which contradicts your law of balance. My questions are still the same if its universal ( as in the universe) or individual balance. Where do you get the Magic to balance. Required balance of good and bad requires a moral authority that already exists. It would require a preexistence of these terms defined and mathematically represented. You are talking about a highly organized system that can not be done with randomness.
Can we apply good and bad to anything other than individuals and their experiences?
-
You guys are working to hard at this. The curse or blessing of free will is the ability to choose how you react. It sucks cause it's so much more convenient to find reasons for being lousy to people around you. Recognizing right and wrong just isn't that hard when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world. Of course being responsible for how you act is much more boring, and doesn't make for good headlines, or profit for that matter.
And since we still exist, I'd suggest the majority of people are good, wanting to raise their families, live their lives and enjoy themselves. The 'bad' show up now and then forcing the 'good' to deal with them.
Kinda like your typical LW arena each night :)
-
There are some very good people in this world. The last guy posting here (Guppy) is one of 'em.
I respectfully submit that the trouble is that for every one of them there appears to be hundreds of not so good.
-
My Mom was best at teaching us these rules of behavior...
" If you don't have anything nice to say to your sister, then don't say it..... or I'll crack you a good one"
"Did you just hit your brother? How about I whack you with this rolled up magazine and see if you like it... does that sound fair?"
"We all take our fair portion of the steak, don't be a pig about it....or I will stick this fork in your elbow"
"I am the boss!! Go get the belt and I will teach you about being a nice person without that smart mouth of yours ...if I have to beat the living daylights out of you, you will learn!!"
"We will march right up to Jim's Grocery and tell him that you stole that pack of cherry koolaid. Don't tell me you didn't, or I'll crack you one!! That tongue of yours is so red, that I will have to make your donut bleed for 2 days to get that red... Gosh durn it ( different words I am sure you all know) I think I'll tell him to call the police to see if they need to arrest you..I won't have a thief living under my roof!!! " ( i was five i think ...lol )
I think it depends on how you were raised, be a good example to your children, and most people will be good.
Everyone makes mistakes, but it all depends if you live with a conscience and not live performing the science of the con.
NwBie
:old:
-
Fair enough...
But I think the reporters and their editorial directors who are in turn dictated to by their management "choose" to report the bad crap because it sells more copy...
Greed...self interest...Bad ?
You are correct sir, media today is in more of a "sensational" form than it was before. Even then, tales of murder would attract more attention than the birth of a beautiful baby. It is our very nature to react more strongly to negative things, and to exploit that nature is almost too easy.
It's not being evil, it's just that these people have to frighten people make money to put bread on the table. Really far back, we had to kill what we ate with our bare hands; now tell me which sounds worse.
Good job oneway, you get a cookie*
-Penguin
*Quote from Skuzzy
-
lol
Okay, forget what I said about newspapers. Read any history book.
Again, same thing, which is more interesting:
A.) Reading an awesome piece about the battle of hastings
B.) Reading an awesome piece about the post-battle feast
-Penguin
-
This Video touches on many truths and adds to what has already been said by many. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWzj78fSm-4&feature=related
-
Are people in general ..... GOOD IN NATURE :angel: or Bad :devil
in general, people are good.
in general people will remember bad things more clearly, than good things.
-
(http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/596/youpeople.jpg)
What do you mean "You People"?
:lol :rofl
-
in general, people are good.
in general people will remember bad things more clearly, than good things.
Yep, because if you'd have a choice between:
a.) There's an apple tree five miles from here
or
b.) There are crocodiles in the river by my house
Which would be more important, evolutionarily? B, since apples don't eat people, and there are other sources of food out there. On the other hand, a crocodile might come out of the river and eat you, and since it's right by your house, you have to carry a weapon.
-Penguin
-
I'm good.
No, really, I am.
What will it TAKE with you people?? :furious
Bacon flavored soda...
:noid
-
:devil
-BigBOBCH
-
Like my avatar? Amazing what one person can do. :)
It's up to you, and no one else. That's all that can be said here.
Oh by the way, my 'supplier' managed to grab a shipment of that youknowwhatkindofsoda. If you look under the old mill next to the new tree, you'll find a gift. :)
-
Take 2 newborns, raise them in the same enviroment, same stimulus same everything....
one will be the Don the other the Beatch.
'tis nature. Its not being 'bad' its being dominant. Its a survival trait. All creatures have it, even trees and plankton.
-
Good people don't come from bad families.
-
What do you mean good or bad in nature?
By who's or what standard?
It can only be totaled at the end of a life and would presuppose a supernatural entity capable of such a feat, and reason for doing so.
If it was left for just humans to decide and we just die then it doesn't matter.
This is something that is filtered through a persons world view.
Because of some of the hidden claims in the question it results in a logical fallacy. It presupposes a supernatural enity to be able to make the judgement based on absolutes. Most answers that are "good" will be based on some kind of evolutionary world view. Most "bad" answers will be based on some kind of ID or supernatural entity world view.
It's called a meta question. The answers have nothing to do with good or bad. It only will show what filter or world view a person uses.
-
What do you mean good or bad in nature?
By who's or what standard?
there it is! moral relativism.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3bfO1rE7Yg
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3bfO1rE7Yg
Cool vid.
At first I seen a juice man creeping up the alley and a man running from a broken..whatever they planned to do. Next i seen a man running from the cops MAYBE and into another man who feared for his safety in the second he had to react. Last I see the man who was on his toes and helped another avert possible death and or certain bodily harm at best successfully.
The film has no bearing on the actual question as he represents a small few of the population. Not many would have the reflex to do what he did. The majority of people would not risk their own hide to protect the innocent and probably take a stronger stance on keeping smokers out of public places than try to give attention to abolishing true evil in the world to give one shabby but effective example.
If you were to use the example of the AH general board, you might find many go without help when poised on a moral stance. ONCE ONE BEGINS TO POUNCE, the rest of the pack tears away at whats left as the side liners watch. They don't have enough courage to get involved even if they see wrong is being done. It's the fault of the poster and entertainment for the rest.
-
We've been surrounded by strangers that would do us harm.
We've been surrounded by strangers that would shelter us.
Keep your blood clean, your body lean, and your mind sharp.
And don't trust anyone. :aok
-
The video was intended to illustrate the subjectivity that is ever present in human interactions. Individuals even have inconsistencies and conflicts in their own values and beliefs, that's even before before we discuss interactions.
Regarding acts of heroism, I personally feel torn over the issue. On some core level of my character I find it noble and admirable, on another more rational or perhaps a 'colder' level, I think it's foolish and irrational.
Interesting discussion.
P.S. What's juice man?
-
Well, we've heard from Rosseau (man in nature is basically good), from Hume (life is nasty brutish and short, competition and dominance determining all), from the Yin and Yang of eastern philosophy, and maybe a hint of Judeo-Chrisitian tradition of original sin. (Note to Skuzzy - talking about the philosophical tradition, not the religion - staying clear of rules!)
There is a very long tradition originally called "Natural Law" but now morphed into many related ideas - like for example "human rights." The basic idea is that inside each of s there is a sense of right and wrong that is separate from the bare instinct that makes the lion behave the way he does. This sense of right and wrong is universal, understandable, and intrinsic.
Those who disagree have to address some problems with the alternatives
1. If there is no intrinsic sense of right and wrong, if everything is relative:
a. What exactly is missing in true psychopaths, who do not seem to have the ability to tell right from wrong
b. If morality is cultural convention, how can we have grounds to criticize cultures that we would like to think are immoral? "Immoral" behavior that is agreed on by an entire culture would have to be by definition moral for them, and thus every bit as valid as our current system.
2. If humanity is basically good, well, please explain the world in general!
a. People on their own do not behave in moral fashion. Cue "Lord of the Flies" and "Heart of Darkness". Ignoring literature, look at Somalia and other failed states. Without cultural restraints, well, it's not pretty. If you disagree, lets see some counterexamples.
b. Man in nature is not idyllic - Margaret Meade's studies in the early part of last century are now understood to have been distorted by expectations. Deeper, repeated studies of "unspoiled" cultures show all the greed, selfishnes, and incest that was supposed to be the result of horrible modernity
-
Well, we've heard from Rosseau (man in nature is basically good), from Hume (life is nasty brutish and short, competition and dominance determining all), from the Yin and Yang of eastern philosophy, and maybe a hint of Judeo-Chrisitian tradition of original sin. (Note to Skuzzy - talking about the philosophical tradition, not the religion - staying clear of rules!)
There is a very long tradition originally called "Natural Law" but now morphed into many related ideas - like for example "human rights." The basic idea is that inside each of s there is a sense of right and wrong that is separate from the bare instinct that makes the lion behave the way he does. This sense of right and wrong is universal, understandable, and intrinsic.
Those who disagree have to address some problems with the alternatives
1. If there is no intrinsic sense of right and wrong, if everything is relative:
a. What exactly is missing in true psychopaths, who do not seem to have the ability to tell right from wrongb. If morality is cultural convention, how can we have grounds to criticize cultures that we would like to think are immoral? "Immoral" behavior that is agreed on by an entire culture would have to be by definition moral for them, and thus every bit as valid as our current system.
2. If humanity is basically good, well, please explain the world in general!
a. People on their own do not behave in moral fashion. Cue "Lord of the Flies" and "Heart of Darkness". Ignoring literature, look at Somalia and other failed states. Without cultural restraints, well, it's not pretty. If you disagree, lets see some counterexamples.
b. Man in nature is not idyllic - Margaret Meade's studies in the early part of last century are now understood to have been distorted by expectations. Deeper, repeated studies of "unspoiled" cultures show all the greed, selfishnes, and incest that was supposed to be the result of horrible modernity
True, but what if we are the psychopaths, and they are the rational ones?
