The evolution of good and evil

[Roger Clough]

The evolution of good and evil

There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance
life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call Evil.

Thus it is not surprising that Mankind has two basic motivating feelings,
love, which strives to enhance life, being goodness, and fear, which
causes him to avoid enhancing or even diminishing life, being essentially evil.

Those who believe in God believe that he has placed these
two basic emotions in man so that we may fear and love God,
to fear doing evil as well as to love him and do good.


[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/1/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 4:05:15 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

The evolution of good and evil

There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance  
life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call Evil.  

I can't really relate to cut and dried ideas of Good and Evil or enhancing or diminishing of life. It seems completely disconnected from reality to me. If it was that obvious, why wouldn't everyone just do the Good things and avoid Evil things? Obviously our experiences have many layers and qualities which change dynamically. Anything can be interpreted as enhancing or diminishing life. Chemotherapy Good or Evil?
 

[Roger Clough]

ROGER: There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance

life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call Evil.

CRAIG: I can't relate to cut and dried ideas of Good and Evil or enhancing or diminishing of life.

It seems completely disconnected from reality to me. If it was that obvious, why wouldn't
everyone just do the Good things and avoid Evil things? Obviously our experiences have
many layers and qualities which change dynamically. Anything can be interpreted as
enhancing or diminishing life. Chemotherapy Good or Evil?
  

ROGER: Good people tend to do good things, evil people to do evil things.
Chemotherapy is thought to do more good than evil.

<SNIP>

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/1/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ePt2Uf7MeNsJ.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

[Telmo Menezes]

In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes we all have in common. These brain processes make us pursue the best interest of society instead of our own self-interest. I believe they have two main sources:

1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin-selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or group-selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling evidence to support this theory. Social insects are extremely altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with goodness and different races with evil. 

2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the prisoner's dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse.

All attempts to define "good" and "evil" as a fundamental property of the universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: good is what good people do, good people are the ones who do good things.

Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings that is not supported by evidence.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Telmo Menezes

 

Then we pretty much agree.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/2/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Telmo Menezes

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-02, 07:08:41

Subject: Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil

In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes we all have in common. These brain processes make us pursue the best interest of society instead of our own self-interest. I believe they have two main sources:

1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin-selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or group-selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling evidence to support this theory. Social insects are extremely altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with goodness and different races with evil.�

2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the prisoner's dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse.

All attempts to define "good" and "evil" as a fundamental property of the universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: good is what good people do, good people are the ones who do good things.

Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings that is not supported by evidence.

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

ROGER: There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance
life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call Evil.

CRAIG: I can't relate to cut and dried ideas of Good and Evil or enhancing or diminishing of life.
It seems completely disconnected from reality to me. If it was that obvious, why wouldn't
everyone just do the Good things and avoid Evil things? Obviously our experiences have
many layers and qualities which change dynamically. Anything can be interpreted as
enhancing or diminishing life. Chemotherapy Good or Evil?

牋

ROGER: Good people tend to do good things, evil people to do evil things.
Chemotherapy is thought to do more good than evil.

<SNIP>

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/1/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ePt2Uf7MeNsJ.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:39:17 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

ROGER: There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance
life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call Evil.

CRAIG: I can't relate to cut and dried ideas of Good and Evil or enhancing or diminishing of life.
It seems completely disconnected from reality to me. If it was that obvious, why wouldn't
everyone just do the Good things and avoid Evil things? Obviously our experiences have
many layers and qualities which change dynamically. Anything can be interpreted as
enhancing or diminishing life. Chemotherapy Good or Evil?
  
ROGER: Good people tend to do good things, evil people to do evil things.

The Stanford Prison Experiment proves that this is not true. There may be people who are born sociopaths and born humanitarians but overwhelmingly people's actions are reactions to their circumstances.
 

Chemotherapy is thought to do more good than evil.

By doctors trying to cure patients of cancer, not by the cells of the body being poisoned. It sounds like when you say that good enhances life, you are talking about the lives of human beings and not any other species. If pressed, I suspect that good is further defined as that which enhances the lives of human beings which you consider to be good, which will, I suspect, turn out to be those people with whom you personally relate or admire.
 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Jan 2013, at 02:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Chemotherapy Good or Evil?

Better than nothing for most people having some disease.

Worst than THC injection, plausibly for the same group of people.

Here the Evil is only in the fact that minorities hides information from the majority, and this for the minority's interests.

This leads to harmful consequences for the majority.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Craig Weinberg]

I was thinking more of how chemotherapy is ambiguous as far as it being something which can enhance life by inevitably diminishing it, but sure, the politics of it is an issue also.

If I had to get into a definition of good and evil I would go more toward a political direction - senseless inequality of power tends to lead to corruption and crime. Crime and corruption tends to lead to scapegoating or a misuse of sense. The combination of corrupt actions and distortion of truth to cover them up is probably as close to evil as I can think of.

Evil = Abusive social contact.

 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[meekerdb]

On 1/2/2013 4:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes we all have in
> common. These brain processes make us pursue the best interest of society instead of our
> own self-interest. I believe they have two main sources:
>
> 1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of
> thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The exact mechanism here is
> debatable, it could be kin-selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or
> group-selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling evidence to
> support this theory. Social insects are extremely altruistic, and at the same time
> social insect females share more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is
> correct comes from experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with
> goodness and different races with evil.
>
> 2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a society to thrive,
> a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the individual's point of view, however,
> it is irrational to be altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're
> going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a
> positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the prisoner's
> dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse.
>
> All attempts to define "good" and "evil" as a fundamental property of the universe that
> I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: good is what good people do,
> good people are the ones who do good things.
>
> Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the religious: they
> believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings that is not supported by evidence.

Isn't it supported by, "In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of
thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree." I think it's useful to
distinguish "good for society" or ethics from "what individuals take to be good".
Altruism is good for society but for individuals it's only good relative to those near and
dear to them. The great problem of cultures is to resolve tensions between what
individuals intuitively take to be good and what works well for nation states orders of
magnitude larger than the tribal societies in which evolution developed our intuitions.

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Jan 2013, at 13:08, Telmo Menezes wrote:

In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes we all have in common. These brain processes make us pursue the best interest of society instead of our own self-interest. I believe they have two main sources:

1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin-selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or group-selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling evidence to support this theory. Social insects are extremely altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with goodness and different races with evil. 

2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the prisoner's dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse.

And a bad one, especially as a ruse. Everyone know what good is and bad is, for them. So it is better to do the good for the sake of the good than from anything coming from any "authority". 

I expect a person liking me to do the good to me by selfishness, and not because she or he fears some punishment or because they would feel guilty or something.

The ruse is a diabolical trap.

All attempts to define "good" and "evil" as a fundamental property of the universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: good is what good people do, good people are the ones who do good things.

Good and evil cannot be defined but there are many examples. Basically the good start when constraints are satisfied. If you are hungry and can eat, that's the good. Wandering on a field of mines might not be that good, for you, but (perhaps) good for your children and grandchildren.

It seems to me that nature illustrates that selfishness and altruism are natural complement of each other.  I would oppose it to egocentrism, where a special kind of extreme selfishness develop as it rules out the selfishness of others in non reasonable proportions.

Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings that is not supported by evidence.

I am not so sure about that. Most humans would be more happier just knowing than more humans can be happier (if it is not their neighbors). 

I think that some problem comes from too much altruistic dreams, and few awkward real practice, but they keep growing. Presently alas the 'natural altruism" is confronted to the usual fear sellers, and all this is aggravated by dilution of responsibility, motivated by will of control, motivated by the fear of the unknown, manipulated by minorities (not always aware of this, but I think some are).

Bruno

Man has the Good,

He searches for the Best,

He finds the Bad,

And He stays with the Bad by Fear of

finding the Worst.

(A french poet)

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[meekerdb]

Anything that causes great net suffering of people can be considered evil: cancer, small pox, AIDS, tsunamis,...  I see no reason to limit it to social/political causes.

Brent

[meekerdb]

On 1/2/2013 11:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I am not so sure about that. Most humans would be more happier just knowing than more humans can be happier (if it is not their neighbors). 

