What is evil, anyway?

[rockandrose]

I generally agree with Sythan's posts.

[joyslayer]

Originally Posted by joyslayer

Honestly, i dont think our morals will change much. For every so called, "bad" or "evil" deed, there is generally a guilt. A guilt that weighs a person down. Weather or weahter not they call the action bad or evil, they still know something is wrong, But that is something that has been installed in any organism that has speant time with humans, that includes domesticated animals of all shapes and sizes and of different imprtances. For instance, when a dog makes a mess, or uses the bathroom in the house, they automatically know that they did something wrong, same with a cat.

yeah, I was talking about guilt, sorry if was unclear.

[Scythan]

Diseases are not evil. If it hurts humans, that makes it evil? Are mosquitos evil? What about ice? People slip on it and hurt themselves. There is no such thing as good or bad. That is why there is such a thing as a moral dilemma. These arise when people have differing moralities on a particular subject, or when there is an issue that society isn't sure about.

[Circle V]

Originally Posted by Scythan

So you believe that we are as evolved as we can ever be, in that sense? We are the epitome of evolution's processes? I think not.

As our society changes, so shall our morals. Haven't we seen that happen already?

That isn't what I meant to say. I meant that, at this point in our evolution, our current concept of morals is largely the most beneficial to all involved.

Our morals have been roughly the same since we gave them a name. It can all be boiled down to one concept-- you shouldn't cause undue pain to others. We have simply begun, generally, to pay more attention to them and. Of course, the concept of morals is completely different from the reality.

Even it is a product of society (which is almost certainly true) morality does exist. Diseases and mosquitoes cannot be evil or good in any way because they are unable to comprehend morality, much less participate in any society.

[Scythan]

Morality does not physically exist. How can it be measured? It is about as real as the concept of peace. It is made up. It is a crutch to help us live together more easily.

We wouldn't do to well if we went around murdering eachother, so morality has evolved in us. It is nearly the same as pack mentality in dogs: dogs are easier to train than cats because they evolved to be in a pack, so they feel happy when they please a pack member. Cats are normally solitary creatures, which is why they seem aloof in comparison to dogs. Their behavior is dictated by their evolution. So is ours.

We have evolved from lower life forms, which did not know about morality. Why is it that you believe that we are any different from them, except for our more developed brains? Our brains did not give us any new senses, they have just allowed us to think differently. That in itself does not spawn another property of the universe. Morality is not real, except in our minds.

[urian]

Evil is a matter of perception. What some see as good, others see as evil.
A good example of that would be ALL of the crusades. The Catholic church convinced its followers that they were doing the Lord's good but in the eyes of the muslims or jews or any protestors, it was a huge evil.
It's that way with anything in the world. There are to views to everything and what is light for one, is dark for another.

[joyslayer]

I'm sorry, this is really random, but did you know that cats can't taste anything sweet? They are literlly genetically designed to not have taste buds that can decipher anything sweet.

[Manimal]

Originally Posted by Scythan

Morality does not physically exist. How can it be measured? It is about as real as the concept of peace. It is made up. It is a crutch to help us live together more easily.

We wouldn't do to well if we went around murdering eachother, so morality has evolved in us. It is nearly the same as pack mentality in dogs: dogs are easier to train than cats because they evolved to be in a pack, so they feel happy when they please a pack member. Cats are normally solitary creatures, which is why they seem aloof in comparison to dogs. Their behavior is dictated by their evolution. So is ours.

We have evolved from lower life forms, which did not know about morality. Why is it that you believe that we are any different from them, except for our more developed brains? Our brains did not give us any new senses, they have just allowed us to think differently. That in itself does not spawn another property of the universe. Morality is not real, except in our minds.

You know... just cause a thing does not pysically exist does not mean it is not real. An adverb does not physically exist yet we have them. Love does not physically exist yet I feel it. Morality does not physically exist though it guides my actions. People put way to much thought into the mathematical proof concept for things that cannot be physically proven.

There is more to our universe than what is physical. The very fact that my thoughts are responding to yours is proof enough - or at least it ought to be.

[Disfunction]

Not-so-much, actually...

If you want to get very specific, the very fact that your thoughts are responding to his is proof of electrical impulses passing the synaptic... (blah blah blah technical jargon) as a result of external stimulus.

Simply stating that it exists and we can't pinpoint the origin does not immediately validate the claim that your position is proved. It proves that there are things that science has not yet proved, but science is relatively young as far as language and math are concerned.

As for your analogy with the adverb... and adverb does exist; it is the state under which a particular action is performed. In other words, if I walk slowly, the existence of that action being performed slowly proves the existence of the adverb. Language simply allows it a more readily recognizable existence.

Now, then there's the matter of letters and numerals, which did not previously exist but came to represent.... fuck it, I'm too tired for this.

I'm right, you're wrong! Nyah nyah-nyah, nyah-nyah, nyah!

[joyslayer]

Errrr, What is with all the grammar?!?!?!?!