Yes, but you aren't very clear about what you want to say. Is this an example to further your point? Or are you making an observation?
Wait a minute, you just said that all morality is relative. Someone's worldview will match what the other person does, but others' will not. This is a truism, and it is a non-sequitur.
Truism, restatement of previous point, and a non-sequitur.
Try again :aok
-Penguin
-
Are people in general ..... GOOD IN NATURE :angel: or Bad :devil
There is no "Good" or "bad". It is all perspective.
There is a benefit/cost to every behavior. Humans assign moral values to behaviors (almost exclusively their own) which are not intrinsically valued at any other level.
-
What do you mean good or bad in nature?
By who's or what standard?
It can only be totaled at the end of a life and would presuppose a supernatural entity capable of such a feat, and reason for doing so.
If it was left for just humans to decide and we just die then it doesn't matter.
This is something that is filtered through a persons world view.
Because of some of the hidden claims in the question it results in a logical fallacy. It presupposes a supernatural enity to be able to make the judgement based on absolutes. Most answers that are "good" will be based on some kind of evolutionary world view. Most "bad" answers will be based on some kind of ID or supernatural entity world view.
It's called a meta question. The answers have nothing to do with good or bad. It only will show what filter or world view a person uses.
read the following storie.....then answer the 2 questions.
so first...how many really would have done that?
second....how many think that'll be remembered in a year?
http://www.bangordailynews.com/story/Statewide/NJ-man-returns-Maine-womans-missing-backpack-and-23000,157982
-
in general, people are good.
This statement, "in general people are good" cannot be balanced logically with empirical data. Moral relativism, and all. There is no "good" or "bad". There is only a cost/benefit analysis of every action. Sometimes our higher brain overrules our primitive one, sometimes it does not. There is no correlation of positive or negative in that.
Running into a burning building to help someone is touted as being "a good, selfless action". But, it is only "good" for the people or things that are "rescued". The individual that enters the building has absolutely nothing to gain. This is why you see people walking by others having heart attacks on the sidewalk (a very famous psychology experiment showed this). They processed the situation and saw nothing to gain on a primitive level, and continued on their way.
Some people are more selfless, others more selfish, and the rest of us are in between. But, there are no "good" or "bad".
-
This statement, "in general people are good" cannot be balanced logically with empirical data. Moral relativism, and all. There is no "good" or "bad". There is only a cost/benefit analysis of every action. Sometimes our higher brain overrules our primitive one, sometimes it does not. There is no correlation of positive or negative in that.
Running into a burning to help someone is touted as being "a good, selfless action". But, it is only "good" for the people or things that are "rescued". The individual that enters the building has absolutely nothing to gain. This is why you see people walking by others having heart attacks on the sidewalk (a very famous psychology experiment showed this). They processed the situation and saw nothing to gain on a primitive level, and continued on their way.
Some people are more selfless, others more selfish, and the rest of us are in between. But, there are no "good" or "bad".
bolded....i rest my case. "nothing to gain" is what makes this a "good" act. the problem, is that in 6 months, everyone will forget about it.
-
bolded....i rest my case. "nothing to gain" is what makes this a "good" act. the problem, is that in 6 months, everyone will forget about it.
But, define good, then.
You can't.
If he runs in "being good" and is killed, the act becomes "bad" for his family and friends, and his genetic line. This is why we are a mix of selfless and selfish, not good and bad. And it changes every second of every day.
One day you might help an old lady across the street. Two hours later, you drive by a guy broken down on the side of the highway without thinking. You processed the information, and acted in what can be construed as "good" or "bad" by anyone... but there is no such measure.
And it doesn't matter if any particular action is remembered. You seem to be stuck on that. I've personally saved 7 people's lives directly, over the course of my life (heart attacks, chokings and two near drownings). If I hadn't been at at least 5 of the incidents, they would have surely died. I've been thanked once. Is that good or bad? It can't be determined. I wasn't looking for recognition, I was honestly challenged by the incidents. That's why I got involved, not because I was "good".
-
in 6 months, everyone will forget about it.
So what's your point?
-
So what's your point?
my point is the second part of my original post......good in nature, but don't remember good things as well or vividly as they remember bad.....
-
True, but what if we are the psychopaths, and they are the rational ones?
Yes, but you aren't very clear about what you want to say. Is this an example to further your point? Or are you making an observation?
Wait a minute, you just said that all morality is relative. Someone's worldview will match what the other person does, but others' will not. This is a truism, and it is a non-sequitur.
Truism, restatement of previous point, and a non-sequitur.
Try again :aok
-Penguin
"What if we're the psychopaths" - Puh-lease. Read a little about what being a psychopath really means - Scientific American Mind had a really good article last month, should be available on line.
"Wait a minute...you just said" - Suggest you read a little more carefully. My statement was structured as an "if, then" proposition. Personally, I very much believe there is a Natural Law built into humanity. Those who believe in moral relativity, to be honest, haven't thought things through very well. In general, moral relativity sounds very open minded and good - up to the point that someone whose moral system does not condemn thievery takes all your stuff!
"truism- restatement" - yeah, didn't go strictly with a tightly organized outline. But saying that I said it twice doesn't address the question...in fact it rather nicely dodges it!
So I'd also suggest "try again"! :aok
-
my point is the second part of my original post......good in nature, but don't remember good things as well or vividly as they remember bad.....
Depends upon the stimulus, and the reward or cost of the action. Straightforward psychology.
-
This statement, "in general people are good" cannot be balanced logically with empirical data. Moral relativism, and all. There is no "good" or "bad". There is only a cost/benefit analysis of every action. Sometimes our higher brain overrules our primitive one, sometimes it does not. There is no correlation of positive or negative in that.
So with this logic, it would seem that inflaming hatred of a minority racial group in order to unify a entire nation and reestablish economic and political stability would be a net positive.
Is that truly what you believe?
-
But, define good, then.
You can't. good in nature.
If he runs in "being good" and is killed, the act becomes "bad" for his family and friends, and his genetic line. This is why we are a mix of selfless and selfish, not good and bad. And it changes every second of every day. in this case, his "intention" was good natured.
One day you might help an old lady across the street. Two hours later, you drive by a guy broken down on the side of the highway without thinking. You processed the information, and acted in what can be construed as "good" or "bad" by anyone... but there is no such measure.
And it doesn't matter if any particular action is remembered. You seem to be stuck on that. I've personally saved 7 people's lives directly, over the course of my life (heart attacks, chokings and two near drownings). I've been thanked once. Is that good or bad? It can't be determined. But, I wasn't looking for recognition, I was honestly challenged by the incidents. That's why I got involved, not because I was "good".
your last statement puts you as one of the good ones. when i mention something being remembered, i'm more leaning towards how we see it on tv.
suppose the heart attack victim you saved had been caught on tape, and broadcast on the local news. it would've gotten about 20 seconds, if that. six months down the road, no one would remember you or the victim. i understand you weren't looking for recognition.
but change it slighty. you saw the person having a heart attack, and pulled out a bayonette, and lodged it in their head. you and the victim will be remembered for years to come. and that would have made you bad in nature too.
-
your last statement puts you as one of the good ones. when i mention something being remembered, i'm more leaning towards how we see it on tv.
suppose the heart attack victim you saved had been caught on tape, and broadcast on the local news. it would've gotten about 20 seconds, if that. six months down the road, no one would remember you or the victim. i understand you weren't looking for recognition.
but change it slighty. you saw the person having a heart attack, and pulled out a bayonette, and lodged it in their head. you and the victim will be remembered for years to come. and that would have made you bad in nature too.
You're just stuck on the relativism. No act is inherently good or bad.
-
my point is the second part of my original post......good in nature, but don't remember good things as well or vividly as they remember bad.....
I wouldn't say that. I remember events on both sides of the spectra evenly.
-
No act is inherently good or bad.
Genocide?
Are you really saying that is the same as giving all your worldly goods to the poor?
-
Depends upon the stimulus, and the reward or cost of the action. Straightforward psychology.
i help people when i can. i've stopped, and pushed broken down cars out of the middle of the road, before the driver got killed. i've picked up peoples dropped wallets, and handed them back to them(when they didn't realize they had dropped them).
there was a bad accident on rt 676 about a year ago. it was about 1am. the honda was on it's roof, a chevy on it's side, and the cadi that caused the entire mess was on fire about 50 yards past the other two.
i think there were about 10 or us that stopped, and just ran to the different cars to try to help the people in them. those helping the people in the chevy got 2 people out, and the three of us helping the people in the honda got the passenger out, but could not move the driver. the driver of the cadi was running around threatening to shoot people.
the police and fire company got there pretty quickly, and asked us all to step back. that's the only time i can remember ever being in a possibly life saving position.......but there was no possibility of reward. didn't care. was a bad situation, and people needed help, and apparently a few other people thought the same thing.
-
I wouldn't say that. I remember events on both sides of the spectra evenly.
i try to do this too. but the question was "in general", thus my answer was "in general" also. :aok
-
i try to do this too. but the question was "in general", thus my answer was "in general" also. :aok
Oh. Well I guess i don't have access to the general population's memory banks to validate your claim.
-
Oh. Well I guess i don't have access to the general population's memory banks to validate your claim.
neither do i. i go by what i see.
-
Your still arguing over world views. Not good or bad. Good or bad can only be defined within a world view.
The question isn't do we know right or wrong how it gets there.(is it hard wired in)?
The question is are we good or bad natured?
For all the moral relativists out there you would know right or wrong if I took your wallet.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3bfO1rE7Yg
great vid shida!
-
For all the moral relativists out there you would know right or wrong if I took your wallet.
Quoted for truth!
