Why are so many people so bad?

[Oseas]

In the post above number #100 of quatona is written:
>>>I´m wondering how that rolls with the statement you made: I'm just saying if it doesn't exist in a spiritual realm, then it cannot exist at all. It can't exist in a physical realm.<<<

Analysing under the philosophy above I ask : The suicide of Judas Iscariots by hanging was an effect of the "spiritual realm" or physical realm.

It was written also: >>>IOW: With the claim of the supremacy of the "spiritual realm" (thoughts and feelings) over the "physical realm", how do you arrive at the idea that "the spiritual realm" (thoughts and feelings) cannot "really exist"? <<<

Again: Was the suicide by hanging of the betrayer of our Lord JESUS Christ, Judas Iscariots, a supremacy of the "spiritual realm" over the "physical realm"?

Where is the truth? It was written in the post above:
>>>You seem to hold the "spiritual realm" in high regards (as the source and prerequisite for acknowledging as something "existing"), and next you tell me that the "spiritual realm" (as in thoughts and feelings) isn´t all that reliable.<<<

In which of these presumptions was the attitude of Judas Iscariots to hang himself?

 

[quatona]

In the post above number #100 of quatona is written:
>>>I´m wondering how that rolls with the statement you made: I'm just saying if it doesn't exist in a spiritual realm, then it cannot exist at all. It can't exist in a physical realm.<<<

Analysing under the philosophy above I ask : The suicide of Judas Iscariots by hanging was an effect of the "spiritual realm" or physical realm.

It was written also: >>>IOW: With the claim of the supremacy of the "spiritual realm" (thoughts and feelings) over the "physical realm", how do you arrive at the idea that "the spiritual realm" (thoughts and feelings) cannot "really exist"? <<<

Again: Was the suicide by hanging of the betrayer of our Lord JESUS Christ, Judas Iscariots, a supremacy of the "spiritual realm" over the "physical realm"?

Where is the truth? It was written in the post above:
>>>You seem to hold the "spiritual realm" in high regards (as the source and prerequisite for acknowledging as something "existing"), and next you tell me that the "spiritual realm" (as in thoughts and feelings) isn´t all that reliable.<<<

In which of these presumptions was the attitude of Judas Iscariots to hang himself?

Sorry, I am not the right person to interprete your holy scripture to you. Actually, I don´t have even the slightest idea how you got from philosophy to Judas.
(Just a kind request: You may want to reconsider your choice of font-colour. It´s hard to read.
It might also be a good idea to learn to use the quote-function.)

 

[Chesterton]

Not really. The question was how we judge good or bad apart from the effects.

Saying just because it's good or bad doesn't really inform me of how we determine good or bad objectively. What is the gold standard and how do you apply it?

The conscience is what conveys the standard and does the judging.

Morality is not possible to define on purely individualistic terms.

No, it's much more than that. Society is a group living together in a network of interdependent relationships. Saying individualistic terms are the only terms is not only incorrect but a totally useless way of understanding a society.

Moral judgments and choices can only be made within individual minds. There's no collective mind that decides anything about anything.

Would you agree that a society without stealing has greater total benefit than a society where stealing is permitted? Even if I never experience theft personally I still live in fear and anxiety knowing that anyone may steal from me at any time without consequence. I'm still experiencing a negative.

Is worrying about some potentiality a detriment to an individual? Yeah, I guess you could see it that way.

I said us or or our tribe, and all of humanity can be our tribe by extension. The point is that we judge good or bad by their effects on ourselves or others. Empathy is the vehicle through which we judge effects on others. When we label things that don't affect us directly we use the principle of 'if I was in that situation'. We don't need an objective definition of good or bad, we are only judging by the effects either directly on ourselves, or on others through empathy, from an internal reference point.

Just for the fun of it - how about snobbery? If I say to you "I think I'm better than you", it has no effect on you, but wouldn't you agree that kind of snobbish pride is just a bad thing in principle?

Ok. If God is good how do we know and apply his standards of goodness to our lives?

I decided to rely on my conscience (which I believe is God-given) and on the teaching and examples of Christ.

