Nature of Good and Evil.

[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?

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.

Ah, well in that case I'm actually unable to define either since I don't subscribe to those specific terms. *shrugs*

[The Necrontyr Messenger]

What CT seems to have been making a hamfisted attempt at saying throughout this thread, is that there is more to the root of good and evil than "it just is" - that the survival of humanity through a moral framework that allows the building of stable communities is good, and thus must be striven for.

Unfortunately, this is also a case of "it just is" with no inherent 'rightness or wrongness.' Unlike, say, 2*2=4, there is no way to test morals. They are always derived from a gut instinct of "it just is" and worked back from there. The "it just is" that most people here will subscribe to is that people should live happy lives, or something.

Let me work an example of what happens when you set a different value for "it just is."

"It just is good that Ba'al is worshipped in the time honoured way described by Rome/Biblical sources."

Now, with that change, it becomes 'good' to burn one's babies as a ritual sacrifice. It becomes good for famine to strike the land and kill thousands as long as it increases the worship of Ba'al. It is good to burn those who don't worship Ba'al until they do...

And that's how fundamentalist morality works. They have a different dominant "it just is" from atheists. "It just is" good that God is praised and honoured. It is evil if one tries to point out the flaws in their thinking, and it just is evil to be gay, because 'god doesn't like that.'

The thing is, your beliefs, and mine, are no more right or wrong than theirs. They cannot be tested, or disproven, because ultimately, it's a subjective judgement on what you think "just is" good or evil. I could define my own decision on what is good, and what is evil, but I'd rather just note that there's no way to disprove an assessment of good or evil, as they are subjective constructs.

[Comrade Tortoise]

methinks Necron that you have misread me slightly, but you got the gist of it.

From an evolutionary standpoint, there are specific moral sets which are good. And others that are bad, this can be tested under the right circumstances. A community of Ba'al worshipers will not survive, all things being equal, when they come up against a community of say, jews, in competition.

From an evolutionary, rather than strictly philosophical standpoint, we CAN come to an objective determination of what is right and wrong. and this determination, which is not conciously thought of by most people, will then be socialized into the population in the form of "it just is" (because most peopole never actually think about it) then people will begin rationalizing it (God did it, or I have inherent rights)

[The Necrontyr Messenger]

A community of Ba'al worshipers will not survive, all things being equal, when they come up against a community of say, jews, in competition.

This is of course, untrue, as the former were {if one believes the propaganda} also far more agressive, and polygamous, which most jewish societies are, which gives them a severe advantage in terms of reproductive randomisation, compared with jews in the past three thousand years or so.

From an evolutionary, rather than strictly philosophical standpoint, we CAN come to an objective determination of what is right and wrong

Evolutionary benefit is nothing like morality. It is sound practice to sterilise or kill the disabled, refuse to allow homosexuals access to medicine or other forms of support (NB Evolution and social development are not the same thing. You don't contribute directly to evolution until you're making babies) and raid the neighboring tribes/nations/whatever for sex-slaves to impregnate. Generally (Bible aside) it is not considered moral to do so, though. Evolution has jack to do with good and evil, when it comes down to it. Despite the best efforts of the Fundamentalist lobby to characterise it otherwise, Evolution does not try and usurp the role of religion, and I really wouldn't want anyone to try doing so.

Taking your initial idea, that there are absolute truths to be derived from the requirements of a human society, there are several counterpoints:

1. How would this affect another species? Say, a species of humanlike creatures where the males are outnumbered 900% by females. Obviously, this changes whether or not it is an 'absolute truth' that small family units are beneficial. What if, to take a sci-fi example, you're talking about goa'uld parasites, which have the ability to develop full mental faculties without communication from the parents? What is good for that society (leaving aside its parasitic nature) is radically different from what is good for ours. An absolute truth must always apply for all parameters; such as; it is always good for self-aware creatures to develop to maturity with communication with their own species.
   
