Yes...another Good and Evil thread

[JoyJuice]

How do we as cognitive beings determine what is Good and what is Evil?

Is it (1) like the ardent theist holds that God has innately gave us the characteristic to immediate recognize Good and Evil; wrong from right?

Or (2) do we derive what is Good and Evil based on our human experiences throughout the evolution of mankind? Kind of like to know what right is, is to experience the wrong?

If (2) why can’t the Gods of revealed religion be judged based on the only means we have to determine Good and evil?

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

My current definition of evil is doing long-term harm to someone else in order to receive short-term gain for oneself.

Dunno how that applies to cosmic forces or immortal beings....

 

[JoyJuice]

My current definition of evil is doing long-term harm to someone else in order to receive short-term gain for oneself.

Dunno how that applies to cosmic forces or immortal beings....

If you base it on long term harm of a individual, wouldn't that which harms or does not do harm to that individual, have to be understood from our human experience?

 

[f0rk3d]

My definition of evil is playing "defect" as opposed to the other's playing of "cooperate" in the prisoner's dilemma. That is as simple as evil gets.

My choice is for 2. We've evolved the fast judgment. We've evolved, for the most part, stable decision making mechanisms. Take theft, as an example. Is a constant thief going to survive in a social group? No, he will be ostracized, if not outright slaughtered. Well an occasional thief might be more able to survive, and may actually be the balance of all behavior possibilities.

So an evolved "take it if you will not be caught, but only if the benefit to your genes is greater" would be chosen for. The only problem for this gene-type is that in a society of retributive behaviors, the risk is far greater to your reproduction. Humanity is a retributive society, and has been for a very long time.

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Joy, I think your argument breaks down at your last sentence:

If (2) why can’t the Gods of revealed religion be judged based on the only means we have to determine Good and evil?

Who am I to judge a god? By definition, a god is outside human experience. I could no more understand a god's thoughts, knowledge, or motives than a flatworm could understand a shiny new iPod.

 

[jayem]

Morals are a combination of inherent traits and learned behaviors.

I think our brains are hard-wired to live in social groups. We have an innate tendency to inhibit certain behaviors like killing or injuring members of our immediate tribe, or stealing. As a naturalist, I'm sure we got that way through natural selection, and certainly not by the design of any supernatural creator. These basic tendencies are then reinforced by culutral conventions of our society and by what we learn from life experiences. They obviously vary from person to person, and since culture affects morals, they can vary in different societies.

And by the same token, we have less inhibitions on hostile behavior towards those who are not members of our immediate group, or those who are different from ourselves. We evolved as social beings, but we are tribal. Tribalism is the evolutionary baggage we still carry around, and IMO, is the root cause of racism, war, and most all large scale human conflict.

Re. judging gods: I think gods are our own creation and they reflect our own morals. They are usually idealized versions of ourselves. But of course, we use the moral standards of our own cultural milieu to make judgments about others.

 

[JoyJuice]

Joy, I think your argument breaks down at your last sentence:



Who am I to judge a god? By definition, a god is outside human experience. I could no more understand a god's thoughts, knowledge, or motives than a flatworm could understand a shiny new iPod.

Okay, very well.

So then you can not judge God by any means because he is outside your human experience and you as a human can not understand God's thoughts, knowledge or motives. So then by the same token and logic you are in no position to judge him as being good. Right?

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Sure, I can judge a god as being "good" or "evil"... but it won't be an accurate judgment because I don't have all the facts.

Unless I'm giving him a bath, my dog seems to think that I'm a pretty good fellow. He has no idea, though, who I am or what I'm all about.

 

[JoyJuice]

Sure, I can judge a god as being "good" or "evil"... but it won't be an accurate judgment because I don't have all the facts.

Unless I'm giving him a bath, my dog seems to think that I'm a pretty good fellow. He has no idea, though, who I am or what I'm all about.

So when the times I do go to church with friends and the Pastor says, "God is Good" and the congregation responds by saying, "...all the time" they really don't have all the facts to make that judgement, but it sure feels good to believe it?

