Defining concepts: Good and Bad people

[thelerner]

I see people as inherently selfish. That's how nature produces things. Animals evolve to survive. For humans, a big part of that is individual selfishness, and the smaller part is willingness to do things for the survival of the species. But that's still a selfish motive. When it comes to 'doing good' and 'doing bad', it can go either way.

Good point, but I'm a little more optimistic, perhaps because I'm thinking smaller then 'survival of the species'.  I think what turns me towards people are neutral and have great potential for good, is the hard work and sacrifice done every day for their family, the love and compassion shown to children.  It's so common we tend to miss it. 

 

Course neutral can be turned the other way too.   We are creatures of many wants and the world can be a cold place.  Yet where we've flourished the most, is where there are strong bonds of love and tolerance. 

[Karl]

Good point, but I'm a little more optimistic, perhaps because I'm thinking smaller then 'survival of the species'.  I think what turns me towards people are neutral and have great potential for good, is the hard work and sacrifice done every day for their family, the love and compassion shown to children.  It's so common we tend to miss it. 

 

Course neutral can be turned the other way too.   We are creatures of many wants and the world can be a cold place.  Yet where we've flourished the most, is where there are strong bonds of love and tolerance.

 

Where we flourished the most is where there was freedom and laws protecting inaliable rights for everyone equally. Love and tolerance don't build houses, create dams, build hospitals or put food on the plate.

 

No one 'sacrifices' for their families unless they are mentally deficient. Families share the value of each other, that's the bond that hold them together, they do whatever they can to preserve the values that they love. That's what love is, a value/values held highest to the person holding them.

 

There are bad families and good families. Until we know that they share our values then to judge all families as good would be a mistake.

[Yinja]

Perhaps we can define good 

 

There is only one (worthy?) course of actions (as i see it) either closer to enlightenment or away from it.

One who is closer to humans true nature(or to the realization) would have a greater presence of love and compassion which is our true nature no? 

Thats how it feels for me from my experience anyway. One who's in struggle with god would be less in touch with this love i 

assume.

But im not saying we are the ones to make the judge not even  thier actions IMO 

 

How can we tell the intention behind their actions and even if we did how can we tell whats in ones power to do(if any) 

without calculating the infinite variables affecting him ?

 

[Marblehead]

It is my opinion that whatevr leads one toward peace and contentment is a good path.

 

I think it is an error to consider specific actions taken by an individual but rather an overall accumulation of their actions.

 

I'll let others talk about love and compassion.

 

Do the right thing and cause as little harm to others as possible.

[Stosh]

Since when do families share common values?

I thought families were those genetically related groups of people who sublimated their mutual hatred ,out of fear of being alone.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

The good is anything that supports or improves life, evil is anything that does not. However, without a full philosophy you begin by trying to untie a knot in the middle. Does it support rights ? Life, freedom, property, pursuit of happiness ? If it breaks any one of those rights it is evil.

[Stosh]

As a regular down to earth local guy said to me. Killling things is part of life. You cant avoid it. Now I couldve been childish, and pretend he was wrong, said something like You could live on fruit, or beg off others, But he was making a sincere point, not a flawed one. Theres truth in this. We do live in a finite world, and one mans gain becomes someone elses loss, somewhere down the line if you follow the chain of events All the way down. to the space you occupy and air you breathe. An exception to this does exist , Its the ideas you entertain in your mind. Its possible that you may be happy without making others sad. That isnt ALL there is to living, but , he Did say "Part" of life.

[Karl]

Since when do families share common values?

I thought families were those genetically related groups of people who sublimated their mutual hatred ,out of fear of being alone.

Do parents have children for fear of 'being alone' or, because they inevitably must share the values of their parents until old enough to differ ?

 

In a tribal village these families are robust units with co-dependence due to these shared values. This is less so in modern societies because values can be pragmatic and the state is often substitute for a father, or parents. This is why we have so many single parent/no parent families. People have lost their way and pragmatism is winning. This is moral relativism practiced on a wide scale. Good and evil are no longer moral absolutes, but sliding doors of subjective whim. Everything is compromise, short termism, with little thought to the big moral picture. Instead of thinking logical and reasoning towards the long term, today it's whatever goes and if it doesn't quite work then try something else.

