How do you know what is evil when evil is none existent?

[birch]

Morality is based on behavior that maximizes the group

actually it's not. the root of it is very simple. one can learn what the basis of morality is from interacting with one other individual and vice versa. maximizing the group is just a result of this phenomenon of interaction.

if every person really was an 'island' then there would be no need for morality. morality is actually quite organic and natural, contrary to most supposed 'thinker's' bullshit and artificial shpeil.

morality's root stems from self-preservation that is inherent in all life. for instance, that is why we don't need to be 'moral' to inaminate objects. then in interaction with others, we learn that for every action, there is a reaction.

for instance, if you are trustworthy or considerate of others, perhaps the other will be to you but if another were to take advantage of you or try to harm you, then you would be forced to offense for defense. then the result would be the other party learns that just as they care about their self-preservation, so does the other and so on and so forth...this is why we have the reaction of hurt or anger when we are violated or taken advantage of and if the other does not respect it, then they have to be forced by a reaction by some sort of defensive measure which may need to be offensive in turn, most often counterattack. within a society, it's where laws come in to protect people's basic rights and those rights depend upon not necessarily what you want but what you want in comparison to how it affect's others; benignly, positively or negatively. in it's most evolved state, people operate on an inherent awareness of sincere mutual consideration for others in interaction with the first step as respecting personal boundaries. very few people really are at this level and that is why there is a need for so many laws (thought they are not all just/perfect but that's another subject) with enforcement as well as the prevalence of wars incited for offense/predation and defense. you cannot lay down your arms, unless the other does or else you risk exploitation and/or predation. this is why most countries have a military or align themselves with one that can protect them. also, people can abuse their power over others which is why there is a constant struggle to keep our defenses up as others are not trustworthy. it's pretty fuking pathetic actually.

in essence, morality is the recognition and respect for the inherent need of self-preservation in all of us. after that, it's just a dance and compromise of details/preferences/taste.

it actually amazes me that people don't understand the root of morality when it's so obvious.

it's so friggen amazing..

 

[steampunk]

Right is whatever enhances the chance of survival of the social unit; wrong is whatever diminishes that chance.

I disagree with this statement. The stipulation of what is moral and immoral can change over time in a single society, but crime stands the test of time. 'Thou shall not kill' is an example that stood the test time. But, stoning homosexuals has not stood the test of time, instead it's fallen from a crime and mental disorder to a preference, it's proper category. When we find a crime that does not stand the test of time, we've found the moral imposter, posing itself as law.

Homosexual preferences may seem to not enhance the survival of the social unit because, isolated, homosexuals do not produce offspring and exit the gene pool. But, homosexuals do enhance the chance of survival in another way, in a world with limited energy resources, they prevent overpopulation, increase sustainability and care for those who do stay in the gene pool through cooperation and productivity in society.

Breaking a moral code usually may appear to harm or not enhance the survival of the unit, but only in an insignificant way. Along with insignificance, a point of view can also be demonstrated that proves the contrary. Much like the one I pointed out above about sexual preference implications and Darwinism.

I agree with you there is an overlap between what humans consider immoral and criminal. I think this is due to a lack of distinguishment, rather than a competent conclusion arrived at through rational thought.

Since my standpoint is that morality is preference and never criminal, moral code could never be anything falling into the category of evil. Evil could be an term used appropriate to describe the most haneous of crimes, but not petty theft.

 

[steampunk]

You called it "preferences" in your other post.
I think of preferences as I would prefer a peanut butter sandwich to a tomato sandwich...that sort of thing.
Fishing for examples:
I think it is immoral to spread malicious rumors on the job.
I think it's immoral to knowingly contract for a poor job on a contractee's house because the contractee does not know know precisely what needs done and how to specify for it (Has happened to my mom multiple times, the last time I observed it happen. No, she would not listen to me.)
I think it's immoral to borrow money informally and not pay it back.
All the above are not illegal though.

Must not be getting something here...:shrug:

Malicious rumors could create a loss of money for the company and tarnish an innocent person's reputation. How much damage? Little or insignificant? Moral code. Significant or great? You broke the law.