[Scythan]

I really didn't want to try to explain this so in-depth, but in fact I believe that adverbs and many other things are also just concepts that don't actually exist. "Slowly" only exists when compared to something else, and comparison is something that we humans use to understand the things around us. Such concepts have no meaning when applied to the physical universe. Planets move slowly compared to the speed of light. Does that knowledge influence anything?

No.

"Slowly" does not exist, except in our minds. The only reason we have these ways of thinking is to be able to communicate with eachother better.

The same is true with "evil", "good", "bad", "peace", "truth", etc.

[TheKorovaMilkbar]

Originally Posted by GeishaGirl

RockandRose, are you speaking of Dr. Kevorkian?

*sings* Oh sad is the world, but I have Kevorkian scarf.

Sorry, I couldn't resist a Foamy moment.


Oh, and by the way I love you, Scythan, you hot brain, you. I'm completely with Scythan in her views. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Ooh, but you left out time (you know, which is actually decay, no such thing as time, blah blah blah).

[Scythan]

Thanks, Korova. yes, I forgot about time. There are numerous other such examples, though... not that I can think of any more right now, heh. Time to go to bed.

[Manimal]

Ok then you smarty pants kids. So are you saying that a concept or idea has to physically exist in order to be real?

Because I say love and evil are real - you say they do not exist. Neither of us is wrong. And depending on your perspective - another thing that is real but does not exist according to your argument - neither of us are correct either.

Take the brain... electrical discharges among synapsis indicating activity within the brain is a physical proof. But an idea... an idea is very real but there is no physical proof for its existence. Call it unknown science if you want, call it a soul, call it Bob for all I care, but don't try to convince me that it's not there just because you can't measure it.

That's one of the great things about being a person and not a monkey. We can make ourselves stupid by trying to be so intelligent and understanding - but then stupid and understanding don't exist now do they?

[TheKorovaMilkbar]

I think of it like this. Evil doesn't exist, but I might call something evil as a description of morality. As long as the person I'm talking to has a similar view, they will understand my point. (sorry if that makes no sense, I'm tired)

The brain is still very much a mystery, to me, if no one else. It almost seems magical, for lack of a better term. As does the soul.

As for the intelligence thing, stupid *compared to what*? That's all I have to say on that matter.

[Disfunction]

Originally Posted by Scythan

I really didn't want to try to explain this so in-depth, but in fact I believe that adverbs and many other things are also just concepts that don't actually exist. "Slowly" only exists when compared to something else, and comparison is something that we humans use to understand the things around us. Such concepts have no meaning when applied to the physical universe. Planets move slowly compared to the speed of light. Does that knowledge influence anything?

No.

"Slowly" does not exist, except in our minds. The only reason we have these ways of thinking is to be able to communicate with eachother better.

The same is true with "evil", "good", "bad", "peace", "truth", etc.

Try this one on for size:

NOTHING EXISTS, EXCEPT IN OUR MINDS.

There is no way you can be certain of the existence of ANYTHING because it is all processed via the brain and just as easily chemically manipulated.

This is why I don't adhere to the ideals of the existentialist dilemma because it makes existence essentially impossible.

[NyQuil of Doom]

Well, at least I've already been claiming to not-exist for two and a half years now...

[Scythan]

I believe that we can be assured of the existence of many things. Photons, for instance, allow us to see. Atoms make up matter, which makes up everything that we interact with. Blueberries grow on certain plants. Cups may be used for holding beverages.

We interact with our environment and eachother, following rules of morality and behavior. We may eat blueberries. We may use cups. This is learned behavior.

We may decide not to lie to someone. We may choose not to murder someone. We may choose to do a good deed. These are learned moral tendencies.

As we grow older and learn, we pick up the morals of our society. If we do not follow these morals, we will most likely be punished in some way. From a very young age, we learn not to hit, that sharing is good, that lying is bad. This is just the society, molding its citizens to a moral ideal, or middleground that allows the populace to interact with maximum benefit. If we all follow the same morals, there will be less conflicts. Some morals are better in societies, such as the tendency not to murder or do violence. Most of these are just learned morals, but some are somewhat in-built. The tendency of humans to abhor murder is likely a built-in trait. This is because the societies we have participated in during our evolution have all had a predisposition against murder. The only reason we may think of something as "bad" is because it is learned morality, or it is a built-in pattern of behavior as dictated by our genes.

Why do we insist on adding additional meaning to things? There is nothing wrong about murder, except in the context of human society. There is no such thing as "wrongness" or "evil" except in the same context.

We have evolved to interpret the universe in ways which help us live and interact. Humans do not normally have the intellect or knowledge to be able to understand that we do certain things because they are of benefit to the society. Thus we have evolved morality, an amorphous code of conduct that allows us to judge certain actions against eachother. If morality seems faulty and fallible, then that's because it is. Our societies have had differing moral standards, so morals are not and can never be set in stone. If something is good in one society, it may be bad in another. Because an action cannot be inherently good or bad, it is up to the observer or participant to make the judgement. We all have slightly differing moralities, and oftentimes there is no clear answer: moral dilemmas.

