B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7096|Cologne, Germany

parthian1000 wrote:

Debating whether or not good and evil exist is not something a healthy society wants to do.  Its the worst kind of post-modern navel gazing that ultimately condemns us to oblivion -  even if it is an accurate account.  Quite clearly as a society there are some things we want to encourage and some discourage regardless of the philosophical arguments about good and evil.

As for the nature of humanity, I agree with the position that at a basic level we are driven by individual needs and the "pleasure principle".  That said people frequently override that hard wired programming due to the social software that we all carry about.  I might want to eat that sandwich in M&S but my social programming tells me I have to buy it first - its that that holds society together.  I would argue that, certainly in the UK, society is decaying because we no longer share the same values across the whole community.
true. As shown by conflicts that are caused by differences between cultures and their values ( religion playing a huge part in it ). Although globalization has brought different cultures together economically, it is obvious that we have not yet reached an agreement on a "world" value system.

The differences between opposing definitions of "right" and "wrong", "good" and "evil" are cultural differences, IMHO. Those cultural differences then influence the whole education system in a specific country in that culture.

There is non inter-cultural concensus (sp?) on the core values.
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7096|Cologne, Germany

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Good and Evil is just too black and white for me in this gray world
the world may be grey, but everyone has to make up his mind what's good and what's evil, and then live according to those premisses, don't you think ?

The important question is how much you are willing to compromise for the sake of the common good.
LoMaX
Member
+24|6790|Sweden is banned from hell ;)

TehSeraphim wrote:

LoMaX wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Man is not inherently good or inherently evil. Man is driven by the 'survival instinct' and 'the pleasure principle' primarily and that can drive man to things that are considered evil and also to do things that are considered good.
That's quite true is man is just a walking piece of meat with a logical brain. But what the heck is love then - oh, that's just a chemical reaction in the brain.. and how do we know that we exist in the first place?

I dunno, but love FEELS great and experienced for me as good. And by the way, I did not say Man was either good or evil when born into this world.. We make different choises..

But you have a point as well.. I do also think we are driven by instinct basic to more delicate ones. But not everything is calculated by Maslow.. right? He is not all Good? or Bad.

I do stand by that the rich world have the luxury to reflect upon what's good/bad that poor people do not.. So to say "the delicate principles of life". Some just try to survive the day. I wonder how that feels like?

Interesting tread.

/LoMaX
Time to play devils advocate....

It's safe to assume that rich have more time to reflect on what's good/bad over poor people because, due to Maslows hierarchy of needs, they don't need to spend as much time surviving and can devote more time to thinking. 

It's also safe to assume that most people in Congress/Senate/Presidency are financially secure (how else could you run for office?).

If both these can be assumed to be true, then our current laws are made by financially secure people who control what is deemed right and wrong in the United States.  Given this information, is it ethical to subject those who are below the poverty line to an ethical standard set by those who are financially secure?  Just a thought.
Now we are really discussing "KARMA". I read once that some Bramins in India (who are not financially rich, but think much) discussed if it was right to pull up a drowning person from the inevitable death, with a lower "KAST" (Indian - Karma Ranking System).

The Idea was that he (the Bramin) might hinder that person of reaching the next afterlife, and in that made a "wrong/bad" thing. Myself thought that this was just "idiotic". If somebody is drowning you don't think - just do it! (Like the Western NIKE commercial).

As I started - I believe that Maslow has some points in his ideas, but on the contrary so did the bramins. This is not to say that either of them are totally wrong.. but some ideas just gotta stop? Don't you think?

Back to you question/statement - Yes if Maslow was the One with the only idea. But is it not reasonable to say that etchics is stated in which boots you stand. As that specific bramin Idea, they really had to much time on their hands.. and sometimes even do we.

(Perhaps this was a bit blurry - but I took some time "at work" for this).

Over and Out.
/LoMaX
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6796|vancouver
I think people are mostly basically good.  The rest fall into two main categories:

1. Those with no internal sense of justice
2. Those whose sense of justice is contradicted by their experiences

Both these groups are influenced by how they think others perceive them.  Anybody can become convinced of their own essential "evilness", and when this happens it can become self-fulfilling.  It doesn't have to, though.
LoMaX
Member
+24|6790|Sweden is banned from hell ;)

spastic bullet wrote:

I think people are mostly basically good.  The rest fall into two main categories:

1. Those with no internal sense of justice
2. Those whose sense of justice is contradicted by their experiences

Both these groups are influenced by how they think others perceive them.  Anybody can become convinced of their own essential "evilness", and when this happens it can become self-fulfilling.  It doesn't have to, though.
Hrmm. Interesting thought. Not too shabby. +1 for you.

