Why are so many people so bad?

[Oseas]

bhsmte did write in the post 191: >>>Well, generally, if people make claims that are not supported with established facts, it is opinion. That applies to everyone.<<<

The most important is that there is and there will be a Judgment Every idle word that men speak, they shall give account thereof in this Day of Judgment, that is the last Day or the last millennium, the Millennium of Christ, the Millennium of Truth, the Millennium of Judgment, the Judgment Seat of Christ, and the Millennium of Vengeance. So, by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. THIS IS APLIIED TO EVERYONE.

 

[dayhiker]

I guess I don't see a lot of people hurting a lot of other people. Part of that is personally I don't have many people hurting me. But I do think that a few people seem to hurt a lot of people.

 

[bhsmte]

bhsmte did write in the post 191: >>>Well, generally, if people make claims that are not supported with established facts, it is opinion. That applies to everyone.<<<

The most important is that there is and there will be a Judgment Every idle word that men speak, they shall give account thereof in this Day of Judgment, that is the last Day or the last millennium, the Millennium of Christ, the Millennium of Truth, the Millennium of Judgment, the Judgment Seat of Christ, and the Millennium of Vengeance. So, by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. THIS IS APLIIED TO EVERYONE.

Looks like preaching to me.

 

[Poppyseed78]

People are "bad" (a very broad word with many meanings) for a vast variety of reasons. It can be because they were born with a problem with their brain circuitry, or they were abused as children and thus never developed compassion. But some people had a good childhood and still choose to be cruel, simply because they can, and they enjoy watching others suffer. People often will do whatever they can get away with, and some don't even care what the consequences are. It's discouraging to think about all the atrocities committed around the world every day. Some people feel justified in hurting others and believe they aren't even doing anything wrong.

 

[Oseas]

The question to bhsmte was: And, what criteria would you use to determine whether they are not bad?
bhsmte replied in the post #195: >>> Fit in with society; don't break the law, treat people with respect, etc. etc. <<<

>>>Fit in with society? <<<
What is your group in the society? Would be of the group of the idolaters, or fornicators, or drunkards, adulterers, effeminates, pedophiles, rapists, wizards, false Christians, spiritualists, voodoos, atheists, among countless devilish religions, blasphemers, unholy, covetous, prouds, boasters, unthankful, betrayers, fierce, thieves, homicidals, killers, hipocrites, corrupts, abominables, disguiseds, liars, wicked, and so on. WHAT IS YOUR GROUP IN WITH THIS KIND OF SOCIETY IN WHOLE EARTH?

Why are so many people so bad?

>>>Don't break the law?<<<
What kind of law is offered by your devilish society? There is not law like the celestial law that comes from above. The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath, do you understand?

>>>... treat people with respect, etc. etc.<<<
Do you think or imagine that there is respect one another among this corrupt, sinful and wicked society of sodomites? Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood (the refugees who say so): Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Woe of them all. Now, even now, in this seventh and last millennium or last Day, they all must be Judged and receive the rewards in accord their evil works.


Why are so many people so bad?

 

[Oseas]

You must know him well, or you are a mind reader.

Would say: the two things.

 

[Oseas]

Ana the Ist did write in the post #200:
>>>Oh what a relief! All this time I just figured I was having a rational discussion...and it's actually been my snaking spirit! You're a really big help!<<<
Now, now, your dissimulated spirit is manifesting in surreptitious "modus". I know him, it is a matter of discernment of spirit.

>>>What about your weasely spirit though? <<<
Oh! Has you not known? Has you not heard, that my everlasting God Father, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, faints not, neither is weary? I am not like Him, evidently, but He is Who sent me.

>>>The one that tries to weasel your viewpoint onto others?<<<
You are confounding a viewpoint with Judgment. But I say unto you, that every idle word that men speak, they shall give account thereof in this Day of Judgment. By your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned. The universal battle is Spirit against spirit in this seventh and last millennium. the Millennium of Christ, the Millennium of Truth, the Millennium of Judgment, the Judgment Seat of Christ, and the Millennium of Vengeance.

The kingdoms of THIS WORLD are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign for ever and ever.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Would say: the two things.

I would say neither...you don't know anyone here well and you're not a mind reader.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm approaching it historically, in that I'm talking about the origins/foundations of human morality. I suppose 'maximising social benefit' is a rather cold way of putting it. I'm thinking way back to hunter gatherer society where the simple act of cooperation is sufficient to explain the foundation of morality in terms of benefit/harm without invoking some higher prefect good beyond ourselves.

Oh, I see. That's difficult. I've studied metaethics, but I haven't studied the history of it enough to really comment. I will point out that utilitarianism as a fully developed approach is fairly recent--that's 17th century philosophy. Virtue ethics go back to classical Greece and Rome, and strong duty-based conceptions are old as well.

I would need to think about it a lot more than I have so far. I worry that a theory that doesn't start with how morality impacts the individual isn't going to get off the ground, though--it's all fine and good that acting cooperatively will be beneficial to the group, but people first need to care, at that goes back to psychology.

