Are people GOOD IN NATURE or Bad???

[mechanic]

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.

[Sonicblu]

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. 

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.

[Shuffler]

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.

[grizz441]

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...

[Penguin]

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

[CAP1]

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.......

[Simaril]

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.

[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.

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

[FireDrgn]

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.   

[Simaril]

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!

[mechanic]

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.

[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!

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

[Simaril]

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?

[bagrat]

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.

[Sonicblu]

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.

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.
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.