Nature of Good and Evil.

[Josh]

Perhaps I should clarify my arguement. Good and evil can only exist by virtue of morality. Morality is not necessary for the survival and fitness of a species. Good and evil are human created concepts, and do not exist in any natural rule or law.

Save that it is necessary for OUR species. A species of sapient social mammals. Abolish morality, and see how long our species lasts.

Our civilization as it exists today would undoubtedly crumble, as it depends upon order and unwilling cooperation. But our species would survive. Just in far more primitive and danngerous conditions, like the rest of the animal kingdom.

Beg to differ. Social cooperation is what allows us to survive. Remove morality, remove social cooperation. We might linger on for a bit, but we would die and the world would keep on spinnin'.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Perhaps I should clarify my arguement. Good and evil can only exist by virtue of morality. Morality is not necessary for the survival and fitness of a species. Good and evil are human created concepts, and do not exist in any natural rule or law.

Save that it is necessary for OUR species. A species of sapient social mammals. Abolish morality, and see how long our species lasts.

Our civilization as it exists today would undoubtedly crumble, as it depends upon order and unwilling cooperation. But our species would survive. Just in far more primitive and danngerous conditions, like the rest of the animal kingdom.

No Walper, we wouldnt. We cant run fast, we cant climb or swim well, we dont have sharp stabby teeth and we dont have claws. The only reason we survive is because of our ability to function in a group, using our collective intelligence to negotiate the difficulties of having no physical advantages and tons of disadvantages. We would die.

[Robert Walper]

Beg to differ. Social cooperation is what allows us to survive. Remove morality, remove social cooperation. We might linger on for a bit, but we would die and the world would keep on spinnin'.

And where is it established that social cooperation demands morality? Wolves work in groups, lions work in groups, etc, etc. Do they possess morality?

No Walper, we wouldnt. We cant run fast, we cant climb or swim well, we dont have sharp stabby teeth and we dont have claws. The only reason we survive is because of our ability to function in a group, using our collective intelligence to negotiate the difficulties of having no physical advantages and tons of disadvantages. We would die.

As stated before, animals do not have morality, but they can still have social order and group mentality.

[Cynical Cat]

No Walper, we wouldnt. We cant run fast, we cant climb or swim well, we dont have sharp stabby teeth and we dont have claws. The only reason we survive is because of our ability to function in a group, using our collective intelligence to negotiate the difficulties of having no physical advantages and tons of disadvantages. We would die.

A strawman that completely omits the massive advantages of our abilities to use tools. Humans can and have survived alone in the wild for considerable lengths of time. Many Native American groups used that as part of adulthood rights.

Now returning you back to your regularily scheduled debate.

[Robert Walper]

No Walper, we wouldnt. We cant run fast, we cant climb or swim well, we dont have sharp stabby teeth and we dont have claws. The only reason we survive is because of our ability to function in a group, using our collective intelligence to negotiate the difficulties of having no physical advantages and tons of disadvantages. We would die.

A strawman that completely omits the massive advantages of our abilities to use tools. Humans can and have survived alone in the wild for considerable lengths of time. Many Native American groups used that as part of adulthood rights.

Precisely. The ability to create and use tools does not require morality. One need look no further than serial killers or terrorists.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Remove social cohesiveness and you will find that the ability of an individual human to create tools is rendured moot. The only reason we survive is because we exist in groups which aid each other in self defense. If social cohesivenes collapses, so does our ability to work in groups. And if you think solitary humans can live as a species you are wrong. Cut of from human contact, people have a tendency to go insane.

[Cynical Cat]

We are indeed a social species. We're not the only one, but groups offer an even bigger advantage to tool users.

Please continue.

[Robert Walper]

Remove social cohesiveness and you will find that the ability of an individual human to create tools is rendured moot. The only reason we survive is because we exist in groups which aid each other in self defense. If social cohesivenes collapses, so does our ability to work in groups. And if you think solitary humans can live as a species you are wrong. Cut of from human contact, people have a tendency to go insane.

Let's make a comparison here, say Wolves and Humans.

