Religion,atheism,evolution and the argument of morality.

[Darwin]

I was just thinking about the fact how believers may sometimes refer to atheism and sciences associated with it (as ridiculous as it may be) with moral decay.
And of course how religious faith (thanks to "Finella" for infecting me with this meme) is sometimes associated with a tendency towards what we consider good.
Sciences that might be associated with non-theism could be traced to evolutionary sciences of biology and psychology,or sociobiology (for an introduction to psychology,go to http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/evpsychfaq.html )
To some,this kind of a manner to approach human nature could be found dehumanizing,someone might think that such an approach would infer us to the level of "primitive" forms of life.
Also worthy of not forgetting is the idea that humans too,function more or less on these primitive instincts,needs and motives,which may neither be any more romantic.
This foundation along with other revolutionary thinkers,less or more known did also have their take on popularizing this problem.
However,my personal belief goes that to recognize these things as they are is better than hiding them,this could spur growth.
So now that we´re getting at it,what´s the case for morals?
To get to actual subject of fallacy;
If religion was analogous with morality,what would this tell of humans,human nature? If we would assume that you need religion to act right in patterns that our civilization&culture has it,what would this point out? Since religion obviously was not there before man and animal according to some,is but a machine of nature,of no soul but still of divine design,does not it come that we placed it in there for us? By "cerebral hypertrophy" or given to us by a divine being.
If humans were given the capacity needed to always act in name of reason,with intelligence and with love,should not we be unable to lose control of ourselves and turn into a violent animal because of a born "pathology" of limbic brain accused by some to have been of great advantage millions of years ago?
If religion is needed to hold us together,is it more logical to assume that it is the natural way for humankind to follow and inevitable path to proper ways or that as those supporting it may be found hinting,it is a pattern to suppress "symptoms" of our "unconcious" nature and control habits that can be both destructive or essential for humankind to survive (i.e sex,agression) ? Not to deny certain other factors.

-Towards a new understanding of behavior-

[Dancing David]

I sincerely belive that my sense of morals comes from pure selfishness, what is the path that is least likely to cause me personal stress and anxiety. Despite the fact that it is purely selfish, it also leads to all the good qualities associated with morals.

I might wish that my morals came from something more noble than making my life easier but there it is.

I also believe that if there was genetic selection in our ancestors it was for cooperative members of our species that followed the social contract, so those that followed the contract were more likely to reproduce.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I sincerely belive that my sense of morals comes from pure selfishness, what is the path that is least likely to cause me personal stress and anxiety. Despite the fact that it is purely selfish, it also leads to all the good qualities associated with morals.

I might wish that my morals came from something more noble than making my life easier but there it is.

I also believe that if there was genetic selection in our ancestors it was for cooperative members of our species that followed the social contract, so those that followed the contract were more likely to reproduce.
Good grief! The more Dancing David posts, the more he sounds like me!

Needless to say, I found the above post to be absolutely brilliant.

:)

[Mercutio]

When we talk about sociobiology in any of my psych classes, of course we talk about altruism and morality, the argument being that "doing something for somebody else" at a cost to yourself is, in theory, at odds with the theory of natural selection. Long story short, we use a variation and expansion of Dancing David's post, and sit back and watch the fireworks. When some students (who equate morality with religion) see a thoroughly "selfish" interpretation of morality (this even without throwing in the idea of being good just to get in to heaven), you can practically hear the gears in their brains jamming and grinding. But the explanation works, and I have yet to have a student shoot a hole in it any larger than "well, that's not what I have been taught."

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I sincerely belive that my sense of morals comes from pure selfishness, what is the path that is least likely to cause me personal stress and anxiety. Despite the fact that it is purely selfish, it also leads to all the good qualities associated with morals.

I might wish that my morals came from something more noble than making my life easier but there it is.

I also believe that if there was genetic selection in our ancestors it was for cooperative members of our species that followed the social contract, so those that followed the contract were more likely to reproduce.
++

[Whomp]

What I have been contemplating over the past few days is this;
Even among athiests, I find the concepts of Good and Evil. (Intentional capitals)
It's the concept that there is a universal good, and a universal evil.

This seems odd to me. Isn't the whole concept of good and evil a religious one? Right and wrong are morality issues, but good and evil seem more "loaded" than that.


Any thoughts?

Whomp!

[rustypouch]

I find the idea of morality without religion perfectly good. When I make a mistake or hurt some one, I have to deal with that all by myself. I cannot remove my guilt by asking the forgiveness of my sky daddy of choice. Nor can I justify doing things I know are wrong by saying that "God commands it."

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Whomp
What I have been contemplating over the past few days is this;
Even among athiests, I find the concepts of Good and Evil. (Intentional capitals)
It's the concept that there is a universal good, and a universal evil.

This seems odd to me. Isn't the whole concept of good and evil a religious one? Right and wrong are morality issues, but good and evil seem more "loaded" than that.


Any thoughts?

Whomp!

i'm an atheist and i don't believe in Good and Evil. i also don't necessarily belive in right and wrong. i believe in what is good for myself, those around me and the world in general and what isn't.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Whomp
What I have been contemplating over the past few days is this;
Even among athiests, I find the concepts of Good and Evil. (Intentional capitals)
It's the concept that there is a universal good, and a universal evil.

This seems odd to me. Isn't the whole concept of good and evil a religious one? Right and wrong are morality issues, but good and evil seem more "loaded" than that.