   Let's get a little more challenging: Say you have a species of self-aware life forms that evolved to fill a niche that is essentially acting as helpers to the top predator, like rudderfish or other shark-followers. Would it be a 'good thing' for them to have the same freedoms as humans, even though such freedoms would be highly mentally damaging, wheras a state of being under something's heel is far more conducive to 'general well-being'
   
   You could, with some work, come up with an example to find a hypothetical species of self-aware life forms that would find the imposition of a system derived of an 'absolute truth' for 'good' - especially one derived from the capriciously derived ideal of function.
2. One must still decide what is good. If it is good that the species survives rather than all joining a gigantic suicide cult, why is this so? It may be evolutionarily beneficial not to, but this does not equate to moral good.

[Comrade Tortoise]

1. How would this affect another species? Say, a species of humanlike creatures where the males are outnumbered 900% by females. Obviously, this changes whether or not it is an 'absolute truth' that small family units are beneficial. What if, to take a sci-fi example, you're talking about goa'uld parasites, which have the ability to develop full mental faculties without communication from the parents? What is good for that society (leaving aside its parasitic nature) is radically different from what is good for ours. An absolute truth must always apply for all parameters; such as; it is always good for self-aware creatures to develop to maturity with communication with their own species.

ANd this is supposed to prove what? The goa'uld example falls flat on its face because my arguments work only for people. Partially because as far as we know, humans are the only "intelligent" species that we know of. The selective pressures on a parasite will be amazingly different from those on a human. So they are universal truths with humans only.

Also, the number of such "universal human morals" is small compared to the number of morals in existence. Our prohibitions on polygamy for example, are culturally derived. However prohibitions against murder are beneficial regardless of what human civilization one lives in. It is therefore universal, and not directly derived from culture.

Let's get a little more challenging: Say you have a species of self-aware life forms that evolved to fill a niche that is essentially acting as helpers to the top predator, like rudderfish or other shark-followers. Would it be a 'good thing' for them to have the same freedoms as humans, even though such freedoms would be highly mentally damaging, wheras a state of being under something's heel is far more conducive to 'general well-being'

And they are a non-issue because my argument refers specifically to humans. Thanks for playing

I will posit a question for you Necron. What is the purpose of morality? There has to be one. Even oif all morals are subjective and every last one is culturally based, there has to be a functional reason or them.

[The Necrontyr Messenger]

ANd this is supposed to prove what? The goa'uld example falls flat on its face because my arguments work only for people. Partially because as far as we know, humans are the only "intelligent" species that we know of. The selective pressures on a parasite will be amazingly different from those on a human. So they are universal truths with humans only.

So your effort to construct a universal morality fails as you must confine it to interacting with humans. It fails to be universal if it cannot stand up to any and all hypothetical cases.

Also, the number of such "universal human morals" is small compared to the number of morals in existence. Our prohibitions on polygamy for example, are culturally derived. However prohibitions against murder are beneficial regardless of what human civilization one lives in. It is therefore universal, and not directly derived from culture.

Obviously, of course, this is moving the goalposts but I will point out that murder over limited resources is in fact, not harmful to the 'evolutionary devlopment' of the species. Particularly if you murder the oldest first.

And they are a non-issue because my argument refers specifically to humans. Thanks for playing

Cough

I would argue thqat there are universal moral truths.

You fail! As for 'universal human morality' well, I think you'll find that societies have flagrantly violated many of these so called universal laws without collapsing into anarchy - unless your human morality is so weak and inclusive to let the behaviour of Imperial Rome and other assorted bastards qualify as moral.

What's more, you did not respond to point two. What is beneficial to the development of the species, and what is good are absolutely not the same thing in most people's opinions.

I will posit a question for you Necron. What is the purpose of morality? There has to be one. Even oif all morals are subjective and every last one is culturally based, there has to be a functional reason or them.

The geneal purpouse of morality is to give persons guidance on the correct decisions to make in life. That's what it does (other than being debated) and thus that's what it's for.

[Robert Walper]

Cough

I would argue thqat there are universal moral truths.