Wolves are social animals. Check.
Humans are social animals. Check.

Wolves live in groups or packs. Check.
Humans live in groups or packs. Check.

Wolves are physically suited to their enviroment. Check.
Humans use to tools to compensate for their physical limitations. Check.

Wolves lack morality. Check.
Humans, usually, have morality. Check.

Now CT, explain where morality is necessary for human survival. Humans are usually more intelligent than other animals and use tools to a degree other animals do not. However, this does not mean morality is necessary for their survival anymore than any other animal.

Morality is no more necessary for survival than religion or beliefs.

[Robert Walper]

We are indeed a social species.

On that note, so are ants, termites, bees, etc.

I'd like to see someone to argue they have morality as a requirement for their survival.

[Comrade Tortoise]

They do and they dont. Observe a wolf-pack for five seconds. Their "morality" is ingrained. They have complex rituals for determining everything from who eats first to who mates with who. Humans dont have those instinctual behaviors. But that have to have something to serve the same function. Morality, and the dichotomy between good and evil.

We determine whether we help someone based upon a moral choice. And while people in larger societies (and thus a larger group) will generally help anyone in their say, nation(which they identify as a sort of extended social group essentially) People in tribal cultures wont help someone from a rival tribe. And each society has different justifications (because they need to rationalize it, by nature of being sapient) but the rules are the same. Help people in your group

Walper, I submit that if you remove these morals, humans will not survive, because of several things. For one, humans would not be able to work together and would become solitary. If they are solitary, the reproductive rate would drop dramatically. And cnsidering the ivnestment of time and energy it takes to raise a child, the child would die. No social groups due to lack of cohesiveness=solitary mother in a technology starved environment. Single mothers may be able to function now,but you remove group support structures and force her to physically hunt and gather for food, both she and the child will die.

The humans that survive will be the ones who learn once more how to work together as a group. This means that the complex rules which govern groups of wolfs and chimps will have to be reinvented by a sapient mind. Morality will become necessary.

[Robert Walper]

They do and they dont. Observe a wolf-pack for five seconds. Their "morality" is ingrained. They have complex rituals for determining everything from who eats first to who mates with who.

That's called pecking order, and does not require morality. If you've had any school experience, you should be familiar with pecking order. There's no morality necessary, only basic common sense which dictates the fittest and strongest survive first.

Humans dont have those instinctual behaviors. But that have to have something to serve the same function. Morality, and the dichotomy between good and evil.

Humans have instincts. Instinct is not morality, and morality is not required to establish rules or a pecking order. When the Alpha male eats first, it's because he's the strongest of the pack. Morality doesn't dictate who's eating first...just common sense on part of the others who do not want to be attacked or killed. The strong rule the weak, no morality is required for this.

We determine whether we help someone based upon a moral choice.
And while people in larger societies (and thus a larger group) will generally help anyone in their say, nation(which they identify as a sort of extended social group essentially) People in tribal cultures wont help someone from a rival tribe. And each society has different justifications (because they need to rationalize it, by nature of being sapient) but the rules are the same. Help people in your group

Which doesn't require morality. Only group mentality, which even creatures such as ants have.

Walper, I submit that if you remove these morals, humans will not survive, because of several things. For one, humans would not be able to work together and would become solitary.

Based upon what? Lacking morality does not suddenly make humans stupid (or do you think serial killers must all be dumb brutes?). They will still stick in groups, if only for simply protecting themselves. Working in groups makes life easier. That does not require morality. That requires intelligence, which does not go hand in hand with morality.

If they are solitary, the reproductive rate would drop dramatically. And cnsidering the ivnestment of time and energy it takes to raise a child, the child would die.

That's why humans have evolved attachment and 'love'. This is an evolutionary mechanism that allows us to survive. One doesn't "choose" to fall in love or feel attached to another person. Morality isn't an issue.

No social groups due to lack of cohesiveness=solitary mother in a technology starved environment. Single mothers may be able to function now,but you remove group support structures and force her to physically hunt and gather for food, both she and the child will die.