I don't find this odd at all. The concept of Good and Evil is a human one, and religion is based on it, not the other way around.
We're genetically predisposed as well as (in most cases) trained from childhood to concider some things right and others wrong. Doing the right thing is good, doing the wrong is bad. Having inquisitive minds we often (but not often enough) ask ourselves, why is this right or wrong, good or bad? And the easiest answer is because it's Good or Evil. The real answer is, because it works, but even (most) atheists are very uncomfortable with that.

[Darwin]

Nice of you to remind of cooperation,very important point of course and readily fits into my puzzle I´d believe.

I guess I should confess that I must be among those who,having lived in a culture that we have,developed some degree of Good-Evil and religiously related morals,it seems inevitable.
I´m trying to move away from simplistic good-evil pattern though,and am making some gradual progress.

Additionally whether we like it or subscribe into it or not,this concept circulates around one more or less,one would probably have to live under the code to some degree in order to make it trough.

Off to scratch a back...

[justsaygnosis]

Worthy of note is the roman catholic church defines conscience as 'the aboriginal vicar of christ' yet adds that that conscience needs the refinement of organized religion.
Well this is not a chicken or the egg coming first argument.
First there was homo-sapien,(albeit the result of the events that led to its' present constitution), and then came the by-products of human consciousness.
Religion owes it's existence to that which it seeks to control.
What an intriguing paradox that a religionist can cite the quote,
"The pot does not say to the potter, I made you", yet this is precisely their behavior.
While the modern human is the result of nature and nurture, religion all too often portrays itself as the originator rather than the originated.

[TylerD]

Originally posted by Whomp
What I have been contemplating over the past few days is this;
Even among athiests, I find the concepts of Good and Evil. (Intentional capitals)
It's the concept that there is a universal good, and a universal evil.

This seems odd to me. Isn't the whole concept of good and evil a religious one? Right and wrong are morality issues, but good and evil seem more "loaded" than that.

It all depends on what you concepts of "good" and "evil" are centered around. Yes, they can be theocentric (meaning religion based, if that's even official terminology). But it can also be egocentric or worldcentric. There is always a concept of good and evil as they are simply the way we interpret different phenomena. I would submit that all conepts of good and evil are egocentric as what we all consider "good" is what works to the satisfaction of our egos. Just my $0.02.

[Whomp]

Originally posted by TylerD


I would submit that all conepts of good and evil are egocentric as what we all consider "good" is what works to the satisfaction of our egos. Just my $0.02.

This may be true for right and wrong, but I'm talking about the view of a universal good and evil.
The way you describe it each person decides what is good and evil within themselves. If so, what right do we have to impose or apply this label to someone else who may have a different egocentric value system?

[jimlintott]

If religion is responsible for morality then shouldn't the application of religion be more consistent? Why do religous people have a wide variety of moral behaviour? Mother Theresa says god inspired her. Jim Jones says god inspired him. If religion was a force that is responsible for morality why the huge discrepency?

Of course the truth is morality is not a product of religion and likely much closer to what DancingDavid said (and well said I might add). A moral religous person is just a coincidence.

[stamenflicker]

If religion was analogous with morality,what would this tell of humans,human nature? If we would assume that you need religion to act right in patterns that our civilization&culture has it,what would this point out?

The premise is a presupposition of the conclusion, nevertheless to address your question, what it tells us is that "something" needs to be "appealed" to... That "something" can be god, Marxism, or Darwinism, but it is a something and tied up with it always comes an ideology.

If humans were given the capacity needed to always act in name of reason,with intelligence and with love,should not we be unable to lose control of ourselves and turn into a violent animal because of a born "pathology" of limbic brain accused by some to have been of great advantage millions of years ago?

Perhaps I'm struggling to understand your direction as I decipher the double negative, but even if I've understood the question, I don't see were pathology enters the equation, first-- because science hasn't been able to paint very clear pictures of mental pathology short of actual physical brain injury or removal of sections of the brain; and second, the absence of such clear organic indicators leaves a question of culpability resting clearly on the owner of the action.

If religion is needed to hold us together,is it more logical to assume that it is the natural way for humankind to follow and inevitable path to proper ways or that as those supporting it may be found hinting,it is a pattern to suppress "symptoms" of our "unconcious" nature and control habits that can be both destructive or essential for humankind to survive (i.e sex,agression) ?

This I understand and agree with. Religion, or perhaps morality itself, seems to be an outpouring of our unconscious nature, though I think the latter half of your statement is more accurate-- that being an act of supression of destructive instincts. I'd like to point us (as interested parties) once again to the finest book on this subject: Dudley Young's "Origin of the Sacred: The Ecstacy of Love & War"

Flick

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I also believe that if there was genetic selection in our ancestors it was for cooperative members of our species that followed the social contract, so those that followed the contract were more likely to reproduce. This seems reasonable.

If you're a hungry proto-human, it may temporarily increase your survival chances to kill and eat an infant belonging to your tribe. If this leads to the angry tribe killing and eating you in turn, the benefit tends to evaporate.

If your survival chances are improved by being a member of a (pack, herd, tribe), behaviour that weakens the cohesiveness of the group is selected against, and behaviour that strengthens it is selected for. So not only is anti-social behaviour weeded out, but a tendency to punish anti-social behaviour is reinforced.

[Dymanic]

When it is time to lay her eggs, the female tarantula wasp seeks out a tarantula, paralyses it with her stinger, and after burying the spider in a hole, lays her eggs on the helpless arachnid's body. The developing larvae are thus provided with a source of fresh meat, and will eat the tarantula alive.

