Spirituality
02 Aug 05
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by mokkoI agree with you, I think. Except what makes me feel sick can be something like unforeseen expenses, or the fear of losing work. Anything that threatens to undermine or dissolve my well being is evil? Probably. I should get an amulet.
There is good and evil and it's different for each person. An easy way to detect what's good and what's evil is what makes your stomach knot up and feel sick? That's how you know it's wrong. What makes you tingle and swell inside (keeping it clean!) That's goodness. Man is more prone to good because it makes him feel better. Even men who do evil in the name of good suffer from the physical effects of taking wrong actions.
What about the physical pleasure experienced in the height of bloodlust? Mongol morality...""The greatest pleasure a man can have derives from killing his enemies and then enjoying the warm embrace of the most beautiful and desirable of their women" (attributed to Genghis Khan). Many cultures have only considered good and evil as internally relevant and have projected the evil Other onto their enemies.
What about love--always good or sometimes evil?
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by HalitoseI think it's important to add other factors to the mix. You're effectively suggesting that pain/pleasure is the most important part of life and I would disagree. The inbuilt necessity to pass on your genes and to ensure the best chance of that passage being successful is more important. So a man who goes hungry to feed his child is choosing to do so to ensure his progeny can compete in the next round of life, he has put aside the pleasure/pain drives for a moment.
Going hungry so that your child can eat isn't very pleasurable. So therefor according to BDN's definition evil...
(Just working off the premise that "pleasure = good" and "pain = evil"đ
It seems a very shallow definition. Any suggestions on an alternative?
03 Aug 05
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanThe basic pain / pleasure dicotomy was put forward by me, as the most basic premise for morality, shared by chimpanzees and baboons. It is of course insufficient. Pleasure can also be collective...Anyhow what has morality got to do with good & evil? Morality falls within the human realm...I'd say it equates with responsibility...while good & evil are either superstitions or (as Kelly has suggested) only susceptible to arbitration by a superior & necessarily infallible God.
I think it's important to add other factors to the mix. You're effectively suggesting that pain/pleasure is the most important part of life and I would disagree. The inbuilt necessity to pass on your genes and to ensure the best chance ...[text shortened]... d of life, he has put aside the pleasure/pain drives for a moment.
What's the greater pleasure, seeing your child alive & well or stuffing your face?
Then there's inflicting pain on someone else to give them pleasure...file under Games.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThis is the problem when we try and give concepts like pleasure and pain a higher meaning. They are natural drives, they are not rationalised processes. There are many desires which come into play to decide courses of action, in the past, projecting the idea of evil onto one's enemies helped ensure protection of your own group and attainment of resources.
I agree with you, I think. Except what makes me feel sick can be something like unforeseen expenses, or the fear of losing work. Anything that threatens to undermine or dissolve my well being is evil? Probably. I should get an amulet.
What about the physical pleasure experienced in the height of bloodlust? Mongol morality...""The greatest pleasur ...[text shortened]... cted the evil Other onto their enemies.
What about love--always good or sometimes evil?
Love is a curious thing at the best of times. If I believed in good and evil I would say that love could not be evil, but wsa sometimes misinterpreted obsession. Since I do not, I personally believe that love is a state which is initially driven by lust and then elaborated by other factors to ensure the progeneration of one's group. It is a complex concept and is rarely fully understood, even by those inolved and as such it can be destructive as well as constructive.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by StarrmanThat's very well said. You'd agree that good & evil are superstitions?
This is the problem when we try and give concepts like pleasure and pain a higher meaning. They are natural drives, they are not rationalised processes. There are many desires which come into play to decide courses of action, in the past, projecting the idea of evil onto one's enemies helped ensure protection of your own group and attainment of resources ...[text shortened]... ly understood, even by those inolved and as such it can be destructive as well as constructive.
I enjoy the complex symbolism of Eros, that little son-of-a-bitch. The pagan mythologies dealt in nuances rather than absolutes and probably reflect a better understanding of psychology than monotheism...
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThere's also the resource availability to consider. If resources are plentiful and threats to the group are small, members will pursue more hedonistic processes (stuffing one's face or inflicting pain on someone else for fun), if times are hard, energy and resources cannot be wasted on such pursuits.
The basic pain / pleasure dicotomy was put forward by me, as the most basic premise for morality, shared by chimpanzees and baboons. It is of course insufficient. Pleasure can also be collective...Anyhow what has morality got to do with good & evil? Morality falls within the human realm...I'd say it equates with responsibility...while good & evil are ...[text shortened]... ce?