A contractor who is deceptive in their contract in the way you describe above is a predatory and parasicitic. Unneccessary charges would occur in such a contract. How much unneccessary charge? Little? Moral code violation. Huge overcharge? It's a crime.

Borrowing money informally poses problem to a lender because they have not provided proof of a contract. I think there is an implication that it's immoral, because a person can just say it was a gift and get away with it in court. Just because evidence can not be provided to prove a crime existed, doesn't take it out of the category of crime. It's un unproven crime to those who do know it's true. In terms of category now... How much money is not paid back? Insiginificant amount? Moral code violation. Large amount? Crime.

I think you have qualified things well, but when we quantify the damage, the difference between morality and crime becomes apparent.

I would prefer my co-worker not misqualify my job performance. I would prefer the contractor not charge me a 20 dollar surcharge. I would prefer my friend give me back my favorite cd. They are all too petty to take to court. Moral code violations. Now if my coworker accused me of stealing money from the company and the legal battle had to be fought this will be a huge expense. This rumour is no longer in the category of moral code violation. If the contractor charges double the standard market price, they taking advantage of a person unfairly and this is criminal.

I prefer that in a crowd a person not push against me, where others love the group connection. I think both of us would agree a violent act, like a punch to the face is definitely unacceptable in a crowd. It's all a matter of degree.

I know people use morality in the way you are doing, and I know they don't think of it generally in the way I am posing it. My intent is to not take on the ambiguous, and sometimes duplicitous English language, but instead to clearify principle differences in morality and law.

 

[elte]

actually it's not. the root of it is very simple. one can learn what the basis of morality is from interacting with one other individual and vice versa. maximizing the group is just a result of this phenomenon of interaction.

if every person really was an 'island' then there would be no need for morality. morality is actually quite organic and natural, contrary to most supposed 'thinker's' bullshit and artificial shpeil.

morality's root stems from self-preservation that is inherent in all life. for instance, that is why we don't need to be 'moral' to inaminate objects. then in interaction with others, we learn that for every action, there is a reaction.

for instance, if you are trustworthy or considerate of others, perhaps the other will be to you but if another were to take advantage of you or try to harm you, then you would be forced to offense for defense. then the result would be the other party learns that just as they care about their self-preservation, so does the other and so on and so forth...this is why we have the reaction of hurt or anger when we are violated or taken advantage of and if the other does not respect it, then they have to be forced by a reaction by some sort of defensive measure which may need to be offensive in turn, most often counterattack. within a society, it's where laws come in to protect people's basic rights and those rights depend upon not necessarily what you want but what you want in comparison to how it affect's others; benignly, positively or negatively. in it's most evolved state, people operate on an inherent awareness of sincere mutual consideration for others in interaction with the first step as respecting personal boundaries. very few people really are at this level and that is why there is a need for so many laws (thought they are not all just/perfect but that's another subject) with enforcement as well as the prevalence of wars incited for offense/predation and defense. you cannot lay down your arms, unless the other does or else you risk exploitation and/or predation. this is why most countries have a military or align themselves with one that can protect them. also, people can abuse their power over others which is why there is a constant struggle to keep our defenses up as others are not trustworthy. it's pretty fuking pathetic actually.

in essence, morality is the recognition and respect for the inherent need of self-preservation in all of us. after that, it's just a dance and compromise of details/preferences/taste.

it actually amazes me that people don't understand the root of morality when it's so obvious.

it's so friggen amazing..

I summarize it as have an attitude of not wanting to prey on other people. That is what I call the universal ethics principle. Competing against others and predation are essentially the same thing.

-Competing with others- is often improperly equated to -competing against others-. When competing against, it breaks the universal ethics principle to do so against people or a person. It would be OK against viruses and abstractions, for example.

Eg. The scientists compete with each other against the polio virus. That would be ethical.

Note that self-defense doesn't involve the attitude of predation even if an observer might think they see it.

 

[birch]

Note that self-defense doesn't involve the attitude of predation even if an observer might think they see it

true. it depends on the context of the situation and the motive, which isn't always apparent on superficial glance unless one is aware of what went down.

sometimes extreme aggression needs extreme aggression to counter it similar to an insidious disease will need strong medicine.

