A philosophy that popped into my head

Post Reply New Topic

Deleted

Last edited by Ante on 09 Nov 2005, 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I beg to differ from that. I believe that humans are inherently evil after what happened in the Garden of Eden (see Genesis ch 3). Humans cannot be wholly evil, however, because then they would not be able to do any good, therefore, making people like Ghandi and Mother Teresa simply umm... non existent in a sense.

Sorry for the rather confusled logic and the bad examples. My mind isn't quite paying attention at the moment.

I think people are boen a 'blank slate'. They can then choose to be whoever they want.

Deleted

Last edited by Ante on 09 Nov 2005, 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I meant people can choose to be good or evil. No one is born good or born evil. A person can choose to be whoever it wants as in a good person or an evil person.

The 50/50 thing reminds me a bit overmuch of the ancient tendency to want things neat and tidy, the same tendency that created the idea that things had to be perfect geometric shapes.

Namiko, I still disagree. If you believe that humans fell from grace in the Garden of Eden, then you will no doubt also believe that we are created by God. How could God create something inherently evil? I believe he created each of us as inherently good, but gave us free will that we could choose our actions. The nature of living in a world that is subject to evil is that people tend to fall prey to it. However, I refuse to believe that we are by nature, evil. I think it is one things to say that by nature, we err, but quite another to suggest that we are evil.

Firstly, good and evil are human constructs that exist in our minds only, along with religion and gods. Whatever your definition of good or evil is, I think people are capable of deciding which path they take, and the ability to make that decision is an intrinsic part of the definition (the only non-subjective one). So, to my way of thinking, it follows that you can't ascribe them to non-human objects or beings.

As for the 50/50 thing; that illustrates that people have a capacity for each, but I'm not sure that a numerical representation is suitable for something that is by definition subjective. Though, on second thoughts, it does nicely represent the yes or no process that precedes an action whatever it'soutcome.

As for exactly what constitutes good and evil, that's very tricky. Most of our thoughts on this one are shaped by religion. I wonder what the tribes in those remote Amazon forest think about the issue? I read something by that Nietzsche chap on the subject once, though the finer points of such high-brow stuff may have been lost on me, it certainly looked on the whole subject from an interesting angle, and was quite thought provoking.

This sort of thing is of particular interest to me. I seem to have developed a view of good and evil that as based more on eastern religion, with some darwinism thrown in for good measure.

The Buddhist view is that good and evil are an expression of our choice between ignorance and liberation. Ignorance being the state of clinging to our personal ego, liberation being the transcendence of all concepts of self.

I think that this is related to darwinism in that it arrises through consideration of our best interest.
So there is a gradual process of transcendence from
Pleasure & Pain
Good & Evil
Self & Other
until there is no longer any dualism

the usual conclusions apply of course.
no one is pure evil, we were all good in the beginning
all our mistakes are ultimately already forgiven, simply because they are delusions and have no substance.

What do you guys think? I'd love to hear some opinions on this.

<i>”I think that this is related to darwinism in that it arises through consideration of our best interest.”</i>

Aw, poor Darwin. People take Darwin’s theories and apply them to our social world.
Applying biological evolution to morality is as silly as applying interstellar astronomy to dating. The two are both very interesting, yet have nothing in common.

<i>”The Buddhist view is that good and evil are an expression of our choice between ignorance and liberation. Ignorance being the state of clinging to our personal ego, liberation being the transcendence of all concepts of self. “</i>

Another cornerstone of Buddhism is compassion.

<i>”I said everybody is equally evil and good. It's impossible to differentiate the difference between the two, meaning, yes, Hitler could be good and Gandhi could be evil.”</i>

How about we use a give a nice conservative definition of “good”: compassion for others
And definition of “evil”: malice towards others.

Using those particular definitions, how could someone be half-compassionate? Or half-malicious?

This is interesting to me, and I appreciate the feedback.
I understand there is a bit of backlash at all of the ways people attempt to apply darwinism, and I can see why. However, the principle of natural selection and gradual cumulative change is so profound that it can be easily applied to many areas of study.

When I connect morality to evolution I am of course speaking of something far removed from "biological evolution." My premise I suppose is that morality has evolved gradually out of very simple processes that were originally part of biological evolution. It could be viewed as the application of our pleasure/ pain dichotomy to a newly discovered self awareness. We can no longer identify solely with our own physical body. As our understanding of the world grows we begin to "love our neighbor as our self"



I believe compassion is the cornerstone of Buddhism. I was only suggesting that the ultimate result of compassion is liberation from self.




Surely like everything else there must be a spectrum. Or maybe it is just a question of direction.
Am I doing what is in my best interest? Or what is in everyone's best interest? Malice is of course an extreme. Halfway would be something like self centered indifference I think.
To be half compassionate might mean that you are not willing to hurt anyone, but you don't really care what happens to them otherwise.

<i>“However, the principle of natural selection and gradual cumulative change is so profound that it can be easily applied to many areas of study.”</i>

Biological natural selection is something that happens over many, many generations. While our personal morality is something that evolves all within our own lifetime. I think over our lifetimes, our morality (and everything else about us) change rapidly, especially from ages 1 to about 16.

