“Evil” is a stupid concept and doesn’t exist.

[Chinchilla]

I’m not responsible for your education.

But what you wrote has nothing to do with materialism.

Really really wishing something to be true doesnt make it so. Read a book in moral philosophy 101 and learn for yourself.

Why don't you disprove my arguments instead of attacking me thanks .

 

[VirOptimus]

Why don't you disprove my arguments instead of attacking me thanks .

Www.google.com

 

[Chinchilla]

Www.google.com

Quoting a search engine to win debate , can one get lower than that ?

 

[VirOptimus]

Quoting a search engine to win debate , can one get lower than that ?

As I said, I’m not responsible for your education. You want to stay ignorant its your choice.

 

[Chinchilla]

As I said, I’m not responsible for your education. You want to stay ignorant its your choice.

Ignorant about what ?

 

[gaara4158]

According to who ? You ?
Why do you think your opinion is better than mine , you can't even disprove that you were not created 5 minutes ago with alredy prepared memories by having brain cells connected together in your brain with fake memories.

It may not be apparent to you, but it is to the rest of us.

 

[VirOptimus]

Ignorant about what ?

The subject you posted about.

 

[Chesterton]

Who had the idea of female praying mantis eating male , the male is trying to escape when she is eating his face alive how can this be called cooperation when he is opposing her .

Also how did she pass it on her children so they eat thier husband aswell ? If she passed that thing with DNA the male ones should be aware of being eaten .

Worst. Porn film. Ever.

 

[quatona]

Admirable.

But why should we care about how others feel or damage caused to them (unless we benefit ourselves indirectly)?

That´s kind of a scary question because it makes me feel you are picturing yourself as a sociopath.

Anyway:
Because our wellbeings are interdependent, to boot - so we always benefit indirectly.
Secondly, because we just do.

On another note, I am assuming that finding a good way to coexist has always been the motivation for moral/ethical considerations (and appeals to existing or non-existing alleged authorities have always been means to that purpose, especially effective in times of authoritative thinking). It´s not like our lives are to serve morals, it´s more like morals were and are invented to serve us and our wellbeing.

This meta-moral question always strikes me as similar to "Why should we eat?".

But if that which is blatantly obvious to me (living in a world that is enjoyable is a value, and contributing to creating such a world is therefore in my own best interest) doesn ´t resonate with you - maybe you want to share your own answer to the question you have raised?

On a final note, your question can be (accordingly) asked ad infinitum, no matter what the answer is.
E.g. if the answer is "Because God says so.", the next question would be "Why should we do what God says?" (and so forth).

 

[pat34lee]

I’m curious, why does a materialistic worldview necessitate a moral system that values hostility over cooperation?

Because of narcissism and self-interest. Ultimately, the individual
values himself or herself over anyone else. Cooperation means
giving up or compromising something to benefit someone else.

Think Loki or Dr. Smith on the old Lost In Space.
Such individuals only cooperate with others until it is inconvenient
or until they can gain more by betrayal.

 

[pat34lee]

No, not believing in the existance of ”good” and ”evil” do not in any way stop me from arguing moral codes. But I base my morals on the strength of argument for or against, not arbitrary rules from some religion or such.

What is more arbitrary than rules made by the individual?
There is nothing you can base them on that is lasting. The
next person may have totally different standards. And who
can tell them that their standards are wrong? Nobody.

At least, if standards are subjective.

 

[“Paisios”]

That´s kind of a scary question because it makes me feel you are picturing yourself as a sociopath.

Anyway:
Because our wellbeings are interdependent, to boot - so we always benefit indirectly.
Secondly, because we just do.

On another note, I am assuming that finding a good way to coexist has always been the motivation for moral/ethical considerations (and appeals to existing or non-existing alleged authorities have always been means to that purpose, especially effective in times of authoritative thinking). It´s not like our lives are to serve morals, it´s more like morals were and are invented to serve us and our wellbeing.

This meta-moral question always strikes me as similar to "Why should we eat?".