 

[Chesterton]

Well, that would pose a problem to the "spiritual realm" as the significant source. Here I acknowledged the existence of a "spiritual realm" (e.g. our thoughts and feelings), and you respond in a way that implies that the content of the spiritual realm might not be "very real". So are you arguing for double-checking the accuracy of the "spiritual realm" by means of materialistic substantiation?

I´m wondering how that rolls with the statement you made:
I'm just saying if it doesn't exist in a spiritual realm, then it cannot exist at all. It can't exist in a physical realm.
IOW: With the claim of the supremacy of the "spiritual realm" (thoughts and feelings) over the "physical realm", how do you arrive at the idea that "the spiritual realm" (thoughts and feelings) cannot "really exist"? You seem to hold the "spiritual realm" in high regards (as the source and prerequisite for acknowledging as something "existing"), and next you tell me that the "spiritual realm" (as in thoughts and feelings) isn´t all that reliable.

No, I meant that the thoughts are delusional if there is no spiritual realm.

 

[Freodin]

No, I meant that the thoughts are delusional if there is no spiritual realm.

That doesn't make sense.

In the post before you said: "Moral judgments and choices can only be made within individual minds."

What are these moral judgements made about? About things that concern us, here in the "physical realm"? Then they would be "real", and not delusional.

Or about something in the "spiritual realm", without any connection the "physical realm"? Then then would be irrelevant for... well, anything.

I decided to rely on my conscience (which I believe is God-given) and on the teaching and examples of Christ.

So what if my conscience comes to different conclusion than yours?

There's no collective mind that decides anything about anything.

You are right: there is no collective mind to decide. But there are things that enable us to share our minds with others. You identified them for yourself, in your last sentence: they are (among others) called "teachings" and "examples".

 

[Chesterton]

That doesn't make sense.

In the post before you said: "Moral judgments and choices can only be made within individual minds."

What are these moral judgements made about? About things that concern us, here in the "physical realm"? Then they would be "real", and not delusional.

Or about something in the "spiritual realm", without any connection the "physical realm"? Then then would be irrelevant for... well, anything.

They'd be real in the sense that they exist in the mind, but they wouldn't be "true", I guess you'd say.

So what if my conscience comes to different conclusion than yours?

About what, for example?

 

[Freodin]

They'd be real in the sense that they exist in the mind, but they wouldn't be "true", I guess you'd say.

You'd guess wrong.

About what, for example?

About anything you like. I am quite certain that we will find examples where our "conscience" agrees, and examples where it disagrees. And even if we were in complete agreement (unlikely), there would certainly be other humans who'd disagree.

So, how do you explain that?

 

[Chesterton]

You'd guess wrong.

You have a citation or source to show me what's truly good and bad? (Other than a law book.)

About anything you like. I am quite certain that we will find examples where our "conscience" agrees, and examples where it disagrees. And even if we were in complete agreement (unlikely), there would certainly be other humans who'd disagree.
So, how do you explain that?

I'm not sure what to explain without an example.

 

[Freodin]

You have a citation or source to show me what's truly good and bad? (Other than a law book.)

Why would you need one, if the "source" (or interpretative mechanism) for "being shown what's truly good and bad" is the individual conscience?

As I said (or implied in my question): a moral decision is always about something that concerns us in the "physical realm". So both "good" as well as "bad" moral decision need to refer to such a situation, and it is your evaluation of the outcome that decides which is which.

I'm not sure what to explain without an example.

Different consciential decisions. Come on, it isn't that difficult. Let's take this forum's most hated "moral": homosexuality. Some people claim that their conscience cannot let them support it, some people claim that their conscience dictates that they should support it.

How is that possible?

 

[Everybodyknows]

The conscience is what conveys the standard and does the judging.

I decided to rely on my conscience (which I believe is God-given) and on the teaching and examples of Christ.

If the conscience was an expression of objective morality we would all have the same conscience, yet we most certainly do not. Even the teachings of Christ, as wonderful as they are, only give us some basic moral principals, but when it comes to applying those principals to real life situations even believers cant always agree.

Moral judgments and choices can only be made within individual minds. There's no collective mind that decides anything about anything.

