good & evil

[Lao Tzu]

what are your opinions. try to be intelligent please.


To me, good & evil are a result of one direction being better than another, something that is not a universal principle. Not only that but good & evil are due to emotions & logic, both of which exist in the nervous system. no nervous system = no good & evil.

A planet circling the sun doesn't consider an asteroid that hits it & knocks it out of orbit evil because it

1. doesn't have a nervous system
2. doesn't have a set of values (biological & social) that say path A is better than path B

So good & evil aren't universal characteristics, they are earth-bound nervous system bound traits that force us to choose one path over another.

Not only that, but what other potential 'good & evil' systems are there? if good & evil are a direct result of anti-entropy (or whatever it is called when things develop into complexity and therefore have to maintain a set path) then they are one set of rules. There are potentially endless methods of good & evil in existence as long as complexity exists.

 

[HumorMe]

A planet circling the sun doesn't consider an asteroid that hits it & knocks it out of orbit evil because it

1. doesn't have a nervous system
2. doesn't have a set of values (biological & social) that say path A is better than path B

Not trying to be an ass or anything.

If a planet.... "considers"....doesn't that mean that the planet would have a nervous system therefore making your example null and void?

 

[Lao Tzu]

Re: Re: good & evil

Not trying to be an ass or anything.

If a planet.... "considers"....doesn't that mean that the planet would have a nervous system therefore making your example null and void?

it doesn't consider at all, which is why good & evil, rather than being universal systems, are just tools built into our nervous systems to ensure obedience. The principle of good & evil is probably foreign to existence at large

 

[HumorMe]

Not only that, but what other potential 'good & evil' systems are there?

OK, I think I am with you but with the above quote....are you talking about other different systems such as "happy& sad"?

 

[Warik]

I believe that good & evil can be defined absolutely.

I believe a person is evil if he believes something is evil, yet does it anyway.

Let's say we have potential murderer A. He sees random guy walking down the street and feels like killing him. Murderer A truly believes that killing for no reason is evil, yet he kills random guy anyway. Murderer A is evil.

Now let's say we have escaped mental patient B. He sees murderer A trying to kill random guy. Escaped mental patient B truly does not believe that there is anything wrong with killing someone for no reason, so he helps murderer A kill random guy. Escaped mental patient B is not evil. He truly did not believe that what he was doing was wrong.

Let's attempt to distinguish "truly believe" and "didn't think."

You can't fake "true belief." You can't say "oh I don't believe stealing is wrong today... let me go pick that guy's pocket. oops I think stealing is wrong now! that's ok... I already got that guy's wallet."

Of course, we cannot establish whether or not the individual "truly believed" that what he was doing was evil, yet did it anyway. Only he knows that for sure.

I suppose our definition of evil relies on the idea that most people have a general idea of what is basically evil and that most people are competent enough to make that distinction; thus, by our logic, anyone who does anything we consider as "evil" must have known that it was "evil," and is therefore, "evil."

The asteroid that hit the planet is not evil, because it is not a sentient being in control of its actions. The planet can't label it as evil for the same reasons.

Besides, who's to say that if the asteroid DID have a set of values, it wouldn't consider hitting the planet to be a better path than dodging it? (Hey, dodging takes a lot of energy.)

-Warik

 

[Warik]

Re: Re: Re: good & evil

The principle of good & evil is probably foreign to existence at large

That's because existence at large is believed to be mostly inanimate matter. The atoms of hydrogen floating around in space neither know nor care what is going on around them. Good & Evil is a concept reserved only for sentient life.

-Warik

 

[Lao Tzu]

Re: Re: good & evil

OK, I think I am with you but with the above quote....are you talking about other different systems such as "happy& sad"?

i'm talking about systems of 'acceptable & unacceptable conduct' that would seem totally alien to us. I can't explain what i mean by it though.

Doesn't anyone find the idea fascinating that good & evil, the cornerstone of existence for sentient life, is an artificial program ensuring our obedience on a solitary rock in a dead existence?