EDIT - could not Karma you again the "system" said. Next round then.

Last edited by LoMaX (2006-06-27 02:12:38)

Cactusfist
Pusher of sausages Down Hallways
+26|6823
I try not to be pristine, but being a prat sucks.

Plus id much rather have a nice neighbour than some shithead, so goods the way to go
JahManRed
wank
+646|6883|IRELAND

Good evil, mankind,
Mankind has done a prity shitty job lately, I say its time to hand it over to womankind.
Men are drove by the natural instinct to impress and compete on all levels with each other, often with bloody consequences.
Women are born with a nurturing instinct, an instinct that wants to preserve life at all costs. I think its down to instinct. It drives everything.  Let women take over and we can go back to doing what we were put here for. The making of the Sex.
]GoD[JiN
Member
+4|6815
a little one to think about

the EUROPEN white man ...

no realy think about it every other race "pardon the pun" in the world lived in peace allmost co existed with fellow man they ever came across on a hole
white man from the EU as a piont of fact one of the last races to settle on the globe they beleave left there beatch,s and went thorth upon the world ..........and did what ?

killed and enslaved every person they have ever met in the hole world africa america the far east astralia the list gose on and on  can any one think of a exsepsion ??

EUROPEN white man is one of the most distructive thing,s this world has ever seen is that evil or is it as simple as being one of the last ppl to settle on the world they are prone to a differnt way of thinking globaly ?
Dagger37A
Member
+18|7019|USA
I think anytime you generalize anything, you are setting yourself up for failure (where's Kr@cker when you need him?) lol

If you believe yourself and your cause as good and you are fighting something you believe as evil, you don't really care about their' rights. It's all about perspective... Do you think Bin-Laden believes he is evil? Probably not, but we are all righteous in our own minds. Which leads me to believe that Humans for the most part strive to be right or good when it is convenient...

Last edited by Dagger37A (2006-06-27 18:31:30)

Xietsu
Banned
+50|6811

B.Schuss wrote:

Xietsu wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

our modern code of ethics is one perspective moron.  what was evil before may not be considered evil now.  its all relative.  evil does not exist.
What the fuck? Clearly you don't understand what the fuck is being said here. When I speak of there NOT being an issue of perspective through our modern systems of ethics, the point is that THERE IS NO DEBATE about what is good and evil, based upon these establishments--your referencing past cultures and their moral constructs is irrelevant, and downright fucking stupid. Stay the fuck out of my thread if you're going to pollute it with misconception.
lol, Xietsu, what's going on ? Are you losing it ?

Two things here:

1. this is not your thread, and most certainly you are not the one to decide who posts here.
2. I have said it before, and I'll say it again, using insults like that is not helping to support your argument.
To the contrary, such behaviour will damage your reputation on the long run and and is bound to stop people from taking you seriously....

Let's try to keep this debate insult-free, shall we ?
Of course I realize that this isn't, in "essence", my thread--the point remains in the idea that he has clashed with the dignity of reason pervading in my initial posts, as if to somehow degrade the premises in which I have selected that this topic be discussed under. It is not that I feel I should "remain unchallenged", but that he was ranting with an extreme conviction despite his being wrong. How am I losing it? I have never had much respect for ignorance.

topal63 wrote:

Evil does not exist. . . good does not exist. . . they are not separate entities that can be separated into absolutes.

These (2) ideas are subjective determinations (value judgments) about apparent-cruelty within the Universe.

The correct conception is subjective-evil & subjective-good.

Subjective-evil is -
That deed or act which crosses an arbitrarily determined margin or limit of cruelty (and that limit is influenced by heredity*).
A point when something seems to have crossed some boundary of cruelty that someone’s socio-ethical tastes/standards have been offended - and that conception carries with it a shading or degree - with some-things being subjectively-determined to be more-cruel and therefore more-evil (subjectively, of course).

     *On heredities influence to our subjective conception(s) of good & evil. Cleary man is a social-animal like many
     other animals and this fact influences our behavior and our notions of good & evil. Cleary man is separate specie
     and this also influences our behavior and our notions of good & evil, but I haven’t the time to explore this aspect -
     as it is quite specific as to what conclusions can be rendered about good & evil in reference to heredity.