Not sure where you are getting this collective mind idea, I make no such claim. Cannot people living in a relational group use their individual minds and come to a consensus together to determine what kind of behaviours are beneficial to the group? If the group benefits we all benefit far more than we could individualistically. E.g. We could agree to hunt in a group in order to take larger prey on the provision that the food is shared fairly. No collective mind required.

Is worrying about some potentiality a detriment to an individual? Yeah, I guess you could see it that way.

I think the difference is a society where one feels safe vs a society where we feel threatened. If we feel threatened we invest significant time and resources to pre-empting others actions and protecting ourselves. If we feel safe we can devote more of our time to being productive.

Just for the fun of it - how about snobbery? If I say to you "I think I'm better than you", it has no effect on you, but wouldn't you agree that kind of snobbish pride is just a bad thing in principle?

Its not really possible to separate these kind of thoughts from their resultant actions, so in that sense it is bad in principal because the thought is necessarily connected to behaviour. If you think you're better than me, or you hate me, this will inevitably show in your behaviour. If it could hypothetically have no effect on your behaviour towards me then I would not perceive it as bad, leaving you the only one to make that judgement. You've probably heard the saying "we judge others by their actions and ourselves by our intentions", well it applies to this.

 

[quatona]

No, I meant that the thoughts are delusional if there is no spiritual realm.

...at least thoughts that involve a "spiritual realm". Why all thoughts would be "delusional" then, and how the existence of a "spiritual realm" would make all thoughts non-delusional, needs to be explained to me.
Anyway, as I said, I consider thoughts, feelings and other such non-physical emanations to be "spiritual" - so no problem there.
I like the creative power of the "spiritual".

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, I meant that the thoughts are delusional if there is no spiritual realm.

You know...I read an academic paper once on the definition of "delusion" which was very controversial once psychologists tried to pin it down...so many religious beliefs fell under initial definitions.

Now it's typically defined by an adherence to a belief that lacks evidence in the face of evidence to the contrary....or something like that.

 

[Oseas]

Sorry, I am not the right person to interprete your holy scripture to you. Actually, I don´t have even the slightest idea how you got from philosophy to Judas.

OK

>>>(Just a kind request: You may want to reconsider your choice of font-colour. It´s hard to read. <<<

OK. But, as far as I know, green is great for eye rests

>>>It might also be a good idea to learn to use the quote-function.)

<<<

I will try to do it. Will it work? I have tried to do it, but it did not always work out correctly. Could you help me how to do it?

>>>"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing, and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there."
(Rumi)<<<

Rumi only presumed the existence of a field out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, but he did not defined it. The field, to me, is the field of perfection, I am sure that he will never meet the inhabitants in this field, because he will never enter in this field even after his resurrection.

 

[Chesterton]

Why would you need one, if the "source" (or interpretative mechanism) for "being shown what's truly good and bad" is the individual conscience?

As I said (or implied in my question): a moral decision is always about something that concerns us in the "physical realm". So both "good" as well as "bad" moral decision need to refer to such a situation, and it is your evaluation of the outcome that decides which is which.

I'd need citation because you're an atheist, and you said moral judgments can be "true". Normally you guys like to shy away from that word "truth", so I'm interested what that could be based on.

Different consciential decisions. Come on, it isn't that difficult. Let's take this forum's most hated "moral": homosexuality. Some people claim that their conscience cannot let them support it, some people claim that their conscience dictates that they should support it.

How is that possible?

You're talking about decisions based on conscience. Well, how is it possible that there are thieves? Do all thieves consciences tell them that stealing is the right thing to do? Of course not.

 

[Chesterton]

If the conscience was an expression of objective morality we would all have the same conscience, yet we most certainly do not. Even the teachings of Christ, as wonderful as they are, only give us some basic moral principals, but when it comes to applying those principals to real life situations even believers cant always agree.

The fact that people may come to make different decisions about what their conscience tells them, or even disregard conscience altogether, is not evidence that our consciences vary greatly.

Not sure where you are getting this collective mind idea, I make no such claim. Cannot people living in a relational group use their individual minds and come to a consensus together to determine what kind of behaviours are beneficial to the group? If the group benefits we all benefit far more than we could individualistically. E.g. We could agree to hunt in a group in order to take larger prey on the provision that the food is shared fairly. No collective mind required.

