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.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Telmo MenezesReceiver: everything-listTime: 2013-01-02, 07:08:41Subject: 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.
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.
Chemotherapy Good or 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.
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 offinding the Worst.(A french poet)
Brent
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 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.
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.
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
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 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.
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
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
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.
On 1/2/2013 4:08 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."
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.
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.
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).
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Bruno MarchalReceiver: everything-listTime: 2013-01-02, 14:55:31Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-listTime: 2013-01-02, 12:13:04Subject: 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 unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-02, 14:13:35Subject: 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.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: 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.
Hi Craig WeinbergDo you know anything about jurisprudence ?
It doesn't careif your motivations were good or evil, it only cares if youbroke the law or not.
Serial killers are generally thought to be sociopaths, butthey 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 couldhave some influence on the type of punishment.
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.
The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
"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. "
Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
While evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
Hi Craig WeinbergTsunamis and other forces of nature are themselves amoral*, buttheir effects can be good (enhance life) or evil (diminish life).
*Since God causes everything to happen, he also, althoughreluctantly (the theological term is God's "permissive will")mustl cause evil to happen as well. "I cause the rain tofall on just as well as the unjust" says the Bible.Crap happens. At the same time, the Bible teaches usto appeal to God to "deliver us from evil."
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-03, 08:12:58Subject: 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.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-03, 08:47:13Subject: Re: What Hell is like
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/iYwGF4FaHGQJ.
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-03, 08:55:02Subject: 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.
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdbReceiver: everything-listTime: 2013-01-02, 18:21:27
Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil
Hi meekerdbAlthough a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt acommunist and so anti-christian). His diatribe against Christianityis 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: meekerdbReceiver: everything-listTime: 2013-01-02, 18:21:27Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evilOn 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.
Hi Craig Weinberg
Evil is not defined by law, but crime is.
Hi Craig Weinberg
All of your quotes are very good advice.What's your point ?
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.
Evil = Abusive social contact.
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.
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.
While chemotherapy works against the cancer, on the other hand,Christian believers such as me believe that the holy spirit, ifso requested, can fill you with life and so defeat a cancer by that means.
Chemotherapy is generally thought to be evil to the cancer(it tries to kill it) and good to the patient (it tries ultimately tocure 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, ifso requested, can fill you with life and so defeat a cancer by that means.
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'?
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.
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.
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.
Hi meekerdbAlthough a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt acommunist and so anti-christian).
His diatribe against Christianityis 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: meekerdbReceiver: everything-listTime: 2013-01-02, 18:21:27Subject: 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
> Hi Craig WeinbergAll of your quotes are very good advice.
> 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.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi meekerdbAlthough a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt acommunist and so anti-christian). His diatribe against Christianityis 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.
-- Onward! Stephen
-- Onward! Stephen
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-03, 12:05:31Subject: Re: Re: What Hell is like
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/3mlvEUEnkegJ.
-- Onward! Stephen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdbReceiver: everything-listTime: 2013-01-03, 13:07:26
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Stephen P. King <step...@charter.net> wrote:
Dear Telmo,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 meekerdbAlthough a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt acommunist and so anti-christian). His diatribe against Christianityis 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.
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.
-- Onward! Stephen
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.
BrunoMan has the Good,He searches for the Best,He finds the Bad,And He stays with the Bad by Fear offinding 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>
"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.
--
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.
Hi Craig Weinberg
You're right, I was thinking as a jew might, but if orgot that jesus introduced theconcept of thought crimes (intentions).
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.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote:
Hi meekerdbAlthough a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt acommunist and so anti-christian). His diatribe against Christianityis 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.
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdbReceiver: everything-listTime: 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.
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.
Brent
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.
Hi Bruno MarchalIMHO 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 MarchalReceiver: 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).
BrunoMan has the Good,He searches for the Best,He finds the Bad,And He stays with the Bad by Fear offinding 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>
"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.
--
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.
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:06 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 1/4/2013 1:24 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:So my motive makes a difference in the result?
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.
No but your actions do, and your motives determine your actions.
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.
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 9:57 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 1/5/2013 9:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:So it's the actions, giving and charity, which have a bad effect. Which is what Bruno said in the first place.
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:06 AM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 1/4/2013 1:24 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:So my motive makes a difference in the result?
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.
No but your actions do, and your motives determine your actions.
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.
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).