The female cuckoo lays her eggs in the nests of other birds, who unsuspectingly raise the chick as their own (the developing chick will push its nestmates out of the nest as soon as it is strong enough to do so).

The sand tiger shark, while still in its mother's womb, will eat its siblings if it can.

Are these acts evil? Surely not. And why not? Because these animals lack the ability to conceptualize the consequences of their actions from the perspective of their recipients, and because they lack the ability to choose to do otherwise -- these behaviors are hard-wired.

"If I don't do it, somebody else will". This is one of the most common devices used to justify immoral choices. Ironically, this seems to have some validity within the framework of evolutionary biology -- a population of genuinely altruistic organisms would be quickly swept off the field by the progeny of a single individual lacking this trait.

Still...we humans can imagine what it must feel like to be the other guy, and we do have choices, (we don't rely on as much hard-wired behavior), and humans often make choices that are not in either their own best interests or those of their offspring. All the time, in fact. When a person chooses to sacrifice his comfort, his time, his reproductive opportunities, or even his life, in order to make the world richer, safer, or more liveable for others...what is that?

It ain't natural.

[Whomp]

Originally posted by Dymanic
yadda, yadda ... nature channel
Yadda, yadda ... Wild Kingdom
>snip>
Are these acts evil? Surely not. And why not? Because these animals lack the ability to conceptualize the consequences of their actions from the perspective of their recipients, and because they lack the ability to choose to do otherwise -- these behaviors are hard-wired.


So evil is dependant on conceptualization?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Womp

So evil is dependant on conceptualization?
Absolutely. How could an evil act be commited in the absence of awareness or intent? What sadist is unable to imagine the pain his victim suffers? What despot is unaware of the significance for others of the power he wields over them? One who is guilty of 'depraved indifference' is not one who is blind to the consequences of his actions, but one who chooses to ignore them.

[Whomp]

So, in the case of organized religion, which I've heard more than one person here refer to as evil...

Do you truly think they conceptualize what they re doing as wrong? Are they guilty of "depraved indifference"?

Do you really think if you dug up Hitler today he'd say "Jeebus! I was one evil sonofabitch!"?

I think that the majority of "evil" acts are comitted by people who are absolutely certain of the "goodness" of their actions.
The Catholic Church springs to mind.

So where does the greater Good and Evil come from?

[Whomp]

BTW Darwin, I appologize if I'm hijacking your thread. I know the concept of Good and Evil is diferent from morality (or is it?).

It just got me thinkin.

Whomp!

[Dymanic]

So, in the case of organized religion, which I've heard more than one person here refer to as evil...I think that to say, "Organized religion is evil" is too broad a statement. It's like saying, "America is selfish". A social institution is comprised of many individuals whose motivations span a wide range. Many sincere acts of kindness are performed by those working within 'the church' as well. Granted, for the Catholic church in particular, this is probably a break-even proposition at best, but that's taking the sum total of all the actions performed in its name over the centuries.
Do you truly think they conceptualize what they are doing as wrong? Are they guilty of "depraved indifference"?They at least meet the test that qualifies them as candidates for a trial.
I think that the majority of "evil" acts are comitted by people who are absolutely certain of the "goodness" of their actions.Good point. At least, they are convinced that their actions, though wrong, are justified. I would not consider someone guilty of evil whose intent was to do good. Is the surgeon who kills a patient by accidentally removing the wrong kidney guilty in the same way as Hannibal Lector when he kills someone and removes their liver to go with his nice bottle of Chianti?

[Whomp]

Originally posted by Dymanic
At least, they are convinced that their actions, though wrong, are justified.
See, there's the core of my point.
Where does that concept of "wrong" (possible translation - evil) come from?
It is my understanding that right and wrong are societal constructs that are agreed upon. But if this is the case, then right and wrong change from society to society.
It's not that cannibals think it's right to eat people. In their society it IS right to eat people.

Now we sway awfully close to situational ethics.

So where does "good" and "evil" enter the picture? The more I think, the more these words have no meaning.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Womp

So evil is dependant on conceptualization?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamic responded:

Absolutely. How could an evil act be commited in the absence of awareness or intent? What sadist is unable to imagine the pain his victim suffers? What despot is unaware of the significance for others of the power he wields over them?

I have to disagree. We have already decied that many "evil" acts are commited by people who truly do not view them as such. There are also sociopathic and narcissistic personalities that commit atrocities because others feeling or rights mean nothing to them.

Again, where do Good and Evil come from?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Womp

We have already decied that many "evil" acts are commited by people who truly do not view them as such.
I'm not sure we actually did agree on that.

There are also sociopathic and narcissistic personalities that commit atrocities because others feeling or rights mean nothing to them.
The true sociopath is a very rare phenomenon. I would say that a person with a pathology so severe that it renders him incapable of any ability to conceptualize the feelings of others is not capable of evil in the same sense as someone who can. This does not mean that he may not commit acts that harm others; a bull in a china shop doesn't mean to break anything -- he has no way of even knowing that he is breaking things, or that these things have value for others. I still say intent is a necessary component of evil.

Again, where do Good and Evil come from?
I think there is some biological hardwiring at the core of many of our concepts of good and evil, and I also think that some of it is societal construct. But I find it interesting to consider what some philosophers have suggested: that good and evil exist outside of human thinking, and that humans have discovered, rather than invented them (the same has been proposed with regard to mathematics).