I think that some problem comes from too much altruistic dreams, and few awkward real practice, but they keep growing. Presently alas the 'natural altruism" is confronted to the usual fear sellers, and all this is aggravated by dilution of responsibility, motivated by will of control, motivated by the fear of the unknown, manipulated by minorities (not always aware of this, but I think some are).

Bruno

Man has the Good,

He searches for the Best,

He finds the Bad,

And He stays with the Bad by Fear of

finding the Worst.

(A french poet)

You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have
got to make it out of.
   --- Robert Penn Warren

[Craig Weinberg]

Do you think that viruses and tsunamis are well served by the label 'Evil'?

Brent

[meekerdb]

?? I'm not interested in serving them.  Values are human values and each person has his own - although there is a lot of consistency.  I think society and individuals are well served by labeling some viruses and tsunamis as 'evil' because that means we should cooperate to mitigate them.  And in fact we have: We eliminated small pox.  We created a tsunami warning system.  Actions I count as good.

Brent
Unfortunately it is the prerogative of evil that to seem so is to
be so.
      --- Bertrand Russell

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 7:08:41 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:

In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes we all have in common. These brain processes make us pursue the best interest of society instead of our own self-interest. I believe they have two main sources:

Good and evil aren't just oriented toward self vs society. Adopting a child is good for society, but torturing them in a dungeon for their entire life is intensely evil regardless of the negligible impact on society.

1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin-selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or group-selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling evidence to support this theory. Social insects are extremely altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with goodness and different races with evil. 

Good does not always equate with altruism. A scientist need not intend to sacrifice himself for the good of the world in order to create something 'good'. We can present an example for 'good' simply by taking care of ourselves in a graceful way, being productive, smart, respectful, etc. Any admirable quality can be 'good' without requiring an individual to sacrifice their own interests to the group or species.

2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the prisoner's dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse.

You don't need religion to do that. Nationalism and Capitalism work just as well.
 

All attempts to define "good" and "evil" as a fundamental property of the universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: good is what good people do, good people are the ones who do good things.

Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings that is not supported by evidence.

I have never met any left-wing atheists who have beliefs in altruism or utopia. Mainly progressives see that left to their own devices, the powerful will tend to abuse their position and the quality of life for the average person will drop...which is supported by evidence.

Craig
 

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 3:58:45 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/2/2013 12:46 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 3:05:10 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/2/2013 11:13 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:57:34 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Jan 2013, at 02:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Chemotherapy Good or Evil?

Better than nothing for most people having some disease.

Worst than THC injection, plausibly for the same group of people.

Here the Evil is only in the fact that minorities hides information from the majority, and this for the minority's interests.

This leads to harmful consequences for the majority.

Bruno

I was thinking more of how chemotherapy is ambiguous as far as it being something which can enhance life by inevitably diminishing it, but sure, the politics of it is an issue also.

If I had to get into a definition of good and evil I would go more toward a political direction - senseless inequality of power tends to lead to corruption and crime. Crime and corruption tends to lead to scapegoating or a misuse of sense. The combination of corrupt actions and distortion of truth to cover them up is probably as close to evil as I can think of.

Anything that causes great net suffering of people can be considered evil: cancer, small pox, AIDS, tsunamis,...  I see no reason to limit it to social/political causes.

 

Do you think that viruses and tsunamis are well served by the label 'Evil'?

?? I'm not interested in serving them.

Obviously. I meant 'Do you think that it serves us to label natural phenomena outside of our control as Evil'?
 

  Values are human values and each person has his own - although there is a lot of consistency.  I think society and individuals are well served by labeling some viruses and tsunamis as 'evil' because that means we should cooperate to mitigate them.  And in fact we have: We eliminated small pox.  We created a tsunami warning system.  Actions I count as good.

The action of mitigating damage is good, just as the intentional neglect of such actions are evil, but the non-human cause of the damage is neither good nor evil. If you get an electric shock, it does not mean that voltage is evil.

Craig

[meekerdb]

But getting a painful shock is.  A small pox virus is just a bundle of molecules.  But small pox, the disease, is an evil.  Good and evil are human judgements - but that doesn't make them unimportant; in fact nothing gets value except from you valuing it.  The social judgements of good and bad are derivative from individual values.

Brent

[Craig Weinberg]

The confusion over the difference is the same as the symbol grounding problem. If we don't differentiate the actual virus from the infection which it causes in *our* body, or the actual voltage from the shocking experience which it causes in *our* system, then we project qualities onto objective phenomena which don't belong there - just as we do when we project conscious animal quality experience on an inorganic device.

To see a tsunami through a telescope on another planet is beautiful and good. To see one up close from beneath a collapsing bridge is a bad experience - it has violently unpleasant qualities for us. Because of those qualities, it makes sense for us to try to prevent circumstances which cause us terrible experiences. That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallpox is Evil (even if those doing it believe they are helping their race or nation.)

 

Good and evil are human judgements - but that doesn't make them unimportant; in fact nothing gets value except from you valuing it.  The social judgements of good and bad are derivative from individual values.

I agree. Judgments of good and bad are inherited, taught, and modified personally through experience. They are important. As far as nothing getting value without my valuing it, I wouldn't presume to know that. Everything has an agenda, and we are each made of a lot of things.

Craig

 

Brent

[meekerdb]

On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp

On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm.  First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are ultimately personal values.  Second, it implies that as soon as we find a physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a behavior it's not longer evil.  But all behavior has a physical cause.  So I'm ok with just dropping the term 'evil' and just referring to good/bad for individuals and good/bad for society as derivative.  But I think it's a hangover from theodicy to refer to human actions as evil but not natural events - it's part of the idea that humans are apart from nature.

Brent
Ethics is, at bottom, the art of recommending to others the
self-sacrifice necessary to cooperate with ourselves.
      --- Bertrand Russell

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:21:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp

On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm.  First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are ultimately personal values.

Speaking of sloppy. I'm not sure what that was intended to say.  Without some explanation of why you say that evil is other than intentional social harm, it sounds like you are just saying that you disagree.
 

  Second, it implies that as soon as we find a physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a behavior it's not longer evil. 

It implies that only to those who think that personal intention is not a physical cause in its own right. Just because someone was drunk when they commit an evil act doesn't mean that it wasn't an evil act.

 

But all behavior has a physical cause. 

All physics is an experiential effect.
 

So I'm ok with just dropping the term 'evil' and just referring to good/bad for individuals and good/bad for society as derivative.  But I think it's a hangover from theodicy to refer to human actions as evil but not natural events - it's part of the idea that humans are apart from nature.

I agree that dropping the term 'evil' as a formal term is the more enlightened way to go. I don't have a problem with it as an informal hyperbole that is reserved for intentionally cruel behavior though. I think that we can separate intentional human cruelty as a class of attitudes and effects unlike any other, though I would not apply any supernatural significance.

I would say that there is a hidden hypocrisy in allowing no expectation of self control on the part of individuals while taking it for granted that exactly that kind of moral control is  to be expected from a law enforcing society composed of those same individuals. If it's not evil for an axe murderer to execute people at random, how can it be evil for a society to call that person evil and seek to execute them? If we want to be humane toward outlaws that's fine, but I don't think that we should do it out of the assumption that human behaviors are under no more human control than storms and earthquakes.

Craig

[meekerdb]

On 1/2/2013 5:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:21:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp

On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm.  First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are ultimately personal values.

Speaking of sloppy. I'm not sure what that was intended to say.  Without some explanation of why you say that evil is other than intentional social harm, it sounds like you are just saying that you disagree.
 

  Second, it implies that as soon as we find a physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a behavior it's not longer evil. 

It implies that only to those who think that personal intention is not a physical cause in its own right. Just because someone was drunk when they commit an evil act doesn't mean that it wasn't an evil act.

 

But all behavior has a physical cause. 

All physics is an experiential effect.
 

So I'm ok with just dropping the term 'evil' and just referring to good/bad for individuals and good/bad for society as derivative.  But I think it's a hangover from theodicy to refer to human actions as evil but not natural events - it's part of the idea that humans are apart from nature.