Then there's inflicting pain on someone else to give them pleasure...file under Games.
I agree morality is within the realm of humanity, the construction of morality from a social anthropological aspect interests me greatly.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYes in as much as they are rugs to sweep more complex natural desires under.
That's very well said. You'd agree that good & evil are superstitions?
I enjoy the complex symbolism of Eros, that little son-of-a-bitch. The pagan mythologies dealt in nuances rather than absolutes and probably reflect a better understanding of psychology than monotheism...
I'd hazard a guess that the origins of the notion of love are founded within the spiritual/religious realm. I cannot imagine that love existed before humans developed the ideas of higher/holy realms/beings. I cannot see a need for it.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by StarrmanI agree generally that Good and Evil are labels, but the complex desires under are not one-for-one equivalents. What these labels mean changes more rapidly with society than the desires underneath them, something which should point that they are not one and the same.
Yes in as much as they are rugs to sweep more complex natural desires under.
I'd hazard a guess that the origins of the notion of love are founded within the spiritual/religious realm. I cannot imagine that love existed before humans developed the ideas of higher/holy realms/beings. I cannot see a need for it.
In all this, I believe we, as humans, have the opportunity (and with the responsibility it entows) to be more than merely driven by instinct and so we have become something more than mere animals and should continue to evolve in that direction. We are redefining the TOE as we have been changing who is the "fittest" more rapidly than our genes have changed.
Can culture can lead to a directioned change in genes by partial denial of instincts? I believe this could be the case in a very very large time-span.
03 Aug 05
Man: Good or Eeeevil?
Who are you asking?
Man?!?!
Ok.. let's say "man" is asking if "man" is good or evil?
Is he asking other men or other women or both?
Each have their own opinion... no?
So... as this forum shows, men have differing viewpoints as whether "man is good or evil".
Why differing viewpoints? Because we all have different standards of measure. We differ in what is of value and what is not.
If man is evil, then we cannot hold man of much value... hence... we kill the unborn for our own sakes.
If man is good, then we wouldn't be having this discussion! đ
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by mokkoI can see the logic in this analogy but from my own personal experience, I disagree with it. I don't consider a developing baby either good or evil because he or she doesn't have yet those capacities. The baby only wants one thing: gratification. This gratification may occur in physically abusing another as you mentioned but it also takes place when your child says for the umpteenth time "Look at me" as they put something away or do a roll on the ground. I don't think the judgement of good and evil takes place here.
Well to figure out if man is inherently good or evil all you would have to do is look at the nature of an infant, for all men begin in their purest form as babies. Is a baby good or evil? At one point I would have answered good, but I have now been led to believe otherwise.
Parents spend a majority of their time teaching children to be good. A little tiny ...[text shortened]... s great feelings of guilt and shame.
Bottom line: I don't know
Edit: My baby is evil đ
Good and Evil are values and conditions mankind creates. Even the villian in many circumstances does not consider themselves "evil". Take Darth Vader for example. He and the Emperor's goal was always to bring order to the galaxy. The villian in many cases is working towards what they believe to be a just or good cause but their methodology is such that it is commonly interpreted as "evil".
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by David CYes, but he was the only one with a pure nature, he didn't have any
Interesting. Perhaps, but wouldn't this go against your creed? Am I not correct in assuming that you believe that man was good until tempted by the serpent?
issues with sin before. That would only be true with Adam, but not
so with any of his off spring. I see your point though, I just believe
that there are differences between the first temptation and ours.
The result was the same, but the foundation we have is not the
same as that of Adam as far as his and our nature from birth in
our case and creation in his.
Kelly
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageLove is always good. Love in it's purest form is ultimate goodness.
What about love--always good or sometimes evil?
True love in it's fullest truth of being is completly incapable of pain, evil, dissapointment ect. It's only man who distorts love into something it is not.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by FreaKinGeniusMan on a whole is good.
man as a whole is evil.
There's an unfair representation through media which represents and protrays man as evil. I believe this representation is limited in contrast to reality. In reality man strives to be good in his/her everyday dealings.
Now weather or not a persons percieption of good or evil is complacent within any given society is another story.
04 Aug 05
Originally posted by mokkoyou havent seen the kids at my school. lol maybe the generation before me wasnt evil, but i can tell you from the kids i see at school, we probably have a generation of evil coming.
Man on a whole is good.
There's an unfair representation through media which represents and protrays man as evil. I believe this representation is limited in contrast to reality. In reality man strives to be good in his/her everyday dealings.
Now weather or not a persons percieption of good or evil is complacent within any given society is another story.