-
Your still arguing over world views. Not good or bad. Good or bad can only be defined within a world view.
The question isn't do we know right or wrong how it gets there.(is it hard wired in)?
The question is are we good or bad natured?
For all the moral relativists out there you would know right or wrong if I took your wallet.
yea, 'cause it would be wrong for you to do so....and it would be just as wrong for me to "educate" you on just exactly why that was a mistake. but you would know it would have been right to not touch it. :devil :uhoh
-
On the topic of moral relativism the thing to keep in mind is rather we like it or not some people believe personally that a particular action is justified. Stealing a wallet is a pretty simple situation, but no body's arguing if stealing is wrong, how about more grayish areas such as abortion (girls who got raped aside).
Not picking either side, but saying here is an example in which some people think it's alright while others think they should never of gotten into the situation in the first place. who's good or bad there?
To the original question, people may do whatever they believe to them is best decision for the situation at hand, but "bad" people don't do things because they want to be bad, they are a product of their environment. If you lived in a bad neighborhood and made enough money to support your family but for some reason continued to get robbed of food, and no longer have what u need to provide for your family, taking that $20 dangling from that mans pocket (though bad) may seem like a better alternative to having to watch his kids go hungry when you go home. Their action may be the only way they know how to cope or is necessary to survive and the need to survive may drown out the feeling of even caring if the action is right or wrong.
flame on
-
I have been around the world doing both civil and government work......... I would say that the individual is good but the group is bad.
:salute
-
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
:)
-
I grasp the concept of what your saying. The examples you gave are of specific individuals. How can I think anything Else. Persons A ,B ,and C are all the same you only changed the strength of their good and bad. Person D is unknown so does not apply or he is an exception which contradicts your law of balance. My questions are still the same if its universal ( as in the universe) or individual balance. Where do you get the Magic to balance. Required balance of good and bad requires a moral authority that already exists. It would require a preexistence of these terms defined and mathematically represented. You are talking about a highly organized system that can not be done with randomness.
Can we apply good and bad to anything other than individuals and their experiences?
Hey dude, long time since i checked this one :)
Youre right about a,b,c being the same. I think I lost the track of my point in our last discussion by that post. The balance does not apply to individuals it applies to everything. So one truly evil person could be balanced by one truly good. So the law of balance as you call it, is not violated. It spans everything from physics to emotions. Some obvious examples:
rich people+poor people=balance, happy people+sad people = balance, 1 happy person who has a seperate equal sadness to endure = balance, etc.
I believe that most people tend to become balanced with equaly good and bad natured thoughts. Thoughts are what defines our nature more than our actions. If we could all read minds we would see just how twisted everybody really is deep down. But through our actions we convey our good/bad nature to others and that is where choice comes in.
There must surely be a big difference between human nature and human actions. Our actions are not governed by natural balance perhaps, though I think that they do create balance in the wide picture. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
-
Genocide?
Are you really saying that is the same as giving all your worldly goods to the poor?
I'm saying the implicit "value" of an action is placed by the morality of the society in question. What I believe makes no difference. My morality differs from yours and yours differs from the bum on the corner. Human psychology is constantly changing, and what we see as good or bad changes along with it. Furthermore, each society places a different value on each action.... therefore you can never measure it in terms of good and bad, logically, without any form of empiricism present.
-
Hey dude, long time since i checked this one :)
Youre right about a,b,c being the same. I think I lost the track of my point in our last discussion by that post. The balance does not apply to individuals it applies to everything. So one truly evil person could be balanced by one truly good. So the law of balance as you call it, is not violated. It spans everything from physics to emotions. Some obvious examples:
rich people+poor people=balance, happy people+sad people = balance, 1 happy person who has a seperate equal sadness to endure = balance, etc.
I believe that most people tend to become balanced with equaly good and bad natured thoughts. Thoughts are what defines our nature more than our actions. If we could all read minds we would see just how twisted everybody really is deep down. But through our actions we convey our good/bad nature to others and that is where choice comes in.
There must surely be a big difference between human nature and human actions. Our actions are not governed by natural balance perhaps, though I think that they do create balance in the wide picture. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
The balance must apply to individuals if it applys to everything. Individuals are a part of everything. Like i said i dont care if its individual or universal balance.
Balance is not intelligent it can do nothing. It is only representations of. This falls under the bus as a fallacy of Reification.
So you are describing a pre existing inteligents that acts using balance. Randomness can not be responsible for balance.
Your model of reality requires intelligents that pre exists. With out pre existing intelligents you are left with randomness. Which gets real messy real quick especially with a good bad representations. If your seeing balance on the level you describe I would have to believe in intelligent design.
Watch for the law of the excluded middle.
<S>
-
Can't we just let this thread die like nature intended?
-
Can't we just let this thread die like nature intended?
Not if you keep posting. :devil Nature is an abstraction. Nature intended is a fallacy of Reification.
-
Okay, allow me to rephrase that.
Can't we just let this thread die after this post as the Forum Gods wisheth?
-
Okay, allow me to rephrase that.
Can't we just let this thread die after this post as the Forum Gods wisheth?
so you'd like for none of us to post in this thread anymore, so it can die?
:devil
-
ok i think i understand, i'll have to think more about it. S!
-
Good or bad nature cannot be logically supported if it is relative or if it is just natural chemical reactions in the brain. There should be no such thing as crime in moral relativists world. Just survival of the fittest.
1. There is absolute truth
2. If there is absolute truth we can know it.
3. What is true for me is true for you.
Relativist must steal from absolute moralist to function. It's kleptomania. :D
The statement that " all morals are relative " is an absolute moral statement and a judgement. Therefore it is false by definition. It steals 1. From absolute truth, 2. It steals from absolute morals. In order to make a truth claim. In the process it violates the law of non contradiction, making it a false statement.
It's like me typing." I don't type a word of English.
-
yea, 'cause it would be wrong for you to do so....and it would be just as wrong for me to "educate" you on just exactly why that was a mistake. but you would know it would have been right to not touch it. :devil :uhoh
That is an absolute moral statement.
By using an absolute moral statement you would have me believe it's all relative.
You are bad natured. You want me to believe in something that is not true.
-
That is an absolute moral statement.
By using an absolute moral statement you would have me believe it's all relative.
You are bad natured. You want me to believe in something that is not true.
no...i am good natured.
if i were walking behind you in a parking lot, and you dropped your wallet.....i'd pick it up,and give it to ya.
if you take my wallet.....whelp....ya gets what ya deserves. :devil
-
The balance must apply to individuals if it applys to everything. Individuals are a part of everything. Like i said i dont care if its individual or universal balance.
Balance is not intelligent it can do nothing. It is only representations of. This falls under the bus as a fallacy of Reification.
So you are describing a pre existing inteligents that acts using balance. Randomness can not be responsible for balance.
Your model of reality requires intelligents that pre exists. With out pre existing intelligents you are left with randomness. Which gets real messy real quick especially with a good bad representations. If your seeing balance on the level you describe I would have to believe in intelligent design.
Watch for the law of the excluded middle.
<S>
I dont see why it must apply to individuals. I said it could do, if the individual was a balanced person. Kind of a stupid statement I know, but there it is.
I'm not suggesting a pre existing intelligents at all. I am making comparisons between physics and emotions. Magnatism is a good example of balance in physics. World economics are a good example of balance in materials (for one to be rich ten must be poor - etc). Finding the balance in global emotion is difficult. But I am in no way saying I think some magic balance monster is controlling everything. Just transporting physical laws to psychological laws and gathering small evidence when I can does not take away chaos. But chaos cannot tip the balance indefinitely, just cause the other side of the balance to require more mass.
example, WWII jews, terrible unexplainable evil commited, tips the balance towards bad. Now, nearly one hundred years of love and compassion later, I think it is the good emotion provoked by the evil deeds outweighing the initial hate.
-
It's how it applies not why.
"Balance does not apply to apples it applies to every fruit." Do you see the contradiction? Apples are fruit.
How can you have balance unless it applies indeed to everything?
You are now nominalizing good and bad into an emotion.
Balance of good and bad requires intelligence that pre exists. There is no way around this.
Take a scale and let randomness put weights on the scale. First off randomness is not intelligent it can not know that there is even a scale or that the scale has two sides.
The only way to balance the scale is with inteligents. The scale already exsits. Or u would not be able to balance it. Randomness cannot create the scale only inteligents can do that.
-
are you talking about good and bad nature or actions? Our nature is often balanced, our actions are the result of our thoughts and choice. I'm not trying to nominalise good and bad into an emotion, I am using the term 'emotion' to describe the full spectrum of our nature and how we feel inside.. Intelligence is not required to have balance in nature at all, I disagree comepltely there.
-
no...i am good natured.
if i were walking behind you in a parking lot, and you dropped your wallet.....i'd pick it up,and give it to ya.
if you take my wallet.....whelp....ya gets what ya deserves. :devil
I was replying ng to your statement that it is wrong for you to tell me its wrong to steal a wallet.
iknow it wrong to take someone elses wallet I never said different. You made the claim that it is relative.
I was making a point that if you use a false statement to get me to believe something I have to assume you did it on purpose. And that is wrong.
-
In Atlanta 4 teens at a party just decided to hit the next person. They beat and stomped a little 5' 6" 125 pound guy to death.
Some folks have no business living.
-
In Atlanta 4 teens at a party just decided to hit the next person. They beat and stomped a little 5' 6" 125 pound guy to death.
Some folks have no business living.
Anyone who doesn't better the human race is ultimately worthless...
-
Genocide?
Are you really saying that is the same as giving all your worldly goods to the poor?