Subjective examples:
One could say that the Universe is evil. This is a subjective determination based upon the apparent indifference of Nature & the Universe (by and large) to the plight of the individual. The indifference seems to be a type of natural-cruelty based upon the perspective and attitudes of the individual (based upon a partly developed and partly acquired worldview). Droughts that cause mass starvation, plagues, comet impacts that have the power to obliterate an eco-system on a global scale, volcano eruptions that burn entire cities in molten ash in seconds, tidal waves, hurricanes, etc. . .

One could say every act has the potential for evil; for cruelty; as a consequence of any act. One person consumes resources in one part of the world and acid-rain falls as a consequence in another part of the world. One man eats, he drinks and enjoys life - while a multitude somewhere else starves to death - when resources that merely entertain the overfed could have been used save many lives but personal indifference kept that reasoning; or feeling; at bay; out of cognitive awareness. For some this arbitrary-limit may be quite inclusive of many evil-acts or deeds. For others it would/will be a much lower limit. For some they will acknowledge that any act may carry with it the consequence of evil; cruelty - that simply cannot be seen by the individual.

Life is a struggle for resources. If all was safe and we were utterly free of predatory behavior - cruelty would still exist because the struggle for resources would still exist. There is a finite limit to the bounty (the output) the land can naturally or artificially produce. And, it is known that any population will match this output and then exceed it. When this happens there is still a severe struggle for life for what resources are available; thus cruelty and thus subjective-evil - if you’re cognitively capable of such value judgments (meaning many animals are not making this value judgment - man is).

But if rather you don’t take the position that cruelty, indifference, severity is necessarily evil. That nature’s indifference and severity is evil and that such a conception is linked to subjective (non-real) determination (merely a worldview that does not take form without; in outside reality; it is an internal non-real conception; just and idea) - then severity and cruelty can even be seen as necessary and constructive - else how would we be here - if evolution wasn’t molding us with nature’s cruel and indifferent scalpel.

Heraclitus:
“To God all things are fair and good and right, but to man some things are good (right) and some evil (wrong).”
It is not about cruelty but about the conciousness and affinity for such decisions of moral caliber.
(P.S. Answer my PM topal O_o.)

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-27 20:44:04)

GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6899
what a funny thread
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6804|Southeastern USA
what are these "ethics" of which you speak?
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6746|Northern California
I "know" (through spiritual means) that ALL men (and women) born into this world are endowed with goodness (we're all literal children of God), and there is also an added influence in the world called the light of christ.  This light of christ permeates ALL people.  However, there is also negative influence in the world which is comprised of a third of the host of heaven (aka, Lucifer and his followers who were cast into the earth after rebelling against God and his plan).  This evil influence begins immediately to effect us as does the good influence.  And since EACH person born into this world with a sane mind has the God given gift of "free agency" (the duty to choose right from wrong), we chose our paths of our own free will.  But because some who directly or indirectly have chosen negative paths can influence the paths of others, the accountability of such persons being acted upon is reduced.  For example, if a child is raised in an obviously abusive manner, such accountability given said child will naturally be reduced when it's time to account for your actions.

SO in short, my knowledge (belief which has been ratified and confirmed via spiritual confirmation) is that mankind are born perfect, sinless, and is GOOD.  Evil behavior is learned.  As for the science theories that suggest someone is born with tendancies that are considered bad, doesn't mean they have to chose them.

Oh, i would also add that people without the ability to think rationally or those born without said ability, are perfect and have no accountability for their evils if they learned them.




...and there you have it from the religious voice of the forums..the CRAZY MAN ironchef!  Knock yourselves out on this one...i'm interested in the directions it will go...
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6899
thats your way of looking at things
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6746|Northern California
It is.  And it makes perfect sense to me.  WHereas other theories i'm reading here don't make good sense to me.

"to me" being key words.  this is a great debate.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6899
maybe perhaps good behavior is learned instead of evil.  evil might be inherit to humankind.  the toddler doesnt know or care that its choking the life out of the puppy, but the puppy does. 


but its all relative.  haji blowing himself up killing nothing but civilians isnt doing this thing thinking that its evil.  those lunatics who go out and murder people who work at planned parenthood and abortion clinics dont see the things that they do as being evil.  some might say that abortion its self is evil.  but a whole lot of people will strongly disagree

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-10-13 13:09:19)

IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6746|Northern California
if you've seen a newborn, of just had children, you'd know that they are born perfect, good, without sin, etc.  I've seen and held many babies, and I've had 3 of my own.  as they age, their learned evils and their accountability towards them grows.