You fail! As for 'universal human morality' well, I think you'll find that societies have flagrantly violated many of these so called universal laws without collapsing into anarchy - unless your human morality is so weak and inclusive to let the behaviour of Imperial Rome and other assorted bastards qualify as moral.

I would point to Nazi Germany as a more recent example. I'd hardly call that particular society moral (death camps and such for their own citizens who's only difference is heritage and/or beliefs), yet they thrived and grew strong enough that it took multiple other countries to beat them down.

Morality is not necessary for order and thriving systems. Nature alone proves that.

[Comrade Tortoise]

So your effort to construct a universal morality fails as you must confine it to interacting with humans. It fails to be universal if it cannot stand up to any and all hypothetical cases.

I have been confining my arguemtns to humans this entire damn time Necron. Prove that say, aliens axist, then we can discuss whether or not so called "absolute moral truths" which should be evident in this thread, apply strictly to the known case, humans, exist for non-human intelligence. Until that time, I suggest you stop trying to incinerate that strawman.

Obviously, of course, this is moving the goalposts but I will point out that murder over limited resources is in fact, not harmful to the 'evolutionary devlopment' of the species. Particularly if you murder the oldest first.

I would argue that murdering your elderly does indeed harm the group. Humans are not machines, there are emotional attachments involved that murder does not cause to diappear. From the point of view of group stability, it is bad to kill off the elderly intentionally, especially because they provide experience to the younger generations.

One has to take into account which rule is MORE beneficial. A general rule against murder is more beneficial than killing off the elderly, if one takes everything into account, rather than deal strictly in resource use.

To use an example. Elephants do not kill their elderly. Even when they are starting to starve due to loss of their teeth they still lead the heard because they know where to find food and water better than the rest of them do.

You fail! As for 'universal human morality' well, I think you'll find that societies have flagrantly violated many of these so called universal laws without collapsing into anarchy - unless your human morality is so weak and inclusive to let the behaviour of Imperial Rome and other assorted bastards qualify as moral.

Did you notice that I have been arguing from a position of group stability? Lets take Nazi Germany and Imperial Rome. Neither of them killed indiscriminantly. They merely defined their social groups.

I have the thoughts in my head, now we get to the point of articulating them.

Murder has always been defined as killing within ones own group. For example, killing your uncle=not ok. Killing someone in a competing tribe-ok. Now, What the Romans did, is conquer those competing groups. And butcher them. This was viewed as correct by them, because those people were 'them" not "us"Human society has ALWAYS functioned like this. Hell, pretty much every social animal I can think of functions like this, with the exception of SOME social cetaceans and sometimes wolfpacks (it is a bit of a coin toss with them)

We define things differently. The entire world is our "group" (if we live in a western nation) from our point of view, things that the nazis and romans did are repugnant because of our broader application of a moral precept that all humans share.

I would also point out that eventually, those societies collapsed.
The nazis pissed everyone else off, and they joined forced to destroy them.

While the romans people became complascent, and the government weakened from within. One could argue that at least some of that was due to the instability caused by roman politics.

2. One must still decide what is good. If it is good that the species survives rather than all joining a gigantic suicide cult, why is this so? It may be evolutionarily beneficial not to, but this does not equate to moral good.

Why doesnt it? See below for a more coherent response as to why I would view it as such

The geneal purpouse of morality is to give persons guidance on the correct decisions to make in life.

You misunderstand. What MAKES them the correct decisions? You failed to note the last part of the question. What iks their functional REASON why we need to make "correct" decisions. How can morality be completely divorced from reality and functional concerns such as whether the decision made is beneficial to at least one individual?

[The Necrontyr Messenger]

For your information, non-human intelligences don't have to be 'aliens' you can get them quite happily by re-running evolution on this planet and having a different species from picaia be the ancestor of all vertebrates, for example. But enough of that

What's more, you ignore the point by shill-ly shouting strawman and hoping that playing name-a-fallacy will make it all better. Your universal moral truths are not universal. They do not apply to everything, or even every situation a human may find itself in. Name me an ethical guideline for the conduct of human life (don't kill, for example) that can be derived from these so-called universal truths, and I will show you a scenario where most people, my - and probably your - self included, would agree that the moral thing to do is to violate that rule.