You're stuck on the relativity-
Everyone has a slightly different set of rules, thus, both can be good, bad, or neither. Our minds have two parts, one reflexive, and one rational. The reflexive is used to dodge objects and make split-second decisions (live commodity futures trading, for example). This reflexive brain is streamlined, and lightning fast. It can also be extremly precise, with little information. The higher, rational brain is capable of empathy, and allows for 'noble' actions, such as rushing into a burning building to save someone.
However, no true altruism exists, everything is always quid-pro-quo, even when our reward brains reward us with endorphins (this reaction is triggered by taught values of actions).
For instnace, a friend of mine recently got suspeneded for doing something that made me fear for my life. When the friend came back, the first thing out of my mouth was a mention of the event, and the second thing was my foot. My friend ran out of the room, crying. At the precise moment that I made my reply, there was no moral judgement, simply an attempt by my body to assure that my genes would be passed on to future generations.
Later, I had to apologize profusely, and found out the true scope of the problem. To preserve my friend's dignity, I will go no further. An action can be 'good' one moment (cheating death) and bad the next (making your friend cry). In fact, it made me feel like a dirtbag.
-Penguin
-
I was replying ng to your statement that it is wrong for you to tell me its wrong to steal a wallet.
iknow it wrong to take someone elses wallet I never said different. You made the claim that it is relative.
I was making a point that if you use a false statement to get me to believe something I have to assume you did it on purpose. And that is wrong.
i said it is relative? i don't recall saying such.......
-
You're stuck on the relativity-
Everyone has a slightly different set of rules, thus, both can be good, bad, or neither. Our minds have two parts, one reflexive, and one rational. The reflexive is used to dodge objects and make split-second decisions (live commodity futures trading, for example). This reflexive brain is streamlined, and lightning fast. It can also be extremly precise, with little information. The higher, rational brain is capable of empathy, and allows for 'noble' actions, such as rushing into a burning building to save someone.
However, no true altruism exists, everything is always quid-pro-quo, even when our reward brains reward us with endorphins (this reaction is triggered by taught values of actions).
For instnace, a friend of mine recently got suspeneded for doing something that made me fear for my life. When the friend came back, the first thing out of my mouth was a mention of the event, and the second thing was my foot. My friend ran out of the room, crying. At the precise moment that I made my reply, there was no moral judgement, simply an attempt by my body to assure that my genes would be passed on to future generations.
Later, I had to apologize profusely, and found out the true scope of the problem. To preserve my friend's dignity, I will go no further. An action can be 'good' one moment (cheating death) and bad the next (making your friend cry). In fact, it made me feel like a dirtbag.
-Penguin
I fully understand what you are saying. But, I sense that you are missing the philosophical implications of what I'm asking. (Or, less likely, you might be dodging the answer.) If I seem to be "hung up on relativity", it's because all rational assessments flow from the initial grounds of the question.
Look at it this way:
IF - morality is relative, with no basis except the individual's neurologic responses or a society's training
THEN - you have to say that there is no foundation for criticizing another person's or country's decisions.
The implications of that are immense.
* There can be no such thing as Human Rights - because there is no foundation that has universal applicability
* You MUST also believe that genocide, such as in Rwanda or in Nazi Germany, is not a bad or evil thing. For those cultures in those times, there were rational reasons for those murders that made sense to them. We cannot criticize their position because it was OK for them where they stood.
* You must also allow historical wrongs, like slavery, to be just as moral for the slave owners as it is moral for us to NOT own slaves
* You must acknowledge that when other subcultures in our society steal, or perform home invasions, or murder for gain - there is not anything intrinsically wrong about those acts. They are the equivalent of a penalty in hockey, where "you got caught, go to the box" is the only censure
It seems to me that those positions are untenable.
-
I fully understand what you are saying. But, I sense that you are missing the philosophical implications of what I'm asking. (Or, less likely, you might be dodging the answer.) If I seem to be "hung up on relativity", it's because all rational assessments flow from the initial grounds of the question.
Look at it this way:
IF - morality is relative, with no basis except the individual's neurologic responses or a society's training
THEN - you have to say that there is no foundation for criticizing another person's or country's decisions.
The implications of that are immense.
* There can be no such thing as Human Rights - because there is no foundation that has universal applicability
* You MUST also believe that genocide, such as in Rwanda or in Nazi Germany, is not a bad or evil thing. For those cultures in those times, there were rational reasons for those murders that made sense to them. We cannot criticize their position because it was OK for them where they stood.
* You must also allow historical wrongs, like slavery, to be just as moral for the slave owners as it is moral for us to NOT own slaves
* You must acknowledge that when other subcultures in our society steal, or perform home invasions, or murder for gain - there is not anything intrinsically wrong about those acts. They are the equivalent of a penalty in hockey, where "you got caught, go to the box" is the only censure
It seems to me that those positions are untenable.
Ah, now we're on the same page! Yes, all rational actions are based upon the intial grounds of the argument.
No, no, no, you've got it all, wrong, look here, my good fellow: human rights are what has been decided upon by just about every single culture. Thus, 'society' is like a group of brains, with human minds forming each neuron. Thus, what each of the minds decide individually is also the view of the mind as a whole.
Now, on to the topic of genocide; in retrospect, seeing as we have a new opinion, we can criticize it, since our culture as a whole rejects it. Thus, 'right' and 'wrong' are not only relative, but subjective. If we were all Nazi's, (and we're not!) then the Holocaust would have been something more akin to what we did to the Native Americans (in my opinion, one of the most under-reported genocides in history).
-Penguin
-
are you talking about good and bad nature or actions? Our nature is often balanced, our actions are the result of our thoughts and choice. This requires inteligents!!! To make choices. Does it not.? I'm not trying to nominalise good and bad into an emotion, I am using the term 'emotion' to describe the full spectrum of our nature and how we feel inside.. Intelligence is not required to have balance in nature at all, I disagree comepltely there.
I think but im not sure ,but it looks like you are using the fallacy of equivocation. Were nature means one thing the first time you use it and something differant the other times.
I dont remember ever discusing balance in nature. We have been discussing balance in good and bad.
Our good and bad is often balanced. I am guessing thats what you mean when you say nature. How could you know this? Your claim implies knowledge and proof which i know you do not have.
How do you get balance with out intelligence? Balance can not act upon itself. Balance is an abstraction. Balance is a representation of something that already happened. So your missing something. The something that acts to do the balancing. That action has to be caused by something. There are only two possibility's NON intelligents (that's what rocks dream about}. nothingness.............. or intelligents.
-
Ah, now we're on the same page! Yes, all rational actions are based upon the intial grounds of the argument.
No, no, no, you've got it all, wrong, look here, my good fellow: human rights are what has been decided upon by just about every single culture. Thus, 'society' is like a group of brains, with human minds forming each neuron. Thus, what each of the minds decide individually is also the view of the mind as a whole.
Now, on to the topic of genocide; in retrospect, seeing as we have a new opinion, we can criticize it, since our culture as a whole rejects it. Thus, 'right' and 'wrong' are not only relative, but subjective. If we were all Nazi's, (and we're not!) then the Holocaust would have been something more akin to what we did to the Native Americans (in my opinion, one of the most under-reported genocides in history).
-Penguin
Again, you seem to be disagreeing with the foundational premise (that there might be a universal understandable "natural law", while using the premise itself at other points.
If "human rights have been decided upon by almost every single culture", then on what basis can they be extended to those cultures that have different views? Why should the majority have any right to extend their views on the minority who do not agree with what we call "human rights"?
And as far as the holocaust goes - my, my how circular the logic gets! You seem to say that if the Nazis all thought genocide was OK, then for them it was only mildly bad - like "what we did to the Indians". Of course, that begs the question - you are implying that the US historical treatment of Indians was wrong, while at the same time saying that the entire concept of "wrong" is a matter of opinion at worst or majority vote at best!
-
I think but im not sure ,but it looks like you are using the fallacy of equivocation. Were nature means one thing the first time you use it and something differant the other times.
I dont remember ever discusing balance in nature. We have been discussing balance in good and bad.
We have been discussing balance in good and bad nature, not in simple good or bad. The very topic contains the word nature. Human Nature - is it good or bad. Once again I state, our nature and our actions are very different.
Our good and bad is often balanced. I am guessing thats what you mean when you say nature. How could you know this? Your claim implies knowledge and proof which i know you do not have.
The same as your claim, you just refuse to look past your thoughts. I acknowledge your evidence and tackle it in my replies. You seem to ignore my comparison between physical balance and psychological. Many experiments in physics have acted as an example of balance that requires no intelligents (or none that we know of). You have no more proof to dispute natural psychological balance than I have to prove it.
How do you get balance with out intelligence?
Nature is balanced. A natural food chain is balanced. Physical laws are balanced. Life or death is a daily balance. Human nature is often balanced.
It is our intelligence that causes imbalance, not sustains balance.
Balance can not act upon itself.
Balance is the natural state of being. To achieve balance nothing must be tampered with at all.
Balance is an abstraction.
Disagree. Balance is normality. Imbalance is the abstraction.
Balance is a representation of something that already happened.
How can this be true? Many things cycle in a constant balance in real time.
So your missing something. The something that acts to do the balancing. That action has to be caused by something. There are only two possibility's NON intelligents (that's what rocks dream about}. nothingness.............. or intelligents.
Put water and oil in a cup in equal portions. Balance will be achieved without intelligents. Physics to psychology, if you dont like the concept I don't wish to push it on you.
-
Again, you seem to be disagreeing with the foundational premise (that there might be a universal understandable "natural law", while using the premise itself at other points.
If "human rights have been decided upon by almost every single culture", then on what basis can they be extended to those cultures that have different views? Why should the majority have any right to extend their views on the minority who do not agree with what we call "human rights"?