That's why humans have group mentality, which doesn't require morality. I again point to my ants example. They do not require morality to work together, hunt together, defend their home together, etc.

The humans that survive will be the ones who learn once more how to work together as a group. This means that the complex rules which govern groups of wolfs and chimps will have to be reinvented by a sapient mind. Morality will become necessary.

You're arguement fails because you're dismissing the fact humans have instincts just like every other creature on this planet. Over time these instincts may be getting dulled and unused, but they still exist.

[Comrade Tortoise]

We do not have instincts walper, we have drives, the two are somewhat different.

That's called pecking order, and does not require morality. If you've had any school experience, you should be familiar with pecking order. There's no morality necessary, only basic common sense which dictates the fittest and strongest survive first.

Oh I do, and they are analoges to human social functioning. Ours, because we are sapient, are merely more advanced

Humans have instincts. Instinct is not morality, and morality is not required to establish rules or a pecking order. When the Alpha male eats first, it's because he's the strongest of the pack. Morality doesn't dictate who's eating first...just common sense on part of the others who do not want to be attacked or killed. The strong rule the weak, no morality is required for this.

Bullshit walper. Instincts are programmed behaviors, humans only have a few. All of them are related to the behavior of infants. Grasping and sucking, that's it. To replace them, we have drives. WHich are completely different. It is those drives which fuel our morality. The attachment we have for offspring fuels prohibitions on infanticide, the need to belong causes us to form groups, and thus to develop written and unwritten rules which govern that groups functioning. These can be considered laws and morals respectively. SOmetimes they overlap sometimes they do not.

Which doesn't require morality. Only group mentality, which even creatures such as ants have.

Your understanding of animal behavior is grossly inadequate walper. Ants have prescribed behaviors. It goes beyond group mentality. Worker ants have no cognition. They do not think beyond fulfilling basic biological needs such as the need for food. Their behavior is scripted by their genes and by genetically controlled releases of certain pheromones.

Based upon what? Lacking morality does not suddenly make humans stupid (or do you think serial killers must all be dumb brutes?). They will still stick in groups, if only for simply protecting themselves. Working in groups makes life easier. That does not require morality. That requires intelligence, which does not go hand in hand with morality.

And those groups will collapse if the sapient creatures which comprise them do not have morals. How quickly do you think one group member killing another, in a group of emotional beings each with their own attachments and emotional bonds, will fracture a social group? How factionalized do you think they will become.

As much as your pipe dreams say to the contrary, the vast majority of people are not rational. They are ruled by their emotions.

Without morals, enforced by the will of the group and by social functioning itself, those same groups could not exit.

WHy do you think something is wrong walper? WHy do you get gutteral feelings of anger and rage when you read about someone murdering their children? It is not because of your reason that you have those feelings. it is because of your emotions. Society has trained you from birth to think infanticide is an irredeemable evil. It trains you, because it has to in order to survive. You use reason in order to justify things you already know, via the grace of socialization, to be wrong.

That's why humans have evolved attachment and 'love'. This is an evolutionary mechanism that allows us to survive. One doesn't "choose" to fall in love or feel attached to another person. Morality isn't an issue.

It is those attachments which drive the evolution of moral systems. It is not the two engaged in that bond which one needs to worry about, it is the jealous third party one need be concerned with.

That's why humans have group mentality, which doesn't require morality. I again point to my ants example. They do not require morality to work together, hunt together, defend their home together, etc.

Yes they do Walper. It is the group mentality which CREATES the morality. Are you to stupid to understand this? In order to hunt together, the group needs complex rules. Not only for the hunt itself, but also to guide individual behavior during the hunt. Humans are sapient beings, and far more complex emotionally than any wolf. Working together involves another set of rules, and self defense and the necessity of doing so, involve another set. It goes beyond a simple group mentality, and your words on the matter reflectg a poor knwoeldge base in you, not only of ethics, but also of ethology and psychology.
To put it in slightly different terms

[Robert Walper]

We do not have instincts walper, we have drives, the two are somewhat different.

In the context we're talking, they both mean the same thing.