 

Does anyone fear loneliness sufficiently that any kind of friendship, even one where no values whatsoever are shared ? Of course not-if we share zero values with another person they will represent a poor kind of friend or more likely a danger.

 

In the near past I could not see it, subjectivism has been so well ingrained into our lives through state education, media, books and art that to question it is to appear square, narrow minded, taciturn, old fashioned, religious or even extremist. However, one the blinkers are removed be assured that the reality that one discovers (not rediscovers as today's living generations have not yet discovered it) is startling, bleak and frightening. Once the black and white nature of good and evil is seen as reality, then there is no going back. One cannot forget it, or evade it. To discover reality is to discover that we are already falling from a high place and are unaware of the precarious situation.

[Stosh]

Well, in my experience, my upbringing, There were some values that my parents had ,that were foisted upon me. Others ... I think originate as outgrowth of the human condition... presuming were discussing kids of some mental development and level of socialization.. and some that originate with me out of individuality , but may. be the same as others arrive at anyway.

Likewise, even people I have a bit of hostility towards may share core values with me. Even the most cursory consideration should obliterate the idea that familial relationship implies a significantly greater degree of common values than happens by chance alone, comparing similar circumstances of upbringing. I dont even know what ever brought you to that conclusion .

Values tend to change as we age ,besides, siblings are to an extent ,rivals, men and women develop differently, and opposites do attract reasonably often. Everyone can look to their own childhood, for an example to test that idea. I think religion is usually inherited , but other than that a child is probably more like his peers than his own dad.

[Stosh]

IMO "reality" isnt black and white other than in simplified pretense.

[Karl]

IMO "reality" isnt black and white other than in simplified pretense.

Reality is reality, to say it's black and white would be to question existence.

[Marblehead]

Sure, there are black and white.  But there are an infinite number of shades of grey.

[Karl]

Well, in my experience, my upbringing, There were some values that my parents had ,that were foisted upon me. Others ... I think originate as outgrowth of the human condition... presuming were discussing kids of some mental development and level of socialization.. and some that originate with me out of individuality , but may. be the same as others arrive at anyway.

Likewise, even people I have a bit of hostility towards may share core values with me. Even the most cursory consideration should obliterate the idea that familial relationship implies a significantly greater degree of common values than happens by chance alone, comparing similar circumstances of upbringing. I dont even know what ever brought you to that conclusion .

Values tend to change as we age ,besides, siblings are to an extent ,rivals, men and women develop differently, and opposites do attract reasonably often. Everyone can look to their own childhood, for an example to test that idea. I think religion is usually inherited , but other than that a child is probably more like his peers than his own dad.

Of course, you lived in a family in which you had to live by the rules (parents values) because a child cannot easily survive until they are several years old at least.

 

We adopt philosophies and to a large degree these philosophies determine our values. It is interesting to note that these values do not necessarily agree with reality, they might also be in direct conflict with other values that we hold but we manage to bury both kinds of contradiction under logical fallacies, evasions and foggy definitions.

 

If we do not realise there are moral absolutes then we cannot begin to know what we should. If we believe existence is a manifestation of consciousness-that whims and wishes are more powerful than reason and logic, then we are morally adrift.

 

This is why I continually refer to the 3 questions. No one has yet fully answered them, though some have attempted to they are unaware of the magnitude of the task, or perhaps they are aware but it suits them not to discover the truth. It is easier to evade, to create fluidity than to see the stark, unremitting beauty of reality. Others don't know that they don't know, they remain passively ignorant because they haven't thought to ask-some never will, they just get on pulling water out of the well and chopping firewood. It is only those that are capable of higher abstractions that begin to ask the questions that some others have never doubted.

[Karl]

Sure, there are black and white. But there are an infinite number of shades of grey.