Have you ever heard of memes? Basically it’s a theory that everything we learn or experience can be seen as small units of information that gets transfered from person to person. These units of information act a lot virus, they get transfered between people, they evolve rapidly as they move around... and have evolutionary pressures placed upon them. At any time during our lifetimes, we have millions of memes occupying our heads, all competing to survive.

<i>“Surely like everything else there must be a spectrum. Or maybe it is just a question of direction. Am I doing what is in my best interest? Or what is in everyone's best interest? Malice is of course an extreme. Halfway would be something like self centered indifference I think.

To be half compassionate might mean that you are not willing to hurt anyone, but you don't really care what happens to them otherwise. </i>“

Putting things on a spectrum is useful, but doing so can sometimes oversimplify things.

I think the Malice-Indifference-Compassion” spectrum bugs me.

Take someone like Hitler. He’d be far down the spectrum, next to malice. And he probably showed compassion *sometimes* (to his friends, generals, or whoever).

I think people are naturally “good”. But only to those who are they see as being “human”. A peer. If Hitler only saw 8 other people on the planet as “human”, he can see the rest as being less human.

Slavery existed throughout the world until very recently... when it could be shown that the slaves are indeed as human as the rest of us. A normal, “good” person could agree with slavery, because they saw the slaves as sub-human.

I’d prefer a spectrum that looked like this: (scale from 10 to 0)

10 compassion to all
8 compassion to all but the most vile people
6 compassion to most of who you know
4 compassion only to friends
2 compassion to almost no one
0 compassion to know one but yourself

I am familiar with the idea of memes and this was infact a big turning point for me when I heard of it. This began the line of thought that brought me to where I am.

Biological evolution does occur over many generations, but what would be a generation for a meme? I agree that our cultural information evolves much more rapidly than genetic information, but this is because it is more subtle and the process of selection is an active human process rather than a passive, indirect, and purely physical process.

This idea about my morality changing rapidly over the course of my life is only part true. I am merely building on or selecting from the morality handed down by the culture at large (those memes that found a suitable niche). I perform a process of selection on these memes, and so it might appear that "my morality is evolving" Actually I think it would be more accurate to say that the idea of "my morality" is something latent, a niche waiting to be filled. This very rapid evolution from age 1-16 is really only a single selction scenario akin to one organism finding a niche where others were not suitable.
I believe as the generations go by, it is our duty to discard those parts of religion that divide people, and pass on the underlying unity and harmony.





This whole question of whether someone is good or evil is something very different to me and is almost preposterous. What I was trying to illustrate with the liberation idea is that good and evil are just sort of directions in which a person might be moving at any given moment. So the spectrum is really not of people, but of the quality of their intentions at any given time.



This is the same as what I was getting at. As a person's awareness and understanding grows, their identity expands. To enslave someone is to build a wall in your understanding that says not only "they are different from me" but also "they are not equal to me"

The idea of equality acknowledges that all men are ultimately equal regardless of their particular strengths or weaknesses.

Altruism in its finest form holds that there is no true seperation between individuals, that in reality we are all one and should be treated as such.

<i>“more accurate to say that the idea of "my morality" is something latent, a niche waiting to be filled. This very rapid evolution from age 1-16 is really only a single selction scenario akin to one organism finding a niche where others were not suitable. “ </i>

I wouldn’t see it that way. I think we have less choice in our development (childhood, teenhood) than we think. Our cultures essentially “brainwash” us with its values. We may not necessarily accept and believe them all, but we generally agree with many of them, pushing our moral values into a certain direction.

<i>“What I was trying to illustrate with the liberation idea is that good and evil are just sort of directions in which a person might be moving at any given moment. So the spectrum is really not of people, but of the quality of their intentions at any given time.” </i>

I agree that we shouldn’t look at “good” and “evil” as human characteristics, but as actions (or inactions). Yeah, I like the idea that they can be seen as directions we may take.

<i>“The idea of equality acknowledges that all men are ultimately equal regardless of their particular strengths or weaknesses.”</i>

Now that’s just silly. Sounds very.. American.
To disregard differences between people, and to simply say “Yes, we’re all equal” is a delusion all on its own.

Let’s say you discover your roommate is an Al-Queda operative, who also strangles puppies in his spare time. Are you two equal?

<i>“Altruism in its finest form holds that there is no true seperation between individuals, that in reality we are all one and should be treated as such.” <i>

Sounds very.. Borg-like.

Alas another philosophical debate ends in name-calling





This is basically a question of how we define self. For most people the culture is a very large part of this, so the moral code that resonates with them is the one that they were taught in childhood. For some people there is a period of searching and then they come back to their original heritage. Ideally I think we should all collaborate and figure out what the essentials of religion are.
The rest can be discarded like so many viruses, or a suitable immunization strategy devised.



I always had a hard time with this, and in particular, the American tendency to fill jobs with people who are obviously unqualified.
It is all a question of what we mean by equal I suppose.


Again, what do we mean by equal? I think he is just heading in a direction that will ultimately lead to suffering and further attachment to his ego-self. This does not undermine our basic equality.

Not to mention the dreaded rebirth in some sort of cat based netherworld.

I don't really think equality really matters that much. Equality under the law, however, is a good thing.
But I'd say people who are less egocentric are essentially "better" people.

Which relates to AS, I think. I cornerstone of AS is being highly egocentric, and an inability to relate to others. I think that's essentially something that people need to defeat.