That's called pecking order, and does not require morality. If you've had any school experience, you should be familiar with pecking order. There's no morality necessary, only basic common sense which dictates the fittest and strongest survive first.

Oh I do, and they are analoges to human social functioning. Ours, because we are sapient, are merely more advanced

More advanced does not equate "necessary". In today's world, how I get my food is vastly more complex than my ancient ancestors did. It's very dependent upon advanced cooperation of many, many people. Doesn't mean my ancestors went extinct, does it?

Humans have instincts. Instinct is not morality, and morality is not required to establish rules or a pecking order. When the Alpha male eats first, it's because he's the strongest of the pack. Morality doesn't dictate who's eating first...just common sense on part of the others who do not want to be attacked or killed. The strong rule the weak, no morality is required for this.

Bullshit walper. Instincts are programmed behaviors, humans only have a few. All of them are related to the behavior of infants.

Right off the bat I can dispel your ignorant notion with the "flight or fight instinct" (or as you'd put it...'drive')...ever hear of it? There's plenty of other instincts humans possess if you will bother to look or think about them.

Grasping and sucking, that's it.

See above.

To replace them, we have drives. WHich are completely different. It is those drives which fuel our morality. The attachment we have for offspring fuels prohibitions on infanticide, the need to belong causes us to form groups, and thus to develop written and unwritten rules which govern that groups functioning. These can be considered laws and morals respectively. SOmetimes they overlap sometimes they do not.

In this context, instincts and drives are the same thing. People instinctively seek a mate. You're just changing the wording to "People are 'driven' to seek a mate", as if that's a different concept!

All human behavior can be traced to or be reflected in other animal behavior, which lacks morality. Some, such as yourself, assert "stealing" as morally wrong. I agree, but that moral perspective is not necessary to our survival. Yes, some people would be lacking and even die if it was a free for all. But that's how nature works.

Your understanding of animal behavior is grossly inadequate walper. Ants have prescribed behaviors. It goes beyond group mentality. Worker ants have no cognition. They do not think beyond fulfilling basic biological needs such as the need for food.

Yes, so explain how this dooms them to extinction and inability to survive since they lack morality. Furthermore, explain how the attribute of cognitive functions in a animal completely irradicates instinct and common sense.

Their behavior is scripted by their genes and by genetically controlled releases of certain pheromones.

And that differs from humans...how again? Because we communicate verbally instead of by pheromones? Please.

Based upon what? Lacking morality does not suddenly make humans stupid (or do you think serial killers must all be dumb brutes?). They will still stick in groups, if only for simply protecting themselves. Working in groups makes life easier. That does not require morality. That requires intelligence, which does not go hand in hand with morality.

And those groups will collapse if the sapient creatures which comprise them do not have morals. How quickly do you think one group member killing another, in a group of emotional beings each with their own attachments and emotional bonds, will fracture a social group? How factionalized do you think they will become.

Are you seriously this dense? Animals of the same species fight for superiority over eachother all the time. For fuck's sake CT, it's still going on today! Why do think countries go to war over resources, land and other concerns? The groups have gotten bigger...that's it. Instead of tribal warfare, it's continental now. The difference with the tribe sized groups is that their needs are far easier to sate, and thus peaceful co-existence can be easier to achieve. Moral or not, no creature is going to pick fights for no reason.

As much as your pipe dreams say to the contrary, the vast majority of people are not rational. They are ruled by their emotions.

When have I disputed people are ruled by their emotions, nitwit? Other mammals are ruled by their emotions as well, such as lions. And they don't have morality as we're defining it. By you're reasoning, lions should be extinct because they lack morality and living in groups makes them far more successful. They'll fight and kill within their groups, and establish pecking orders. Guess what Sherlock...they live in groups, cooperate, protect their young and territory, are quite successful overall...and don't have morality.

WHy do you think something is wrong walper? WHy do you get gutteral feelings of anger and rage when you read about someone murdering their children? It is not because of your reason that you have those feelings. it is because of your emotions. Society has trained you from birth to think infanticide is an irredeemable evil. It trains you, because it has to in order to survive. You use reason in order to justify things you already know, via the grace of socialization, to be wrong.