There is no way that we can be rid of morality, because it is necessary in a society. We can, however, gain some perspective. If we recognize that something has a moral association, we can separate the moral from the actual properties.

[Disfunction]

Originally Posted by Scythan

I believe that we can be assured of the existence of many things. Photons, for instance, allow us to see. Atoms make up matter, which makes up everything that we interact with. Blueberries grow on certain plants. Cups may be used for holding beverages.

Your argument falls apart here, as all of this is based purely on sensory perception. There is absolutely no guarantee that sensory perception can validate any facet of existence. All we can be aware of is the self, and even in that, you can't be at all certain that the past exists, as you can't reference it. You can see a photo, and have memories, but all of this is based on chemistry in the brain. Existence and experience is purely a subjective reality which cannot in any way, shape or form assure us of our own existences, much less the existence of things around us.

I understand the perspective you are holding, but if you're going to argue that only some things don't exist by using a particular style of logic, you cannot argue selectively. If the logic also invalidates other concepts, you have to follow through. It's like jumping into a pool and only expecting your feet to get wet.

[NyQuil of Doom]

Just remember...

There is no spoon.

[Disfunction]

Originally Posted by NyQuil of Doom

Just remember...

There is no spoon.

I nearly made a Matrix reference, but I felt it best to abstain.

[Scythan]

We can take some things for granted. The physical universe is one of them. It is where we are, and what we interact with. If we question that one basic fact, then everything else is meaningless.

By thinking and deducting, we are interacting with the physical universe. Thus we can only make judgements upon anything within the arena of the physical. We have no experience with anything other than the physical, so we can not and should not even try to comprehend other modes of existence.

If this is in fact not the real realm of existence, then consider my argument null and void, if this other reality is ever proven. But until then, we need to have some basis upon which we agree. In this existence, there are atoms and universal laws. I am making observations and deductions which have to do with these facts. If there is no other way we can observe rather than sensory perception, why rail against unalterable circumstances?

We humans try to understand the universe, and if sensory perception is the only route, then we will have to deal with reality on its own terms, as there is no other way.

[Disfunction]

Originally Posted by Scythan

We can take some things for granted. The physical universe is one of them. It is where we are, and what we interact with. If we question that one basic fact, then everything else is meaningless.

Yes... and?

[Disfunction]

Originally Posted by Scythan

We can take some things for granted. The physical universe is one of them. It is where we are, and what we interact with. If we question that one basic fact, then everything else is meaningless.

By thinking and deducting, we are interacting with the physical universe. Thus we can only make judgements upon anything within the arena of the physical. We have no experience with anything other than the physical, so we can not and should not even try to comprehend other modes of existence.

If this is in fact not the real realm of existence, then consider my argument null and void, if this other reality is ever proven. But until then, we need to have some basis upon which we agree. In this existence, there are atoms and universal laws. I am making observations and deductions which have to do with these facts. If there is no other way we can observe rather than sensory perception, why rail against unalterable circumstances?

We humans try to understand the universe, and if sensory perception is the only route, then we will have to deal with reality on its own terms, as there is no other way.

I've simply been playing devil's advocate this whole time and having a go at you. I do believe that reality is... real.

The trouble is, it's hard to just draw a line in the sand and say "Well, this is real, but this isn't." I don't actually believe I've been introduced to any concepts that are valid which remain this consistently clear-cut.

[Manimal]

Originally Posted by Scythan

We can take some things for granted. The physical universe is one of them. It is where we are, and what we interact with. If we question that one basic fact, then everything else is meaningless.

By thinking and deducting, we are interacting with the physical universe. Thus we can only make judgements upon anything within the arena of the physical. We have no experience with anything other than the physical, so we can not and should not even try to comprehend other modes of existence.

If this is in fact not the real realm of existence, then consider my argument null and void, if this other reality is ever proven. But until then, we need to have some basis upon which we agree. In this existence, there are atoms and universal laws. I am making observations and deductions which have to do with these facts. If there is no other way we can observe rather than sensory perception, why rail against unalterable circumstances?

We humans try to understand the universe, and if sensory perception is the only route, then we will have to deal with reality on its own terms, as there is no other way.

There is one major point that I would strongly disagree with and that is:

"By thinking and deducting, we are interacting with the physical universe. Thus we can only make judgements upon anything within the arena of the physical. We have no experience with anything other than the physical, so we can not and should not even try to comprehend other modes of existence. "

I experience and interact with non physical elements of existence every day. So do you. We call them Love, hate, trust, faith, and a million other words. We may express them physically at times but they are very real non physical elements of our physical existence.

Life is simply too complicated to over simplify by using only rules of the physical universe. Awareness is a wonderful thing. Don't discount it just because you can't touch it.