Ah ok we can now agree that there is a range and a specutrum of behavior that falls between the two points of good and evil. Cool, im fine with that (not sure about the karma part though).
Karma just means, that you get out of life what you put into it, it's not saying that life is fair, it's just saying that if you abuse the environment, eventually the environment returns the abuse, maybe not even to you directly. Not everyone believes in Karma, but reality is cause and effect, and it's something people learn over time, through experience, you know, if you ever had a period where you did do bad stuff, or you were what we'd consider a bad person, eventually your own environment becomes more stressful, more toxic, etc because often when you do bad things, it attracts it to you. It's like magnetism. The same thing happens when you do good things. This is not the case 100% of the time, just a general observation.
No i dont use the words good and evil because 9 times out of 10 they dont aquately describe what it is im trying to define. I dont think anyone (least of all me) is using big words for the sake of appearing clever, theyre simply tools to better understand the situation with greater accuracy.
Alright, these tools work for you, you should use them. I understand your tools, and the books, I read a lot, all the time. I don't always agree with semantics of what I read, and I don't agree with every psychologist I meet, because I know that yes while some psychologists have good intentions, you also have psychologists who do evil acts. As an example, you have psychologists who plant false memories. There are people who go to a therapist who believe something is wrong with them, often they get told they may have been raped, and go through memory regression to find out they had been raped. Psychology is worth studying, but psychologists are not always right so I do not trust every word a psychologist says.
In fact id argue that you do act this way already, youve created or rationalised a moral argument to make it ok for you to eat chicken even though you believe eating meat is wrong.
It's not that I believe "eating" meat is wrong. I believe TORTURE is wrong.
Chickens are actually the worst treated animal out of all the animals we commonly eat, even 'free range' chickens generally live in conditions so bad and inhumane if someone treated their pets this way theyd most likely be locked up.
And thats wrong. Where do we disagree?
But eating chicken is ok, because you need your extra protien, so you can flick the switch off in your head for any compassionate feelings for those chickens.
I don't eat chicken every single day, or even every week, but when I have a choice between chicken or fish, or when I run out of fish, my options become more limited as to where I'll get a source of protien. It's not that I feel good about eating the chicken, or that I don't think about how chickens are treated, so it's not that my compassion is shut off, it's more that I cannot eat fish every single day, otherwise I would.
You said that you dont understand how people can just 'switch off' their compassion? well, look inside your own mind youre doing it already.
It's not shut off. I feel what you are saying about the chickens, but it's not like supermarkets give us many options. You get the same types of meats, all the time, or you get fish. I don't think it's healthy to completely sacrifice meat, I think if it were up to me, I'd be completely happy eating just fish all the time, but let's be realistic, what are you going to do when you run out of fish and someone offers you chicken? What do you do when it's thanksgiving and everyone is eating turkey, are you going to be the asshole who demands fish, even when you have fish every single day or every other day?
Yes, we need better options in the supermarket, let's focus on that. You can buy chickens which arent tortured, they sell that, but if we are going to give up most meat, then we will move to fish, the question then becomes, which meats, which fish, and how to handle the problems with the expensive price, and the over fishing, and other problems which will occur. Fish does run out, and it's seasonal, unlike chicken which seems to be all year round and never runs out.
The same rationality you use to make it acceptable to yourself to eat chicken is the same rationality people use to commit any number of atrocities. Its the exact same process at work, this is how alot of the 'evil' you percieve in the world actually works.
Morality is rational. I'm not using rationality to justify eating chicken. I admit, I'd eat fish if it were practical to eat it every day. Fish is healthier than chicken, and it's more ethical, which makes it super rational. I'd choose fish over chicken any day, but when chicken is all thats there, I'll eat chicken.
I dont see what you find so complex, people let themselves off having to be compassionate, either via societal norms, expectations of authority figures, or their general upbringing.
Its actually pretty simple once you realise that humans are essentially lazy and in general want a quiet easy life, not listening to that compassionate inner voice makes life far less of a struggle, and is therefore a highly attractive position to most people.
The only ethically difficult question you have given was the chicken question. The food question is a tough ethical question, but it's going to take more than a few people going vegan, or vegetarian to solve the problem. Vegans and vegetarians, are busy focused on telling people what they can't do, instead of telling people what they can't do. People don't really want to hear what foods they can't eat, they want and need to hear what foods they can eat.
If every food is either unhealthy, or tortures animals, whats left? As a result most humans aren't even eating real food. If you are vegetarian or vegan you are ahead of the curve on an ethical issue, but the issue will not be solved JUST with compassion, as you can feel bad and still eat because it's right in your face, it takes both compassion and practicality to solve. Practical solutions are solutions which don't take a complete change of lifestyle, shopping habits, and other extremes. The first step is to get people to actually be aware of the harm they are doing, once people become aware then they can take steps to miimize it. Remember I define a good person as a person who minimizes harm, I'm not saying anyone is harmless.