Again, morality is subjective, remember? What's 'wrong' to one individual can be 'right' to another.

That's why humans have evolved attachment and 'love'. This is an evolutionary mechanism that allows us to survive. One doesn't "choose" to fall in love or feel attached to another person. Morality isn't an issue.

It is those attachments which drive the evolution of moral systems. It is not the two engaged in that bond which one needs to worry about, it is the jealous third party one need be concerned with.

Which either wins or loses in a confrontation, ensuring the victor is the superior speciem, earning the right to pass on genes. That's nature, CT. What part of this do you not understand? Just because the thought of one human killing another is morally wrong to us does not doom the human species to extinction. In case you haven't noticed, we've been doing it for all our existence, and are still doing it.

That's why humans have group mentality, which doesn't require morality. I again point to my ants example. They do not require morality to work together, hunt together, defend their home together, etc.

Yes they do Walper. It is the group mentality which CREATES the morality. Are you to stupid to understand this? In order to hunt together, the group needs complex rules.

No, they don't. All they need is numbers and the willingness to bring down prey together. Intelligence is a useful attribute...morality is optional and pretty much useless in that situation.

Not only for the hunt itself, but also to guide individual behavior during the hunt. Humans are sapient beings, and far more complex emotionally than any wolf. Working together involves another set of rules, and self defense and the necessity of doing so, involve another set. It goes beyond a simple group mentality, and your words on the matter reflectg a poor knwoeldge base in you, not only of ethics, but also of ethology and psychology.

Your problem is you're ignorantly complicating extremely simplistic concepts (like hunting, which everything from lions to ants can do)) in order to justify morality as a 'necessity' to survival.

Nature has established, repeatedly, that humans possess all the attributes to survive. Intelligence, numbers, tools, etc. Morality is not one of them. Vast numbers of examples of nature's creatures plainly show morality is not necessary for survival. Appealing to the fact humans are smarter than other animals is a Red Herring...it does not justify morality as a necessity to human survival.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Rolling Eyes In the context we're talking, they both mean the same thing.

Sorry Walper, you arnt allowed to redefine words like that

More advanced does not equate "necessary". In today's world, how I get my food is vastly more complex than my ancient ancestors did. It's very dependent upon advanced cooperation of many, many people. Doesn't mean my ancestors went extinct, does it?

What the hell is your point? The social interactions between even the most primitive humans were more complex than any other social animal. just look at the way modern tribal cultures behave to get an idea.

It would not be possible without emotionally based morals acquired through socialiation

Pick up a fucking psych textbook

Right off the bat I can dispel your ignorant notion with the "flight or fight instinct" (or as you'd put it...'drive')...ever hear of it? There's plenty of other instincts humans possess if you will bother to look or think about them.

Alright Walper, name a few. And do any of them pertain to cpomplex social behavior, because if they dont, this is what we call a red herring.

The fight or flight response I will give you, is probably instinctual, however it is largly irrelevant to social interactions (the only exception is warfare, but that is not what we are discussing) and even when it can be involved, it can be manipulated very easily. What do you think Basic training does.

In this context, instincts and drives are the same thing. People instinctively seek a mate. You're just changing the wording to "People are 'driven' to seek a mate", as if that's a different concept!

You arent allowed to redefine words walper. In psych the two are different. You want an instinctual behavior? Go look at complex mating displays in bower birds. They dont get taught to build those nexts. THAT is an instinct. We humans do not have that. We have a goal, but unlike animals who have their behavior genetically scripted, we dont know how to achieve that goal. We have to learn through observation, trial, and error how to attract a mate.

Again, puck up a fucking book, and learn the distinction.

And that differs from humans...how again? Because we communicate verbally instead of by pheromones? Please. Rolling Eyes

No Walper, because our behavior is not genetically scripted like ants are.