I agree that dropping the term 'evil' as a formal term is the more enlightened way to go. I don't have a problem with it as an informal hyperbole that is reserved for intentionally cruel behavior though. I think that we can separate intentional human cruelty as a class of attitudes and effects unlike any other, though I would not apply any supernatural significance.

I would say that there is a hidden hypocrisy in allowing no expectation of self control on the part of individuals

Where did anyone express that expectation?

while taking it for granted that exactly that kind of moral control is  to be expected from a law enforcing society composed of those same individuals. If it's not evil for an axe murderer to execute people at random, how can it be evil for a society to call that person evil and seek to execute them?

You don't have to call them evil, just guilty.

Brent

If we want to be humane toward outlaws that's fine, but I don't think that we should do it out of the assumption that human behaviors are under no more human control than storms and earthquakes.

Craig

Brent
Ethics is, at bottom, the art of recommending to others the
self-sacrifice necessary to cooperate with ourselves.
      --- Bertrand Russell

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/-RFrHbTbweoJ.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6002 - Release Date: 01/01/13

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 9:11:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/2/2013 5:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:21:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp

On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm.  First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are ultimately personal values.

Speaking of sloppy. I'm not sure what that was intended to say.  Without some explanation of why you say that evil is other than intentional social harm, it sounds like you are just saying that you disagree.
 

  Second, it implies that as soon as we find a physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a behavior it's not longer evil. 

It implies that only to those who think that personal intention is not a physical cause in its own right. Just because someone was drunk when they commit an evil act doesn't mean that it wasn't an evil act.

 

But all behavior has a physical cause. 

All physics is an experiential effect.
 

So I'm ok with just dropping the term 'evil' and just referring to good/bad for individuals and good/bad for society as derivative.  But I think it's a hangover from theodicy to refer to human actions as evil but not natural events - it's part of the idea that humans are apart from nature.

I agree that dropping the term 'evil' as a formal term is the more enlightened way to go. I don't have a problem with it as an informal hyperbole that is reserved for intentionally cruel behavior though. I think that we can separate intentional human cruelty as a class of attitudes and effects unlike any other, though I would not apply any supernatural significance.

I would say that there is a hidden hypocrisy in allowing no expectation of self control on the part of individuals

Where did anyone express that expectation?

I thought that by saying "it's a hangover from theodicy to refer to human actions as evil but not natural events" you were implying that individuals should be held to a standard no different from the rest of nature.

while taking it for granted that exactly that kind of moral control is  to be expected from a law enforcing society composed of those same individuals. If it's not evil for an axe murderer to execute people at random, how can it be evil for a society to call that person evil and seek to execute them?

You don't have to call them evil, just guilty.

I agree, but I think that it makes people feel human to project super-significance above them and below them. It makes people feel secure that their own actions are within the normal range if transgressors are monsters or saints.
 

[Telmo Menezes]

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:27 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 1/2/2013 4:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes we all have in common. These brain processes make us pursue the best interest of society instead of our own self-interest. I believe they have two main sources:

1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin-selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or group-selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling evidence to support this theory. Social insects are extremely altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with goodness and different races with evil.

2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the prisoner's dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse.

All attempts to define "good" and "evil" as a fundamental property of the universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: good is what good people do, good people are the ones who do good things.

Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings that is not supported by evidence.

Isn't it supported by, "In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree."

Maybe, if you're willing to wait a couple million years for biological evolution to catch up with modern society.

 

 I think it's useful to distinguish "good for society" or ethics from "what individuals take to be good".  Altruism is good for society but for individuals it's only good relative to those near and dear to them.  The great problem of cultures is to resolve tensions between what individuals intuitively take to be good and what works well for nation states orders of magnitude larger than the tribal societies in which evolution developed our intuitions.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi Roger,

That's a bit surprising!

[Telmo Menezes]

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 02 Jan 2013, at 13:08, Telmo Menezes wrote:

In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes we all have in common. These brain processes make us pursue the best interest of society instead of our own self-interest. I believe they have two main sources:

1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin-selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or group-selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling evidence to support this theory. Social insects are extremely altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with goodness and different races with evil. 

2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the prisoner's dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse.

And a bad one, especially as a ruse. Everyone know what good is and bad is, for them. So it is better to do the good for the sake of the good than from anything coming from any "authority". 

I expect a person liking me to do the good to me by selfishness, and not because she or he fears some punishment or because they would feel guilty or something.

I remember an extreme case where I was in a long flight sitting next to a representative of a given religion. At some point he asked for a blanket and covered me with it when I was half-asleep, but he wouldn't talk and seemed repulsed by me.

 

The ruse is a diabolical trap.

All attempts to define "good" and "evil" as a fundamental property of the universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: good is what good people do, good people are the ones who do good things.

Good and evil cannot be defined but there are many examples. Basically the good start when constraints are satisfied. If you are hungry and can eat, that's the good. Wandering on a field of mines might not be that good, for you, but (perhaps) good for your children and grandchildren.

You don't seem to have a lot of faith in the quality of my genetic material! :)

 

It seems to me that nature illustrates that selfishness and altruism are natural complement of each other.  I would oppose it to egocentrism, where a special kind of extreme selfishness develop as it rules out the selfishness of others in non reasonable proportions.

Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings that is not supported by evidence.

I am not so sure about that. Most humans would be more happier just knowing than more humans can be happier (if it is not their neighbors). 

I agree. But will they pay the cost? Will they chose giving to charity or buying the BMW?

 

I think that some problem comes from too much altruistic dreams, and few awkward real practice, but they keep growing. Presently alas the 'natural altruism" is confronted to the usual fear sellers, and all this is aggravated by dilution of responsibility, motivated by will of control, motivated by the fear of the unknown, manipulated by minorities (not always aware of this, but I think some are).

I agree with all you say here. Fear is the mind-killer.

My point is just that we should not try to live in a system that assumes a level of altruism that isn't there. For example, when people ask for more government regulation, they don't consider that the legislators will likely design that legislation with selfish goals in mind.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal

 

 

IMHO Good is no more arbitrary than life is.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/3/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Bruno Marchal

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-02, 14:55:31

Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

Do you know anything about jurisprudence ? It doesn't care

if your motivations were good or evil, it only cares if you

broke the law or not.

 

Serial killers are generally thought to be sociopaths, but

they don't usually have much success cooking up an insanity defense.

They are the mindless, heartless purveyors of cruelty and evil,

evil as defined by laws.

 

Jurors and judges under the legal system determine if you break laws or not,

not whether your motivation was good or evil, although that could

have some influence on the type of punishment.

 

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/3/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Craig Weinberg

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-02, 12:13:04

Subject: Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/eo-BouQWicEJ.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

[Roger Clough]

 

 

Chemotherapy is generally thought to be evil to the cancer

(it tries to kill it) and good to the patient (it tries ultimately to

cure him through killing the cancer).

 

While chemotherapy works against the cancer, on the other hand,

Christian believers such as me believe that the holy spirit, if

so requested, can fill you with life and so defeat a cancer by that means.

Cedrtainly the psychology of a patient can affect the course

of a disease, as wevidenced by the placebo effect. Along

those lines, Jesus said "Your faith has made you whole."

Prayer helps the good, chemotheraphy hurts the bad.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/3/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Craig Weinberg

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-02, 14:13:35

Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/YpNqEUlQwb8J.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

Tsunamis and other forces of nature are themselves amoral*, but

their effects can be good (enhance life) or evil (diminish life).

 

*Since God causes everything to happen, he also, although

reluctantly (the theological term is God's "permissive will")

mustl cause evil to happen as well. "I cause the rain to

fall on just as well as the unjust" says the Bible.

Crap happens. At the same time, the Bible teaches us

to appeal to God to "deliver us from evil."

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/3/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Craig Weinberg

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-02, 16:06:10

Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/SzjN6yHj9NsJ.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

It doesn't matter whether you have good or bad intentions.
The law and God judge us by what we do. You do the crime,
you do the time. You sin, you go to Hell. Personally, I believe
that the "eternal torture" of Hell is not to be able to feel God's
love and forgiveness. That would be Hell to a Jesus. He
refers to being tossed out and undergoing a "weeping and
gnashing of teeth".