You misunderstand. What MAKES them the correct decisions?

As I have said, morals are inherently subjective, and almost all 'philosophical reasoning' is, at its core, circular.

You failed to note the last part of the question. What iks their functional REASON why we need to make "correct" decisions. How can morality be completely divorced from reality and functional concerns such as whether the decision made is beneficial to at least one individual?

...

Because that's what morality is. What you're calling morality has nothing to do with what morality actually is:

mo·ral·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "Morality" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

----

Morality

n 1: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct [ant: immorality] 2: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: ethical motive, ethics, morals]

A pure survival strategy is not moral it is amoral, because it is simply a means to a concrete end, and does not work towards any philosophical goal (such as good) but to a testable one - success. Ants are far more successful, on most objectively testable levels (be it total numbers, total mass, scope of inhabitation, age of species, you name is) than humans, but they do not concern themselves with virtuous conduct, or good, they just do whatever they need to, to whatever they wish to, in order to accomplish their goals.

Your 'argument' on 'what is good and evil' is to say, 'well, actually, we won't define these as moral goods, or moral evils, but will in fact, just rewrite the definition of moral 'good' in order to make it mean the same as objective success. There are any number of reasons why this is not what the majority of people accept as morality - as well as being objectively the wrong use of the term.

Further, with reference to elephants, elephants generally die before they become useless as information providers - they've yet to invent dentures, and would otherwise die in the wild due to immobility - due to senility, unlike humans. Further, you claim that humans are not machines, and so this kind of reasoning should not apply to them because of emotional attachments - well, neither are elephants, which, as social animals with large brain capacity, one would have no reason to suspect lack emotions analogous to those of humans. A better example of murder of those unable to contribute to society for the benefit of the whole (by resource conservation) - in a less complex species, thus one without those complex emotional complications to the naturally moral behaviour you espouse - would be ants.

Ants routinely practice the disassembly of worker ants which survive long enough to become infirm (not all that common, as you doubtless know, worker ants has various work-related hazards, children with magnifying glasses included) as well as those males in a nest with a mated queen.

[Comrade Tortoise]

For your information, non-human intelligences don't have to be 'aliens' you can get them quite happily by re-running evolution on this planet and having a different species from picaia be the ancestor of all vertebrates, for example. But enough of that

I am well aware of that litle factoid. But it is completely irrelevant, so I would recommend not daneling that tasty red herring. As much as I like herring

As I have said, morals are inherently subjective, and almost all 'philosophical reasoning' is, at its core, circular.

And once again, the point goes sailing over your head.

of course philosophy is, in the end, circular. But that is not the issue now is it. If you cared to understand what I write instead of break your nose with your own reflexes you might understand what I am getting at. I will explain it in simple terms.

A pure survival strategy is not moral it is amoral, because it is simply a means to a concrete end, and does not work towards any philosophical goal (such as good) but to a testable one - success.

Well DUH. Got any more gems for us? The survival stategy has to be INSTILLED somehow. How do you think that is done. Through morality, through philosophy. We devise notions of what is good, and what is moral, based on that survival strategy. "It is bad to murder(different from kill) .. because...it just is." We rationalize such socially ingrained notions with circular moral and ethical sysems which reinforce them. Such as utilitarianism. But ultimatly, they all lead back to the same basic sets of rules.

If you look at them, actually look at them, rather than automatically assume that they are completely divorced from objectie reality, you will note that each and every ethical system to ever exist in the history of mankind, makes an attempt to create a functional, stable human society. The rules contained in them are not arbitrary. They exist for a reason.

Hell, you want a cheap and easy example, Look at the book of Leviticus. because we dont need to worry about what is in it, we think of a good number of the laws as barbaric. But if you place most of them in context of the time and civilization in which they arose, you will note that many of the rules make sense.