Are you seriously this dense? Animals of the same species fight for superiority over eachother all the time. For fuck's sake CT, it's still going on today! Why do think countries go to war over resources, land and other concerns? The groups have gotten bigger...that's it. Instead of tribal warfare, it's continental now. The difference with the tribe sized groups is that their needs are far easier to sate, and thus peaceful co-existence can be easier to achieve. Moral or not, no creature is going to pick fights for no reason.

I know you love burning Mr Scarecrow walper, but this sick burning of my arguments in egify(sp) really needs to end.

Am I talking about interactions within an entire species? No. I am talking about interactions within the context of a social group. Please try to keep up.

Also, tribal needs are not easier to sate, they are actually harder. take a look at the people living on small pacific islands. Canibalism and inter-tribal warfare is common, because they are directly competing for the same resources. larger groupes,ones with say, agriculture, still need to compete for land, and other resources that may not exist locally, like metals.

SHit man, pick up an introductory sociology or anthropology text sometime.

There is almost never a solid prohibition against killing people OUTSIDE your group. Inside however it is a big no no.

If it happens within the group, then the group will fracture. One person gets angry at another say, wants the other guys mate, and kills him. Well in a small group that will be felt by EVERYONE. That loss could literally put them all at risk of death via invasion of another tribe, or starvation. So they had to have a strong emotional reason not to kill eachother over things like that. To minimise murder. Not to stop it, that will enver happen, but to minimise it.

We do not have an instinctual aversion to killing another human. We simply dont have one. It does not exist. Such aversions have to be taught. SOrt of like stealing. You did not have a concept of ownership when you were little walper. If you did, you considered everything yours.

You had to be taught not to hit people, not to take things which did not belong to you (and that had to be defined as well)

If you think that sort of thing is instinctual, you need to put down the crack pipe.

By you're reasoning, lions should be extinct because they lack morality and living in groups makes them far more successful. They'll fight and kill within their groups, and establish pecking orders

How many times do I have to roll my eues and prove I am smarter tan you Walper? How many times?

Lions only have a basic set of emotions. Nowhere near as complex as humans. They have essentially contentment, fear and anger. There might be a few permutations of that, but they do not feel grief like humans do. They do not have the sort of anger which drives them toward vengenace. Dont simplify human behavior because it suits you. It only makes you look stupid. Lions do not generally kill within their own groups. Only if another male takes over the pride will cubs start to die. And that is to reduce competition and bring the female into estrus. Doesnt work for humans.

are quite successful overall...and don't have morality.

And their interactions are orders of magnitude more simple than ours.

Again, morality is subjective, remember? What's 'wrong' to one individual can be 'right' to another.

Some things maybe, but you are commiting a false dilemma to say that it is either ALL subjective or ALL absolute.

Also, you are engaging in sophistry again.

There are things which must be wrong in order for any society of any size to function. Once you get outside of those basic things (no murder, no theft etc) you get into the subjective cultural stuff.


Or is this to complex of an idea for you?

Here is an example.

Ug kills Thug, the reasons are irrelevant
Thugs mate is angry and sad, and wants revenge
Thug's wife gets her brother Nog to kill Ug
Ug's mate is bitter, and knows of the plot to kill Ug. After Nog kills Ug, she confronts Thug's mate whilen they are gathering berries and clubs her with a rock

By now, this group cannot function because it is has fractured over this group of murders. One side is angry with the other. Everyone dies when they are invaded by another tribe.

Now, in another group
Ug Kills Thug
Thug's mate is angry, but knows tat killing Ug is wrong. So she takes the matter to the Cheiftan, NORB. Norb decides that Ug should be punished. So he is banished from the tribe until the moon is full. maybe he will survive, maybe not. But, he has been punished, justice is done. And the tribe may continue to function.

Which either wins or loses in a confrontation, ensuring the victor is the superior speciem, earning the right to pass on genes. That's nature, CT. What part of this do you not understand? Just because the thought of one human killing another is morally wrong to us does not doom the human species to extinction. In case you haven't noticed, we've been doing it for all our existence, and are still doing it.

DOnt talk to me about nature. I know more about it than you do.

