I find simple explanations about human nature like this lacking in detail and ability to explain the origin of behavior.
Me too.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
could WE be the problem and the answer?
- Thread starter blast_off_tramp
- Start date
I find simple explanations about human nature like this lacking in detail and ability to explain the origin of behavior.
Me too.
I do think there is such a thing as right and wrong. I even think that you can speak of right and wrong objectively. But only once you recognize that they are complex phenomena of wich their objectivity is dependant upon very subtle logic.
Saying there is no such thing as right and wrong is like saying there is no such thing as '3' or 'pi'. When you only look at reality as everything that is directly there for us to see, for wich you would need not to rely on logic or any form of reasoning, then both moral terms as mathematical terms are all subjective.
Morality is linked with our desires as they are given. There is such a thing as an optimum that could be achieved by an organism or an ecosystem and the complex of our desires strifes towards that optimum. We cannot want it otherwise, unless we've became victim to a condition that interferes with how we're evolutionary meant to function and diminishes this.
Part of this is that we ought to desire to NOT have certain desires, or to be able to tame them. If we know that it get's colder when the summer ends and that we need to have a steady suply of foods, we must desire being able to control our desire to eat all our tummy's can hold, so our supply doesn't dry out too soon.
In that sense you can definately speak of 'rights' and 'wrongs'. And you coul add layers of complexity's. Both socially as psychologically and even philosophically, since the obvious objection from philosophy would be that from a purely objective point of view, why would it be 'wrong' if we would make the 'wrong' decission?
I think you can overcome that objection even. But it would be, by focussing on what the term objective means and eventually coming to the conclusion that even something like 'objective truth' is a function in this constelation of our biology, in wich the mind is our main tool of survival. We can never speak of objective truth as if we're not realy a part of it ourselves.
The term 'evil' is a different term than the term 'wrong', though. Evil, as i think it's meant, implies an informed, counscious and willing choice for what's wrong.
I don't think that ever realy occurs. Thus far, every person i ever saw as evil, in the end turned out to be suffering from some sort of pathological dissorder that severely interfered with their ability to judge.
Saying there is no such thing as right and wrong is like saying there is no such thing as '3' or 'pi'. When you only look at reality as everything that is directly there for us to see, for wich you would need not to rely on logic or any form of reasoning, then both moral terms as mathematical terms are all subjective.
Morality is linked with our desires as they are given. There is such a thing as an optimum that could be achieved by an organism or an ecosystem and the complex of our desires strifes towards that optimum. We cannot want it otherwise, unless we've became victim to a condition that interferes with how we're evolutionary meant to function and diminishes this.
Part of this is that we ought to desire to NOT have certain desires, or to be able to tame them. If we know that it get's colder when the summer ends and that we need to have a steady suply of foods, we must desire being able to control our desire to eat all our tummy's can hold, so our supply doesn't dry out too soon.
In that sense you can definately speak of 'rights' and 'wrongs'. And you coul add layers of complexity's. Both socially as psychologically and even philosophically, since the obvious objection from philosophy would be that from a purely objective point of view, why would it be 'wrong' if we would make the 'wrong' decission?
I think you can overcome that objection even. But it would be, by focussing on what the term objective means and eventually coming to the conclusion that even something like 'objective truth' is a function in this constelation of our biology, in wich the mind is our main tool of survival. We can never speak of objective truth as if we're not realy a part of it ourselves.
The term 'evil' is a different term than the term 'wrong', though. Evil, as i think it's meant, implies an informed, counscious and willing choice for what's wrong.
I don't think that ever realy occurs. Thus far, every person i ever saw as evil, in the end turned out to be suffering from some sort of pathological dissorder that severely interfered with their ability to judge.
polytrip said:
Objective truth must be there: something is happening. (I think therefore i am, so something is... (conscious...)
But by logic (considering our human limitations) we cant know that objective truth (Kant's ding an sich). Since all human perception (including interpretation) is subjective, all human 'truth' is subjective. I have not seen anyone succesfully counter that argument. Scientist and religious people usually stare blind at this, they cant look beyond their eye/belief.
Not realizing the above leads to contradictions between personal (individual) 'truth' and universal 'truth' that applies to all layers, not just the personal.
Good/wrong/evil/good, it is just boxes.
All judgement depend on the perspective one takes.
Here in the west, a big bag of patato chips is unhealthy to eat. But for the hungry kid in Africa the bag of chips could be lifesaving.
Yes, but that's objectively speaking a fact, isn't it?Virola78 said:
So we can say things that are objectively true, about subjective things.
That would be one of the subtleties, that could enable us to start speaking about right and wrong in an objective manner.
When we would start speaking of the innevitabillaty of certain judgements for instance. When we cannot expect another judgement from someone than X, or when we can not expect others to expect from us any other judgement than X.
That is the moment that we start speaking about right and wrong in a moral sense, within the context of that situation.
As you say: it's all a matter of perspective, eventually.
I see what you mean polytrip.
I think morality can be looked at objectively in a lot of ways. Sam Harris has made some really interesting points about this topic. There is a TED talk about it never read his book.
I guess my only point was that morals come from us and our reasoning. Not from something like god or whatever force.
I think morality can be looked at objectively in a lot of ways. Sam Harris has made some really interesting points about this topic. There is a TED talk about it never read his book.
I guess my only point was that morals come from us and our reasoning. Not from something like god or whatever force.
burnt said:
I agree, it comes from our own convoluted sense of "self".