What is you view of virtues? Are virtues objectively defined or are they measured by beneficial results? In saying that "what is psychologically and socially healthier for the individual" you still seem to be approaching morality in terms of well-being or benefit.

I approach morality primarily from an existentialist perspective. There's this neat thought experiment from Friedrich Nietzsche called eternal recurrence. In The Gay Science, he says:

What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.'

It's not about benefit or well-being in a mundane sense. It's about the ultimate affirmation of life--only the person who can look at that scenario and truly say "yes" is morally perfect. If instead you're busy making excuses for not being what you ultimately wished to be, you're living in a state of self-deception. Jean-Paul Sartre calls this bad faith. To me, the only important question is that of becoming what one ought to be--the life well lived isn't a checklist of good deeds you racked up while never stopping to examine the deeper questions of your own existence.

This ties into the Sola Fide of the Christian existentialist. But it's getting late, so that's a story for another day. I will say quickly that I do think these ideas tie in to a more conventional approach to morality, given how strongly they address the problem of the banality of evil--otherwise decent people who get swept away by the tide and start acting cruel simply because the situation they find themselves in encourages it and they don't stop to think. This is how prison abuse or genocide happens.

 

[Oseas]

Looks like preaching to me.

JESUS said: The disciple is not above his Master, nor the servant above his Lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his Master

>>> Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.
- Albert Einstein <<<
Einstein did know the Bible, I would say he mirrored himself in JESUS to say that. Luke:16:v.10 -
He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

 

[bhsmte]

JESUS said: The disciple is not above his Master, nor the servant above his Lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his Master

>>> Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.
- Albert Einstein <<<
Einstein did know the Bible, I would say he mirrored himself in JESUS to say that. Luke:16:v.10 -
He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

Truth can be demonstrated. Preaching, falls short.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ana the Ist did write in the post #200:
>>>Oh what a relief! All this time I just figured I was having a rational discussion...and it's actually been my snaking spirit! You're a really big help!<<<
Now, now, your dissimulated spirit is manifesting in surreptitious "modus". I know him, it is a matter of discernment of spirit.

You don't know me...and whatever you think "discernment of spirit" is...it simply amounts to magical thinking. You don't have any special powers beyond that of any other person.

>>>What about your weasely spirit though? <<<
Oh! Has you not known? Has you not heard, that my everlasting God Father, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, faints not, neither is weary? I am not like Him, evidently, but He is Who sent me.

I'm sure you believe that...but it's as empty a claim as saying that you can read minds.

>>>The one that tries to weasel your viewpoint onto others?<<<
You are confounding a viewpoint with Judgment. But I say unto you, that every idle word that men speak, they shall give account thereof in this Day of Judgment. By your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned. The universal battle is Spirit against spirit in this seventh and last millennium. the Millennium of Christ, the Millennium of Truth, the Millennium of Judgment, the Judgment Seat of Christ, and the Millennium of Vengeance.

Again, I'm sure you believe this...but without any evidence or demonstration...it's a hollow, empty claim.

The kingdoms of THIS WORLD are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign for ever and ever.

Cool story bro...but completely off topic.

 

[bhsmte]

You don't know me...and whatever you think "discernment of spirit" is...it simply amounts to magical thinking. You don't have any special powers beyond that of any other person.



I'm sure you believe that...but it's as empty a claim as saying that you can read minds.




Again, I'm sure you believe this...but without any evidence or demonstration...it's a hollow, empty claim.



Cool story bro...but completely off topic.

But, but, he really, really needs to think he knows you. It helps to protect his personal faith belief.

 

[Oseas]

I would say neither...you don't know anyone here well and you're not a mind reader.

There are many kind of evil spirits, now a spirit of liyng is manifesting through you. You are possessed of a legion of them.

See, the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we must render an account.

 

[SolomonVII]

I'm approaching it historically, in that I'm talking about the origins/foundations of human morality. I suppose 'maximising social benefit' is a rather cold way of putting it. I'm thinking way back to hunter gatherer society where the simple act of cooperation is sufficient to explain the foundation of morality in terms of benefit/harm without invoking some higher prefect good beyond ourselves.

With time these basic moral values became instilled in us and we no longer do them simply for the benefit (even though they are still beneficial) but rather because they have become ideals and feel right. Morality has become an abstraction, a complex collection of ideas and ideals, far less simple than the view I've been presenting. I'm merely going back in time to illustrate morality in it's simplest form.


What is you view of virtues? Are virtues objectively defined or are they measured by beneficial results? In saying that "what is psychologically and socially healthier for the individual" you still seem to be approaching morality in terms of well-being or benefit.

Morality in its simplest form is actually the only morality that there is. That is to say, the window in which humans become moral creatures closes at around four years old, and if a kid has a hard time getting along with other after that age, it is unlikely that he ever will be able to develop the moral sense that makes getting along with others possible.

Morality is not a rational choice. We can all rationalize about why this action or that action is good or bad, and use utilitarian or religious reasons to support our arguments, but morality is not an argument. It is not a belief. The reason we don't torture cats because we know in our bones that it is wrong, and to even the idea of violating that moral principle against animal abuse would be something that we would abhor and would fill us with horror.