[Whomp]

Dynamic, I apologize for putting words in you mouth.

I had an entire post written that apparently disappeared into an alternate reality. I'm too tired right now to retype it all.

Suffice it to say that the last paragraph of your last post has really got me thinking. Let me chew on that some and I'll be back later.

In the mean time, feel like taking a stab at defining good and evil?

Whomp!

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Womp

Let me chew on that some and I'll be back later.

In the mean time, feel like taking a stab at defining good and evil?

Whomp!

Oooo...that IS a toughie! Better make it much later!

Well, I may not be able to define it, but nevertheless, my input "will be instrumental in crafting the final version of the Depravity Scale, as it endeavors to standardize the definition of heinous, atrocious, cruel and evil in the courts". Why? Because I participated in:

The Depravity Scale (http://www.depravityscale.org)

[DialecticMaterialist]

Personally I think we are biologically built to absorb some kind of moral code.

[Yahzi]

A social institution is comprised of many individuals whose motivations span a wide range.
But when that institution is based on deceit, the surrendering of moral responsiblity from the individual to some external source, and absurdist fantastic notions about the nature of reality, it's generally safe to say it's evil.

In the mean time, feel like taking a stab at defining good and evil?
That's easy. Evil is hypocrisy. Morality is treating others as you would want to be treated, and evil is everything else.

[ebola]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whomp wrote:

I think that the majority of "evil" acts are comitted by people who are absolutely certain of the "goodness" of their actions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dymanic responded:

Good point. At least, they are convinced that their actions, though wrong, are justified. I would not consider someone guilty of evil whose intent was to do good.



I think I have to agree with Whomp here. Because they believe that their actions are justified, they do not perceive them as 'wrong'. They are convinced of the goodness, or righteousness of their evil acts.

I would also take issue with Dymanic's second sentence. While he defends it with people who accidentally wrong others while genuinely attempting to help them, he does not exclude the Macchiavellian theory of the ends justifying the means.

Consider the Inquisition. To achieve their supposedly good end ( that of saving souls by conversion ) , the church resorted to horrific means. Are these people ( animals ) not guilty of evil because they had the best interest of their victims at heart? Does the ( questionable ) end justify the brutal means through which they sought to achieve it? Or are they simply evil men who tortured countless innocents because they didn't share a belief set? I cannot see them as anything else.

Eric

[Dymanic]

I think there is a difference between doing something that one believes is good (i.e., confoms to one's own standards of what is good) even though it may in fact be wrong (however that is determined) and doing something one knows is wrong (by one's own standards), something one would ordinarily not do, but will do if one feels that the circumstances offer adequate justification.

I think the Inquisition was a demonstration of political power by the church, regardless of any other claims the participants may have made. Sadistic men in possession of power derive pleasure in dealing out misery, and this was undoubtedly a motivation also, though secondary. It is inconcievable to me that any of them could have sincerely believed he had anyone's best interests at heart.

[ebola]

Dymanic wrote:

I think there is a difference between doing something that one believes is good (i.e., confoms to one's own standards of what is good) even though it may in fact be wrong (however that is determined) and doing something one knows is wrong (by one's own standards), something one would ordinarily not do, but will do if one feels that the circumstances offer adequate justification.



I don't see any difference. In both of the above instances, the perpetrator feels just when he wrongs the victim. An evil act is an evil act is an evil act. Even if you meant to differentiate between evil for its own sake and an evil act for which someone wrongly felt justified, I don't make that distinction. The intent does not affect the result. It is, however, this moral grey area which would allow atrocities such as the Inquisition to be carried out by people who would ordinarily not slaughter the innocent. They were tasked with carrying out this heinous program, and told that it was for the victims' own good. This allowed them to justify it in their own minds.

Eric

[Dymanic]

[quote]
Originally posted by ebola

It is, however, this moral grey area which would allow atrocities such as the Inquisition to be carried out by people who would ordinarily not slaughter the innocent. They were tasked with carrying out this heinous program, and told that it was for the victims' own good. This allowed them to justify it in their own minds.
So you don't think they were necessarily evil people, just...misled? And, suppose those they slaughtered had not been 'innocent', but themselves guilty of some sort of brutality?

An evil act is an evil act is an evil act.
Maybe I'm just overthinking this. It just doesn't seem quite that simple to me.

I'm going to confess (without even being tortured) that I have a little inquisitor in me. I mean, most of the time, I'm the nicest guy you'd ever meet. But if someone kidnapped my young son, raped him and killed him, and then later had the misfortune of letting me get him alone in a secluded mountain cabin...put it this way, when he finally died, it would be long after he ceased to be recognizable as human. At least, that's what something inside me has to say. Hopefully it will never come to the test. I'd like to think I'm not even capable of the sort of things that some people have done, that I am somehow cut from different cloth altogether, but I think I have to go along with what [I forget who] said: "The line between good and evil doesn't separate us from them; it runs right down the middle of every one of us."

[Globert]

butter side up or butter side down; which version of "sneech" would rate forced conversion by the Inquisition?:rolleyes: Does Evil neccesitate revulsion by the observer:mad: , and Good emulation?:D That which my value system abhors must be Evil! This would be apparent to all value systems?(Universally):confused:

I think we all get tied up in diametric Good/Evil logic traps.

[c4ts]

Morality fits the Darwinian model quite nicely. Societies that prevent their members from killing one another, and prevent certain actions leading up to this, will thrive and multiply, whereas the societies that do not practice this cannot consist of more than a few strong members. One might argue that these few strong members can easily be trampled by a multitude of weaker individuals.