Only in respect of our conceptions. We can make a law which is bad through error, but we can't avoid the reality of the error. We can think that our vehicle can go around a turn at 60mph, but have ignored the road conditions, the mechanical condition of the vehicle, our skill, the severity of the turn, or an unpleasant surprise waiting around the turn. However reality is not grey. There is only so much traction- the laws of physics give us those. The laws of physics apply to the vehicle mechanical condition as does causality. We can over estimate our skill, but we cannot improve our skill simply by thinking we are more skilful. The severity of the turn does not change by thoughts of it being such, it is what it is. A trailer parked on the turn is there whether we wish it or not. If we crash, then we crash, if we do not then we do not. There is no half crashing, nor any half getting around the turn. It is what it is and there are no greys.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Karl

[Brian]

Many parents have children simply because they had sex. Farming families, among others, often had/have children to provide a workforce. People have children for many reasons and for no reason at all.

 

A starving man steals one of my chickens to feed his starving family. I have him incarcerated. Which of us is good and which is evil?

[Marblehead]

Only in respect of our conceptions.

All potential, non-manifest reality, is grey.  Something may manifest, or not.  It may be "this" or it could be "that".

 

But yes, I will agree, what is, is.

[Karl]

Many parents have children simply because they had sex. Farming families, among others, often had/have children to provide a workforce. People have children for many reasons and for no reason at all.

A starving man steals one of my chickens to feed his starving family. I have him incarcerated. Which of us is good and which is evil?

The starving man is evil. He should have begged for a chicken, or offered to work for that chicken. This is what honest men do, they do not steal. Of course the chicken owner may well be lenient and apply mercy to the thief, he may recognise that a mistake has been made and that the man will learn from his mistake- but this falls on the victim to decide what is just. The facts of the case are simple enough, a thief is evil.

 

People obviously do have children in error, but that does not necessarily mean that no common values are ascribed. A mother, or father has the job of feeding and caring for infants the are tabula rasa. In other words children are truly innocent and lack complex values except for the need of food, protection and shelter. A parent isn't threatened by a child, but they might be threatened by the need to care for a child.

[Karl]

All potential, non-manifest reality, is grey. Something may manifest, or not. It may be "this" or it could be "that".

 

But yes, I will agree, what is, is.

Well now you are talking about something slightly different: possibility, probability and certainty.

However these things aren't grey, they do not 'manifest', they already are, or they are not.

 

It is possible that we will be invaded by aliens tommorrow morning, but it is not probable, it is nowhere close to a certainty. This doesn't mean that aliens capable and willing to invade us do not already exist-that woukd be a certainty if they did. We aren't omniscient so we must deduce and induce in order to arrive at possibilities, probabilities and certainties.

 

If we throw a dice we can know the probability and bet on it, but we can't be sure of winning. This isn't a grey area. The dice, the air, the table, the man who throws all have an exact nature and that dice will land as a result of all natures acting. There is no doubt about which way the dice will land according to the nature of causality, but as humans we are incapable of determining this, the best we do is guess a number from 1 to 6.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Damn Karl.  I have to concede that one.  You done good.

[Brian]

The starving man is evil. He should have begged for a chicken, or offered to work for that chicken. This is what honest men do, they do not steal. Of course the chicken owner may well be lenient and apply mercy to the thief, he may recognise that a mistake has been made and that the man will learn from his mistake- but this falls on the victim to decide what is just. The facts of the case are simple enough, a thief is evil.

 

People obviously do have children in error, but that does not necessarily mean that no common values are ascribed. A mother, or father has the job of feeding and caring for infants the are tabula rasa. In other words children are truly innocent and lack complex values except for the need of food, protection and shelter. A parent isn't threatened by a child, but they might be threatened by the need to care for a child.

You aren't a parent, are you?

[Stosh]

Of course, you lived in a family in which you had to live by the rules (parents values) because a child cannot easily survive until they are several years old at least.

 

We adopt philosophies and to a large degree these philosophies determine our values. It is interesting to note that these values do not necessarily agree with reality, they might also be in direct conflict with other values that we hold but we manage to bury both kinds of contradiction under logical fallacies, evasions and foggy definitions.