Humans are not robots walper. I know I know, this is distressing to you. but a human will not mate with someone who just killed someone they "love" humans are more complex than large cats. Or does this not sink in? Is your borg implant interfering with your ability to understand human emotions or something?

There is more to human interactions than just the two individuals involved+their offspring. We live in groups. It is detrimental to the group to kill one of its members, especially when the population is small. Remember, we are working on a group selection model. If one group member kills another, the entire tribe looses hunting potential. It looses a significant fraction of its ability to compete with neighbors. Are you really so stupid you cant understand that?

No, they don't. All they need is numbers and the willingness to bring down prey together. Intelligence is a useful attribute...morality is optional and pretty much useless in that situation.

have you tried hunting an elephant with spears and hand-axes walper?

All of the interactions needed for a hunt will take moral force. They are acquired through the same process, called Social learning.

If someone jumps the gun ad tosses the spear to early, fucking up the hunt, they will be browbeaten the same as if they had stolen a cookie from the cookie jar. Again, some specific morals are absolutely needed, some are cultural. They are still morals though.

Your problem is you're ignorantly complicating extremely simplistic concepts (like hunting, which everything from lions to ants can do)) in order to justify morality as a 'necessity' to survival.

me? ignorant? No. i am the one who actually understands how people function.

Nature has established, repeatedly, that humans possess all the attributes to survive. Intelligence, numbers, tools, etc. Morality is not one of them. Vast numbers of examples of nature's creatures plainly show morality is not necessary for survival. Appealing to the fact humans are smarter than other animals is a Red Herring...it does not justify morality as a necessity to human survival.

Yeah, it does. We have a completey different set of emotions than any other animal on this planet.

lets take a look at early H. Sapiens shall we.

We didnt have numbers. Our entire population can be traced back to a single population Walper. We have the mitochondrial DNA to prove it. This population migrated across the globe around IIRC 80 k years ago

Alright, lets see, tools. Our numbers were reduced to 1 population via climate change. No dice. Tools are nice, but they arent the be all end all.

Intelligence is both a blessing and a bane when trying to work in groups foolchild. On the one hand, it allows for the use of forethought and abstract concepts. on the other hand, it gives us something that no other animal has. Wants. We want things, we have individual ambition. Not just for purposes of passing on our genes, but also because it is emotionally fulfilling to us. If left to our own devices, we will lie, cheat decieve and murder for these ambitions, for these wants. All of these things will cause the death of a small population if only a few people are doing them

In order to mitigate this, we had to use our intelligence to come up with rules, then instill them in subsequent generations.

It goes beyond mere pecking orders. Shit man, pecking orders are established in humans on completly different criteria than other animals They are based not on physical strength in humans, but many times, on abstract concepts. The highest ranking member of any primitive society is not the warrior, it is not the hunter. It is the priest, who is the arbiter of morality in most cultures, and the one who talks to spirits/god(s). You say that morality is not needed for human survival. Well guess what Walper, human history says otherwise.

[Bratty]

Agreed and disagreed.

Agreed - we are a social species, with needs of morality to somehow continue and survive in social structure. Without such definitions the entire social structure would collapse and our species would indeed be in trouble from what we know it right now.

Basic Psychology and Anthropology, especially when you cross reference the two in global world cultures.

Disagreed - I do not know if we, most certainly, as a species, would end. It is possible indeed, that our fate would be the way of the dinasaurs. But also, it is possible of evolution and adaption as well. Would we grow claws or fins in order to evolve to fit our circumstances? The world does keep on spinning, but evolution keeps on keepin' on, as well. Since hindsight in these matters are always 20/20, and there is no way for us to test this theory, just taking a look at evolution in a general context.

Basic sum up of my thoughts -

We do have instincts, which are becoming lessened with time, as evolution works its wonders. You don't use it, you lose it..if you will.

