Humans: Good or Evil?

Originally posted by yousers
Ah, so self-interest is at the heart of morality. If there were no other people to bring negative consequences to murder, rape, and theft, they would be good? If no one finds out, it is good to do any of the above?
I find self-interest t ...[text shortened]... even define morality as an attempt to improve the lives of others.

yes i think self interest is integral (in an ironic way). consider the golden rule: 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. you cannot know what you would like done unto you without some vested self-interest, don't you think?

another example: laws and social rules of conduct are adopted for the purposes of self-perpetuation. this is just another concept linked with self-interest (of course, it can also be linked with compassion for the plight of others too).

Originally posted by yousers
Ah, so self-interest is at the heart of morality. If there were no other people to bring negative consequences to murder, rape, and theft, they would be good? If no one finds out, it is good to do any of the above?
I find self-interest to be generally directly opposed to conventional morality. Some even define morality as an attempt to improve the lives of others.

If there were no other people to bring negative consequences to murder, rape, and theft, they would be good? If no one finds out, it is good to do any of the above?

no. this is not how i meant 'self-interest'. see above for clarification on how i think self-interest enters in.

Originally posted by yousers
Ok, you have definitely committed to the nominalist view of morality - that is, its nature is determined by a given person's definition. Now let me try to clarify my point. If morality consists of no more than a human-generated concept, intuition, whatever; then morality does not exist outside of the human mind. It's existence is dependent on and subjec ...[text shortened]... iological sense) of morality is absurd. Science cannot tell us anything about morality, period.

Science is ultimately a tool which we use to directly or indirectly observe and describe exactly that which your morality is not - those things which exist outside of the mind.

That is not true. Psychology is a science, and it's the study of the mind. Likewise, the investigation of the evolution of the mind is perfectly suited to scientific investigation.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Science is ultimately a tool which we use to directly or indirectly observe and describe exactly that which your morality is not - those things which exist outside of the mind.

That is not true. Psychology is a science, and it's the study of the mind. Likewise, the investigation of the evolution of the mind is perfectly suited to scientific investigation.[/b]

Psychology studies the brain, the material function of it. That is all that exists beyond the minds doing the studying. The evolution of the brain is perfectly scientific, but the evolution of the mind, conciousness, etc. is not. Psychology and all of science is incapable of studying ideas, concepts, religion, or morality to name a few. You cannot point to the evolution of something that science can't even describe.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]If there were no other people to bring negative consequences to murder, rape, and theft, they would be good? If no one finds out, it is good to do any of the above?

no. this is not how i meant 'self-interest'. see above for clarification on how i think self-interest enters in.[/b]

Is self-interest universal? Do I have different types of self-interest than you?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Science is ultimately a tool which we use to directly or indirectly observe and describe exactly that which your morality is not - those things which exist outside of the mind.

That is not true. Psychology is a science, and it's the study of the mind. Likewise, the investigation of the evolution of the mind is perfectly suited to scientific investigation.[/b]

The evolution of the mind is closely related to what I sometimes call "the Evolvo-God" i.e. man "sees" god through the prism of his understanding of the universe, as man's base of knowlege increases God evolves along with it. Since 90% of man's knowlege base was unknown in 1900: it follows that a stone-age religion would be even more outdated than it was 2000 years ago when they were crucifying heretics for "blasphemy". The Christian religion really doesn't exist they made it into an extension of the older religion which was in turn an evolvement of the polytheistic Chaldean religions.
Which is what 1900 years ago, Valentinus called Error, of course they tossed him out of the church as a "heretic" After reading some of his surviving writings ( book burnings) it seems like he was on the trail of some form of energy to define the nature of God and the Spirit. Too bad he had no knowlege of String Theory, would have made interesting reading.

Originally posted by yousers
Ah, so self-interest is at the heart of morality. If there were no other people to bring negative consequences to murder, rape, and theft, they would be good? If no one finds out, it is good to do any of the above?
I find self-interest to be generally directly opposed to conventional morality. Some even define morality as an attempt to improve the lives of others.