mothers with babies inside them have an undeniable presense about them.  many people think pregnant women 'glow' or have an 'aura' about them.  this is how it's easy to suggest they have a little 'piece of heaven' in them.  this can also help explain the 'post partum depression' many mothers feel after this perfect little being leaves their womb.

these are just some examples that support my above stated statement.
jonsimon
Member
+224|6750
Good and evil do not exist, thus, man is neutral.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6899

IRONCHEF wrote:

if you've seen a newborn, of just had children, you'd know that they are born perfect, good, without sin, etc.  I've seen and held many babies, and I've had 3 of my own.  as they age, their learned evils and their accountability towards them grows.

mothers with babies inside them have an undeniable presense about them.  many people think pregnant women 'glow' or have an 'aura' about them.  this is how it's easy to suggest they have a little 'piece of heaven' in them.  this can also help explain the 'post partum depression' many mothers feel after this perfect little being leaves their womb.

these are just some examples that support my above stated statement.
yeah they are great examples and all but not one bit of it is tangible.  these are just feelings, nothing concrete.  there is no such thing as just knowing anything.....at least the way I see it.  that makes no sense to me.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-10-13 13:18:37)

IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6746|Northern California
Well, how much of what we know came from something tangible?  And how much of what we "know" comes from feeling?  We have a president who illustrates this daily?  lol  "Harriet Meyers 'feels' like the right choice!"  Stephen Colbert talks of this in his satire suggesting books and "proof" are overrated and second to feeling things to be right.

Not too far from this satire is truth.  You and I both believe things to be true or even proven just be reason, feeling, or even being convinced by others.  As an illustration many religious people use as a counter to claims such as yours use this analogy...

"Can you prove you have a brain in your head?"  "Have you ever seen it, touched it, smelled it, or tasted it?" [no is the obvious reply] "Then you can't prove you have a brain in your head so I'm not going to talk to you anymore."

But i'm not one to stoop to such analogies, rather I'd like to just let you discover the truth of this yourself.  THink of things you believe to be true, in fact think of things you KNOW are true that  you haven't proved by your criteria above.  And also, just because things don't make sense, doesn't necessarily mean they're not true.

Because the Lancet survey doesn't make sense to people who don't study it, doesn't mean it's false.

Things pertaining to God can only be known through spiritual means.  It's that simple.  It's intended to be that way for a reason.   Billions of people throughout millenia have discovered this "truth."  Some who haven't learned how spiritual things work naturally are suspicious.  But when discounting them as false...is as responsible as Bush discounting the Lancet  report as being uncredible.

Think about it and good luck. 

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-10-13 13:29:15)

jonsimon
Member
+224|6750

IRONCHEF wrote:

Well, how much of what we know came from something tangible?  And how much of what we "know" comes from feeling?  We have a president who illustrates this daily?  lol  "Harriet Meyers 'feels' like the right choice!"  Stephen Colbert talks of this in his satire suggesting books and "proof" are overrated and second to feeling things to be right.

Not too far from this satire is truth.  You and I both believe things to be true or even proven just be reason, feeling, or even being convinced by others.  As an illustration many religious people use as a counter to claims such as yours use this analogy...

"Can you prove you have a brain in your head?"  "Have you ever seen it, touched it, smelled it, or tasted it?" [no is the obvious reply] "Then you can't prove you have a brain in your head so I'm not going to talk to you anymore."

But i'm not one to stoop to such analogies, rather I'd like to just let you discover the truth of this yourself.  THink of things you believe to be true, in fact think of things you KNOW are true that  you haven't proved by your criteria above.  And also, just because things don't make sense, doesn't necessarily mean their not true.

Because the Lancet survey doesn't make sense to people who don't study it, doesn't mean it's false.

Things pertaining to God can only be known through spiritual means.  It's that simple.  Billions of people throughout millenia have discovered this "truth."  Some who haven't learned how spiritual things work naturally are suspicious.  But when discounting them as false...is as responsible as Bush discounting the Lancet  report as being uncredible.

Think about it and good luck. 
Actually, you can prove you have a brain in your head through some simple science. 100% of observed human skulls contain brains (Conditions being that the head was opened immediately prior to observation). Your parents are both observed to be human. Because any whole is no greater than the sum of it's parts, it can be concluded you are human and, as all observed humans contain brains, it is more than likely you have a brain as well.

There, logical proof. If something is true, it can then inevitably be proven.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6746|Northern California

jonsimon wrote:

Actually, you can prove you have a brain in your head through some simple science. 100% of observed human skulls contain brains (Conditions being that the head was opened immediately prior to observation). Your parents are both observed to be human. Because any whole is no greater than the sum of it's parts, it can be concluded you are human and, as all observed humans contain brains, it is more than likely you have a brain as well.