 

If we do not realise there are moral absolutes then we cannot begin to know what we should. If we believe existence is a manifestation of consciousness-that whims and wishes are more powerful than reason and logic, then we are morally adrift.

 

This is why I continually refer to the 3 questions. No one has yet fully answered them, though some have attempted to they are unaware of the magnitude of the task, or perhaps they are aware but it suits them not to discover the truth. It is easier to evade, to create fluidity than to see the stark, unremitting beauty of reality. Others don't know that they don't know, they remain passively ignorant because they haven't thought to ask-some never will, they just get on pulling water out of the well and chopping firewood. It is only those that are capable of higher abstractions that begin to ask the questions that some others have never doubted.

I don't see it that morality somehow equates to logic. 

Morality revolves around principles of right and wrong, which are value judgments, rather than logical conclusions. 

Whims and wishes provide the goals of logic, and so the logic one would employ to gain those objectives is subject to the whim. Logic doesn't tell one what they want out of life. 

[Brian]

Well now you are talking about something slightly different: possibility, probability and certainty.

However these things aren't grey, they do not 'manifest', they already are, or they are not.

 

It is possible that we will be invaded by aliens tommorrow morning, but it is not probable, it is nowhere close to a certainty. This doesn't mean that aliens capable and willing to invade us do not already exist-that woukd be a certainty if they did. We aren't omniscient so we must deduce and induce in order to arrive at possibilities, probabilities and certainties.

 

If we throw a dice we can know the probability and bet on it, but we can't be sure of winning. This isn't a grey area. The dice, the air, the table, the man who throws all have an exact nature and that dice will land as a result of all natures acting. There is no doubt about which way the dice will land according to the nature of causality, but as humans we are incapable of determining this, the best we do is guess a number from 1 to 6.

So old-fashioned predestiny, then?

[Stosh]

Well if its pre-determinism , he is screwed , because he cant use logic to improve his life , or anything for that matter. 

[Karl]

You aren't a parent, are you?

That's beneath you Brian.

 

I shall first explain why: you firmly believe in the rights of life, freedom, property and the pursuit of happiness. Stealing chickens contravenes all of those rights which you support. Either you do or don't support these rights.

 

Secondly: it's a circumstantial ad hominem. I do not need to be a parent to understand that I hold a value, but I also know that it isn't right to deny one person a chicken to feed their child in order that I feed my own. The distinguishing difference is property ownership.

 

Of course someone will say 'but he has plenty of chickens so surely it doesn't matter'. Which, as you well know, is exactly the argument employed by socialists in order to take from those who have produced and give to those who haven't produced. This is something you have always objected to.

 

Now you have yourself in conflict with your views, you suddenly turned into a moral relativist and that compromise -that need/wishes/whims count for greater than objective reason do find you wanting. Dont you think that conflict requires resolution ?

 

With the greatest of respect.

[Brian]

The starving man is evil. He should have begged for a chicken, or offered to work for that chicken. This is what honest men do, they do not steal. Of course the chicken owner may well be lenient and apply mercy to the thief, he may recognise that a mistake has been made and that the man will learn from his mistake- but this falls on the victim to decide what is just. The facts of the case are simple enough, a thief is evil.

 

People obviously do have children in error, but that does not necessarily mean that no common values are ascribed. A mother, or father has the job of feeding and caring for infants the are tabula rasa. In other words children are truly innocent and lack complex values except for the need of food, protection and shelter. A parent isn't threatened by a child, but they might be threatened by the need to care for a child.

Well, I only ask because you said this:

The good is anything that supports or improves life, evil is anything that does not. However, without a full philosophy you begin by trying to untie a knot in the middle. Does it support rights ? Life, freedom, property, pursuit of happiness ? If it breaks any one of those rights it is evil.

By me having the man arrested, I am willfully violating his right to freedom and I am endangering this lives of his starving children, regardless of his motivation. His starving children will learn a lesson all right. I can rationalize my action by saying the man deserved to be arrested -- he was a thief, after all! -- and it isn't my problem whether his children starve but, like most rationalizations, that's a logical salve applied as an analgesic against conscience.