And as far as the holocaust goes - my, my how circular the logic gets! You seem to say that if the Nazis all thought genocide was OK, then for them it was only mildly bad - like "what we did to the Indians". Of course, that begs the question - you are implying that the US historical treatment of Indians was wrong, while at the same time saying that the entire concept of "wrong" is a matter of opinion at worst or majority vote at best!
Natural Law is illogical because it requires a sentient being to interpret it. All sentient beings are biased in one way or another due to how they were raised, and thus even if there were one natural law, we wouldn't see it. This is due to the natural distortion that our own minds create.
Human Rights are whatever a culture deems them to be, and if some oppose it, that is only natural. Furthermore, I feel that the whole concept of them is logical only if view from a particular perspective: evolution. We want to survive, we want to reproduce, and we want our children to reproduce. Thus, we want the species to continue on (albeit in our own image). If our biodiversity suffers, then so do the reproductive effectiveness of the carriers of our genes.
I did not say that what we did to the Native Americans was wrong, I said that it was genocide, and not a well known genocide. This is a classic example of accidental distortion- you added tone to a literal phrase, and it wasn't your fault either. Without tone, we cannot understand all but the simplest ideas.
-Penguin
-
Natural Law is illogical because it requires a sentient being to interpret it. All sentient beings are biased in one way or another due to how they were raised, and thus even if there were one natural law, we wouldn't see it....
Does the presence of a bias to interpretation entirely preclude the existence of meaning?
-
So there are all sorts of factors that go into account before a person decides on what action is taken and which change how a person thinks regardless of of it is "right or wrong" (right or wrong being set by the surrounding society). That's what this thread seems to be saying.
factors
1 what they believe to be right, as far as they know
2 what others as a large group tell them is right
3 what others threaten an individual into doing or the need to survive.
4 The health state of that persons brains.
5. The repetition of a message
etc.
These factors all bias a persons thought and in the end will overall lead to an action they will choose to make.
-
i said it is relative? i don't recall saying such.......
yea, 'cause it would be wrong for you to do so....and it would be just as wrong for me to "educate" you on just exactly why that was a mistake. but you would know it would have been right to not touch it.
I hope you find this a friendly discussion as tone sometimes does not come through in writing. :salute
If I have understood this wrong let me know.
In the above quote you are telling me that it is wrong for you to educate me on exactly why it is wrong to steal your wallet, then you negate it with the word but, and tell me that it is wrong. :D
1. Why is it wrong for you to educate me that it is wrong?
2. How do you know it is wrong?
3. It is wrong for you to "educate" me on why it was a mistake, but not wrong for you to educate me why it is wrong for "me to do so"? Did I understand it right?
It sounds like a relative position. So even though you didn't outright say it, your statement implies a hidden claim of moral relativity. :headscratch:
-
Natural Law is illogical because it requires a sentient being to interpret it. All sentient beings are biased in one way or another due to how they were raised, and thus even if there were one natural law, we wouldn't see it. This is due to the natural distortion that our own minds create.
Human Rights are whatever a culture deems them to be, and if some oppose it, that is only natural. Furthermore, I feel that the whole concept of them is logical only if view from a particular perspective: evolution. We want to survive, we want to reproduce, and we want our children to reproduce. Thus, we want the species to continue on (albeit in our own image). If our biodiversity suffers, then so do the reproductive effectiveness of the carriers of our genes.
I did not say that what we did to the Native Americans was wrong, I said that it was genocide, and not a well known genocide. This is a classic example of accidental distortion- you added tone to a literal phrase, and it wasn't your fault either. Without tone, we cannot understand all but the simplest ideas.
-Penguin
This is due to the natural distortion that our own minds create.
How do you know anything you are posting if this statement is true? How can you claim everyone's mind distorts information?
You are claiming you have the truth that there is no natural law yet you just said no one can see it because our minds distort it. How are you able to see this absolute truth but no other one.
evolution is a non intelligent unguided process. It only has survival value. So it is illogical for you to claim logic from this world view.
a debate presupposes the laws of logic, since evolution cannot account for such laws, this proves that there are absolute truths. Only one world view can account for these laws and a sentient being capable of it.
:)
-
We have been discussing balance in good and bad nature, not in simple good or bad. What is the difference?The very topic contains the word nature. Human Nature - is it good or bad. Once again I state, our nature and our actions are very different. Our nature? Nature is non intelligent. Our nature is nothing more than random chemical interactions.
The same as your claim, you just refuse to look past your thoughts. I acknowledge your evidence and tackle it in my replies. You seem to ignore my comparison between physical balance and psychological. Many experiments in physics have acted as an example of balance that requires no intelligent (or none that we know of). You have no more proof to dispute natural psychological balance than I have to prove it. Random chemical interactions in the brain do not create balance it creates unbalance . Choice which requires intellects can balance or it can unbalance further.Nature is balanced. A natural food chain is balanced. Physical laws are balanced. Life or death is a daily balance. Human nature is often balanced. Should you expect this from a random chemical interaction worldview?
It is our intelligence that causes imbalance, not sustains balance. Negative ghost rider. intelligence can balance or imbalance. . We would except random chemical reactions to do just that randomize.
Balance is the natural state of being. To achieve balance nothing must be tampered with at all. Dont eat for about 10 days and tell me this is true. Just going to guess here but i think you are going to be pretty unbalanced.
Disagree. Balance is normality. Imbalance is the abstraction. With out intelligent humans would all stave to death. eating requires action and you have aleady defined a difference between our nature and action.
How can this be true? Many things cycle in a constant balance in real time. If it is cycling it can not be in balance at the same time. The very word cycle states the opposite of balance. Balance must already happen or you cant say it is balanced. It would be unbalanced unless it has already happend.
Put water and oil in a cup in equal portions. Balance will be achieved without intelligent. Please use an example that does not use intelligent. I would be more open to that kind of example.Physics to psychology, if you dont like the concept I don't wish to push it on you. . If it was not a logical fallicy i would be more open to the comparison. Balance in physics does not equal balance in psychology.
Great discussion bat.
1. From a non intelligent worldview how do you get good and bad? We are nothing but random chance. There is no reason why we are here. There are no penalties after we die. There can be no good and bad. Mob rule may make a common reality when we choose to agree. It does not make good and bad.
2. Is it logically true for good and bad to exist in a world of random chance and non intelligents?
3. Did good and bad exist before human intelligent?
-
Another challengine reply, thanks. I will have to reply to the green later when i have time! I will do i promise.
question 1. These statements, to me, appear to be partialy your beliefs and partialy your predictions and observations. I can't answer anythign here.
2. No, but it is logically true for positive and negative to exist in a world of random chance. The physics again, I know. Replace those two with the two most powerfull human emotions. Love and hate. It is clear to me that our global human nature must be comprised of an extreme ammount of hate to fully appreciate the extremes of love. Without the hate, love would be worth less. It is my suggestion that a majority of individuals, when we forget the global scale, are comprised of roughly equal portions of love and hate.
More importantly to me is the prediction that even without any hate left, love would inspire hate somehow. Two people loving the same person and only one getting loved back is a prime example. So hate is unavoidable if we want to love. The positive and negative of human nature for you.
3. Possitive and negative did, it just had not been translated into consious emotion.
side note - on the nature vs actions: We might think to kill but not do it. This would make our nature 'more bad' than our actions.
i'll come back to this for the green.
-
Does the presence of a bias to interpretation entirely preclude the existence of meaning?
You just proved my point- literal definitions are set in stone, interpreting them gives them meaning.
For example, the term 'retard'
Originally, it meant someone whose development was slowed1
Now, it means (to most) someone who is mentally normal, but simply foolish (much to the dismay of actual retards, I might add)
As you can see, the definition didn't change, but the meaning did- from a direct way to say that someone's development was slowed, to merely an insult.
-Penguin
Sources:
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retard)
-
Another challengine reply, thanks. I will have to reply to the green later when i have time! I will do i promise.
question 1. These statements, to me, appear to be partialy your beliefs and partialy your predictions and observations. I can't answer anythign here. Cant argue with that.
2. No, but it is logically true for positive and negative to exist in a world of random chance. The physics again, I know. Replace those two with the two most powerfull human emotions. Love and hate. It is clear to me that our global human nature must be comprised of an extreme ammount of hate to fully appreciate the extremes of love. Without the hate, love would be worth less. It is my suggestion that a majority of individuals, when we forget the global scale, are comprised of roughly equal portions of love and hate.
More importantly to me is the prediction that even without any hate left, love would inspire hate somehow. Two people loving the same person and only one getting loved back is a prime example. So hate is unavoidable if we want to love. The positive and negative of human nature for you.
3. Possitive and negative did, it just had not been translated into consious emotion. So good and bad does not exist without intelligence. side note - on the nature vs actions: We might think to kill but not do it. This would make our nature 'more bad' than our actions. I have to think about killing just to understand what you said. Your still applying things to nature that i am not sure is possible. I will have to come back to this .i have to go to work. I will see if i can explain in a logical way.i'll come back to this for the green.
-
You just proved my point- literal definitions are set in stone, interpreting them gives them meaning.
For example, the term 'retard'
Originally, it meant someone whose development was slowed1
Now, it means (to most) someone who is mentally normal, but simply foolish (much to the dismay of actual retards, I might add)
As you can see, the definition didn't change, but the meaning did- from a direct way to say that someone's development was slowed, to merely an insult.
-Penguin
Sources:
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retard)
I'm not sure I follow your point - unless I didn't communicate mine well....which I'm thinking is the case.