 

[elte]

Indeed, thanks for that.

 

[Jeeves]

I disagree with this statement. The stipulation of what is moral and immoral can change over time in a single society, but crime stands the test of time. 'Thou shall not kill' is an example that stood the test time. But, stoning homosexuals has not stood the test of time, instead it's fallen from a crime and mental disorder to a preference, it's proper category. When we find a crime that does not stand the test of time, we've found the moral imposter, posing itself as law.

I don't see how this contradicts my statement.
A social unit may be anything from a mated pair to the United nations. Chances of survival are not enhanced or diminished by what anybody - correctly or incorrectly - supposes to be a good idea at a particular moment, or what anybody thinks will serve the interests of particular power bloc, but what actually does help members of a social unit to survive. Sensible co-operation does that. Bad laws don't.
That's why morality and law overlap but are not totally congruent - because there are always some bad laws that detract from the unit's overall, long-term ability to survive.

Homosexual preferences may seem to not enhance the survival of the social unit because, isolated, homosexuals do not produce offspring and exit the gene pool.

Social unit is not the same as species; reproduction is only one aspect of survival. A couple of the same sex may form a social unit. In this case, infidelity, though legal, is immoral, because it jeopardizes the cohesion of the social unit. But stealing medicine for one's sick partner might be a moral act, even though it's against the law.

Breaking a moral code usually may appear to harm or not enhance the survival of the unit, but only in an insignificant way.

I think i see the difficulty. I wasn't talking about any particular moral code, but about basic animal morality. Human codes, moral, legal, religious, dress, etiquette, military... these come and go. They serve the limited purpose of a ruling class during a period of time, in some place and circumstance. Rulers are replaced; rules are replaced. Morality remains.

Since my standpoint is that morality is preference and never criminal, moral code could never be anything falling into the category of evil.

A code certainly can be evil, even when its perpetrators call it "moral" The code that required heretics to be tortured and immolated, the one that nowadays requires rebellious teenaged girls to be killed by their brothers, or the one that forbade white men marrying black women but permitted them to rape those same women... these were very immoral moral codes. And they - or rather their framers - were evil, because they knew what harm obedience to such a code would do, and wanted that harm done, to increase their own power.

 

[Big Chiller]

Atheism says nothing about such things, but in the absence of rigid ancient and mostly anachronistic rules, we can more freely evaluate what the best and most moral course of action is. Remember you are just a follower, so if God tells you to do evil, as he told Abraham, you are obligated to accept it.

God doesn't tell someone to do evil that would make God fallible and unless God is absolutely infallible that would mean God isn't omnipotent and omniscient. Abraham (pbuh) had a dream and decided to act on his dream and it wasn't evil of him to act on that dream because his intent was to obey God most sincerely that's why intent matters most. God wouldn't tell someone to commit an atrocious act personally. BTW the absolutely here is of a different meaning than the absolutely we use e.g. to convince someone of something, this *absolutely* is regardless of our emotions and perceptions.

 

[aaqucnaona]

How does atheism work out the problems of good, evil, and suffering? And without God, where do atheists go to for comfort?

I am an atheist and this is what I think:
Good and evil are labels we apply to that which is in accordance to, or against our altrusitic genes. Suffering is an essential part of nature since it creates desire to avoid pain and thus forces individuals to betterment. Atheists [IMO] find comfort in knowledge and understanding, in a cool headed, non-emotional approach to problems, solving them with careful considerations of causality and without unhelpful wishful thinking.

 

[ughaibu]

altrusitic genes

What are these?

 

[aaqucnaona]

What are these?

These are genetic behaviours/instincts inherent in human thinking. Such genes are found in all social animals like ants,termites, lions, wolves, monkeys and apes [including humans]. They determine the individuals behaviours in regards to breeding, social order, planning, work and in higher animals like us apes, also affect the basic outlook and decisions of morality, like 1 can sacrifice 1 life to save 5; innocent bystanders should be dragged into or harmed by conflicts; we have moral obligations to our relatives, etc. Such questions of morality have quite unanimous agreement among all humans reguardless of their religious beliefs, i.e. they are instinctive [genetically determined].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics

 

[ughaibu]

These are genetic behaviours/instincts inherent in human thinking.