Hindus and Buddhists believe in reincarnation, which from
what we observe, is not always a pleasant life.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/3/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-02, 20:24:14

Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/-RFrHbTbweoJ.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:35:00 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

Do you know anything about jurisprudence ?

Only as much as you do.
 

It doesn't care

if your motivations were good or evil, it only cares if you

broke the law or not.

Did I contradict that somewhere?

 

 

Serial killers are generally thought to be sociopaths, but

they don't usually have much success cooking up an insanity defense.

That's why I said "There may be people who are born sociopaths".

They are the mindless, heartless purveyors of cruelty and evil,

evil as defined by laws.

 Is evil defined by law? First you say that jurisprudence is all about establishing whether you broke the law, and not whether someone has evil motives, but now you are saying that evil is defined by laws.

 

Jurors and judges under the legal system determine if you break laws or not,

not whether your motivation was good or evil, although that could

have some influence on the type of punishment.

Yes, so?
 

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:06:42 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg  

It doesn't matter whether you have good or bad intentions.
The law and God judge us by what we do. You do the crime,
you do the time.

I'll let the Bible speak for itself, if that is the God you are talking about:

Timothy 1:5 

The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

Timothy 6:10 

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. "

Hebrews 12:14 

Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Timothy 3:13 

While evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

Philippians 4:8

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

Philippians 1:15-18 

Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice,

Ephesians 2:8-9 

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Romans 2:5 

But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.

You sin, you go to Hell.

If you repent, you go to Heaven.
 

Personally, I believe
that the "eternal torture" of Hell is not to be able to feel God's
love and forgiveness. That would be Hell to a Jesus. He
refers to being tossed out and undergoing a "weeping and
gnashing of teeth". 

Hindus and Buddhists believe in reincarnation, which from
what we observe, is not always a pleasant life.

Personally I believe that Hell and Heaven are metaphors which extrapolate the ordinary high and low moods of human consciousness to a super-significance. God is a metaphor in the exact same way - an algebraic concept of X = Infinite proprietary superlatives. If you are in a world of competing polytheistic deities, each the representation of a personal superlative or sphere of influence (God of war, Goddess of beauty, etc), then the invention of a supreme ultimate deity who trumps all others in all categories is an excellent political strategy. It's a convenient way to consolidate allegiance and direct everyone's personal insecurities to a mass psychology solution.

 

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:53:56 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

Tsunamis and other forces of nature are themselves amoral*, but

their effects can be good (enhance life) or evil (diminish life).

Are you saying that God is powerless to change nature?
 

 

*Since God causes everything to happen, he also, although

reluctantly (the theological term is God's "permissive will")

mustl cause evil to happen as well. "I cause the rain to

fall on just as well as the unjust" says the Bible.

Crap happens. At the same time, the Bible teaches us

to appeal to God to "deliver us from evil."

If appealing to God doesn't deliver you from tsunamis, why bother?
 

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

Evil is not defined by law, but crime is.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/3/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Craig Weinberg

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-03, 08:12:58

Subject: Re: Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/1goybItgwaEJ.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

All of your quotes are very good advice.

What's your point ?

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/3/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Craig Weinberg

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-03, 08:47:13

Subject: Re: What Hell is like

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/iYwGF4FaHGQJ.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

Whatever the Bible says.

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/3/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Craig Weinberg

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-03, 08:55:02

Subject: Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/CVi-z-eL6skJ.

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

 

Although a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt a

communist and so anti-christian).  His diatribe against Christianity

is a prime example. It's totally misinformed and mistaken.

 

Ethics is, at bottom, loving your neighbor as your self.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/3/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-02, 18:21:27

Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

Hi meekerdb

 

Although a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt a

communist and so anti-christian).  His diatribe against Christianity

is a prime example. It's totally misinformed and mistaken.

 

Ethics is, at bottom, loving your neighbor as your self.

Well that's easy. I don't love or even particularly like myself.

 

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/3/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-02, 18:21:27

Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil

On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp

On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm.  First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are ultimately personal values.  Second, it implies that as soon as we find a physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a behavior it's not longer evil.  But all behavior has a physical cause.  So I'm ok with just dropping the term 'evil' and just referring to good/bad for individuals and good/bad for society as derivative.  But I think it's a hangover from theodicy to refer to human actions as evil but not natural events - it's part of the idea that humans are apart from nature.

Brent
Ethics is, at bottom, the art of recommending to others the
self-sacrifice necessary to cooperate with ourselves.
      --- Bertrand Russell

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Telmo Menezes

I suffer from chronic depression, and so have the same
problem, in which case I try to act according to principles.
My main belief is that whoever comes to me is my neighbor.
So I keep a few dollars in my wallet to give to beggars
in the street.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/3/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Telmo Menezes

Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-03, 10:13:43

Subject: Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil







On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi meekerdb
?

Although a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt a

communist and so anti-christian). ?is diatribe against Christianity

is a prime example. It's totally misinformed and mistaken.

?

Ethics is, at bottom, loving your neighbor as your self.


Well that's easy. I don't love or even particularly like myself.

?
?
?

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/3/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-02, 18:21:27
Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil


On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp

On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm.? First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are ultimately personal values.? Second, it implies that as soon as we find a physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a behavior it's not longer evil.? But all behavior has a physical cause.? So I'm ok with just dropping the term 'evil' and just referring to good/bad for individuals and good/bad for society as derivative.? But I think it's a hangover from theodicy to refer to human actions as evil but not natural events - it's part of the idea that humans are apart from nature.

Brent
Ethics is, at bottom, the art of recommending to others the
self-sacrifice necessary to cooperate with ourselves.

??? --- Bertrand Russell

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 9:04:39 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

Evil is not defined by law, but crime is.

 I ask again, "Did I contradict that somewhere?"

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 9:11:29 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

All of your quotes are very good advice.

What's your point ?

My point is that any worthwhile religion is very much concerned with intentions and the content of your 'heart', at least as much as whether you violate the letter of any particular religious law. You were saying that all that matters is whether you sinned or not, whether you break the law or not, and that your good or evil intentions don't matter. I am saying that intention is a defining aspect of any honest conception of good and evil.
 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Jan 2013, at 20:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:57:34 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Jan 2013, at 02:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Chemotherapy Good or Evil?

Better than nothing for most people having some disease.

Worst than THC injection, plausibly for the same group of people.

Here the Evil is only in the fact that minorities hides information from the majority, and this for the minority's interests.

This leads to harmful consequences for the majority.

Bruno

I was thinking more of how chemotherapy is ambiguous as far as it being something which can enhance life by inevitably diminishing it, but sure, the politics of it is an issue also.

If I had to get into a definition of good and evil I would go more toward a political direction - senseless inequality of power tends to lead to corruption and crime.

I think it is in the other way. Corruption and crimes, above some threshold of tolerance, leads to senseless inequality of power.

Crime and corruption tends to lead to scapegoating or a misuse of sense.

OK.

The combination of corrupt actions and distortion of truth to cover them up is probably as close to evil as I can think of.

Evil = Abusive social contact.

Evil is Bf. The communication of the false. When used without moderation. It is not a human invention. Nature does it all the time, I think, sometimes.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Jan 2013, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:

> On 1/2/2013 4:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain
>> processes we all have in common. These brain processes make us
>> pursue the best interest of society instead of our own self-
>> interest. I believe they have two main sources:
>>
>> 1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species
>> as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a
>> degree. The exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin-
>> selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or group-
>> selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling
>> evidence to support this theory. Social insects are extremely
>> altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share more
>> DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from
>> experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with
>> goodness and different races with evil.
>>
>> 2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for
>> a society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From
>> the individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be
>> altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're
>> going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that
>> theme). Religions have a positive impact in our species success,
>> and their main job is to solve the prisoner's dilema. They are,
>> nevertheless, a ruse.
>>

>> All attempts to define "good" and "evil" as a fundamental property
>> of the universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular
>> reasoning: good is what good people do, good people are the ones
>> who do good things.
>>

>> Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to
>> the religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in
>> human beings that is not supported by evidence.
>

> Isn't it supported by, "In the long term, the DNA of the species as

> more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a

> degree." I think it's useful to distinguish "good for society" or

> ethics from "what individuals take to be good". Altruism is good
> for society but for individuals it's only good relative to those
> near and dear to them. The great problem of cultures is to resolve
> tensions between what individuals intuitively take to be good and
> what works well for nation states orders of magnitude larger than
> the tribal societies in which evolution developed our intuitions.

