I would rather live my life as if there is a God

[iamcanadian]

Definitions of SADISTIC on the Web:

deriving pleasure or sexual gratification from inflicting pain on another
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Sadism is the sexual pleasure or gratification in the infliction of pain and suffering upon another person. Medically it is considered to be a paraphilia. The word is derived from the name of the Marquis de Sade, a prolific French writer of sadistic novels.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadistic

 

[pastafarian]

than the adjective DISHONEST fits..... (why brand him/her as "evil".. ???

Because people who do "good" are generally irrational and those who do "evil" are generally rational. It is rational to take something from someone weaker than to expend effort working for it or risking one's life for it. It is rational to eliminate potential competitors by any means available. It is irrational to help someone who cannot benefit us and it is certainly irrational to puts oneself at risk as have civil rights protestors, and the people killed in wars of independence and resistance movements. We brand people as “good” or “evil” in order to pass on the memes of self-protection and of personal betterment. Of course these are related to our personal gains and there is a measure of self-interest in which things we designate “good” or “evil”, but these are not only cultural designations, nor are they related to any sort of religious belief. The fact that atheists have committed selfless and heroic acts and that there is general agreement upon what characteristics are “heroic” vs those that are “villainous” across cultural extremes is proof of this.
Values exist, and they are only superficially rational, just as humans are superficially rational. “Good” and “Evil” are among the most primitive memes in human culture, and like everything else in the natural world, they are evolving.

But if they are only categories that reflect rational self-interest, then what is the basis for self-sacrificial human behaviour, instinct? Seems to me that if one chooses to believe that “good’ and “evil” have no reality, then it is the stupidest among us who are “heroic” and the most admirable who are ruthless and self-serving.

 

[iamcanadian]

Seems to me that if one chooses to believe that “good’ and “evil” have no reality, then it is the stupidest among us who are “heroic” and the most admirable who are ruthless and self-serving.

It stands to reason then that there are forces at work, and there must be, that advance good and evil.

History has gone through these pangs over and over again with the rise and fall of many cultures.

The unethical and the immoral always have an edge over the ethical and moral way in doing anything. This is obvious because the person with ethic and morals is restricted in the courses of actions they can take.

Not so for the unethical and the immoral, since they have all the means at their disposal of the other, but also all of the things that the other finds unconscionable or reprehensible.

So society is doomed to follow the course of growing depravity till eventually in bring the society to ruin, after which point it is reborn again from the ashes in the hands of a few who band together holding trutyh, honour, and integrity as saintly qualities of virtue. Even though there are no rational reasons to beieve in them, they realize that man in inheritly more prone to evil that to good there is a need for something spiritual to avoid social catastrophy.

Today evil has the upper hand and society as we know it is hanging on by threads.

 

[the caracal kid]

pastafarian,

this is where the social nature of humans comes into play.

"good" is socially defined (that which is "good" is basically an agreement amungs the memebers of a group) and since humanity has needed to work in groups to survive, we see that behaviours that promote the group and thus survival become "good". There is a certian level of instinct at play if we compare basic behaviors of humans to other social animals (or even mother-offspring behaviors of many species).

The behaviors came first, the labels came after. Thus "good" and "evil" are only categories. However, they do not just reflect self-interest, they also reflect group interest.

The most important point of perspective is that people do not go about thinking they are doing "evil", from each individual's or group's perspective they are doing "good". Evil is just the label for things we fear, don't understand, or disagree with. As has been stated already, the terms carry no real meaning but merely reflect one's perspective.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Seems to me that if one chooses to believe that “good’ and “evil” have no reality,

again........the operative word is "believe". ...as opposed to THINK........ which is more amenable to change with new data.

thought provoking....... and as many views as there are people. :wink:

 

[the caracal kid]

all these references to "ethics" and "morals".... these to are merely constructs of man that are a result of the need to be able to function together for survival.

it is all dependent on the frame of reference. the western world has been in the grip of what i would call one of the most unethical and immoral belief structures to be recorded in history. That is why i see humanity as still in the dark ages, a dark ages that began around 3000 years ago and worsened significantly around 1700 years ago.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: I would rather live my life as if there is a God

pastafarian,

this is where the social nature of humans comes into play.