Yes of course people can do that, but as you note, they are using their individual minds in doing so.

I think the difference is a society where one feels safe vs a society where we feel threatened. If we feel threatened we invest significant time and resources to pre-empting others actions and protecting ourselves. If we feel safe we can devote more of our time to being productive.

I just don't fully equate good/bad and right/wrong with benefit/detriment as you seem to.

Its not really possible to separate these kind of thoughts from their resultant actions, so in that sense it is bad in principal because the thought is necessarily connected to behaviour. If you think you're better than me, or you hate me, this will inevitably show in your behaviour. If it could hypothetically have no effect on your behaviour towards me then I would not perceive it as bad, leaving you the only one to make that judgement. You've probably heard the saying "we judge others by their actions and ourselves by our intentions", well it applies to this.

I think that completely disconnected from any related behavior, these things are simply bad in and of themselves. I think most people would agree.

 

[Chesterton]

...at least thoughts that involve a "spiritual realm". Why all thoughts would be "delusional" then, and how the existence of a "spiritual realm" would make all thoughts non-delusional, needs to be explained to me.

Well I guess this brings us to the mind/matter problem - maybe every thought and perception is a delusion. But maybe we don't need to get into that here.

Anyway, as I said, I consider thoughts, feelings and other such non-physical emanations to be "spiritual" - so no problem there.
I like the creative power of the "spiritual".

I agree with you about thoughts and feelings. I also think it's likely that music and art are also spiritual, or at least spiritually ascertained and appreciated.

 

[Chesterton]

You know...I read an academic paper once on the definition of "delusion" which was very controversial once psychologists tried to pin it down...so many religious beliefs fell under initial definitions.

Now it's typically defined by an adherence to a belief that lacks evidence in the face of evidence to the contrary....or something like that.

Seems like a relatively simple word; not sure why it'd be difficult or controversial to define it.

 

[Everybodyknows]

The fact that people may come to make different decisions about what their conscience tells them, or even disregard conscience altogether, is not evidence that our consciences vary greatly.

Actually it is. You are assuming that we all have the same conscience and anyone who acts in disagreement with you is acting against their conscience.

Yes of course people can do that, but as you note, they are using their individual minds in doing so.

So a group people are using their individual minds in cooperation to decided what is good or bad subjective to their experience.

I just don't fully equate good/bad and right/wrong with benefit/detriment as you seem to.

You equate your conscience as an absolute standard of right and wrong. The conscience is of the individual mind, there is no collective conscience. There is far too much variance of what people view as good or bad across times and cultures for the conscience alone to be a useful definition of objective morality.

I think that completely disconnected from any related behavior, these things are simply bad in and of themselves. I think most people would agree.

Most people would agree that the thought of stealing is not bad but the act of stealing is. If I have a thought of stealing but choose not to act on it should I be punished the same as one who has committed the act?

 

[quatona]

<<<

I will try to do it. Will it work? I have tried to do it, but it did not always work out correctly. Could you help me how to do it?

Sure. In the beginning of the part you want to quote you type "[ quote ]" (without the blanks!), and in the end you type "[ /quote ]" (also without the blanks!). Next you write your response.

>>>"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing, and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there."
(Rumi)<<<

Rumi only presumed the existence of a field out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, but he did not defined it. The field, to me, is the field of perfection, I am sure that he will never meet the inhabitants in this field, because he will never enter in this field even after his resurrection.

Well, no, that´s not really what he meant, as far as I can tell. He talked about a field where we can meet without such judgements. It seems to me that the idea of perfection is right at the other end of the spectrum.

 

[quatona]

Well I guess this brings us to the mind/matter problem - maybe every thought and perception is a delusion. But maybe we don't need to get into that here.

As long as none of us uses terms like "delusion", we don´t need to get into that (and I´d definitely prefer that).
I am afraid, though, that if you want to keep up your previous line of reasoning, you would have to shed light on the logic behind it.

I agree with you about thoughts and feelings. I also think it's likely that music and art are also spiritual, or at least spiritually ascertained and appreciated.

Ok.