...thanks for your candor.

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Do they believe it? Or are they simply responding to the ritual?

I think that sort of thing is more about fitting in with the group than about giving any real praise.

They don't have time to reflect on what they believe or to give any real thought to the matter -- it's a simple kneejerk response. It means nothing.

 

[elman]

=JoyJuice;35625249]How do we as cognitive beings determine what is Good and what is Evil?

I define good as being loving to others and evil as being unloving.

Is it (1) like the ardent theist holds that God has innately gave us the characteristic to immediate recognize Good and Evil; wrong from right?

I agree and think we are born if we are not defective for some reason, with a inate sense that being loving is good and being harmful to others is bad.

Or (2) do we derive what is Good and Evil based on our human experiences throughout the evolution of mankind? Kind of like to know what right is, is to experience the wrong?

I don't see it as being reasonable that we develope this idea of loving being good from a survival of the fittest world.

If (2) why can’t the Gods of revealed religion be judged based on the only means we have to determine Good and evil?

I think that God is good and loving and is always good and loving.

 

[JoyJuice]

I define good as being loving to others and evil as being unloving.

Ok, but yet isn't what we come to know as "good" or "evil" relative based on our accumlative experiences from our total existance?

I agree and think we are born if we are not defective for some reason, with a inate sense that being loving is good and being harmful to others is bad.

I kind of don't look at it as being "defective" but rather one of being born without knowledge. So I guess the question here is even if we have an innate pension for good, do we automatically know what is good and what is evil?

I don't see it as being reasonable that we develope this idea of loving being good from a survival of the fittest world.

Couldn't we say that being good for the overall sake of the pack, tribe, or society as a survival of the fittest aspect on a macro level?

 

[MachZer0]

How do we as cognitive beings determine what is Good and what is Evil?

Is it (1) like the ardent theist holds that God has innately gave us the characteristic to immediate recognize Good and Evil; wrong from right?

Or (2) do we derive what is Good and Evil based on our human experiences throughout the evolution of mankind? Kind of like to know what right is, is to experience the wrong?

If (2) why can’t the Gods of revealed religion be judged based on the only means we have to determine Good and evil?

In the absence of an absolute authority, there is no basis to determine good and evil.

 

[JoyJuice]

In the absence of an absolute authority, there is no basis to determine good and evil.

Yes of course, but that authority can easily be exampled by collective agreements based on the accumlative experiences of humanity, and the placement of agents to inact that authority by that humanity.

 

[MachZer0]

Yes of course, but that authority can easily be exampled by collective agreements based on the accumlative experiences of humanity, and the placement of agents to inact that authority by that humanity.

Sorry but that doesn't equate to absolute authority

 

[quatona]

In the absence of an absolute authority, there is no basis to determine good and evil.

...and not even the presence of an absolute authority doesn´t provided us with such a basis. It merely provides us with a basis to determine power.

 

[MachZer0]

...and not even the presence of an absolute authority doesn´t provided us with such a basis. It merely provides us with a basis to determine power.

Yet with that power comes the determination of what is good and what is evil. That is something that cannot be determined in the absence of an absolute authority

 

[quatona]

Yet with that power comes the determination of what is good and what is evil.

How so?

That is something that cannot be determined in the absence of an absolute authority

Then we would end up with what an absolute authority arbitrarily defines as goodness. Not having such isn´t much of a loss.

 

[JoyJuice]

Sorry but that doesn't equate to absolute authority

But yet there is a human experience means to determine what is seen as good, and evil; thus the existence of an authority to promote good and deter evil. So the idea of there having to be an "absolute" authority (whatever that is) is not through experience; true.

 

[MachZer0]

But yet there is a human experience means to determine what is seen as good, and evil; thus the existence of an authority to promote good and deter evil. So the idea of there having to be an "absolute" authority (whatever that is) is not through experience; true.

Human experience changes, so in the absence of an absolute authority, there is no good and evil, only a temporary perception of good and evil. An illusion if you will