I should state our reasoning and social abilities contribute to our development of morals. Our ability to empathize with others. Our ability to know what goes on in the heads of others. Without my sense of self how could I know what its like to have a sense of self in others and why would I care about how they feel?
^^I think there is a lot of possibility there. I think its something we do anyway but its possible to improve it. I think its possible to improve morals and generally how we treat one another by casting out the ignorance of the past. There is no reason to listen to some stupid outdated books that contained very little useful moral guidelines to begin with anymore.
Most human beings alive on earth think morals come from god. This is a problem.
Most human beings alive on earth think morals come from god. This is a problem.
Electric.Sight
Rising Star
I am one of the people who doesn't believe in good and evil from an objective standpoint. (It does exist subjectively though)
IMO there's only action and reaction; A positive action is more likely to invoke a positive reaction, a negative action is more likely to invoke a negative reaction. Although this doesn't always hold true; Positive-Negative; Creation-Destruction; Life-Death
It's all necessary and all can be considered what we perceive as "good" and "bad".
All the dinosaurs were wiped out in a cosmic event of mass extinction, is this considered evil?
Consider that we humans are the eventual result of this catastrophic event.
I feel like we all are growing and evolving the only way we can, any decision we make is a decision we were instinctively destined to make.
I feel that Instincts are a combination of; Genetics, what we're taught, and what we've experienced. Our sense of self more than likely plays a role as well.
To answer the original question; there are no problems, only countless errors and mistakes from a species that's still quite young.
We have evolutionary limitations that cannot be passed in a lifetime. The truth will come when the time is ready.
We must endure this struggle to reach a state of being where the truth finally reveals itself and we can live in peace and understanding.
At least that's my reason, I'm sure we all have our own!
(To blast_off_tramp + everyone else: Thank you for this topic, it has reflected with some things I've been thinking about lately, and given me a boost of positivity to my outlook:d)
IMO there's only action and reaction; A positive action is more likely to invoke a positive reaction, a negative action is more likely to invoke a negative reaction. Although this doesn't always hold true; Positive-Negative; Creation-Destruction; Life-Death
It's all necessary and all can be considered what we perceive as "good" and "bad".
All the dinosaurs were wiped out in a cosmic event of mass extinction, is this considered evil?
Consider that we humans are the eventual result of this catastrophic event.
I feel like we all are growing and evolving the only way we can, any decision we make is a decision we were instinctively destined to make.
I feel that Instincts are a combination of; Genetics, what we're taught, and what we've experienced. Our sense of self more than likely plays a role as well.
To answer the original question; there are no problems, only countless errors and mistakes from a species that's still quite young.
We have evolutionary limitations that cannot be passed in a lifetime. The truth will come when the time is ready.
We must endure this struggle to reach a state of being where the truth finally reveals itself and we can live in peace and understanding.
At least that's my reason, I'm sure we all have our own!
(To blast_off_tramp + everyone else: Thank you for this topic, it has reflected with some things I've been thinking about lately, and given me a boost of positivity to my outlook:d)
burnt said:
Well, considering the need for cooperation (since we are all on the same boat) instead of wasting more time fighting the battle belief vs reason/common-sense, i think we should work with the situation as is: religion. Perhaps by carefully stretching the 'idea of god' of the religious individual.
This is a long term project, without direct approach. Like cultural influence.
It is a problem indeed. But as long as these morals by god are inline with the human rights i can live with this problem (error/mistake/ignorance).
Separation of state and church. Thank god : )
Well, if there is a biblical god, how could he expect us then, not to use reason and common sense. I mean, he made us and he made this world according to the bible, right? So how could he expect us then, not to follow the leads this world provide us with, for how to behave?
That would be a quite a sadistic god...an evil one.
More like satan.
That would be a quite a sadistic god...an evil one.
More like satan.
If there is a biblical god hes an asshole. Sorry I'm slightly drunk..:lol:
burnt said:
The single most important factor contributing to our moral standpoint is our cultural and familiar upbringing. Our reasoning and social "abilities" are secondary factors to how we are raised and what type of "self" is imprinted upon us by our immeadiate environment. Morals change from country to country, state to state, city to city, family to family.
How can you know what goes on in the heads of others? You cannot.
Without your sense of self, or at least the understanding that the "self" is nothing but an illusion constructed over time and given validity by our minds, then you would know that everything is interconnected on the most fundamental level. It is all just awareness, not mine, or yours, just awareness. With this understanding you are no longer subjected to all the false dualities, separation of one from another and exist in a true moral framework.
First you must see through the illusion...there is no self to have.
And why would you care what anyone felt about you anyway, if not to feed a presumption of "self"?
burnt said:
I totally agree. An asshole and a liar.
This is open for debate. When it comes to very specific moral codes then, yes you're right.Saidin said:
The underlying structure of morality is the same though in most societies.
Most of the moral codes people have are not COMPLETELY incommunserable.
Also, there are abilities that are innate to humans. How they devellop depends on the environment in wich you grow up, but they are innate.
polytrip said:
And what is the origin of that morality? Could it be the 10 Commandments that has been culturally ubiquitious for the last 3000 years? It is something that has been taught and passed down through countless generations. Morality is not an innate properity of humanity. We only percieve right from wrong when we have an other "self" for it to be in relation to.
Saidin there are many many many many human universals in all societies.
If you think this is a coincidence maybe you are not paying attention. Humans have INNATE traits.
If you think this is a coincidence maybe you are not paying attention. Humans have INNATE traits.