Humans: Good or Evil?

Originally posted by Halitose
So is this a pointless debate, because my definition of good and evil would probably differ from yours?

I guess in a sense it is pointless because a universally accepted definition of what is good and what is evil will never been accepted. As mentioned, both are human perceptions and differ from individual.

Originally posted by Joe Fist
I guess in a sense it is pointless because a universally accepted definition of what is good and what is evil will never been accepted. As mentioned, both are human perceptions and differ from individual.

Is there ever a consensus in internet forums? 😉

Originally posted by Joe Fist
I guess in a sense it is pointless because a universally accepted definition of what is good and what is evil will never been accepted. As mentioned, both are human perceptions and differ from individual.

Then we have no grounds for accusing anybody of being evil, (or even doing evil in their perspective) Doesn't that pose a moral dilemma to the United Nations or even the War-Crimes Tribunal in The Hague? Aren't we imposing our morals and definitions of good and evil on some poor soul who was only trying to do what they thought best? Should somebody like S.Milosovic even have been prosecuted? Who is to say that the tribunal's morals are any better? Or maybe there are very vague, general definitions of good and evil that humans should at least subscribe to?

Originally posted by Halitose
Then we have no grounds for accusing anybody of being evil, (or even doing evil in their perspective) Doesn't that pose a moral dilemma to the United Nations or even the War-Crimes Tribunal in The Hague? Aren't we imposing our morals and definitions of good and evil on some poor soul who was only trying to do what they thought best? Should somebody like S.Milosovic even have been prosecuted?

We are imposing the morals of our culture, yes. That's why there are a lot of differences in the laws of different cultures, and some might sound barbaric to ones and others to lenient to others. The dominant culture sets the law code.

Originally posted by Palynka
We are imposing the morals of our culture, yes. That's why there are a lot of differences in the laws of different cultures, and some might sound barbaric to ones and others to lenient to others. The dominant culture sets the law code.

The dominant culture sets the law code.

Hmmm... Good point. So universal good and evil are merely the whims of the dominant culture?

What about when we throw God into that equation?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]The dominant culture sets the law code.

Hmmm... Good point. So universal good and evil are merely the whims of the dominant culture?

What about when we throw God into that equation?[/b]

Well some cultures (many cultures in fact) do and some don't. Personally, because the belief of God varies (and for some, it does not exist), I don't think it should ever enter the equation.

I think it is a little "glib" to deem what is good and evil as "whims". I think there is a lot more thought than just what sounds good. I think basically anything that injures or happens at the expense of another against their will is wrong and but not necessarily evil.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]The dominant culture sets the law code.

Hmmm... Good point. So universal good and evil are merely the whims of the dominant culture?

What about when we throw God into that equation?[/b]

God is a neutral element in the equation for me, as an atheist. The institutions of religion are part of culture and obviously may have a very strong influence in determining what that culture finds good or evil.

Perhaps a theist views God as an absorbing element in the equation.

Originally posted by Palynka
God is a neutral element in the equation for me, as an atheist. The institutions of religion are part of culture and obviously may have a very strong influence in determining what that culture finds good or evil.

Perhaps a theist views God as an absorbing element in the equation.

God has been part of the equation for many countries for many centuries. It is only during this last century that he has been removed. (or had his powers revoked) 😲 Do we still have a moral compass without God?

Originally posted by Halitose
God has been part of the equation for many countries for many centuries. It is only during this last century that he has been removed. (or had his powers revoked) 😲 Do we still have a moral compass without God?

Why do you think atheists have no moral compass?

Even if God exists, he's had less influence in determining each society's moral compass than that society's dominant institution of religion.

Originally posted by Palynka
Why do you think atheists have no moral compass?

Even if God exists, he's had less influence in determining each society's moral compass than that society's dominant institution of religion.

well said...

Originally posted by Halitose
God has been part of the equation for many countries for many centuries. It is only during this last century that he has been removed. (or had his powers revoked) 😲 Do we still have a moral compass without God?

there is an interesting debate in here somewhere, but it is getting kicked and bullied around by your fervent desire to promulgate the DCT. what does god have to do with any of this?

given man's humble beginnings, i imagine that the urge to even delineate good from evil only nucleates once daily survival is viewed as sufficiently assured; it then grows as daily survival is increasingly taken for granted. in this day and age, daily survival is not only seen as assured, but even protected; thus SOCIAL CONVENTION mandates that man quickly learns what is 'good' and 'evil'.

the line to walk is shaped by mutual experiences and thought experiments. it's clear to me that there are certain ways i wish not to be treated by others; ergo i also conclude that i should not treat others in such ways -- this is just the useful application of vested self-interest mixed in proper proportions with empathy. but the mere fact that i even lend time and credence to such lines of reason is afforded to me by my cultural surroundings -- i am no hunter/gatherer, for example, and neither are you.

i think the good and evil you speak of are merely social constructs. you clearly desperately want them to be more (give me a D! give me a C! give me a T! what's that spell?! go DCT!!!!! ya hoo! yee ha! yippee! hooray for DCT!)

Originally posted by LemonJello
there is an interesting debate in here somewhere, but it is getting kicked and bullied around by your fervent desire to promulgate the DCT. what does god have to do with any of this?

given man's humble beginnings, i imagine that the urge to even delineate good from evil only nucleates once daily survival is viewed as sufficiently assured; it then gro ...[text shortened]... ! give me a T! what's that spell?! go DCT!!!!! ya hoo! yee ha! yippee! hooray for DCT!)

This is the spirituality forum, why shouldn't he refer to God?

The notions of good and evil surge when survival is assured or were they a way to ensure the survival of larger numbers? The creation of societies was a step towards survival, in my opinion.

Can there be societies without a dominant notion of good and evil?

Originally posted by Palynka
This is the spirituality forum, why shouldn't he refer to God?

The notions of good and evil surge when survival is assured or were they a way to ensure the survival of larger numbers? The creation of societies was a step towards surviva ...[text shortened]... Can there be societies without a dominant notion of good and evil?

The notions of good and evil surge when survival is assured or were they a way to ensure the survival of larger numbers?

probably both in synergistic relation...good point.

Can there be societies without a dominant notion of good and evil?

i think the term 'society' necessitates some measure of such order.

Originally posted by LemonJello
i think the term 'society' necessitates some measure of such order.

Perhaps you are right. Let's start with one dictionary definition and work from there. I propose this one to start (from www.dictionary.com):

Society: The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.

Edit: With what do you disagree in this definition?

Originally posted by Palynka
Perhaps you are right. Let's start with one dictionary definition and work from there. I propose this one to start (from www.dictionary.com):

Society: The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.

Edit: With what do you disagree in this definition?

then 'self-perpetuating' is the key word. i think self-perpetuation would necessitate some widely agreed upon standards of what constitutes socially acceptable behavior. this is where i think the 'dominant notion' you mentioned would necessarily come in.