Morality is that kind of powerful inner experience, or it is nothing at all. A psychopath would be able to give lots of reasons why not to torture a cat, and the arguments would be most convincing, but that doesn't mean that he would feel anything at all about actually torturing that cat, if that is what he felt like doing at another time.

There is the Jewish saying that it is fear of God, and not wisdom,that is the predictor of the moral actions of a man. All the wisdom in the world does not stop us from evil. Morality is like hell fire burning deep in the bones, and if a person does not have that experience about good and evil by the age of four, chances are he never will.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There are many kind of evil spirits, now a spirit of liyng is manifesting through you. You are possessed of a legion of them.

I can see that you're fairly new here...and rather old...so as a fair warning, I'll tell you that last time I checked it's against forum rules to just call someone a liar. I won't be reporting you for it this time, but try and consider using some manners and giving other posters a basic level of respect...that would be the christian thing to do, wouldn't it?

Just out of curiosity though...what exactly do you think I'm lying about?

See, the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we must render an account.

I'll just tell you now since you don't seem to be catching on...whatever you believe the "word of god" is means literally nothing to me at all. So while it might be satisfying to you on some emotional level to judge others according to your religious beliefs...it doesn't add anything meaningful to the conversation.

More to the point though...why do you feel it necessary to attack the character of posters like myself instead of addressing what points I make? Is it because you cannot think of a satisfactory response?

 

[Chesterton]

That doesn't answer my question. In fact, it deliberately answers the opposite of my question.
What people do whose conscience does not tell them to act in a specific way is not what I asked for. I specifically asked for people whose conscience tell them to act, judge or evaluate in a specific way... and other people whose conscience tell them to act in exactly the opposite way.

That's why I asked for an example.

I could interprete your response in the way that you think that people who claim to act from conscience, and act in a way that is opposite to your conscience are lying. For the sake of a honest conversation, I hope that you do not think that. But the only alternative that I see would be that people can make a decision from conscience... and still be wrong about the 'good' and 'bad'.

They could be lying, they could be ignoring, they could be acting on bad or insufficient information, they could be un-thoughtful, i.e., not really thinking through their decision thoroughly enough, they could have had bad parents or influences which affected their conscience, they could, over time, have allowed their conscience to become "seared" by misuse, in the words of St. Paul. There could be lots of reasons for bad decisions.

I'd say you can guess what my next question will be in this case.

Maybe, but I could be wrong.

 

[Chesterton]

If I am not completely confusing threads, your line of reasoning in discussion was:
"Without a spiritual realm thoughts and feelings would be delusional."
(Regarding your above statement:Ok, if you have observed this - even though I don´t know how such an abstract can be an observation - I guess there´s no point in disputing it.

Atheists (maybe not you) will sometimes use that "pale blue dot" observation. Earth is just a speck of dust in a vast uncaring cosmos with no purpose or meaning. If you choose to believe that then you need to be consistent. If you have an emotional need to make up your own meaning, or custom-made right and wrong, then go ahead. You can make up fairy tales too, but don't pretend that what you make up is real or true, or binding on anyone else.

 

[Chesterton]

That is obviously... wrong. Even without God.

You think something exists if you make it up in your mind? A rock on the ground would exist without human minds to perceive it. Mathematics would exist without minds. Right and wrong would not exist, in a purely physical realm, without humans to invent them. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Chesterton]

You miss the point. I'm not asking about when we act against our conscience but rather when we act according to it. E.g. Eating meat is immoral because it requires the suffering and killing of animals. If you eat meat, a vegetarian's conscience might see that as an immoral act while your conscience does not. Then how can our consciences be a reliable guide for establishing objective morality?

I'm not arguing for an objective morality; I don't even much care for the term. Things change. Jesus tried to change things. Vegetarians may be on the right side of history, as they say. The ancients thought owning slaves was the most normal thing in the world, but that changed. We think eating animals is the most normal thing in the world, but that could change. That doesn't alter the fact that we as individuals continually judge what we believe about right and wrong. It's like with the history of mathematics. There are lots of things which once weren't known, like zero and fractions, but we eventually came to understand them. It only shows that these things are more real, not less.

An experience is the effect of a cause as interpreted by a sentient, conscious being. Of course it's subjective to experience, inanimate objects don't have experiences so nothing bad can happen to a rock (objectively or subjectively). Conscious beings have experiences which they interpret as good or bad according to the effects.

Agreed.

I'm having trouble seeing if you are arguing for our against objective morality here? Murder is usually one moral value that people cite as being objectively bad. But here you are saying that some people not finding murder wrong is a superficial variance.

Well, I said "kill", not "murder". Murder is by legal definition always wrong.

Not for talking. You need to have taken some action towards your end goal. Like buying guns, a getaway car, observing security guard shifts etc. In court the prosecution would need to provide sufficient evidence that you had intent to actually commit the crime based on your actions of planning.

Okay, but still, buying a gun or buying a car are not bad in themselves, but only when done in connection with the "bad thoughts".