It is not so much different for different individuals and the same
individual at different time in his/her life. Like with smoking
tobacco, which is good in the short time, but (statistically) bad in
the long run. The problem is that the good can lead to the bad, and
vice-versa, so nothing is really simple, especially at the theoretical
level. In the short run we have to trust our own nature or bigger.

Bruno



>
> Brent

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.

> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 12:16:36 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Jan 2013, at 20:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:57:34 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Jan 2013, at 02:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Chemotherapy Good or Evil?

Better than nothing for most people having some disease.

Worst than THC injection, plausibly for the same group of people.

Here the Evil is only in the fact that minorities hides information from the majority, and this for the minority's interests.

This leads to harmful consequences for the majority.

Bruno

I was thinking more of how chemotherapy is ambiguous as far as it being something which can enhance life by inevitably diminishing it, but sure, the politics of it is an issue also.

If I had to get into a definition of good and evil I would go more toward a political direction - senseless inequality of power tends to lead to corruption and crime.

I think it is in the other way. Corruption and crimes, above some threshold of tolerance, leads to senseless inequality of power.

 

That's true too. Maybe it's more of a vicious circle. Generally for crimes to be tolerated implies that there already is an inequality of power. 

Craig

[meekerdb]

On 1/3/2013 12:57 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Isn't it supported by, "In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree."

Maybe, if you're willing to wait a couple million years for biological evolution to catch up with modern society.

But some degree of altruism was useful from the beginning, even before the beginning as in pre-human social hominids.

Brent

[meekerdb]

On 1/3/2013 2:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

While chemotherapy works against the cancer, on the other hand,

Christian believers such as me believe that the holy spirit, if

so requested, can fill you with life and so defeat a cancer by that means.

Hmmm.  I guess my friend Dan, who is a devout Catholic, just didn't get the right words into the thousand or so prayers in which he asked that his young daughter be cured of the leukemia that caused her to die in agony at age 11.

Brent
"For moral reasons I am an atheist - for moral reasons. I am of the opinion
that you would recognize a creator by his creation, and the world appears to
me to be put together in such a painful way that I prefer to believe that it
was not created by anyone than to think that somebody created this
intentionally."
    --- Stanislaw Lem

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:44:32 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

 

 

Chemotherapy is generally thought to be evil to the cancer

(it tries to kill it) and good to the patient (it tries ultimately to

cure him through killing the cancer).

 

While chemotherapy works against the cancer, on the other hand,

Christian believers such as me believe that the holy spirit, if

so requested, can fill you with life and so defeat a cancer by that means.

Yet being filled with the holy spirit cannot reverse an amputated limb, or protect against a tsunami?
 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Jan 2013, at 21:46, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 3:05:10 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/2/2013 11:13 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:57:34 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Jan 2013, at 02:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Chemotherapy Good or Evil?

Better than nothing for most people having some disease.

Worst than THC injection, plausibly for the same group of people.

Here the Evil is only in the fact that minorities hides information from the majority, and this for the minority's interests.

This leads to harmful consequences for the majority.

Bruno

I was thinking more of how chemotherapy is ambiguous as far as it being something which can enhance life by inevitably diminishing it, but sure, the politics of it is an issue also.

If I had to get into a definition of good and evil I would go more toward a political direction - senseless inequality of power tends to lead to corruption and crime. Crime and corruption tends to lead to scapegoating or a misuse of sense. The combination of corrupt actions and distortion of truth to cover them up is probably as close to evil as I can think of.

Anything that causes great net suffering of people can be considered evil: cancer, small pox, AIDS, tsunamis,...  I see no reason to limit it to social/political causes.

 

Do you think that viruses and tsunamis are well served by the label 'Evil'?

I agree. tsunamis, cancer, aids are not evil. It becomes evil when you have cancer and don't get the right medication because some people lie, or when there is a tsunami and you get no help because some people lie. Evil is not the bad per se, but an augmentation of harm (inverse harm reduction) due to other dishonest strategy to improve their wealth.

Evil is moral bad.

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/LCCxe6VeaN8J.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[meekerdb]

On 1/3/2013 5:47 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Personally, I believe
that the "eternal torture" of Hell is not to be able to feel God's
love and forgiveness. That would be Hell to a Jesus. He
refers to being tossed out and undergoing a "weeping and
gnashing of teeth". 

Heaven and Hell were invented so that injustice, so obviously missing on Earth, could be redressed in an afterlife.  I think it has a lake of fire because people didn't think 'not feeling God's love' was enough punishment for say Hitler.  Of course then they got carried away by superlatives, "Believe in my god or he'll punish you worse than your god."

Hindus and Buddhists believe in reincarnation, which from
what we observe, is not always a pleasant life.

Personally I believe that Hell and Heaven are metaphors which extrapolate the ordinary high and low moods of human consciousness to a super-significance. God is a metaphor in the exact same way - an algebraic concept of X = Infinite proprietary superlatives. If you are in a world of competing polytheistic deities, each the representation of a personal superlative or sphere of influence (God of war, Goddess of beauty, etc), then the invention of a supreme ultimate deity who trumps all others in all categories is an excellent political strategy. It's a convenient way to consolidate allegiance and direct everyone's personal insecurities to a mass psychology solution.

Right. See Craig A. James book, "The Religion Virus" for a nice explication of this.

Brent

[meekerdb]

Or

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
   --- Jesus, Luke 19:27

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6005 - Release Date: 01/02/13

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

[meekerdb]

On 1/3/2013 7:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi meekerdb

 

Although a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt a

communist and so anti-christian). 

He was anti-communist too.

His diatribe against Christianity

is a prime example.

It's certainly a prime example of his brilliance and logic.

It's totally misinformed and mistaken.

 

Ethics is, at bottom, loving your neighbor as your self.

And your evidence for this is...?


Brent
Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He
is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them.
He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts
his throat if his theology isn't straight.
      --- Mark Twain

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/3/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-02, 18:21:27

Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil

On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp

On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm.  First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are ultimately personal values.  Second, it implies that as soon as we find a physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a behavior it's not longer evil.  But all behavior has a physical cause.  So I'm ok with just dropping the term 'evil' and just referring to good/bad for individuals and good/bad for society as derivative.  But I think it's a hangover from theodicy to refer to human actions as evil but not natural events - it's part of the idea that humans are apart from nature.

Brent
Ethics is, at bottom, the art of recommending to others the
self-sacrifice necessary to cooperate with ourselves.
      --- Bertrand Russell

No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6005 - Release Date: 01/02/13

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Hi Craig Weinberg

All of your quotes are very good advice.

Do you also think that God gave good advice 1 Samuel 15:2-3?

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

How about Numbers 25:4?

"Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the Lord against the sun."

Or Isaiah 14:21?

"Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers."

Or 1 Samuel 15:2-3

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Or Leviticus 26:22
 
"I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children."

Or Jeremiah 19:9?

"And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend."

Or Exodus 13:15

"The LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast."

> You sin, you go to Hell. Personally, I believe that the "eternal torture" of Hell is not to be able to feel God's
love and forgiveness.

Hmm, that doesn't sound bad at all! The last thing in the world I'd want is love and forgiveness from a moral monster like Jehovah.

  John K Clark

 

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/3/2013 10:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

Hi meekerdb

 

Although a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt a

communist and so anti-christian).  His diatribe against Christianity

is a prime example. It's totally misinformed and mistaken.

 

Ethics is, at bottom, loving your neighbor as your self.

Well that's easy. I don't love or even particularly like myself.

 

 

 Dear Telmo,

    That sounds like a personal pathology. I feel badly for you.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

[Stephen P. King]

Hi Craig,

    The premise of this line of thinking seems not even wrong to me. Is is even logical to consider an entity that can both note the vocalizations of finite creatures and make chances for them? Santa Clause is more plausible... Can people not just grow up and see the world as something other than a supplication game? There is no "man in the sky". Relics of monarchical ages need to be left behind. ;-)

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King

The only miracle that the holy spirit can work with is life,
for it, like God, is life, or represents life.