Well said!
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
yes i think self interest is integral (in an ironic way). consider the golden rule: 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. you cannot know what you would like done unto you without some vested self-interest, don't you think?

another example: laws and social rules of conduct are adopted for the purposes of self-perpetuation. this i ...[text shortened]... h self-interest (of course, it can also be linked with compassion for the plight of others too).

By the direction of God yes, we are to treat each other as we want to
be treated.
Kelly

Originally posted by frogstomp
The evolution of the mind is closely related to what I sometimes call "the Evolvo-God" i.e. man "sees" god through the prism of his understanding of the universe, as man's base of knowlege increases God evolves along with it. Since 90% of man's knowlege base was unknown in 1900: it follows that a stone-age religion wo ...[text shortened]... pirit. Too bad he had no knowlege of String Theory, would have made interesting reading.

I think we are not sharing the same sense of the word 'evolution'. I agree that the typical mind changes or 'evolves' and that religion has definitely changed over time. The use of 'evolution' that I am refuting is the biological sense of the word in an attempt to bring authority to some obscure type of morality. I am rejecting the possibility of a biological 'evolution' of the things mentioned above.

What you have stated may be true, but as I have pointed out, there is no purely scientific way to establish a knowledge of religion.

Originally posted by frogstomp
The evolution of the mind is closely related to what I sometimes call "the Evolvo-God" i.e. man "sees" god through the prism of his understanding of the universe, as man's base of knowlege increases God evolves along with it. Since 90% of man's knowlege base was unknown in 1900: it follows that a stone-age religion wo ...[text shortened]... pirit. Too bad he had no knowlege of String Theory, would have made interesting reading.

This assumes God the creator has not revealed Himself to anyone,
and everyone simply makes up God as they think God should be
after a fashion doesn't it?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
This assumes God the creator has not revealed Himself to anyone,
and everyone simply makes up God as they think God should be
after a fashion doesn't it?
Kelly

Actually it assumes nothing of the kind. It might be a bit past your ability to understand , but that's the central point anyway.

Originally posted by yousers
I think we are not sharing the same sense of the word 'evolution'. I agree that the typical mind changes or 'evolves' and that religion has definitely changed over time. The use of 'evolution' that I am refuting is the biological se ...[text shortened]... is no purely scientific way to establish a knowledge of religion.

What I don't see is why it would have to be a biological evolvement when it's could just as easily be an expansion of knowlege of what it takes to survive.
If you making the claim that the the human brain isn't the originator of thoughts , I guess you'd have to explain where the "self" resides.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Actually it assumes nothing of the kind. It might be a bit past your ability to understand , but that's the central point anyway.

Well wise one, if you could use little words maybe I'd have a chance
to grasp it. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
yes i think self interest is integral (in an ironic way). consider the golden rule: 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. you cannot know what you would like done unto you without some vested self-interest, don't you think?

another example: laws and social rules of conduct are adopted for the purposes of self-perpetuation. this i ...[text shortened]... h self-interest (of course, it can also be linked with compassion for the plight of others too).

consider the golden rule: 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.

Do you know that you have just quoted the words of Christ? Are you also saying that the Golden rule for morality comes from the Bible?

Wow! Those are very interesting words coming from you!

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]consider the golden rule: 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.

Do you know that you have just quoted the words of Christ? Are you also saying that the Golden rule for morality comes from the Bible?

Wow! Those are very interesting words coming from you!

[/b]

Do you know that you have just quoted the words of Christ? Are you also saying that the Golden rule for morality comes from the Bible?

christ are you obtuse, dj2.

i have never disputed the fact that i think the bible just happens to contain some useful concepts of morality. since i think that 1. morality is a man-made construct AND 2. the bible is also nothing more than a man-made construct, these words from me should not surprise you. they are, however, a far cry from the claim that the bible establishes morality, which is an unsupported claim that i will continue to sweep away as long as you continue to puke it up. surely, you can see the distinction here.

Are you also saying that the Golden rule for morality comes from the Bible?

far from it.