"good" is socially defined (that which is "good" is basically an agreement amungs the memebers of a group) and since humanity has needed to work in groups to survive, we see that behaviours that promote the group and thus survival become "good". There is a certian level of instinct at play if we compare basic behaviors of humans to other social animals (or even mother-offspring behaviors of many species).

The behaviors came first, the labels came after. Thus "good" and "evil" are only categories. However, they do not just reflect self-interest, they also reflect group interest.

The most important point of perspective is that people do not go about thinking they are doing "evil", from each individual's or group's perspective they are doing "good". Evil is just the label for things we fear, don't understand, or disagree with. As has been stated already, the terms carry no real meaning but merely reflect one's perspective.

nice posting. ..... of course this raises the question of quantifying/qualifying "good" or "evil".....and that is where it gets tricky.

 

[pastafarian]

good" is socially defined (that which is "good" is basically an agreement amungs the memebers of a group) and since humanity has needed to work in groups to survive, we see that behaviours that promote the group and thus survival become "good". There is a certian level of instinct at play if we compare basic behaviors of humans to other social animals (or even mother-offspring behaviors of many species).

True, but just as colour vision is more primitive in most species, so is understanding of "good" and "evil". That the recognition of the characteristics of human nature co-eveolved with human nature is not surprising.
The "group benefit" theory does not explain why middle class whites were willing to die in civil rights demonstrations, for example, or why people renounce lucrative careers to go help in the third world.

The behaviors came first, the labels came after.

Can't think of ANYTHING that this isn't true of.

The most important point of perspective is that people do not go about thinking they are doing "evil", from each individual's or group's perspective they are doing "good".

Yes and no. While it is true that almost all people try to rationalize their behaviour, no matter how vile it is, the fact is that it is not uncommon for people to look back on their actions, recognize that they were "bad' at that point in their lives and try to atone for their past misdeeds, often without any outside coercion. I'd find this hard to explain without recourse to the ideas of "Good" and "Bad".

As has been stated already, the terms carry no real meaning but merely reflect one's perspective.

It has been stated, yes, but without substantiation in my opinion. I submit that the extermination of the Jews is universally agreed to be an act of evil, and is not just a matter of perspective, notwithstanding that there are a few who will try to excuse it to justify their own hatred of Jews.

There are groups of people who believe that they were abducted by aliens, others who believe that they have been possessed by the devil, more than a few who believe that every word in the Bible is true and some who think it's OK to rape a woman because hse's wearing provocative clothing. Just because they think it, doesn't make it true.

We all have our own perspective, but some perspectives are just f*cked up, pure and simple.

 

[pastafarian]

these to are merely constructs of man

This is irrelevant, just another property of "good" and "evil"

Again, like the space shuttle, slurpees, television, Britney Spears and nuclear weapons, but we have to deal with them as real objects even if they couldn't have existed without us

 

[iamcanadian]

Things that are generally more good tend to involve beliefs and takes more work, effort and competence.

Things that are generally more evil or bad tend to come out of thinking and rationalizing ways around working, exerting effort and overcomming incompetence.

Competence is inherently Good. Incompetence in inherently Evil.

 

[Laika]

RE: I would rather live m

Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb!

 

[the caracal kid]

Yes and no. While it is true that almost all people try to rationalize their behaviour, no matter how vile it is, the fact is that it is not uncommon for people to look back on their actions, recognize that they were "bad' at that point in their lives and try to atone for their past misdeeds, often without any outside coercion. I'd find this hard to explain without recourse to the ideas of "Good" and "Bad".

social conditioning. as a social animal, the human is conditioned to the society within which he/she resides. the social animal determines position by comparison to others. all you are showing is that a person compares their behaviors to those of others and then judges the act based on this comparison and the "social norm".

These constucts are real if you accept them as real.

"Incompetence is evil" this is an example of application of preconditions and perceptions in action. Incompetence is no more evil then jellybeans, or frowns. On the same note, a high level of competence can allow one to do as he/she desires with great ease. That act performed with ease may be something you see as evil. All we see from this is that the labels of "good" and "evil" carry no real value.