[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-03, 19:57:51

Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

You're right, I was thinking as a jew might, but if orgot that jesus introduced the

concept of thought crimes (intentions). 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/4/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Craig Weinberg

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-03, 12:05:31

Subject: Re: Re: What Hell is like

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/3mlvEUEnkegJ.

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

That's so sad. I'm so sorry for your friend.

My personal belief is that prayers are
more effective when the cancer isn't so advanced,
because you are fighting good against evil.
Life against death.

Lem needs tio read Leibniz's theodicy.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-03, 12:53:17

Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi Stephen,

There's no need to feel bad. I have a tendency for depression but nothing serious. I suspect it's rather common. I can feel joy in many things and I can love other people, that's good enough.

 

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

Personally, I find that Leibniz has given me the most satisfactory explanations
for God's actions in this world in his theodicy. Also, his monadology can be used to
develop your own logical solutions to just about anything.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-03, 13:04:46

Subject: Re: What Hell is like

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

 

Presumably they have no remorse.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/4/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-03, 13:07:26

[Roger Clough]

Hi meekerdb

I found this on wikipedia:

"Russell begins by defining what he means by the term Christian and sets out to explain why he does not
"believe in God and in immortality" and why he does not "think that Christ was the best and wisest of men",
the two things he identifies as "essential to anybody calling himself a Christian". He considers a number of
logical arguments for the existence of God, including the cosmological argument, the natural-law argument,
the teleological argument and moral arguments following what he describes as
"the intellectual descent that the Theists have made in their argumentations". He also goes into specifics
about Christian theology, alleging defects in Jesus's teaching and his moral character, in particular because
Jesus believed in hell and everlasting punishment. He argues ad absurdum against the "argument from design",
and favors Darwin's theories:"

1) Russell was an atheist (probably a communist), so what could you expect ? This is
an ignorant political (communist-atheist) diatribe.

2) Russell was also a disciple of the 19th century religious cult of materialism, to which the idea of spirit and
immortality were anathema. That enough is to disqualify him. You might as well have a champanzee
review a bach motet.

3) Russell was a total believer in logic, which is incapable of understranding anything. So while he was a
brilliant logician, he was illiterate as far as anything human or spiritual is concerned. Again, that
disqualifies him.

4) He confessed at one time that he hadn't a clue as to the meaning of pragmatism.
He understood Leibniz's logic and wrote a book on it, but said that L's metaphnysics was
a fairy tale. What you can infer from this is that he was an expert in logic, but logic
is useless to understand anything. Not anything human anyway or spiritual.

5) So he naturally rejects Christianity as an illogical, political tract, which it is not intended to be.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-03, 13:13:07

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/4/2013 2:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> The only miracle that the holy spirit can work with is life,
> for it, like God, is life, or represents life.

We do not disagree. ;-)

--
Onward!

Stephen

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/4/2013 3:32 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Stephen P. King <step...@charter.net> wrote:

On 1/3/2013 10:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

Hi meekerdb

 

Although a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt a

communist and so anti-christian).  His diatribe against Christianity

is a prime example. It's totally misinformed and mistaken.

 

Ethics is, at bottom, loving your neighbor as your self.

Well that's easy. I don't love or even particularly like myself.

 

 

 Dear Telmo,

    That sounds like a personal pathology. I feel badly for you.

Hi Stephen,

There's no need to feel bad. I have a tendency for depression but nothing serious. I suspect it's rather common. I can feel joy in many things and I can love other people, that's good enough.

 

Hi Telmo,

    I have my own difficulties that are similar. ;-)

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 Jan 2013, at 10:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 02 Jan 2013, at 13:08, Telmo Menezes wrote:

In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes we all have in common. These brain processes make us pursue the best interest of society instead of our own self-interest. I believe they have two main sources:

1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin-selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or group-selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling evidence to support this theory. Social insects are extremely altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with goodness and different races with evil. 

2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the prisoner's dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse.

And a bad one, especially as a ruse. Everyone know what good is and bad is, for them. So it is better to do the good for the sake of the good than from anything coming from any "authority". 

I expect a person liking me to do the good to me by selfishness, and not because she or he fears some punishment or because they would feel guilty or something.

I remember an extreme case where I was in a long flight sitting next to a representative of a given religion. At some point he asked for a blanket and covered me with it when I was half-asleep, but he wouldn't talk and seemed repulsed by me.

 

The ruse is a diabolical trap.

All attempts to define "good" and "evil" as a fundamental property of the universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: good is what good people do, good people are the ones who do good things.

Good and evil cannot be defined but there are many examples. Basically the good start when constraints are satisfied. If you are hungry and can eat, that's the good. Wandering on a field of mines might not be that good, for you, but (perhaps) good for your children and grandchildren.

You don't seem to have a lot of faith in the quality of my genetic material! :)

Er well, try do the children before going on the field of mines!

 

It seems to me that nature illustrates that selfishness and altruism are natural complement of each other.  I would oppose it to egocentrism, where a special kind of extreme selfishness develop as it rules out the selfishness of others in non reasonable proportions.

Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings that is not supported by evidence.

I am not so sure about that. Most humans would be more happier just knowing than more humans can be happier (if it is not their neighbors). 

I agree. But will they pay the cost? Will they chose giving to charity or buying the BMW?

Giving charity does not help the humans to be more happy. If they are altruist they should buy the BMW.

When money represent work, or speculation on work: that makes human more happier in the middle run.

When money represent lies, that leads to misery.

When money is a gift: that's a total poison.

Don't take this too much literally. 

I have never believed in any notion like charity, or distribution of wealth. It *looks* nice, but it generates poverty. 

 

I think that some problem comes from too much altruistic dreams, and few awkward real practice, but they keep growing. Presently alas the 'natural altruism" is confronted to the usual fear sellers, and all this is aggravated by dilution of responsibility, motivated by will of control, motivated by the fear of the unknown, manipulated by minorities (not always aware of this, but I think some are).

I agree with all you say here. Fear is the mind-killer.

Hmm... Fear is an old friend too, but the danger is the manipulation and exploitation by bandits. 

My point is just that we should not try to live in a system that assumes a level of altruism that isn't there. For example, when people ask for more government regulation, they don't consider that the legislators will likely design that legislation with selfish goals in mind.

Selfishness is good and "natural". It leads to natural altruism toward those you can identify with (and that can be a very large set with spiritual practices).

Raymond Smullyan, in "Tao is silent" said (more or less, from memory): "I like all selfish people, because I can recognize myself, I hate all altruist people, because I can't and they are never happy".

But selfishness is not egocentricity: it is pathological selfishness, with loss of empathy.

Bruno

 

Bruno

Man has the Good,

He searches for the Best,

He finds the Bad,

And He stays with the Bad by Fear of

finding the Worst.

(A french poet)

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

ROGER: There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance
life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call Evil.

CRAIG: I can't relate to cut and dried ideas of Good and Evil or enhancing or diminishing of life.
It seems completely disconnected from reality to me. If it was that obvious, why wouldn't
everyone just do the Good things and avoid Evil things? Obviously our experiences have
many layers and qualities which change dynamically. Anything can be interpreted as
enhancing or diminishing life. Chemotherapy Good or Evil?
  
ROGER: Good people tend to do good things, evil people to do evil things.

Chemotherapy is thought to do more good than evil.

<SNIP>

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/1/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ePt2Uf7MeNsJ.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, January 4, 2013 3:09:11 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

You're right, I was thinking as a jew might, but if orgot that jesus introduced the

concept of thought crimes (intentions). 

" I was thinking as a jew might,"

lol

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno Marchal

Religion cannot save you, it cannot even make you a better person.
Only God can do that.

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/4/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-04, 10:37:13

Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/1/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ePt2Uf7MeNsJ.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 Jan 2013, at 14:47, Craig Weinberg wrote (to Roger Clough):

Personally I believe that Hell and Heaven are metaphors which extrapolate the ordinary high and low moods of human consciousness to a super-significance. God is a metaphor in the exact same way - an algebraic concept of X = Infinite proprietary superlatives.