 

[HumorMe]

Just trying to grasp the depth to this discussion before making myself look like an ass(although, I probably already have). I really don't think I have ever considered what you are talking about. Now that I think about it, I wonder who came up with the ideas that a certain something was good and a certain something else was evil.

 

[buddy28]

Re: Re: Re: good & evil

Doesn't anyone find the idea fascinating that good & evil, the cornerstone of existence for sentient life, is an artificial program ensuring our obedience on a solitary rock in a dead existence?

That is a fascinating theory. However, a person would have to assume the nonexistence of a universial deity, which is fair.

Most people arnt athesist and most people arnt familar enough with evolutionary theory to acknowledge the distinction your making. It is pretty amazing. Its comparable to studies in neuroscience. Your right, all of our emotions, our complex behavours, seem to be reduciable to biochemical interactions coupled with appropriate neuronal pathway stimulation (however complex). What is the scent?! Scent is nothing, just like taste is nothing. Scent is just molecules emmitted by a piece of physical matter which stimulate chemoreceptors in a organisms nasal passage, which are interpreted by the brain as a "smell". But there is no universal "smell" associated with atomic matter. Its the brain that makes it smell. Same with gustation (taste), and emotion. Take a hit of E and watch how powerfull the individuals emotional reaction is to a diluge of seeminly innoculent biochemicals. Just chemicals. How can a chemical make me feeel good, unlesss feelings are associated with biochemical reactions?! From the adaptionists, or evolutionists perspective, emotions and sensations our brains attribute to innoculous matter and events, helps the species survive.

Yep. Its complex stuff.

 

[aurelius]

I believe a person is evil if he believes something is evil, yet does it anyway.

I think we can both agree that people don´t behave in this manner. Rather, they rationalize what they do to themselves, therefor making whatever they do OK.

 

[aurelius]

Just trying to grasp the depth to this discussion before making myself look like an ass(although, I probably already have). I really don't think I have ever considered what you are talking about. Now that I think about it, I wonder who came up with the ideas that a certain something was good and a certain something else was evil.

This is what I was getting at in that other thread, HM. I don´t know you at all but I suspect, from reading your post here, that yours is a mind not content to settle for vague platitudes about "values" and such.

Who came up with the good and evil? Who do you think?

 

[havoc]

How could anything originate out of its opposite? for example, truth out of error? or the will to truth out of the will to deception? or selfless deeds out of selfishness? or the pure and sunlike gaze of the sage out of lust? Such origins are impossible; whoever dreams of them is a fool, indeed worse; the things of highest value must have another, peculiar origin - they cannot be derived from this transitory, seductive, deceptive, paltry world from this turmoil of delusion and lust. Rather from the lap of Being, the intransitory, the hidden god, the 'thing-in-itself' - there must be their basis, and nowhere else."
This way of judging constitutes the typical prejudgment and prejudice which give away the metaphysicians of all ages; this kind of valuation looms in the background of all their logical procedures; it is on account of this "faith" that they trouble themselves about "knowledge," about something that is finally baptized solemnly as "the truth." The fundamental faith of the metaphysicians is the faith in opposite values. It has not even occurred to the most cautious among them that one might have a doubt right here at the threshold where it was surely most necessary.

For one may doubt, first, whether there are any opposites at all, and secondly whether these popular valuations and opposite values on which the metaphysicians put their seal, are not perhaps merely foreground estimates, only provisional perspectives perhaps even from some nook, perhaps from below, frog perspective as it were, to borrow an expression painters use. For all the value that the true, the truthful, the selfless may deserve, it would still be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for life might have to be ascribed to deception, selfishness, and lust. It might even be possible that what constitutes the value of these good and revered things is precisely that they are insidiously related, tied to and involved with these wicked, seemingly opposite things - maybe even one with them in essence. Maybe!

But who has the will to concern himself with such dangerous maybes? For that, one really has to wait for the advent of a new species of philosophers such as have somehow another and converse taste and propensity from those we have known so far - philosophers of the dangerous "maybe" in every sense.

And in all seriousness: I see such new philosophers coming up.
NIETZCHE

 

[HumorMe]

This is what I was getting at in that other thread, HM. I don´t know you at all but I suspect, from reading your post here, that yours is a mind not content to settle for vague platitudes about "values" and such.