Why bother bringing religion into this? Probably because Joe Shmoe wants to know what's in it for him.

[ebola]

Dymanic,

As I said, I don't make the distinction based on intent. It does not matter to me whether the inquisitors were evil incarnate or whether they were caring souls lovingly inflicting torment on misguided people for their own benefit. The act is the act.

I also don't truly believe that anyone directly involved in the Inquisition was actually there to help poor, lost souls find the true path. They were the lowest of the low. However, if it were not for the open endorsement of the Catholic Church, these animals would not have come crawling out from under their rocks to seek employment. It also allowed some fence-sitters to come down on the side the Church defined as "good".

And, thankfully, we are all protective of our children. There are things I do not wish to contemplate.

Eric

[Fun2BFree]

We all are so vulnerable to our biases, hard wiring and indoctrination that we are blind to how assumptions creep in and are left unperturbed in the middle of a discussion such as this thread. No body sees the 800 pound gorilla in this discussion. For a visual example of this phenomenon- how impossible it is for us to SEE somethings despite the facts -- see this link from one of Randi's earlier columns-

http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html

Now what does this have to do with the discussion? Everything.
What is evil? What is Right? What is Wrong? You have your idea, I have mine- they may and (more likely than not) may not be the same. What does it mean? Right? Right behaviour, I assume. What is the right behaviour in a given situation? Right for what? You might just as easily ask what is the right temperature for water? For what purpose? To swim? To drink? To skate on? To make coffee? To bathe? The end result you seek will determine what is right. If you want to get into heavan as defined in the Bible then right behaviour is soomewhat spelled out for you. Of course no one actually knows if you actually get in- but that is one definition. In the real world, the one we all agree exists (those not agreeing are excused from this discussion)- the "right" outcome of "right" behaviour will need to be agreed upon before we can agree on what behaviours are most likely to get us there.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
We all are so vulnerable to our biases, hard wiring and indoctrination that we are blind to how assumptions creep in and are left unperturbed in the middle of a discussion such as this thread. No body sees the 800 pound gorilla in this discussion. For a visual example of this phenomenon- how impossible it is for us to SEE somethings despite the facts -- see this link from one of Randi's earlier columns-

http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html

Now what does this have to do with the discussion? Everything.
What is evil? What is Right? What is Wrong? You have your idea, I have mine- they may and (more likely than not) may not be the same. What does it mean? Right? Right behaviour, I assume. What is the right behaviour in a given situation? Right for what? You might just as easily ask what is the right temperature for water? For what purpose? To swim? To drink? To skate on? To make coffee? To bathe? The end result you seek will determine what is right. If you want to get into heavan as defined in the Bible then right behaviour is soomewhat spelled out for you. Of course no one actually knows if you actually get in- but that is one definition. In the real world, the one we all agree exists (those not agreeing are excused from this discussion)- the "right" outcome of "right" behaviour will need to be agreed upon before we can agree on what behaviours are most likely to get us there.

Yet despite our various opinions, I believe there are certain things agreed upon as good or evil. Causing large amounts of intentional harm to others without reasonable provocation, for example, is one thing that is considered evil.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by c4ts


Yet despite our various opinions, I believe there are certain things agreed upon as good or evil. Causing large amounts of intentional harm to others without reasonable provocation, for example, is one thing that is considered evil.

..and there are no words in that statement that leave anything to personal subjective interpretation, are there? All clear and defined? lets start with "I believe"---well good for you...that proves that --well it proves that you say you believe...bully for you! That helps. "Reasonable provocation?" Reasonable? to whom? which reasons are reasonable and which are unreasonable? harm? Is it harmful to kill people if you believe that they go to a better place? Large amounts? Where is the measuring stick for this?

So your personal belief about what is agreed upon is pretty much unsupportable and like most "personal" belief -not worth much to anybody else. This sort of post misses the essential point entirely. It is exactly the uncertainty about what is good and evil that argues most strongly against terrorist values like those espoused in some Islamic fundamentalism--not that fundamentalism is good or evil- but that uncertainty about what is good or evil is best solved with freedom not fundamentalism....Good for what end? Evil towards what end? IF the goal is that people live their natural lifespan unharmed-yes-harming them is evil. but some people think other things are more important -like observing the Koran as THEY understand it- that life in our world is an unimportant blip before eternity in the other, better world---so the statement that certain things are agreed upon as good or evil are meaningless without defining the goals that are agreed upon... the problem with most religious based goals is that there is no way to verify that the end result -heaven or favor in God's eyes or whatever -is ever actually achieved. So instead of saying something is good or evil with all the misunderstandings and differences about what those words mean to different groups it would be clearer if we said precisely what we accept as our goals- and clearer still if we defined those goals in objective real world terms, not pointing to some celestial rule book written by our God vs theirs.

Example: I will now speak for OUR way of life (as in the way of life favored by those who agree with my name-- it is FUN to be Free!)