I don't disagree. Possible.

If you are in a world of competing polytheistic deities, each the representation of a personal superlative or sphere of influence (God of war, Goddess of beauty, etc), then the invention of a supreme ultimate deity who trumps all others in all categories is an excellent political strategy.

Yes. 

Unless the "unique" God is used in a normative way, like if some people knew better than others in some public way.

Then it is no more an excellent political strategy, but the worst.

Normally comp "well understood" prevent "God", or actually anyone,  to be thinking at your place.

It's a convenient way to consolidate allegiance and direct everyone's personal insecurities to a mass psychology solution.

(I imagined well you were using "politics" in a pejorative sense, but politics for me is like sailing, except the boat is not always close to the sea). By definition I would say that an excellent politics is one which optimizes stable (perdurable) majority satisfactions.

It is here, like in science, that God is probably the best idea and "God" is probably the worst idea.

That's the difficulty in theology: to distinguish God from any "God"s. The confusion is easy, even more in time theology is artificially separated from the scientific attitude.

By using "religion" and "politics" only in the pejorative sense, not much hope can remain.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 Jan 2013, at 16:13, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

Hi meekerdb

 

Although a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt a

communist and so anti-christian).  His diatribe against Christianity

is a prime example. It's totally misinformed and mistaken.

 

Ethics is, at bottom, loving your neighbor as your self.

Well that's easy. I don't love or even particularly like myself.

"loving your neighbor as your self" makes also the masochist into a sadist. I think we should respect ourself and ourselves (unless victim of disrespect), but to love, necessarily? Love also can be applied only on the lovable one. 

Like with all forces,  it is a question of "right" exchanges.

Bruno

 

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/3/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-02, 18:21:27

Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil

On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp

On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm.  First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are ultimately personal values.  Second, it implies that as soon as we find a physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a behavior it's not longer evil.  But all behavior has a physical cause.  So I'm ok with just dropping the term 'evil' and just referring to good/bad for individuals and good/bad for society as derivative.  But I think it's a hangover from theodicy to refer to human actions as evil but not natural events - it's part of the idea that humans are apart from nature.

Brent
Ethics is, at bottom, the art of recommending to others the
self-sacrifice necessary to cooperate with ourselves.
      --- Bertrand Russell

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[meekerdb]

On 1/4/2013 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Don't take this too much literally. 

I have never believed in any notion like charity, or distribution of wealth. It *looks* nice, but it generates poverty. 

Oops, too late!  I already gave my kids several hundred thousand dollars in services and education.

Brent

[Telmo Menezes]

That's not charity, it's protecting your genes.

 

Brent

[meekerdb]

On 1/4/2013 1:24 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:49 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 1/4/2013 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Don't take this too much literally. 

I have never believed in any notion like charity, or distribution of wealth. It *looks* nice, but it generates poverty. 

Oops, too late!  I already gave my kids several hundred thousand dollars in services and education.

That's not charity, it's protecting your genes.

So my motive makes a difference in the result?

Brent

[Telmo Menezes]

No but your actions do, and your motives determine your actions.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 Jan 2013, at 11:07, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal

 

 

IMHO Good is no more arbitrary than life is.

I agree. At some level.

Bruno

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/3/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Bruno Marchal

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-02, 14:55:31

Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil

On 02 Jan 2013, at 13:08, Telmo Menezes wrote:

In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes we all have in common. These brain processes make us pursue the best interest of society instead of our own self-interest. I believe they have two main sources:

1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin-selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or group-selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling evidence to support this theory. Social insects are extremely altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with goodness and different races with evil. 

2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the prisoner's dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse.

And a bad one, especially as a ruse. Everyone know what good is and bad is, for them. So it is better to do the good for the sake of the good than from anything coming from any "authority". 

I expect a person liking me to do the good to me by selfishness, and not because she or he fears some punishment or because they would feel guilty or something.

The ruse is a diabolical trap.

All attempts to define "good" and "evil" as a fundamental property of the universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: good is what good people do, good people are the ones who do good things.

Good and evil cannot be defined but there are many examples. Basically the good start when constraints are satisfied. If you are hungry and can eat, that's the good. Wandering on a field of mines might not be that good, for you, but (perhaps) good for your children and grandchildren.

It seems to me that nature illustrates that selfishness and altruism are natural complement of each other.  I would oppose it to egocentrism, where a special kind of extreme selfishness develop as it rules out the selfishness of others in non reasonable proportions.

Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings that is not supported by evidence.

I am not so sure about that. Most humans would be more happier just knowing than more humans can be happier (if it is not their neighbors). 

I think that some problem comes from too much altruistic dreams, and few awkward real practice, but they keep growing. Presently alas the 'natural altruism" is confronted to the usual fear sellers, and all this is aggravated by dilution of responsibility, motivated by will of control, motivated by the fear of the unknown, manipulated by minorities (not always aware of this, but I think some are).

Bruno

Man has the Good,

He searches for the Best,

He finds the Bad,

And He stays with the Bad by Fear of

finding the Worst.

(A french poet)

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:

ROGER: There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance
life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call Evil.

CRAIG: I can't relate to cut and dried ideas of Good and Evil or enhancing or diminishing of life.
It seems completely disconnected from reality to me. If it was that obvious, why wouldn't
everyone just do the Good things and avoid Evil things? Obviously our experiences have
many layers and qualities which change dynamically. Anything can be interpreted as
enhancing or diminishing life. Chemotherapy Good or Evil?
  
ROGER: Good people tend to do good things, evil people to do evil things.
Chemotherapy is thought to do more good than evil.

<SNIP>

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/1/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ePt2Uf7MeNsJ.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Jan 2013, at 17:04, Roger Clough wrote:

> Hi Bruno Marchal
>
> Religion cannot save you, it cannot even make you a better person.
> Only God can do that.

I would say that, religion, well understood, can help.

The problem is in the "well understood", of course :)

Bruno

> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com
> .

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
>
>

> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com
> .

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[meekerdb]

On 1/5/2013 9:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:06 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 1/4/2013 1:24 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:49 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 1/4/2013 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Don't take this too much literally. 

I have never believed in any notion like charity, or distribution of wealth. It *looks* nice, but it generates poverty. 

Oops, too late!  I already gave my kids several hundred thousand dollars in services and education.

That's not charity, it's protecting your genes.

So my motive makes a difference in the result?

No but your actions do, and your motives determine your actions.

So it's the actions, giving and charity, which have a bad effect.  Which is what Bruno said in the first place.

Brent

[Telmo Menezes]

I can't talk for Bruno of course, but he said "charity" and "distribution of wealth". The example you give is neither. When people say "distribution of wealth" they don't usually have one's progeny in mind.

Full disclosure: I agree with the left on civil liberties and with the right on free market capitalism. I agree with what they say, not what they do, which are two different things. Civil liberties are very limited and the brand of capitalism we have these days is crony capitalism. The left and the right have been synergistic in creating this state of affairs. I guess this makes me a libertarian, although I'm suspicious of people with such ideologies who are then willing to affiliate with a political organisations.

 

I'm also aware that I might be wrong.

[Bruno Marchal]

If you offer services and education to your kids, that's rather cool and nice. That's not charity, it is more a sort of investment. 

Charity would be more like given them hundred thousand dollars comma. 

Again, I try to convey an idea by example, but in the human affair, all rules have exceptions. (Except taxes apparently).

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[meekerdb]

On 1/6/2013 4:27 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 9:57 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 1/5/2013 9:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:06 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 1/4/2013 1:24 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:49 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 1/4/2013 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Don't take this too much literally. 

I have never believed in any notion like charity, or distribution of wealth. It *looks* nice, but it generates poverty. 

Oops, too late!  I already gave my kids several hundred thousand dollars in services and education.

That's not charity, it's protecting your genes.

So my motive makes a difference in the result?

No but your actions do, and your motives determine your actions.

So it's the actions, giving and charity, which have a bad effect.  Which is what Bruno said in the first place.

I can't talk for Bruno of course, but he said "charity" and "distribution of wealth". The example you give is neither. When people say "distribution of wealth" they don't usually have one's progeny in mind.