 

[iamcanadian]

Competence vs Incompetence:

A farmer who is competent enough to feed his family by the hard work and knowledge of the land. It takes competence and hard work.

For a thief steals the farmers food, he does not need to learn to farm or work the land.

He would think it would be stupid to do all that when he can simply sneak up on the farmer, club him over the head and take all the food he and his family needs without having to become competent or work hard.

A lot of people today look up to the thief for being smart and look down on the farmer for being stupid.

This is an abstract example, however taken to estrapolations into other areas of society, this is where we are today, with the incompetent being advanced as smart and the competent being dismissed as stupid for going through all the trouble.

Eventually everyone will be clubbing everyone else and no one farming and society fails.

 

[Andygal]

RE: I would rather live m

meh if they were really smart they'd both go to university and then get real jobs and buy their food from the supermarket.

 

[the caracal kid]

this is all your valuation though.

can you not see that a theif and a farmer can both be competent at what they do?

the issue with thievery has to do with social constructs and not with competence or "good"/"evil". these things find a natural balance. theivery only works if their is product to theive, and to that extent you need not worry about "everybody clubbing everybody else". If you want to worry about the failure of society, look at things such as society becomming static and unresponsive, look at great disparities between groups, look at false absolutes and their application to the justification of actions (this can clearly be seen in the application of the fallacy of "gods" being on one's side as a reason to rape, pillage, and plundar another group, or the raping, pillaging, and plundaring of the planet under the guise of the abrahamic god granting dominion)

 

[iamcanadian]

And so can entittlement be seen as the justification.

We have many incompetents who believe they are entittled to screw others because of a position inherited by nepotism. The fact they are not competent only serves to make them evil out of jealousy and envy of those who advace by personal merit and integrity.

We aplaud unethical incompence and punish people of ability who by personal comportment of character behave with dignity and honour.

 

[TenPenny]

Re: RE: I would rather live my life as if there is a God

And so can entittlement be seen as the justification.

We have many incompetents who believe they are entittled to screw others because of a position inherited by nepotism. The fact they are not competent only serves to make them evil out of jealousy and envy of those who advace by personal merit and integrity.

We aplaud unethical incompence and punish people of ability who by personal comportment of character behave with dignity and honour.

Speak for yourself; I don't applaud unethical incompetence. I only applaud ethical incompetence.

 

[iamcanadian]

There is no such think as ethical incompetence. Someone who is not competent steps asside and lets someone with competence do the job.

Incompetence breads bad ethics. The only way to get anything done when there is a lack of competence is to do it by acting unethically.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: I would rather live my life as if there is a God

this is all your valuation though.

can you not see that a theif and a farmer can both be competent at what they do?

the issue with thievery has to do with social constructs and not with competence or "good"/"evil". these things find a natural balance. theivery only works if their is product to theive, and to that extent you need not worry about "everybody clubbing everybody else". If you want to worry about the failure of society, look at things such as society becomming static and unresponsive, look at great disparities between groups, look at false absolutes and their application to the justification of actions (this can clearly be seen in the application of the fallacy of "gods" being on one's side as a reason to rape, pillage, and plundar another group, or the raping, pillaging, and plundaring of the planet under the guise of the abrahamic god granting dominion)

wisdom dictates that there are no absolutes. So branding in general terms such as the two being discussed here.....are merely a result of our own cultural VALUE system. Both terms are "value judgements" as opposed to adjectives describing something with any degree of preciseness.


each profession has its own levels of competancy and this has nothing to do with judging it as "good" or "evil". Takes a lot of professional know how to be an expert (competant)thief. Heck even mass murderers "perfect" their methods as they go along. It so happens that our society JUDGES these professions as "bad" or destructive.

 

[iamcanadian]

But if people valued competence and integrity it would be unconscionable for them to take up such nafarious professions. It would be against their principles.

But as we see today with gangbangers and bureaucrats, they gain respect from doing evil acts from the sheepish people around out of the lack of principles most people have become today.

We don't hear much of the Charles Bronson types blowing away the evil doers even at the cost of their own freedoms or lives.