I dont have any psychologist friends, and i dont think ive once degenerated into 'psychobabble' by talking about peoples 'inner child' or 'lack of self-esteem or some such.
My friends (who arnt psychologists) have no problems understanding what it is im talking about when i discuss these things, i think im talking pretty plain english to be honest.
Plain english, have you been to a typical church? Most people are church do talk in good and evil.
I thought you were against teaching people to control themselves? if youre all for it, then i really dont understand where your argument lies.
I'm not against helping people who ask for help, BEFORE they commit a crime. If someone is thinking negative thoughts they can be corrected. If someone has an urge to rape, they can be corrected.
Once they pass the barrier and actually do it, it's a different story. I'm not going to try to help them at that point. I'm going to be trying to help the victims.
From the outset all ive done is outline ways in which we could develop ways to help people treat each other with more humanity.
People helping people instead of people hurting people.
So why do you get confused and knock me for using 'big words' when im simply using terms you should be entirely familiar with?
I don't knock you for using big words, I'm asking you, how will you simplify what you are saying so that even a common ignorant fool can understand it? Good and evil, very simple, but everyone understands.
You can tell that by talking to someone on a forum for a couple of hours? im going to suggest that making assumptions like that based on a short conversation over the internet is pretty silly.
I think youd be rubbish in a fight! <-- see ridiculous.
You are right, you cannot tell anything about anyone from a forum. You cannot tell anything about anyone in person either, at least not from a conversation. But you know, maybe I said that to learn something about you.
Huh? i dont have a degree, never been to university in my life and i understand words beyond 'good' and 'bad'. None of my friends have degrees either and they have no problems understanding or using a wide range of words to describe people and their actions.
A lot of the words you use, require that a person have read certain books. What about people who don't read a lot?
So what are you proposing? that we stop using 'big words' so that the stupid or uneducated wont feel bad when they dont understand? sorry but thats absurd, if everyone followed that logic within a couple of generations all the knowledge and intellect weve gained as a species would completely die out and wed simply be grunting at each other.
I think thats a bit extreme, I don't think we will lose all knowledge overnight, but you are correct, you have a point.
Well youve still provided no evidence for this despite bringing up this percentage 3 times now.
Robert Hares official study. But in general, there are plenty of sites and information online, complete with studies.
Jeez now youve gone back three steps, you agreed earlier that there is a spectrum between good and evil. And now youre saying that no, people are either good or evil and any emotions inbetween are faked either way.
There is a spectrum, this is true, but at some point, you'll discover where on the spectrum they fall, and if they are mostly good, or mostly evil. Basically over time you learn both which direction they are going in, and where they place on the spectrum.
Could you please decide your postion on this?
Btw Jung didnt believe anything like this.
Jung called evil "the shadow". It's the same thing really, but Jungs version of evil, was more like the dark side, the bad side we all have. The form of evil I'm talking about is similar, but it's the destructive nature of man.
Sorry but thats nonsense, you can get protiens from plenty of other sources other than meat. Its a medical myth that we *need* meat and get ill/die younger when we dont. In fact studies have shown the reverse to be true, people who eat meat are more likely to die sooner.
And this is something we disagree on. Sometimes I think being a Vegan is alright, but it's not natural. Humans are not designed to be Vegan. So I guess I'm traditional on this, I do think humans need meat, it's a matter of which meat. I do not think humans are designed to live off veggies, despite the ethical concerns, let's be realistic, we never in our history were complete vegetarians, and not everyone can be a vegetarian and have it be healthy for their body type. You can, for me I'm supposed to eat fish, for another person they need more protien than both of us, it depends on the individual, different individuals are designed for different diets due to years of evolution.
Then what you call evil is what most people these days call a sociopath.
Not exactly. I said destructive. Some people are destructive as hell, and some people aren't. It's possible to teach people, sociopath or not, to not be so destructive. I know because I've seen it. So as a result you have sociopaths who don't commit a lot of crimes and act so destructive that I consider them evil. Then you have the most destructive people, they destroy for fun, they enjoy it. My opinion is that psychology alone does not make a person good or evil, it's also conditioning, it's also based on what they personally want out of life and what they ultimately do with their life. It's based on a lot of different things, but it's never be so simple that you can say "This person thinks evil so they are". It's more that people have to actually be doing evil.
If you need proof, I'm sure there is at least one friend of yours, or family member, who is a sociopath, and who does not torture animals or do stuff like that. In fact they might be nice to animals, or at least respectful.
But we can surive in the west quite comfortably now without eating meat, therefore meat has become a vice/pleasure based in the destruction and pain other beings. So going by your own criteria people who eat meat in the west must be evil also?
I don't know about that. Yeah technically we have the technology and ability to find meat replacements, but it's not going to be veggies, it's going to likely be either synthetic meat, or a product with the exact nutritional value and taste of meat. People will not move from eating steak to mushrooms over night unless the mushroom tastes and has the exact nutritional value of steak.