My point exactly.  They think, "If I spend a million dollars on my kid, it'll be good for him.  If I give ten dollars to a panhandler he'll just get drunk." and they might be right, so it isn't the transfer of wealth that determines the outcome.  Charity and redistribution of wealth can be good or bad.

Brent

[meekerdb]

On 1/6/2013 8:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 04 Jan 2013, at 21:49, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/4/2013 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Don't take this too much literally. 

I have never believed in any notion like charity, or distribution of wealth. It *looks* nice, but it generates poverty. 

Oops, too late!  I already gave my kids several hundred thousand dollars in services and education.

If you offer services and education to your kids, that's rather cool and nice. That's not charity, it is more a sort of investment. 

Charity would be more like given them hundred thousand dollars comma. 

Again, I try to convey an idea by example, but in the human affair, all rules have exceptions. (Except taxes apparently).

But examples can be misleading; which is why I cited a counter example.  I think the point is not that charity is bad, but how it is given makes the difference.  Often it is bad to just give poor people money, but then this generalized to be an example showing that you should not try to help them at all, that it will just be bad for them.  This is a comforting conclusion, since most people would rather keep their wealth to themselves and with it they can feel morally superior in doing so.

Brent

[Roger Clough]

Hi chris kramer

Evidence ? God is like the cat burglar and never leaves traces.

Generally, however, since God usually works through people (or angels),
as once in a while in the Bible a stranger appears,
or you might find a stranger (increased taxes) entering your
life (usually to do evil), and if family or a friend, good will more likely
happen. You also can do good (make a friend) and evil to yourself
(accidents).

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/9/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----

From: chris kramer
Receiver: Mind...@yahoogroups.com
Time: 2013-01-08, 21:21:32
Subject: Re: Re: [Mind and Brain] Why God sometimes has to let bad thingshappen tous.



If the miracle leaves no evidence, what reason is on offer that there was a miracle?
Roger,
I am not sure what the point of your metaphor is if you do not see God as intervening, troubled waters or not.
I suppose when it is admitted that "evidence does not apply", we are going to be talking passed each other; unless we come to some stipulative broadened definition of "evidence."


Chris
From: Roger Clough
To: "- Mind...@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:14 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [Mind and Brain] Why God sometimes has to let bad things happen tous.


Hi chris kramer CHRIS: God intervenes, piloting us through rough waters? If this is the thesis,
then science should have something to say about it.

ROGER: "Rough waters" is a metaphor, useful to get a complex point communicated.
CHRIS: We should have evidence of such an intervention. And if the Bible is accurate, then there have been such interventions in the past in which God has helped his creations navigate through the world he has made--parting seas, resurrecting some people. But this disrupts the free will theodicy which claims that if God intervenes to save us, then we lose our free will. So which is it? ROGER: "Rough waters" is merely a metaphor, evidence doesn't apply.
And nobody had to lose their free will when the virgin Mary conceived or when Jesus
was resurrected. To a God who could create this marvellous universe, these events would
have been child's play.

CHRIS: (when it really matters--but not during the Holocaust!) so as to not remove FW? ROGER: The Holocaust was caused at least by one man (AH), who freely chose to do evil.CHRIS: God does not ever intervene thereby maintaining our autonomy-? ROGER: That seems to be the case, it was with Hitler.

CHRIS: God does not intervene, and yet we have no FW?

ROGER: Sorry, I don't follow your logic here. We have free will.

CHRIS: There is no God but we are free in the relevant moral sense? There is no God and the determinists are right? Some other alternative? CHRIS: I imagine the second option might be the most palatable to theists;
but then such interventions ought to be subject to scientific scrutiny and all of
the theoretical and empirical methods that go along with it. I think the evidence
for such interventions is quite scarce.
ROGER: Miracles often don't leave much evidence.


From: Roger Clough To: "- mailto:%20Min...@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Sunday, January 6, 2013 7:13 AM Subject: [Mind and Brain] Why God sometimes has to let bad things happen to us. Hi chris kramer Although God is all-powerful in Heaven, where there is no death, but down here, where death is ever present, God must try to pilot us through sometimes rough waters,in which his options are more limited. Down here, good and evil --life and death--are inextricably mixed together:a) Men have been given free will so that they can be truly moral, but that also allows them to sometimes do evil to you. b) In this universe, according to Nature's plan, nature usually allows good things to happen, like the spring rains, but it can also allow badthings to happen, like your getting cancer or there being a tsunamio.Chris From: Roger Clough To: "- mailto:%mailto:%2020Mi...@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Friday, January 4, 2013 10:19 AM Subject: Re: Re: Re: [Mind and Brain] The evolution of good and evil Hi chris kramer 1) Calm down. 2) organize your thoughts. 3) Write simple declarative sentences. [Roger Clough], [mailto:rclough%40verizon.net] 1/4/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: chris kramer Receiver: mailto:MindBrain%40yahoogroups.com Time: 2013-01-03, 16:47:43 Subject: Re: Re: [Mind and Brain] The evolution of good and evil So the equivalent of a parent spanking a child to correct child's behavior, let's say the child just hit his sister, is analogous to God striking humanity that strays with boils, hurricanes, disease...? Or allows genocide to take place. And as for proscribing the striking of a child as THE cause of moral degeneration (assuming there is one. Were times better in the US in the 50's? For whom? Minorities, women...?)...I can't begin to repsond to that transparent false cause fallacy. Chris From: Roger Clough To: "- mailto:MindBrain%40yahoogroups.com" Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2013 9:02 AM Subject: Re: Re: [Mind and Brain] The evolution of good and evil Hi Dan Ghiocel reverence = fear + love Think of God as your father. Yes, you love him, but you could also get spanked. But I guess liberals don't allow spanking these days. That could be why our morals have gone to hell. [Roger Clough], mailto:mailto:rclough%40verizon.net] 1/3/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Dan Ghiocel Receiver: MindBrain Time: 2013-01-02, 20:08:09 Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] The evolution of good and evil The "fear" element sneaked into Christianity and the New Testament from the idol worshiping of Judaism and The Old Testament.Dan GOn 1/2/2013 2:37 PM, chris kramer wrote: Is such belief both necessary and sufficient? If so, that is a very strange and quite limited morality. Chris From: Roger Clough mailto:mailto:rclough%40verizon.net To: "- mailto:MindBrain%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:mailto:MindBrain%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 10:31 AM Subject: Re: Re: [Mind and Brain] The evolution of good and evil Hi Dan Ghiocel If you believe that Jesus died for your personal sins, you need not fear. [Roger Clough], mailto:mailto:rclough%40verizon.net] 1/2/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Dan Ghiocel Receiver: MindBrain Time: 2013-01-01, 20:44:44 Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] The evolution of good and evil Why would one fear of heaven and hell outcome? People are volunteering for war all the time and they are not afraid of doing it! What "salvation" ? What would that consist of? Dan G On 1/1/2013 3:19 PM, chris kramer wrote: And if we fail to fear doing evil? how much constitutes failure? A little? God Knows? If Hell is the end result of failure, then how can anyone who believes in both Heaven and Hell avoid the neuroses that come along with the constant fear that one might suffer eternal torments? To assume one is saved seems the height of theological arrogance and surely lacks epistemic humility. Chris From: Roger Clough mailto:mailto:rclough%40verizon.net To: "- mailto:MindBrain%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:mailto:mindbrain%40yahoogroups.com; everything-list mailto:mailto:everything-list%40googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 1, 2013 3:05 PM Subject: [Mind and Brain] The evolution of good and evil The evolution of good and evil There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call Evil. Thus it is not surprising that Mankind has two basic motivating feelings, love, which strives to enhance life, being goodness, and fear, which causes him to avoid enhancing or even diminishing life, being essentially evil. Those who believe in God believe that he has placed these two basic emotions in man so that we may fear and love God, to fear doing evil as well as to love him and do good. [Roger Clough], [mailto:rclough%40verizon.net] 1/1/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
__._,_.___Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (6)

Recent Activity: New Members 2
Visit Your Group
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest ? Unsubscribe ? Terms of Use ? Send us Feedback .

__,_._,___