But, we are currently a social species. Can someone survive by themselves? Sure. Would they go insane? Maybe. On the other side of things, maybe they would adapt. Or devil's advocate - what is considered insane in this culture or species is not necessarily or may not be insane in a different culture or species. Psychological Anthropology is filled with several classic case studies where there _is_ no answer, but study, due to not being able to understand the mental illness of another culture completely foreign to the one studying it - even with scientific detachment, due to ethnocentric mentalities. Would our species be in some serious trouble if we were no longer social? If somehow we were all quarentined away from other human contact the majority of our species, if not all, would die off. Whatever would remain would adapt and evolve and would be foreign and a new species to the one left behind, even if all the changes were "minor". You change any creatures' enviornment, physically, socially, etc. you are asking for a huge adaptation.

So morality is something, as our current species, which needs to be defined within a culture in order to establish some sort of cooperative living. Where the debate comes in would be ...what is moral :P Hence why I hate the whole good vs evil thing. Most of it is perspective and circumstantial.

My two cents, since there has been no shades of grey or alternative thoughts on the matter.

[frigidmagi]

That cause my thread has been hi-jacked turnned to a different subject then the one I put forth and has become a duel between two people instead of an group discussion. Color me annoyed.

[Bratty]

That cause my thread has been hi-jacked turnned to a different subject then the one I put forth and has become a duel between two people instead of an group discussion. Color me annoyed.

Hmmm ...what color is annoyed, darlin'? :P

Why don't you bring it back around for the lost?

[frigidmagi]

what color is annoyed, darlin'?

It differs from person to person but for me annoyed is red. Yes, red, blood red even. Strangely enough annoyed, irratated, angry and genocidial are all the same color for me...

I wanted a discussion on the nature of good and evil. Has in for the purpose of this thread good and evil were assumed to exist, has it's hard to debate the nature of concepts like good and evil if they don't exist.

I did not want or wish to debate their existence, but some borg wanking, vain, egomanic was to fucking lazy to make his own thread where he could wank to lion behavior until the cows came home. Nooo he had to come into mine.

[Bratty]

Either way you are asking for a heated one, so I applaud your ability to keep the blood red at bay as long as you have.

However, I won't touch that one with a ten foot pole, since my concepts and emphasis on good and evil are incredibly skewed, as far as going into in depth.

But I will answer in short definition for each for what, personally, it means to me, based off my experiences.

Good is hope and consideration, two things which I do not see enough of. "Good intentions" pave the road to hell. I firmly believe this, but believe also that good intentions go hand and hand with end results. One without the other is horrible. Good intentions without results breed hopeLESSness, and results without good intentions mean you have nothing you believe in. The key is to try and balance, so in that, I suppose I also respect balance as "good".

I see bad as a counter to good. I am not a huge yin/yang person, but do see the signifigance in balance. However, it is somewhat contradictory because too much balance means there is no balance ~L~. Too much tranquility is quite dull. Sometimes you have to shake things up from the very foundation to know what you are living for, what you are loving and sometimes dying for.

But in a very definitive "bad" definition - I think close mindedness is bad. It means there is no opportunity for one to test oneself or environment. Whatever theory one has, they are stuck with. Never thinking outside of the box or questioning why. If one cannot question their own viewpoints and the viewpoints around them, one is doomed to being a lesser being ;).

Better? :P

[frigidmagi]

Yes.

[Josh]

At the simplest level, I see good as altruistic selfishness, and evil as irrational selfishness, i.e., utter lack of consideration.

They aren't concrete constructs, on that I agree with Walper. But as abstracts, I believe in them.

[Josh]

Brawl split to Down Below.

[Cynical Cat]

Shall we return to the original subject matter? What are good and evil? If one wishes to debate their existence, another thread can be started. For the purposes of this thread, they exist.

[Robert Walper]

Shall we return to the original subject matter? What are good and evil?

I guess one of the things we need to establish is what are the criteria for defining good and evil? Individual rights? Individual freedom? The best survival methods for society? What system creates the best order for people?

[Bratty]

Shall we return to the original subject matter? What are good and evil?

I guess one of the things we need to establish is what are the criteria for defining good and evil? Individual rights? Individual freedom? The best survival methods for society? What system creates the best order for people?

The point, I believe, is what is good and evil in a subjective context...

Rather...what are good and evil to you...

See above posts by myself and Josh.