But if that which is blatantly obvious to me (living in a world that is enjoyable is a value, and contributing to creating such a world is therefore in my own best interest) doesn ´t resonate with you - maybe you want to share your own answer to the question you have raised?

On a final note, your question can be (accordingly) asked ad infinitum, no matter what the answer is.
E.g. if the answer is "Because God says so.", the next question would be "Why should we do what God says?" (and so forth).

Actually, I would agree with most of what you have written. I am not a very good sociopath.

My own answer is a pretty standard one: that our God, Who is love, Who demonstrates His love to us, and placed the notion of such in our conscience, took on human flesh as a perfect example of love, and He loved God the Father, loved His friends and disciples, and loved His enemies. If I claim to be His follower, then I must try to do likewise, as He bade us do (not that I succeed very often).

Not very original, not very profound, but it works for me.

 

[gaara4158]

Because of narcissism and self-interest. Ultimately, the individual
values himself or herself over anyone else. Cooperation means
giving up or compromising something to benefit someone else.

Think Loki or Dr. Smith on the old Lost In Space.
Such individuals only cooperate with others until it is inconvenient
or until they can gain more by betrayal.

That doesn’t answer my question. It’s possible to be completely self-interested and narcissistic under a materialistic worldview, but I’m asking why it’s *necessary.* Dr. Smith and Loki reap pretty awful consequences for their treacherous behavior, so following their example doesn’t make much sense for someone interested in living long and prospering.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Because of narcissism and self-interest. Ultimately, the individual
values himself or herself over anyone else. Cooperation means
giving up or compromising something to benefit someone else.

Think Loki or Dr. Smith on the old Lost In Space.
Such individuals only cooperate with others until it is inconvenient
or until they can gain more by betrayal.

Interesting. I’m an atheist, but I’m not like Loki at all. None of my atheist friends are like Loki. On the other hand, I’ve known several Christians who were much more selfish than any atheist I’ve known.

It seems that your reasoning is flawed.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

What is more arbitrary than rules made by the individual? There is nothing you can base them on that is lasting. The next person may have totally different standards. And who can tell them that their standards are wrong? Nobody.

At least, if standards are subjective.

There’s nothing illogical about telling someone that their standards are wrong to me.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The term "evil" may have a place in the limbic system, a brain area which relates to emotions and contains the amygdala - the fear centre of the brain.

So IMO the term "evil" triggers certain emotional responses, like fear hormones and the fight or flight response, partially due to cultural learning and association of the concept with certain actions. But also partly due to a binary "good / evil" system wired into the brain which underpins the cultural phenomenon of morality and moral language.

AFAIK there are so many cultures using similar terms to "good" and "evil", its got to have a innate-developmental basis.

Also, "evil" can be adjectival, like he's an "evil *******" etc. Swear words are processed in the lower brain centres , so that's maybe a cue that intense moral feelings especially are part of a quite primitive (ie ancient psycho-ecological) response.

 

[Dave-W]

No, not believing in the existance of ”good” and ”evil” do not in any way stop me from arguing moral codes. But I base my morals on the strength of argument for or against, not arbitrary rules from some religion or such.

So basically you are playing a word game.

There is no "good," but there is moral.
There is no "evil," but there is immoral.

 

[VirOptimus]

So basically you are playing a word game.

There is no "good," but there is moral.
There is no "evil," but there is immoral.

No.

 

[Petros2015]

There is Evil.

If it selfishness in infancy, it is sadism when it is full grown. It is a love of power through fear and domination at the expense of others. It is the desire to destroy rather than to build. It is Contempt taken to the extreme rather than Compassion. It is the sort of thing that pulls the trigger on a gun aimed at a crowd and all the whispers and thoughts and self-obsessed resentments that go beforehand. Evil is what happens when Self takes a place that should be occupied by God.

 

[Ken-1122]

Evil is a label people attach to actions and behaviors we find very bad. Evil only exist in the context of human thought; just like beautiful, funny, or silly.