Genes are not behaviours. What are "altruistic genes"?

Such genes are found in all social animals like ants,termites, lions, wolves, monkeys and apes [including humans]. They determine the individuals behaviours

I cant imagine any reason why anybody would believe that, have you got one?

 

[aaqucnaona]

Genes are not behaviours.

No, but some of them determine behaviours.

What are "altruistic genes"?

Altruistic genes are genes which determine helpful social bahaviours and predispositions.

I cant imagine any reason why anybody would believe that, have you got one?

Yes. This is a heavily researched field in sociobiology. Here are some sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology#Sociobiological_theory

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/R...tic_Basis_Of_Social_Behavior_In_Ants_999.html

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/social-behavior-in-animals-has-180298.aspx

http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/10/28/scan.nsq083.full

http://www.nig.ac.jp/labs/MGRL/eMGRL_toppage.html

http://ts-si.org/relationships/28015-genetic-basis-of-animal-social-relationships

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=...basis of social behaviours in animals&f=false

 

[ughaibu]

Here are some sources

Either you can offer me a reason or you cant, so far you haven't. Do you have a reason for anyone to suppose that genes determine behaviour?

 

[elte]

I am an atheist and this is what I think:
Good and evil are labels we apply to that which is in accordance to, or against our altrusitic genes. Suffering is an essential part of nature since it creates desire to avoid pain and thus forces individuals to betterment. Atheists [IMO] find comfort in knowledge and understanding, in a cool headed, non-emotional approach to problems, solving them with careful considerations of causality and without unhelpful wishful thinking.

Indeed, I bolded those words because I used to think thoughts related to the religious beliefs that I tried to have. Often my mind was pretty clogged with such thoughts that turned out to be very unhelpful.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Either you can offer me a reason or you cant, so far you haven't. Do you have a reason for anyone to suppose that genes determine behaviour?

Did u read the sources? If u didnt, read them b4 asking that question. The how and why is a hot topic in research, but the sources all agree that morality and other similiar group behaviours are genetically determined to some extent. External sources like personal experience and upbringing may play a part in higher mammals, but there's no doubt that the source of such abilities is completely naturalistic.

 

[ughaibu]

there's no doubt that the source of such abilities is completely naturalistic.

Which is an entirely different claim. Last chance, can you offer me any reason to suppose that genes determine behaviour?

 

[elte]

Václav Havel

Vaclav Havel, the famous Czech president, died today. He cared about a decent civilization and liked to focus on morality. He tried hard to fight against evil.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Indeed, I bolded those words because I used to think thoughts related to the religious beliefs that I tried to have. Often my mind was pretty clogged with such thoughts that turned out to be very unhelpful.

The problem is that theistic belief leads one to believe that one is weak and incapable and if one fails, its god's will not ur inability to succeed. If u succeed, its god's blessing,not ur effort. While I can accept it over the obvious ego, it muddles thinking unnecessarily, removing responsibility, creating non existinent ambiguity and uncertainity as well as reducing the will or aspiration to succeed. If this will of god is somehow against ur better judgement, it can even be harmful, eg. suicide bombers or anti science fundamentals.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Which is an entirely different claim.

Yes it is. Its a claim against theistic arguments that morality comes from god and religion.

Last chance, can you offer me any reason to suppose that genes determine behaviour?

Yes. Such genes are extremely deterministic in lower animals [read 'ants' source in prev. post] and get instinctive in higher animals while intelligent, satient animals like apes have it only as basic guides for thinking. These are some sources that support this view:

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml

http://www.grandin.com/references/genetics.html

http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...nd-genetic-makeup-influence-behavior-13907840

[Note - environmental factors are massively important in humans, genes arent 100% deterministic as they are in ants/termites. Thus, we have a twofold influence on our behavour: genes & nature/nurtue].