Goal -Convince people to live an Islamic fundamentalist life. THEY claim this will lead to all sorts of positive things now and in the hereafter....How to achieve that goal? - kill people until they submit. Will it work? Well it sure fails for the people killed, they don't get a chance to change their minds. Does it seem to be working to change anybody else? Apparently it does for some, not others. It also motivates others to want to destroy Islamic terrorists to protect their own way of life- so it brings about the death of Islamic fundamentalists-but this inspires more to fight for Islam. So they can reasonably feel their methods and goals are reasonable-if they so choose..The real world evidence is not conclusive either way.

by now we should know there is no common ground about what is evil or good with fundamentalists. It is not good vs evil- it is the survival of OUR way of life vs THEIRS. it is not that their way is evil it is just we have different values. We value freedom above all else- they value faith and reverence above freedom. Their way will not lead to people being free- so for our goals it is wrong. For their goals it is right. If our goal is to survive free to live as we choose- we are going to have to either change our enemies' values-which makes them one of us-- or kill those who seek to destroy freedom-- kill them better and sooner than they kill us. Not because our way is good or right... but it is the right way to achieve the survival of our values.

Freedom allows the greatest diversity of opinion on what is or is not good or evil-thus valuing freedom allows for at least some to be "right" but not necessarily all--their value system puts all the eggs in one values basket and EVERYONE either gets to go on the RIGHT path or if it is wrong we all go down the tubes. Freedom recognizes and allows for uncertainty-fundamentalism does not. If you accept uncertainty about what is right or wrong - as I maintain you must - than freedom gives the best chance for finding the right way. If you accept that there is only one right way- then the victor will be whoever kills the other guy best and is left standing-- proclaiming "My way is right!" --and it may not end up being you.
Embrace the uncertainty.

[Dymanic]

c4ts man, I wish you wouldn't do that. I often find your comments insightful, but the way you always quote a lenghty post in its entirety really bugs me. I mean, all I gotta do is scroll up if I want to read the whole thing again.

Anyway, yeah, what you said.

Except...I'm still gnawing on the idea that good and evil exist independent of human thought. Two and two make four whether or not a human happens along to make the observation. An alien society, or a society of intelligent machines, might be expected to discover this just as humans have; the fourness of two plus two is not dependent on everyone being in agreement about it.

Mathematics is a structure of logic, and I'm thinking that good and evil are also essentially logical concepts which the aliens and machines would also likely discover, probably with little variation on essential principles.

[Fun2BFree]

Dyanamic-

I agree that morality is ultimately based on logic- and it is as simple as mathmatics-- that is behaviour A + Situation B = Outcome C. But the order of those outcomes is strictly by human choice ---not outside of human choice--that does not mean that C is better than D or F or G or whatever sum of situation and behaviour you add up. The alphabet goes ABCD,etc- but it could just as easily be ZRQX, etc...it is in the order it is by our choice--So the idea that some outcomes are Higher or Good vs Lower outcomes or bad is measured on human terms, not outside of them.

[Dymanic]

Fundamentalism sucks.

However, I think there are fundamentals, that these have value, and that they are not particularly subject to cultural tweaking.

Yahzi seems to have hit it on the head (and with great economy of bandwidth, I might add) when he said: "Morality is treating others as you would want to be treated, and evil is everything else."

To recognize that one is not the center of the universe, and that one's actions can bring suffering to other beings, is near the top of the scale of cognitive abilities (on this planet at least). To make a conscious choice to set aside one's own goals with the sole end of preventing or relieving another's suffering is what I would consider a fundamental principle. I am not (yet) convinced that such acts can always be traced to selfish motives such as aquisition of status.

[Fun2BFree]

First - "Yahzi seems to have hit it on the head (and with great economy of bandwidth, I might add) when he said: 'Morality is treating others as you would want to be treated, and evil is everything else.'"

That won't cut it...Those who believe that you go to hell would want to be saved from that--the suicide bombers are treating others exactly as they want to be treated...Is that moral? By Yahzi's definition it is...

Dymanic wrote: "To make a conscious choice to set aside one's own goals with the sole end of preventing or relieving another's suffering is what I would consider a fundamental principle."

Why? and what is suffering? Living a life devoid of true meaning as defined in the Koran? Even if you are just talking in a physical sense---how is that fundamental? Fundamental to the universe? It is not even fundamentally important to this planet, or this block for that matter. What would happen if people did not do this? We humans might kill each other off and cease to exist! And this would be bad for whom other than humans? It would not bother the bacteria who are the predominant and most successful organism on our planet. All of these so called fundamentals questions come down to HUMAN goals. And face it we are not fundamental to the universe or any thing other than ourselves. It really does ultimately come down to one evolutionarily defined fundamental principle- what will keep a species going. And even this is not a universal principle--it is only relevant to our planet...if we all cease to exist- bacteria included- there is no evidence that it matters even a little bit to the rest of the universe.

Sorry

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

the suicide bombers are treating others exactly as they want to be treated
Which suicide bombers was that again whose motive was the salvation of their victims?

It really does ultimately come down to one evolutionarily defined fundamental principle- what will keep a species going.
Well, I'm quite sure you meant what will keep oneself and one's progeny going. This may very well be the case, but as I said, I am not yet convinced.

and what is suffering?
As was touched on earlier in the thread, this may be entirely subjective -- agreed. But a genuine attempt to relieve suffering, even a misguided one, is qualitatively different from a deliberate attempt to inflict it. Intent is everything. Suppose someone set out to hurt you, and unwittingly chose a tactic that benefitted you in some way; would you praise that person for his kindness?

[Whomp]

So, I've been out of town for a few.

Dynamic, I can't seem to get the idea of universal good/evil existing outside human thinking out of my brain. (Thanks ALOT)

We have found concrete ways to express the laws of physics that seem to hold up fairly well.