Who came up with the good and evil? Who do you think?

Hey, call me simple. That is the way I live my life. I try and keep things simple because I can. When you start to make things complex, that is when difficulties set in. That's just the way I am and probably will never change because I see no need to. I live a very basic life and I make rational decision although occassionally I make a "spur of the moment decision" but they usually will not have a drastic effect on my well-being.

I don't know who came up with good and evil but if you read the Bible, I would say God did. That's just my opinion and you can call me a sheep because I am comfortable with it. It seems the Bible is playing a lesser role in society today.

 

[aurelius]

Hey, call me simple. That is the way I live my life. I try and keep things simple because I can.

You should move to Spain. This is their national motto! "Complicado" not only means complicated, but also has a strong negative connotation attached, in Spain anyways.

That's just my opinion and you can call me a sheep because I am comfortable with it.

Easy man. No one´s calling anybody anything. (not me anyhow) besides, you can´t be comfortable being called a sheep, with the mindless idiot connotations that word holds.

It seems the Bible is playing a lesser role in society today.

This comment seems out of place.

I´ve said this before. I look at the evidence for "god" and I look at the evidence for the existance of humans (with their almost limitless capacity of imagination) and deduce where things like good and evil come from.

 

[HumorMe]

You should move to Spain. This is their national motto! "Complicado" not only means complicated, but also has a strong negative connotation attached, in Spain anyways.



Easy man. No one´s calling anybody anything. (not me anyhow) besides, you can´t be comfortable being called a sheep, with the mindless idiot connotations that word holds.

This comment seems out of place.

I´ve said this before. I look at the evidence for "god" and I look at the evidence for the existance of humans (with their almost limitless capacity of imagination) and deduce where things like good and evil come from.

Not a sheep in the form that your thinking. I simply do my own thing and I don't let outside influences take charge. You have to understand I live a very basic lifestyle that I am truly comfortable with. That lifestyle involves being involved in my church and my belief in God. There are plent of detractors on this board and in this world who will call me a sheep and that is their opinion. I am very conservative although I can enjoy the finer things in life if I choose. The problem is I look at money a little different than most people do. It don't idol it or anything but I make reasonable decisions based on how hard it was to earn that money therefore denying myself the luxury of just buying what I want, when I want. The thing is though is that I want very little. Materialism is a form of religion I do not want to slip in to. Sure, I have a nice house, in a nice neighborhood and drive nice cars(not foreign or highstyle cars) just useful cars. I never buy new cars and I rarely buy new things at all. Hell, my house is over 100 years old. An example.....I talked to friend last night about buying his lawnmower for $600. It's a John Deere but it is several years old. I just don't see paying $4000 for a lawnmower. You can get through life on the simple things, you just have to have the ability to recognize what those simply things are.

We are bombarded everyday by advertiser and brainwashed into thinking that if you don't buy their product...you are not in the "in" crowd. People believe it too! I don't buy into this kind of reasoning. I keep things simple.

 

[HumorMe]

This comment seems out of place.

I´ve said this before. I look at the evidence for "god" and I look at the evidence for the existance of humans (with their almost limitless capacity of imagination) and deduce where things like good and evil come from.

I forgot to address this statement.

That's your opinion I respect that opinion but I do not agree with it. Once you have experienced it, you know where the evidence is and it's in your heart and it's Faith that keeps you coming back for more.

 

[aurelius]

I never buy new cars and I rarely buy new things at all.

I don´t even have a car! How´s that for simple! You sound like my dad. He never had a car he didn´t drive for at leas 3 changes of presidency.

We are bombarded everyday by advertiser and brainwashed into thinking that if you don't buy their product...you are not in the "in" crowd. People believe it too! I don't buy into this kind of reasoning. I keep things simple.

I concur.

That's your opinion I respect that opinion but I do not agree with it. Once you have experienced it, you know where the evidence is and it's in your heart and it's Faith that keeps you coming back for more.

What you call evidence and faith I call want and imagination. Either way, it can be absolutely beautiful, don´t you think?