But most live in the grey, thats what you need to accept. Can you really avoid the vast majority of people all your life and simple deal with people you feel are good or evil according to your standards?
I deal with people I know. Grey people are difficult to know, I deal with them, but it's difficult to know them. The difference is, when you know a person well, you know what they will or won't do in any given situation. It's difficult with people who function in the grey, maybe this is fine for business relationships but for friendships you need trust.
Embrace the stuff inbetween man, it might be abit scarier and less certain but thats where most people are.
There is no trust in between. And people barely know each other, if they know each other at all.
But if good and evil are extremes, and you admit there is a grey area inbetween why are you labeling the grey as good and evil as well?
Because the grey is just confusing, it's where people are sure, but these people may not have found themselves, or may not know themselves, or may not let other people know them, or whatever. How do you form a friendship without trust? You need some kind of trust, you need to be able to KNOW the person, not just know the front. I'd say the grey is filled with people who are putting up fronts, or being players, or schemesters, or politicians, or that sort. Sure this is where a lot of people function and operate, but do you really want your entire life to be in the grey?
Your logic is completely falling apart.
By calling people either good or evil youre actually fighting against what even *you* know to be true - that most people arnt good or evil and exist in a grey state somewhere inbetween the two.
Most people don't know themselves well enough and so they function in a grey state, or they know themselves but they wear a mask in public, or they are in a state of apathy, where they function in the grey because they feel no love or hate either way. It's a lot of reasons why people would choose to function in the grey, the problem with the grey is that the grey world, this is the world of business, of work, of boring every day life. When exactly do you actually get to be yourself if you are always busy trying to be "normal" or "grey" or focused only on profits etc? How do you get close to anyone in the grey world where everything is like illusion?
lol But you dont know anyone ANY BETTER by labeling the grey as black or white. Which youve pretty much admitted that this is all youre really doing in practice.
You know them in your mind only if you can label them. If you cannot label them how can you know them? It's like not knowing their name. You are right, there are not a lot of good people and not a lot of evil people, so you don't simply define people by good and evil, you define them by what they do.
If a person is a taker, it's because they take and never give. It does not mean they are evil, or a bad person, it just means they have a bad habit, but thats how you'll label them in your brain if they act like that. There are many other labels people have for people that they give people in their brain. For most people these labels stay in the brain, but they do exist and you know it.
Why not just conclude that someone is probably 'untrustworthy' then if what youre really worried about is getting fucked over. You dont need to label people as evil not to get fucked over, thats completely alarmist and over the top.
You label people so you can organize your own mind, it's not about the external world. It's about the internal world. Everyone puts people into boxes. It's impossible not to. When you do it, you have to do it based on what they actually did, and then it's fair.
If anything youre likely to get yourself fucked over by labeling people as either good or bad. I live in the grey which means that no one i know is inherently good (because good people can still do bad things) and im still warey of them in certain situations.
Its actually your position which leaves you most vulnerable, i think youre leaving your self open to confusion and hurt when people dont end up living upto the labels you ascribe them.
No, I'm not confused and hurt when people don't live up to labels because these labels are on a spectrum, and they arent something that I place people on, they place themselves into these positions based on their actions. People basically choose how other people view them, if a person does not want to be evil, they don't have to act evil.
People know when they are acting evil or acting good, and people know that how they act, their behavior, is how people judge character. There are no expectations, but there are patterns. A thief is a thief, a liar is a liar, these are their patterns and they don't usually change, unless the person is on drugs.
I call them sociopaths, but my problem isnt with the label itself, its the fact that you choose to label people who exist in the grey areas with your black and white labels to make life easier for yourself. Which youve already admitted to doing.
Yeah, and how do you judge people? Don't pretend like you don't judge people. Everyone judges character. So how do you judge character? You use psychology? All I know is, like anyone else, I judge people. I have my own internal organizing methods for doing it. Good and evil are just boxes, no one really knows much more than that, because it's just to organize the information.
Information is experience. People are judged by the experiences. Over time you'll judge a person anyway, it's unavoidable, even if you just are business partners, you'll figure out who not to lend money to based on experience. You'll figure out who not to even trust based on experience. You'll learn all you need to know based on experience, and if you want to function in the grey, go ahead, you'd make a great politician.
Myself, I'm not a politician, I'd like to have a somewhat normal life. You cannot exist in the grey ALL the time, with EVERYONE. You can exist in the grey when you are around people who function in the grey. You are grey right now because you operate in the grey, thats your mode. Anyone who is "good" or "evil" can operate in the grey mode when doing business, thats the neutral mode.
It's not like people do evil things 100% of the time. It's not like people do good 100% of the time.
And yeah I'm on planet earth, but I don't understand humans and gave up trying to. I'm just trying to deal with people.