If good and evil are similar constantssholud we not have the similar ability to find a concrete means of expression?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree


..and there are no words in that statement that leave anything to personal subjective interpretation, are there? All clear and defined? lets start with "I believe"---well good for you...that proves that --well it proves that you say you believe...bully for you!
Woah. You got caught up in semantics there.

That helps. "Reasonable provocation?" Reasonable? to whom? which reasons are reasonable and which are unreasonable? harm? Is it harmful to kill people if you believe that they go to a better place? Large amounts? Where is the measuring stick for this?
The measuring stick for reason is usually the truth itself, and in this case, I would say it is the mathematical truth of equality in ratio.

So your personal belief about what is agreed upon is pretty much unsupportable and like most "personal" belief -not worth much to anybody else. This sort of post misses the essential point entirely. It is exactly the [B]uncertainty about what is good and evil that argues most strongly against terrorist values like those espoused in some Islamic fundamentalism--not that fundamentalism is good or evil- but that uncertainty about what is good or evil is best solved with freedom not fundamentalism....Good for what end? Evil towards what end? IF the goal is that people live their natural lifespan unharmed-yes-harming them is evil. but some people think other things are more important -like observing the Koran as THEY understand it- that life in our world is an unimportant blip before eternity in the other, better world---so the statement that certain things are agreed upon as good or evil are meaningless without defining the goals that are agreed upon... the problem with most religious based goals is that there is no way to verify that the end result -heaven or favor in God's eyes or whatever -is ever actually achieved. So instead of saying something is good or evil with all the misunderstandings and differences about what those words mean to different groups it would be clearer if we said precisely what we accept as our goals- and clearer still if we defined those goals in objective real world terms, not pointing to some celestial rule book written by our God vs theirs.
Could you please not bring any gods into this? This is more about the things that can exist without intelligent observation. The problem with evil is that it is that it requires some sort of volition on the part of whatever commits it. Therefore, what we find is that those who commit evil are ignorant of it in some way, so that although an evil act is percieved intelligently by the one who commits it, the parts that make it evil are missed. The evil of the act goes unpercieved. As you pointed out in your example, one way around percieving the evil is to use religion.

[Fun2BFree]

"if we all cease to exist- bacteria included- there is no evidence that it matters even a little bit to the rest of the universe."

I wrote this earlier and it has been ignored by those who seem to disagree with my point...so let me expand on it further...There is no evidence that it matters to universe even a little bit if I suffer or you suffer or you cause me to suffer or I cause you to suffer or I try help you and make you suffer or vice versa or I tyr to make you suffer but help you...etc.....I hope the idea is clear...what we humans do does not really fundamentally matter except to ourselves--that sort of relevance is not universal and not fundamental. Our best hope of finding what does matter to each other is in realizing the truth- that it only matters to us and not to some universal fundamental whatever.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

"if we all cease to exist- bacteria included- there is no evidence that it matters even a little bit to the rest of the universe."

I wrote this earlier and it has been ignored by those who seem to disagree with my point...so let me expand on it further...There is no evidence that it matters to universe even a little bit if I suffer or you suffer or you cause me to suffer or I cause you to suffer or I try help you and make you suffer or vice versa or I tyr to make you suffer but help you...etc.....I hope the idea is clear...what we humans do does not really fundamentally matter except to ourselves--that sort of relevance is not universal and not fundamental
Suffering matters to one who is suffering.

I'm not sure what your point is here. I'd agree that the universe is not goal-oriented (which is what is required in order for something to matter) in the way that organisms are. It probably doesn't matter to the universe whether or not 2+2=4 either, yet it can be demonstrated that this is the case, in accordance with fundamental principles.

If you are saying that the existence of fundamental principles is evidence of the existence of an intelligent designer, and that if one rejects the latter, one automatically rejects the former -- then I do not agree.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Suffering matters to one who is suffering.

I'm not sure what your point is here. I'd agree that the universe is not goal-oriented (which is what is required in order for something to matter) in the way that organisms are. It probably doesn't matter to the universe whether or not 2+2=4 either, yet it can be demonstrated that this is the case, in accordance with fundamental principles.

If you are saying that the existence of fundamental principles is evidence of the existence of an intelligent designer, and that if one rejects the latter, one automatically rejects the former -- then I do not agree.

No you misunderstand me...I am saying nothing of the sort...
No matter what happens 2 and 2 will always be 4. 2 stars and 2 stars will be four stars-whether you count them or not. Universal-fundamental. ALWAYS true. It is how the universe works fundamentally..The laws of physics, etc, are fundamental principles in this universe. But when it comes to morals/ethics, etc--no such fundamentals exist for behaviour which is what you and everyone else is talking about when you use words like good/evil/right/wrong...they are all goal oriented and the goal is WHAT? What is the universal fundamental good? It can only be relevant to us--
My point is that people are using a term that they think has a fundamental meaning common to all everywhere in the universe and it is not even common to all people in a community because what is a good goal will differ depending on what is valued. My point is that people should be more clear about what those goals and values are instead of assuming everyone agrees that those are the best/right good goals and values. Then we can understand each other better when we discuss what is good or right or evil.