When I said "meaning" I wasn't talking about "definition", the semantically oriented sense of the word. Instead, I was talking about more of a Platonic ideal - the thought that some things have meaning or substance in themselves. Think about the contrast between the "meaning" of "red octagon with STOP written on it" and the meaning of "5+7=12." One is a purely societal construct, while the other is a representation of a concept with non-subjective meaning, expressed in TERMS that are societally agreed upon. That's a subtle, but essential, distinction.
BTW, Penguin - thanks for an interesting and thoroughly civil discussion. I suspect deep down that you and I are starting from different places, and on BBS's that commonly doesn't bode well - but this has been fun!
-
Great discussion bat.
1. From a non intelligent worldview how do you get good and bad? We are nothing but random chance. There is no reason why we are here. There are no penalties after we die. There can be no good and bad. Mob rule may make a common reality when we choose to agree. It does not make good and bad.
2. Is it logically true for good and bad to exist in a world of random chance and non intelligents?
3. Did good and bad exist before human intelligent?
Penguin and I have been having similar discussions parallel to yours but up till now not intersecting. Thought I'd toss in a few ideas.
1. By "non-intelligent worldview" I'm assuming you don't mean "flat earth society"! "Intelligent Design" can be used as a cover for theism, and I'm betting that's what youre talking about.
For many with a viewpoint that is "materialist" (meaning all that exists is the material world) and even "material determinist" (materialist who also believes that mechanistic chemical or physical properties control our thoughts, minds, and experiences), morality is only a socially agreed on arbitrary ruleset. This is the post modern view that everything is relative. With the foundation, the only thing that determines who makes the rules is who has the power to do so. In this view, nothing is absolute or unchangeable.
However it is also possible to be both materialist and believe in "morality." We've been talking some about natural law, the idea that there is a ruleset programmed into humanity and at some level common to all of us. While some theists will talk about natural law (for them the "Law Giver" is God), it is also entirely possible to conceive of natural law as an instinct that is beyond instinct, an evolutionarily developed meta-rule that drives us to certain ideals (instead of regular instinct, that drives us to certain actions like eating or sex).
For natural law theorists, the origin of morality is thus a set of principles that is accessible to just about everyone and is consistent across cultures. To steal a quote, "A man might believe it is allowable to have one wife or to have many, but he may not have any woman he wants."
-
Penguin and I have been having similar discussions parallel to yours but up till now not intersecting. Thought I'd toss in a few ideas.
1. By "non-intelligent worldview" I'm assuming you don't mean "flat earth society"! "Intelligent Design" can be used as a cover for theism, and I'm betting that's what youre talking about.
For many with a viewpoint that is "materialist" (meaning all that exists is the material world) and even "material determinist" (materialist who also believes that mechanistic chemical or physical properties control our thoughts, minds, and experiences),Basically we can not know anything because we are controlled by random chemical reactions. The problem is this claim claims to know something- therefore it is false. It violates its own claim. morality is only a socially agreed on arbitrary ruleset. This is the post modern view that everything is relative. With the foundation, the only thing that determines who makes the rules is who has the power to do so. In this view, nothing is absolute or unchangeable. Every thing is relative claims to be True --- not relative. therefore it is false. it violates its own rule.
However it is also possible to be both materialist and believe in "morality." We've been talking some about natural law, the idea that there is a ruleset programmed into humanity and at some level common to all of us. While some theists will talk about natural law (for them the "Law Giver" is God), it is also entirely possible to conceive of natural law as an instinct that is beyond instinct, an evolutionarily developed meta-rule that drives us to certain ideals (instead of regular instinct, that drives us to certain actions like eating or sex). Nature is a chain of event not the events themselves. Nature is not intelligent. It would only be possible for nature to create something randomly by chance. So even if it has survival value there can not be a reason for it. So no real morality can not logically exist. Morality from a materialist or natural law worldview is completely irrational. Intelligence can override any meta program which proves that a preprogrammed morality is just random at best. Its just an accident. Nature can not know when it has failed or succeeded.
For natural law theorists, the origin of morality is thus a set of principles that is accessible to just about everyone and is consistent across cultures. To steal a quote, "A man might believe it is allowable to have one wife or to have many, but he may not have any woman he wants." Morality is accessible to everyone, but only a intelligent design world view allows it to be logically possible.
-
1. By "non-intelligent worldview" I'm assuming you don't mean "flat earth society"! "Intelligent Design" can be used as a cover for theism, and I'm betting that's what youre talking about.
1. By "intelligent Design worldview" I'm assuming you don't mean " round earth society "! non-intelligent, materialist, evolutionist, worldview" can be used as a cover for atheism, and I'm betting that's what you're talking about.
I think I stated in my first post this was about world views.
I have to admit Simaril that is one of the most clever ad hominem fallacies I've ever seen.
We need to clear the logic fallacy hurdles first.
This could stay a philosophical, critical thinking debate.
Intellectual bankruptcy will hit before this ever becomes another kind of debate.
"it is also entirely possible to conceive of natural law as an instinct that is beyond instinct,"
This argument presupposes intelligence to even conceive it. The argument has an intelligent designer, you! IT has nothing to do with theism.
1. natural law is instinct.
2. evolution developed instinct.
3. therefore natural law is developed by evolution.
Natural law is known by reason and logic.
I propose that logic and reason presuppose intelligence. Therefore to my view.
1. Natural law presuppose intelligence
2. evolution by definition is non-intelligent
3. Therefore evolution cannot create natural law.
-
In if we are not able to 'know' anything (as we are a series of random chemical reactions), then the whole idea of this debate is illogical.
However, our chemical reactions are, for the most part, ordered, and capable of retaining information. This is how we 'know' things. However, we must make a few assumptions before this debate can continue:
- None of us is an all-knowing being, and thus this debate is limited by our knowledge
- What we percieve is reality, as if we cannot percieve it, it is of no use to us in moral choices (however, perception also includes second-hand information)
These are to exclude the utterly bizzare (i.e. The whole world is actually controlled by squirrels with cameras! :noid)
Anyway, I take the view of all morality is relative, subjective and goverened by the laws of science. In essence, it doesn't matter who has the biggest stick, it matters who is swinging the biggest stick.
-Penguin
-
In if we are not able to 'know' anything (as we are a series of random chemical reactions), then the whole idea of this debate is illogical.
However, our chemical reactions are, for the most part, ordered, and capable of retaining information. This is how we 'know' things. However, we must make a few assumptions before this debate can continue:
- None of us is an all-knowing being, and thus this debate is limited by our knowledge
- What we percieve is reality, as if we cannot percieve it, it is of no use to us in moral choices (however, perception also includes second-hand information)
These are to exclude the utterly bizzare (i.e. The whole world is actually controlled by squirrels with cameras! :noid)
Anyway, I take the view of all morality is relative, subjective and goverened by the laws of science. In essence, it doesn't matter who has the biggest stick, it matters who is swinging the biggest stick.
-Penguin
Good post, logically and internally consistent.
So then - from your last statement -- can there be such a thing as an immoral government, or is that a paradox?
-
1. By "non-intelligent worldview" I'm assuming you don't mean "flat earth society"! "Intelligent Design" can be used as a cover for theism, and I'm betting that's what youre talking about.
1. By "intelligent Design worldview" I'm assuming you don't mean " round earth society "! non-intelligent, materialist, evolutionist, worldview" can be used as a cover for atheism, and I'm betting that's what you're talking about.
I think I stated in my first post this was about world views.
I have to admit Simaril that is one of the most clever ad hominem fallacies I've ever seen.
Have to admit I'm a little confused. I agree that one's idea of morality flows from one's world view, without any doubt at all.
But I'm befuddled about where you get "ad hominem"? I have in no way attacked anyone's integrity, intelligence, or value as a person. Unless you have a misconception about what the term means, I think you've made a non sequitur. (Might want to look that one up too. <grin>)
I'm also confused about the "fallacy" part of the comment. Your quotes refer to what amounts to the "since I didn't quite see just exactly what you were talking about, this is how I took your comment" part of the quoted post. There was no logic or conclusion involved. So what's the fallacy?
-
Nature is a chain of event not the events themselves. Nature is not intelligent. It would only be possible for nature to create something randomly by chance. So even if it has survival value there can not be a reason for it. So no real morality can not logically exist. Morality from a materialist or natural law worldview is completely irrational. Intelligence can override any meta program which proves that a preprogrammed morality is just random at best. Its just an accident. Nature can not know when it has failed or succeeded.
Don't make the mistake of assuming I am going somewhere with the discussion, and then arguing against what I expect I am going to say next. In fact, I'm suspicious that what you THINK I believe is 180 degrees different from what I REALLY believe.
Now, on to your argument. For the materialist, nature can only create something randomly - absolutely true. But you're leaving out one important factor - natural selection. Among all the random things that develop, things that randomly correlate with reality are more likely to survive than things which do not.
For example, a random genetic development that makes someone believe "My six shooter has enough bullets to let me fire one at each of my 12 enemies" is not likely to make it to the next generation!
In this way, randomness can come to appreciate and value things that are objectively true, even without a Designer. With enough time, sequential and additional correlations with reality might explain actual intelligence and reliable approximations with reality.
And what is reality? For the materialist, the only Truth is physics.
-
In if we are not able to 'know' anything (as we are a series of random chemical reactions), then the whole idea of this debate is illogical. Agreed if we are not able to know then we are unable to know logic. Since we are having a logical discussion then we do know something.
However, our chemical reactions are, for the most part, ordered, and capable of retaining information. This is how we 'know' things. However, we must make a few assumptions before this debate can continue: Contradiction: your fist claim stated that we are random chemical reactions. Your second claim states that we are ordered this is HOW we are able to know things. . Therefore we are not random chemical reactions we are ordered.- None of us is an all-knowing being, and thus this debate is limited by our knowledge
- What we percieve is reality, as if we cannot percieve it, it is of no use to us in moral choices (however, perception also includes second-hand information)
These are to exclude the utterly bizzare (i.e. The whole world is actually controlled by squirrels with cameras! :noid)
Anyway, I take the view of all morality is relative, subjective and goverened by the laws of science. In essence, it doesn't matter who has the biggest stick, it matters who is swinging the biggest stick.
