Are people GOOD IN NATURE or Bad???

[LLogann]

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. 

 

[Mar]

"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."

[mechanic]

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.
 

[MORAY37]

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.

[FireDrgn]

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>

[fbWldcat]

Can't we just let this thread die like nature intended?

[FireDrgn]

Can't we just let this thread die like nature intended?

Not if you keep posting.    Nature is an abstraction. Nature intended is a fallacy of Reification.

[fbWldcat]

Okay, allow me to rephrase that.

Can't we just let this thread die after this post as the Forum Gods wisheth?

[CAP1]

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?


 

[mechanic]

ok i think i understand, i'll have to think more about it. S!

[Sonicblu]

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. 

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.

[Sonicblu]

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. 

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.

[CAP1]

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. 

[mechanic]

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.

[FireDrgn]

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.