I am convinced that humans have improved our own species' ability to survive and thrive by our acquisition of knowledge about our world (the universe). The more we know about how it all works the better we thrive and survive in THIS UNIVERSE-that is the goal that all humans interested in THIS UNIVERSE should share. it is a universal goal in that it pertains to this universe, but not a universal goal in the sense that it explains how the whole universe works....If the earth is destroyed tomorrow will that be good or bad for the universe? Does it depend it if happens by natural phenomenon or if it is a man made destruction? No it will be neither good nor bad. It just is Just like math, physics, etc...These fundamentals JUST ARE. The universe will still have 4 stars made of 2 and 2. The laws of physics will still apply. These are all observer independent. You can never say something is just good because it it is...
Something is only good for some goal -and that goal is always going to be subjective- depending on the observer.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

But when it comes to morals/ethics, etc--no such fundamentals exist for behaviour which is what you and everyone else is talking about when you use words like good/evil/right/wrong...they are all goal oriented and the goal is WHAT? What is the universal fundamental good? It can only be relevant to us
That may very well be true. I haven't come to a firm conclusion about this. I find it at least interesting to consider that some moral fundamentals exist independent of human thought. It appears that even if they don't, we seem to operate on the assumption that they do. I'm not sure I'm ready to accept your claim that concepts of good and evil are meaningful only in the context of goals.

I think one fundamental (wherever it exists) is that with knowledge comes responsibility. We do not condider the tarantula hawk wasp or the cuckoo bird to be acting immorally, because we recognize that they lack sufficient awareness to experience empathy or compassion. Conversely, we would hold any entity, human or otherwise, responsible for its actions if we determined that it did possess such awareness -- in other words, we would consider it capable of evil.

My point is that people are using a term that they think has a fundamental meaning common to all everywhere in the universe and it is not even common to all people in a community because what is a good goal will differ depending on what is valued.
I'm suggesting that the overriding principles such as empathy and compassion would have meaning common to all sufficiently aware beings everywhere in the universe; obviously how those were expressed would be entirely dependent on the subjective values those beings held, but the really aware ones might even think to make adjustment for that. When your goldfish are hungry, you feed them, because you don't want them to suffer from hunger. You feed them fish food, because you know that's what they like -- it isn't such a long walk.

[Globert]

E=mc²

E-evil
m-malice
c-compassion

evil is equal to the level of malice and compassion squared in a given subjects acts, as seen by the observer.


Edited for spelling. and grammar ( it's a procces)

[Fun2BFree]

Dymanic-
If I understand what you are saying- preventing suffering is an overiding goal or principle of aware beings...so if there existed some aware being that did not see this a priority or even important-- this being is evil. I think such a being would have a hard time propigating and so it would not exist very long- but it might exist for a while or even succeed in wiping out all the beings including those that do prize empathy and suffering prevention and this would be bad for the survival of all those creatures but ultimately meaningless to the how this universe works. There are people who would willingly wipe out the whole planet if it was okay with thier imaginary rulemaker because they are convinced there is a better world after death. Those people do not see themselves as evil-and given their goals-they are not. The problem is that their ultimate goal of everlasting life, or whatever is absolutely unknowable, untestable, un proveable. What you and I would likely agree is that morality fundamentally must be based on something real and testable, proveable and knowable..like survival of the species, or prevention of physical material suffering (not soul torturing, etc)..

This is why morality should not be left to theists and believers...this is why the nonsense that atheists can't be moral, etc should be opposed, denied derided and ridiculed at every opportunity. One hears this lie so often that it must be seen as either an unintentional or intentional campaign to prop up the failed belief system of theists. yet it is accepted and passed around as if it were a fundamental truth. If only there were a god to help us.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

If I understand what you are saying- preventing suffering is an overiding goal or principle of aware beings...so if there existed some aware being that did not see this a priority or even important-- this being is evil. I think that recognizing one's responsibility and disregarding it, not giving it priority, not treating it as important, is evil...yes.
There are people who would willingly wipe out the whole planet if it was okay with thier imaginary rulemaker because they are convinced there is a better world after death.I guess there are people like that. Not many I'll bet. That sort of thinking is so delusional that I think it qualifies as pathology, a result of a sickness in the brain; I question whether simple fanaticism is really enough to inspire people to go that far.
Those people do not see themselves as evil-and given their goals-they are not.I would prefer not to agree with that, but I feel compelled to. I see them as deluded, but not evil. Unless...if they could be seen as willing participants in their own delusion, then I could see it sticking to them. Like a drunk driver -- he didn't mean to crash and hurt people, but he chose to get drunk, and we hold him responsible.
...the nonsense that atheists can't be moral, etc should be opposed, denied derided and ridiculed at every opportunity.I agree. I find that thinking arrogant, insulting, and disrespectful. I can't decide whether those who spout such nonsense are deluded (in which case I may I have to overlook it) or whether they know it is false (in which case I would consider them evil).
If only there were a god to help usWell, we could do what everybody else does and just make one up. We should at least have a patron saint. Is there a patron saint of atheists? Hmmm.... no, probably not.

[Dancing David]

I would like to state that
good/evil are human values, they are not absoulte in any sense of the world.

Morals are human values, the fact that someone chooses or does not choose to believe in god does not mean that they don't partake of human values.

The fallacy comes from people who say "my values are absolute because they come from god"

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by DancingDavid

I would like to state that
good/evil are human values, they are not absoulte in any sense of the world.
So considering some hypothetical non-human entity with intelligence equal to that of humans, you would not expect such an entity to have any concept of good and evil?

[Dancing David]

Not a priori:

Thats a definite maybe. My human biased brain says, of course they would have values that would translate to good/evil. But ther rational part of me says NO!

They might have values of good for group, good for me, or not have those relative values at all.
Next time I meet a space aliens I will ask them.