Morality claims to be true not relative. laws of science can not be laws if they are relative Laws claim truth not relative. Again your making a truth claim not a relative claim. this is a contradiction therefore not possible.-Penguin
-
Don't make the mistake of assuming I am going somewhere with the discussion, and then arguing against what I expect I am going to say next. In fact, I'm suspicious that what you THINK I believe is 180 degrees different from what I REALLY believe. If logic is true and if i use logic correctly then I can only go were logic takes me. So I can not make the mistake of assuming were u are going.
Now, on to your argument. For the materialist, nature can only create something randomly - absolutely true. But you're leaving out one important factor - natural selection. Among all the random things that develop, things that randomly correlate with reality are more likely to survive than things which do not. Where do you get reality from? Your claim makes a distinction between the two so they are not the same thing. Your claim presupposes that reality already exists. Reality claims to be true and known not random. If it is random its truth can not be known. If reality exists before randomness(natural selection) the it requires pr existing intelligent because we did not exist yet.
For example, a random genetic development that makes someone believe "My six shooter has enough bullets to let me fire one at each of my 12 enemies" is not likely to make it to the next generation! Your claiming we can not know anything. Yet your making a truth claim. So your example can not be true.
In this way, randomness can come to appreciate and value things that are objectively true, even without a Designer. With enough time, sequential and additional correlations with reality might explain actual intelligence and reliable approximations with reality. Randomness can not appreciate anything this is a fallacy of Reification.
Therefore this one is false also.
And what is reality? For the materialist, the only Truth is physics. I have already show this to be false. Logic is not meterial or physics. You can not make your logical statment with out logic. Therefore your statement can only be false.
[/color]
-
Gotta say, you're using the word logic without relying too much on the process. :D
Couple points.
You have not established that "if it is random, truth cannot be known." Randomness clearly exists in reality without creating a logical paradox. Vegas has not caused a disruption in the space time continuum!
You have said that I am claiming that "we cannot know anything", but I have not said any such thing.
As for reification - puh-lease. Since you missed the interpolations, I'll be concrete and explicit. When I said "randomness" I was hoping you'd follow the implication: "In this way, [the process of successive random events and ensuing natural selection] can progressively [approximate] reality.
-
I may have missed the point.
Here is how I understood it. Claims or conclusions can be hidden, not just overt.
1. ID can be a cover for theism. Premise
2. I'm betting that's what you are talking about. Premise
3. You have a hidden or inferred conclusion. That he is talking about theism not intelligence, and by using the word cover you are implying that he either doesn't know it, or is being sneaky about it.
I think it is clear that he knows what his world view is. It is clear to me what his world view is.
In a discussion like this it is assumed by most reading that evolution is the only scientific or logical world view.
Therefore if a person can point out that hey everyone he is a theist hey just can't be logical.
That is my take on it.
Please explain the positive reason for the statement if I took it wrong.
Every time we make a statement that has a premise or conclusion (hidden or overt) it is logical. It may not be sound or valid. But still a informal logic statement.
If you leave claims hidden then there seems to be a reason. If not you must expect for someone to take it for less or more than you intended.
More later I have to go for now. I find the discussion fun and informative. I hope it doesn't come across as a personal attack. I hope I misunderstood your statement.
-
I may have missed the point.
Here is how I understood it. Claims or conclusions can be hidden, not just overt.
1. ID can be a cover for theism. Premise
2. I'm betting that's what you are talking about. Premise
3. You have a hidden or inferred conclusion. That he is talking about theism not intelligence, and by using the word cover you are implying that he either doesn't know it, or is being sneaky about it.
I think it is clear that he knows what his world view is. It is clear to me what his world view is.
In a discussion like this it is assumed by most reading that evolution is the only scientific or logical world view.
Therefore if a person can point out that hey everyone he is a theist hey just can't be logical.
That is my take on it.
Please explain the positive reason for the statement if I took it wrong.
Every time we make a statement that has a premise or conclusion (hidden or overt) it is logical. It may not be sound or valid. But still a informal logic statement.
If you leave claims hidden then there seems to be a reason. If not you must expect for someone to take it for less or more than you intended.
More later I have to go for now. I find the discussion fun and informative. I hope it doesn't come across as a personal attack. I hope I misunderstood your statement.
'Kay, seems like what we're doing is just a little miscommunication.
My original statement was meant to be a lighthearted tease about the statement I quoted "...A non-intelligent view..."
Literally, that means a stupid view, right? But I knew that wasn't what you meant, so I tried to make a quip and move on from there. In text discussions, it's easy for those kind of ironic statements to come across wrong - and that's what happened here.
No offense was intended, and no slight was meant.
And as for the "cover for theism" - an unfortunate phrasing that reinforced the impression that I was down on theists. On top of the misfired banter, I can see how an aggressive attitude may have come across. Sorry about that! Entirely accidental.
Now, as for theism and atheism. On this bulletin board we may not discuss religion. So we are not. We are discussing what amounts to a philosophy of knowledge, and of the nature of knowing. And since our views of the nature of knowing, and the nature of reality, are greatly influenced by those things that may not be discussed here -- there will be considerable inclarity at times. We'll just have to be patient with each other and clarify as we go along!
-
Gotta say, you're using the word logic without relying too much on the process. :D A materialist only knows physics as truth. Logic is neither material or physics. You claim implies logic is false. How do you logically account for logic?Couple points.
You have not established that "if it is random, truth cannot be known." You are misquoting me and re-framing. I said " if reality is random its truth can not be know" Randomness clearly exists in reality without creating a logical paradox. Vegas has not caused a disruption in the space time continuum! If you roll a dice you have to guess what number will come up. that's why its called gambling. If reality is random you can't know its truth.
You have said that I am claiming that "we cannot know anything", but I have not said any such thing. "a random genetic development that makes someone believe" that he has 12 bullets maybe poor guy might just have 2. Clearly this is a false reality, so six shooter does not know the true reality. That leaves just you and me. How can we know the true reality? You have a mutation also.
As for reification - puh-lease. Since you missed the interpolations, I'll be concrete and explicit. When I said "randomness" I was hoping you'd follow the implication: "In this way, [the process of successive random events and ensuing natural selection] can progressively [approximate] reality. Six shooter is already dead, cause by a mutation giving him a false reality. Not sure why an ensuing event is needed. Why do we need random events to approximate reality?
You completely change the discusion from good and bad to reality.
-
Going down a crazy road doesn't make you crazy Pengi.
True, but what if we are the psycho-paths, and they are the rational ones?
Dam It........ Listen to what I said, this convo is ova!!!!! REEEES
(http://bobarnebeck.com/damlog1nov.jpg)
I have been around the world doing both civil and government work......... I would say that the individual is good but the group is bad.
:salute
-
Selfish. Even giving is mostly a selfish act.
-
FireDrgn, I'm done. I can't make sense of what you're saying, and you don't seem to be able to follow what I'm saying. With that much miscommunication, there's not much sense going on.
<S>
-
This is due to the natural distortion that our own minds create.
How do you know anything you are posting if this statement is true? How can you claim everyone's mind distorts information?
You are claiming you have the truth that there is no natural law yet you just said no one can see it because our minds distort it. How are you able to see this absolute truth but no other one.
evolution is a non intelligent unguided process. It only has survival value. So it is illogical for you to claim logic from this world view.
a debate presupposes the laws of logic, since evolution cannot account for such laws, this proves that there are absolute truths. Only one world view can account for these laws and a sentient being capable of it.
:)
Please, next time, don't bold the whole thing, just use the "Quote" button on the bottom of my posts!
Your first statement makes no sense at all- I did not say that this is an absolute truth. I said that for all encounters that I've ever had, nobody has ever robotically carried out instructions. Here's a perfect example: accents, everyone has one, and none of them is either correct or incorrect.
Next, evolution is logical. Only the fittest will survive! Why would those unfit to reproduce do so? If that statement weren't true, life wouldn't occur. If a deadly congenital heart condition suddenly swept through the population, it would die. Evolution doesn't 'know' what it is doing because it isn't an object, it's a process. What you're saying is that a oxidation is illogical because it doesn't know what it's changing!
Furthermore, you are self contradictory: first you said that evolution has survival value (which is logical), and then said that evolution is illogical (without backing it up).
In addition to your other errors, you have made an unnecessary statement. Of course a debate presupposes the laws of logic, if didn't, it wouldn't be a debate, it would be a shouting match.
Finally, you have created a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy. You have assumed that it if evolution isn't logical, that there are absolute truths. You must first prove that statement, and then you can try to prove evolution illogical to that end.
I will close with this statement, re-organize your logic so that it may be comprehended easily, and realize that if there is so much as one unsupported statement in your argument, the whole thing is balderdash.
-Penguin
PS We're getting really close to being ban-hammered, guys. Let's cut the crud about evolution and get back to the original debate- I'm not in good standing with the Skuzzinator as it is!
-
FireDrgn, I'm done. I can't make sense of what you're saying, and you don't seem to be able to follow what I'm saying. With that much miscommunication, there's not much sense going on.
<S>
<Salute>
-
Simaril, Thanks i appreciate your response. We are in agreement on a few things. I was purposefully staying away from the ban hammer as penguin put it. We don't even need to go there. I did digress a wee bit as I was not getting a response to my first statement.