There, logical proof. If something is true, it can then inevitably be proven.
simple science? or reason?  you still have not applied the "tangible" criteria for proving it.  even your explanation is using "logic" as you said, it's not proven anymore than reason.  and if precedence is proof, then if there's biblical records and historical records talking about the dead coming from their graves at the same time the bible reports that it happened in accordance with Christ's resurrection, then that means we will all be resurrected..it means Christ lived after he was dead, it means pretty much everything that he did was real.

I don't like the brain in the head analogy because it's inflamatory in it's context.  But in its reasoning, it's dead on for the analogy.  If you, jonsimon, cannot prove to me (if we were standing face to face) that you literally have a brain in your head, using the 5 senses, then it cannot be concluded. 

I can prove God's existence in probably dozens or hundreds of ways.  I can't see him, feel him (physically anyway), hear him (audibly) yet, or touch him (yet), but I have more certainty of his existence than I do that you or I have brains in our heads.  If you don't believe me, it's not my fault and it is not because it's not true.  Everyone has seen how I come to know things..just read my posts in the lancet report thread.  Now how can someone like me, who reasons thus, purport to know of God's existence?  Surely there's some reasoning behind it?  But no, it's easier to just ignorantly claim falsehoods.  And that's fine, I'll live.

And I think we were done with our religious debating yesterday so I will let you finish this.  PM me if you'd like to discuss this seperately.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6746|Northern California

topal63 wrote:

This fuzzy feeling thing about having a special spiritual gnosis knowledge - is absurd -
Please, I ask you to please explain to me why a spiritual feeling is absurd?  Any good reason will do.  If you think it's absurd because you don't understand it or haven't tried it or just because you've been convinced it's absurd..do not qualify as a reason.

Also, by your description of simply labelling it as a 'fuzzy feeling about having a special spiritual gnosis knowledge" shows you have no idea what I'm talking about so I'm not really expecting an explanation.

But sincerely, please reason with me.  Explain, if you can, why feeling something to know of it's truthfullness is absurd.


Also, if you can, asnwer my question on this topic I asked to another in this thread where I asked them to think about things you consider knowledge without having proven them.  How many things do you KNOW to be true that you haven't applied the same battery of tests on to prove it as you say?

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-10-13 14:23:04)

jonsimon
Member
+224|6750

IRONCHEF wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Actually, you can prove you have a brain in your head through some simple science. 100% of observed human skulls contain brains (Conditions being that the head was opened immediately prior to observation). Your parents are both observed to be human. Because any whole is no greater than the sum of it's parts, it can be concluded you are human and, as all observed humans contain brains, it is more than likely you have a brain as well.

There, logical proof. If something is true, it can then inevitably be proven.
simple science? or reason?  you still have not applied the "tangible" criteria for proving it.  even your explanation is using "logic" as you said, it's not proven anymore than reason.  and if precedence is proof, then if there's biblical records and historical records talking about the dead coming from their graves at the same time the bible reports that it happened in accordance with Christ's resurrection, then that means we will all be resurrected..it means Christ lived after he was dead, it means pretty much everything that he did was real.

I don't like the brain in the head analogy because it's inflamatory in it's context.  But in its reasoning, it's dead on for the analogy.  If you, jonsimon, cannot prove to me (if we were standing face to face) that you literally have a brain in your head, using the 5 senses, then it cannot be concluded. 

I can prove God's existence in probably dozens or hundreds of ways.  I can't see him, feel him (physically anyway), hear him (audibly) yet, or touch him (yet), but I have more certainty of his existence than I do that you or I have brains in our heads.  If you don't believe me, it's not my fault and it is not because it's not true.  Everyone has seen how I come to know things..just read my posts in the lancet report thread.  Now how can someone like me, who reasons thus, purport to know of God's existence?  Surely there's some reasoning behind it?  But no, it's easier to just ignorantly claim falsehoods.  And that's fine, I'll live.

And I think we were done with our religious debating yesterday so I will let you finish this.  PM me if you'd like to discuss this seperately.
It's not that I can't prove I have a brain, I can. It's just that it's very painful to do so. I think we both agree that I can bust open my head and prove I have a brain. So, the analogy fails.

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-10-13 15:03:09)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|6906|USA
man is essentially evil, we excuse are actions under the guise of religion or faith or "gods will" to gain justification or rationalisation for our behavior in an attempt to win approval or favor.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard