Humans: Good or Evil?

Originally posted by LemonJello
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.

Ok, I guess we agree then. I also noted the importance of self-perpetuating and found it fit nicely with the question of survival we were discussing.

Originally posted by Palynka
Ok, I guess we agree then. I also noted the importance of self-perpetuating and found it fit nicely with the question of survival we were discussing.

being that i agree strongly with everything you have posted in this thread, i also think we agree here. i almost didn't post anything because you were handling things nicely.

Originally posted by LemonJello
being that i agree strongly with everything you have posted in this thread, i also think we agree here. i almost didn't post anything because you were handling things nicely.

I guess it's easier to do better when I'm not playing devil's advocate for theists. 😉

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.

I agree atheists have morals, but how do you think you can say
that an atheist can claim a moral compass? I'm not saying that
atheists do not have morals, just a moral compass. A compass
points in one direction being guided by something outside of
themselves that does not change, without something outside of
the atheist to guide them, are they not simply just floating and
taking in what ever sounds good at the time?
Kelly

Originally posted by Starrman
I am seperating the word 'love' as different from the word 'care'. In my eyes people generally use the word love as something embued with spiritual qualities, I do not. I would say that what you feel towards your family is a deep and powerful need to care and be cared for. I would also suggest that this need is rooted in evolved instincts to help ensure the success of your family.

It seems to me that you've chosen to define 'love' as being 'spiritual' and then you 'hazard a guess' that this notion of love was founded 'within the spiritual/religious realm'. Well, of course. You defined it that way.

I don't believe I am, could you elaborate on that?

You said

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.

Such a man goes hungry because his conscience would torture him with guilt if he didn't, and it rewards him with satisfaction and pride because of what he did. Also, the man has a investment in the child - the idea that his line will continue, that he will have an indirect influence in the future through the way he raised his kid, etc. In addition, the man is considering the pleasure and pain of the child as well as his own. To say the man put aside the pleasure/pain drive doesn't take these things into account.

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

I think that the original question cannot be answered without clear unambiguous definitions of 'good' and 'evil' for the purpose of the debate. Now I think examining the definitions of 'good' and 'evil' is very worthwhile.

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?

We have no grounds for asserting there is some absolute 'evil' that these people did. Of course we can define evil and then say these people were evil by that definition.

Or maybe there are very vague, general definitions of good and evil that humans should at least subscribe to?

I think this is worth exploring. Exploring this idea is how I became a hedonist/utilitarianist - whichever variation I am.

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?

God has his own whims and is definitely dominant if he chooses to be - if he exists as Christians describe him. There's nothing deeper to it than that.

Do we still have a moral compass without God?

I do. I made my own. It's the pain/pleasure concept.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think that the original question cannot be answered without clear unambiguous definitions of 'good' and 'evil' for the purpose of the debate. Now I think examining the definitions of 'good' and 'evil' is very worthwhile.

Anybody willing to give a definition?

Originally posted by Halitose
Anybody willing to give a definition?

Sure. Pleasure, happiness, and all other feelings and experiences valued by any being are good. Suffering, pain, misery, and all other feelings and experiences a being values the absence of and finds unpleasant are evil. Acts are determined to be good or evil based on the consequences in terms of pain and pleasure. Good and evil are independent of what being experiences the pain and pleasure. Measurement of pain and pleasure is generally intuitive as we have not yet developed technology which allows us to quantify it precisely.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It seems to me that you've chosen to define 'love' as being 'spiritual' and then you 'hazard a guess' that this notion of love was founded 'within the spiritual/religious realm'. Well, of course. You defined it that way.
...[text shortened]... e pleasure/pain drive doesn't take these things into account.

[/i][/b]Why wouldn't love or for that matter good be anything other than
spritual in nature; you see nature causing what we call real love
or good to spring into being? I don't see that happening from just
accidents in nature working on ole dead dirt over time with natural
processes.
Kelly

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.

Do you think athiests have no moral compass?

I never said atheists have to moral sense, but I guess Kelly's answer sums it up. All I would say, is that with athiests there is a very large grey area.

God has had less influence in determining each society's moral compass than that society's dominant institution of religion

I beg to differ. I hope I understood you correctly. Most of Europe was part of the Holy Roman Empire, an empire where the Roman Catholic Church ruled supreme. There are still many countries today where a large part of the populace believes in God and His morals.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Such a man goes hungry because his conscience would torture him with guilt if he didn't, and it rewards him with satisfaction and pride because of what he did. Also, the man has a investment in the child - the idea that his line wi ...[text shortened]... e the pleasure/pain drive doesn't take these things into account.

You're right, the definition of love wasn't well put, allow me to rephrase. I was intoning that it was a human concept created by those of a spiritual/religious nature, who raised it to have a spiritual meaning. Is this clearer? I did not intend to mean that the concept of love was intrinsically spiritual, but rather had been described as such and adopted as such through habitualisation.

As to the child/father analogy, I disagree with your post. I do not think his conscience comes into play first. I believe that there is an subconscious desire to look after the child, which instantly kicks in. Guilt is a secondary factor, should the original instinct not suffice. You seem to be assigning a conscious rationalisation to the process which I do not believe exists. I feel man is more instinctual in matters of survival. As such the pain/pleasure drive becomes secondary in matters which require some other form of impetus.

Originally posted by KellyJay
[/i]Why wouldn't love or for that matter good be anything other than
spritual in nature; you see nature causing what we call real love
or good to spring into being? I don't see that happening from just
accidents in nature working on ole dead dirt over time with natural
processes.
Kelly[/b]

Well, we need to clarify what "spiritual" means. However, in short, I do believe love and goodness by whatever definition being the result of evolutionary processes acting on life.

Did you know that what you are saying - that you "can't see it happening" - is considered a logical fallacy? It's arguing from personal incredulity.

Originally posted by Starrman
You're right, the definition of love wasn't well put, allow me to rephrase. I was intoning that it was a human concept created by those of a spiritual/religious nature, who raised it to have a spiritual meaning. Is this clearer? I did not intend to mean that the concept of love was intrinsically spiritual, but rather had been described as such and adopt ...[text shortened]... h the pain/pleasure drive becomes secondary in matters which require some other form of impetus.

I was intoning that it was a human concept created by those of a spiritual/religious nature, who raised it to have a spiritual meaning. Is this clearer?

Not really. You are differentiating "caring" and "love" based on whether there is a "spiritual" component. So, of course, if love must have a "spiritual" component, sure, it would be a concept created by those who are "spiritual". However you're still defining love as "spiritual" totally arbritrarily.

I did not intend to mean that the concept of love was intrinsically spiritual, but rather had been described as such and adopted as such through habitualisation.

I don't understand. What is non spiritual love? A natural consequence of love not being intrinsically spiritual means there can be love that is not spiritual. However when I talked about my love as an atheist, you claim that it's not love, but "caring", because it lacked a spiritual component. Am I mistaken?

As to the child/father analogy, I disagree with your post. I do not think his conscience comes into play first. I believe that there is an subconscious desire to look after the child, which instantly kicks in. Guilt is a secondary factor, should the original instinct not suffice. You seem to be assigning a conscious rationalisation to the process which I do not believe exists. I feel man is more instinctual in matters of survival. As such the pain/pleasure drive becomes secondary in matters which require some other form of impetus.

I don't know a lot about the specific psychology of this sort of thing. Now, suppose I agree that there is a subconcious desire to look after the child etc. This would be analogous to the instinct in which we pull back from a fire or stove when we get burned. Is that what you mean? If so, how is this relevant to the discussion? It seems to me you are claiming there should be more to the definitions of good and evil than pain and pleasure. Am I right?

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.

One can ask whether atheists have no moral compass in two senses:

1. In practice - are atheists immoral people?

I would have to say - no. Atheists are as moral as theists in daily living.

2. In theory - will a purely atheistic morality be coincidental with what society generally considers moral?

I think the answer to this is - no. A purely atheistic morality that does not draw on existing social norms and mores would be something like that of Nietzsche - a form of morality that depends on the "survival of the fittest" or some such. In drawing from existing social morals, the atheist inadvertently draws from morals originally provided as part of some religious system.

If God exists, then all religions would be a reflection of the human search for God and an understanding of Him. Hence, even if societies' moral compasses draw from those societies' dominant religious institutions, those eventually can be traced back to God. So it is incorrect to say that God would have less influence on the social moral compass.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I think the answer to this is - no. A purely atheistic morality that does not draw on existing social norms and mores would be something like that of Nietzsche - a form of morality that depends on the "survival of the fittest" or some such. In drawing from existing social morals, the atheist inadvertently draws from morals originally provided as part of some religious system.

I think the question here resembles the egg and the chicken. You believe society's moral standards were set by religion, I believe religion's moral standards were set by society. The moral codes of religions can change with time, what is the greater reason for it, God or society?

Societies need notions of good and evil in order to be self-perpetuating. The fact that this needs religion is a fallacy, religion is merely the simplest way to make these notions widespread among the individuals that compose it.

Societies with dominant religions were stronger due to that same point. In case of conflict, the good would always be on the side of that society for the individuals and the evil would be on the side of the infidels. Religion is a survival mechanism in times of conflict and an agglutinating force in societies.

I believe this made sense when conflict was the main source of dominance in the world, but nowadays economic power is beginning to be as important as military power and religion loses it's agglutinating force when individuals are more educated*. So if power can also be gained by cooperation instead of merely conflict, then everything that draws a strong line between "us" and "them" can be harmful and that's why tolerancy (accompanied by a military defence, obviously) can become a trait of the fittest societies.

*note that I mean with this that an educated believer, will be harder to convince that others are evil simply because they believe in another God

If God exists, then all religions would be a reflection of the human search for God and an understanding of Him. Hence, even if societies' moral compasses draw from those societies' dominant religious institutions, those eventually can be traced back to God. So it is incorrect to say that God would have less influence on the social moral compass.

It is my opinion that the way societies look for God is so different, that it depends more on the interpretation of each society than God itself (even if I assume there is one). If the interpretation of God is what defines a religion, then I would say it is those that establish and prolong a certain interpretation that set the moral codes much more than an universal God seen in many different ways.

Again, religions change with society, so it is society that is dominating the moral codes within religions, not merely a refining of these interpretations. Notice how it is society who usually forces religious institutions to change their dogmas, not the other way around (unless the institutions themselves are replaced, which can be seen again as society changing the moral code).