I thought we all understood that evolution was non- intelligent as far as the process goes. Doesn't everyone agree on this? I was using a well know definition. So It seems reasonable for the sake of this discussion that one world view claims a Non-intelligent process of natural selection, and one world view claims Intelligent guided process. Am I right?
I never said it was a non-intelligent view nor did anyone else. ( big difference ).
penguin. You keep missing my point.
I never said evolution was illogical ( yes it may be a hidden claim ) what I said was according to your definition of evolution being a non-intelligent process it can't account for the rules of logic.
both world views have some survival value and some survival of the fittest. Using a true statement doesn't make it logical and doesn't make a whole world view true or logical. Some Survival of the fittest maybe a true statement. However it is not a logical one as far as formal and informal logic are concerned. It must have at least one or more premises and a conclusion to be a logical statement. Just because something seems logical doesn't make it "sound" or valid.
Finally, you have created a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy. You have assumed that it if evolution isn't logical, that there are absolute truths. You must first prove that statement, and then you can try to prove evolution illogical to that end.
I will and have been proving that there are absolute truths. Please read below.
I never assumed that evolution isn't logical you are mixing terms. I said evolution can't account for the laws of logic. LAWSof logic.
In order for something to be a law of it must be considered an absolute truth.
Your first statement makes no sense at all- I did not say that this is an absolute truth. I said that for all encounters that I've ever had, nobody has ever robotically carried out instructions. Here's a perfect example: accents, everyone has one, and none of them is either correct or incorrect.
You don't have to say it is an absolute truth. It is implied. Any statement has to be either true or false. Its called the law of exclude middle.
And it cant be both.
You claimed that we can't know something because our minds distorts information. If your mind distorts information then how do you know that the statement " This is due to the natural distortion that our own minds create" is true? Maybe your mind distorted that information.
It is similar to David Hume's rule of empiricism. It was formalized by Emanual Kant Into the rule " we Kan't really know anything". Why is this false?
because the statement that Kant considers to be true falls apart if you apply the rule to itself. If "we can't really know anything" then how does he know that statement is true.
The same rule applies to "every thing is relative" or " all morals are relative" It is either a true or false statement. If it is true that everything is relative,then even the rule "every thing is relative" is a relative statement not a true statement. In order for it to be true you have to use the law of absolute truths. Do you see how you have to stand on the law of absolute truths to even make the claim every thing is relative.?
The problems is not everyone agrees what the rules or morals are so it seems relative. The only counter argument that has been proposed to this is to pre qualify the statements with " this is probable". I don't have time to go into the logical problems one encounters with that though.
IT is either wrong to steal someones wallet or it is not. IT has nothing to do with the survival value of the person taking the wallet. If it is wrong to steal someones wallet then it is wrong to steal anyone's wallet.
Only the fittest will survive! Why would those unfit to reproduce do so? If that statement weren't true, life wouldn't occur
Only the fittest will survive? Is this true?
It is circular logic. Your defining the fittest "because" they survived. If it was only the fittest then only one would survive no multiples or groups.
How do you define unfit?
The only things that don't reproduce are those who choose not to, or those that can't. I don't see how unfit has anything to do with it. Again circular logic, defining those that choose not to or can't as unfit.
Someone once said , they are dead because they were unfit, if they weren't unfit they would be alive. I will have to dig out the actual quote I did paraphrase.
-
(http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/596/youpeople.jpg)
What do you mean "You People"?
:rofl
-
SHUT UP..... :O :banana: :rofl :bolt:
-
SHUT UP..... :O :banana: :rofl :bolt:
So is that statement good or bad?
-
Simaril, Thanks i appreciate your response. We are in agreement on a few things. I was purposefully staying away from the ban hammer as penguin put it. We don't even need to go there. I did digress a wee bit as I was not getting a response to my first statement.
I thought we all understood that evolution was non- intelligent as far as the process goes. Doesn't everyone agree on this? I was using a well know definition. So It seems reasonable for the sake of this discussion that one world view claims a Non-intelligent process of natural selection, and one world view claims Intelligent guided process. Am I right?
I never said it was a non-intelligent view nor did anyone else. ( big difference ).
penguin. You keep missing my point.
I never said evolution was illogical ( yes it may be a hidden claim ) what I said was according to your definition of evolution being a non-intelligent process it can't account for the rules of logic.
both world views have some survival value and some survival of the fittest. Using a true statement doesn't make it logical and doesn't make a whole world view true or logical. Some Survival of the fittest maybe a true statement. However it is not a logical one as far as formal and informal logic are concerned. It must have at least one or more premises and a conclusion to be a logical statement. Just because something seems logical doesn't make it "sound" or valid.
Finally, you have created a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy. You have assumed that it if evolution isn't logical, that there are absolute truths. You must first prove that statement, and then you can try to prove evolution illogical to that end.
I will and have been proving that there are absolute truths. Please read below.
I never assumed that evolution isn't logical you are mixing terms. I said evolution can't account for the laws of logic. LAWSof logic.
In order for something to be a law of it must be considered an absolute truth.
Your first statement makes no sense at all- I did not say that this is an absolute truth. I said that for all encounters that I've ever had, nobody has ever robotically carried out instructions. Here's a perfect example: accents, everyone has one, and none of them is either correct or incorrect.
You don't have to say it is an absolute truth. It is implied. Any statement has to be either true or false. Its called the law of exclude middle.
And it cant be both.
You claimed that we can't know something because our minds distorts information. If your mind distorts information then how do you know that the statement " This is due to the natural distortion that our own minds create" is true? Maybe your mind distorted that information.
It is similar to David Hume's rule of empiricism. It was formalized by Emanual Kant Into the rule " we Kan't really know anything". Why is this false?
because the statement that Kant considers to be true falls apart if you apply the rule to itself. If "we can't really know anything" then how does he know that statement is true.
The same rule applies to "every thing is relative" or " all morals are relative" It is either a true or false statement. If it is true that everything is relative,then even the rule "every thing is relative" is a relative statement not a true statement. In order for it to be true you have to use the law of absolute truths. Do you see how you have to stand on the law of absolute truths to even make the claim every thing is relative.?
The problems is not everyone agrees what the rules or morals are so it seems relative. The only counter argument that has been proposed to this is to pre qualify the statements with " this is probable". I don't have time to go into the logical problems one encounters with that though.
IT is either wrong to steal someones wallet or it is not. IT has nothing to do with the survival value of the person taking the wallet. If it is wrong to steal someones wallet then it is wrong to steal anyone's wallet.
Only the fittest will survive! Why would those unfit to reproduce do so? If that statement weren't true, life wouldn't occur
Only the fittest will survive? Is this true?
It is circular logic. Your defining the fittest "because" they survived. If it was only the fittest then only one would survive no multiples or groups.
How do you define unfit?
The only things that don't reproduce are those who choose not to, or those that can't. I don't see how unfit has anything to do with it. Again circular logic, defining those that choose not to or can't as unfit.
Someone once said , they are dead because they were unfit, if they weren't unfit they would be alive. I will have to dig out the actual quote I did paraphrase.
Ok, so what I've boiled your (actually pretty well stated) debate's first point is:
Evolution can't account for the laws of logic
I can't respond, partly from fearing Skuzzy, and partly from having no idea what you mean by that- I can only begin to guess.
Your second point is that since our minds distort things, that we cannot know anything. This is equivocal, we must assume no distortion of what we say when we argue. What I'm saying is that the 'absolute truth' will seem at least slightly different when read by you or by me.
However, I have an even more profound question, what is an, or the, absolute truth? Do we even know what we're looking for? Jeez, this seems like playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey in a washing machine!
And your third point is that only the fittest will survive is circular. I can remedy that, however, the fittest are those best suited to the conditions at hand (however, these conditions include other conditions which may have barred others from reaching reproductive maturity). Those who are unfit, are those who are not well suited to the conditions at hand.
I hope that this has cleared up whatever you didn't understand, and showed you that I don't understand some of your point.
Happy Arguing!
-Penguin
-
Penguin, Thanks for the replies I do enjoy the discussion.
You keep redefining what I'm saying and moving the frame of the debate.
We were talking about does absolute truth exist, not what is an absolute truth. Two different things. I have to get an agreement from you on the first question before we can argue "what is an absolute truth"
It doesn't matter if we can agree on an absolute truth. It doesn't change the fact that absolute truths exist. Also look up
what a tautology is.
P.M. me with anything you think might get the ban stick. And at anytime one of us might want to pull the plug on the debate and that is ok with me.
You don't have to guess what I'm getting at I said it very plainly. You define evolution as "non-intelligent unguided process"
Evolution presupposes no intelligence.
Logic presupposes the preconditions of intelligibility. How do you get from non-intelligence to intelligence in your world view?
Both your definitions are circular reasoning because they depend on the end result to define them. It is called begging the question. your premise" fittest" depends on the conclusion " they are well suited" same with unfit.
Let me use and example: Put a billion bacteria in a petri dish. Now define "the fittest" before any of them die or pass on their genetic code. You can't do it. You can only say the fittest will survive. Your defining the fittest by those that survive long enough to pass on their genetic code. and unfit by those that do not.
Let me ask you," are you the fittest, or are you unfit"? What group do you fall into?
:salute
-
To the original question ..
..I can only answer for my own experiences.
For myself I have a sharp tendency to treat people as they treat me or my own.
Good and bad become conditional.
I have met people over the years that I work hard to be similar to, just great people to know and be around.
Almost every single con attendee I have met over the decades, f'rinstance :)
There are also some that ..if they got hit by a bus in front of me,
..I may just break out in laughter while wiping bits off my shirt.
Even further ..if I saw the bus coming and could warn them .. -shakes head- .. I would not.
My sister-in-law Karen, f'rinstance .. grrr.
-GE aka Frank