No Pork: Pork was gengerous back then. It contained parasites and the like, which were difficult to get rid of. In addition, raising pigs, due to their size,aggressive natures, and dietary requirments was difficult.

No homosexuality: It made sense back then. The jews at that time depended on every male to produce cbhildren to continue to the next generation. They lived in dangerous times and they found it necessary to legistlate away non-breeding males.

No shellfish: THis should be a no-brainer. SHellfish can be deadly if not prepared correctly, and it was hard to do so back then.

The list goes on.

The point is that each ethical system is adaptive. Each one defines virtue in such a way that it is compatable with an overall survival strategy.

it just so happens that some of those ruoes are always adaptive to humans. Meaning that they are "universal" moral truths. They are so fundamental to a hukman society that said human societies do not last particularly long without them.

Talking of ants and the like, as a way of disproving this, is irrelevant, because they evolved under wildly different selective pressures, and operate under a different set of parameters, not the least being that they have a nervous system which are not capable of any but the most very very basic of emotions, so basic they arent exactly analogues to human ones.

I would also point out that human elderly did not live to become infirm or senile either, not even close to it actually.

What's more, you ignore the point by shill-ly shouting strawman and hoping that playing name-a-fallacy will make it all better. Your universal moral truths are not universal. They do not apply to everything, or even every situation a human may find itself in. Name me an ethical guideline for the conduct of human life (don't kill, for example) that can be derived from these so-called universal truths, and I will show you a scenario where most people, my - and probably your - self included, would agree that the moral thing to do is to violate that rule.

I would handily conceede that their are situations where murder can be good. Bu that is why Moral, and Good are seperate concepts.

The moral is the rule. The good, as I have stated IIRC on the first page, is the result. SOmetimes it is possible for an immoral act, to have a good result. And vice versa. They are seperate concepts, that just happen to overlap more than 90% of the time. However the truth of the rule does not change.

Hypothetical Example: Killing person X is an immoral act. However Person X just so happens to me Mugabe and I am a white man in Zimbabwe. Therefore, the result of that assassination is good providing his successor is not worse. The result is The Good, but the act was Immoral.

Another opposite example: Giving money to a pan-handler at christmas time is a moral act. It is in line with the rules our society has developed as a survival strategy. However, said Pan-handler uses that money to buy Smack. So my giving him money to support the drug trade is not The Good, it is bad. but the act of giving money was itself moral.

[The Necrontyr Messenger]

The point is that each ethical system is adaptive. Each one defines virtue in such a way that it is compatable with an overall survival strategy.

it just so happens that some of those ruoes are always adaptive to humans. Meaning that they are "universal" moral truths. They are so fundamental to a hukman society that said human societies do not last particularly long without them.

Whoever these hukmen are, you ignore the fact that through the majority of history, many societies have practiced grand scale murder and violation of morality that your posts suggest that you hold. Fuedal Japan lasted for thousands of years, despite having such abuses of power as Samurai testing their blades on the necks of peasants. In Imperial China, it was acceptable (though not universally practiced, I may in fact be wrong on this, it may be a fairly isolated matter) for Emperors to be buried with thousands of courtesans, and this society holds, as I recall, the record for any human society's endurance. The Aztecs lasted for hundreds upon hundreds of years, and, as well as sacrificing prisoners (though given the way flower {flowery} wars worked, you may as well call them kidnapees) to their gods, indulged in sacrificial destruction of their own people (who were, if their propaganda is to be believed, willing). Ancient Rome again, survived as the pre-eminent regional power for centuries with what seems to us to be gross injustice and barbarity, and longer with simple cruelty to its slaves. Europe lasted for a long time with Fuedalism, the gross mistreatment of the lower classes of society.

So, what precisely are these truths you harp about? If not the destruction of innocent members of your society?

Talking of ants and the like, as a way of disproving this, is irrelevant, because they evolved under wildly different selective pressures,

But of course, there are identical selective pressures on elephants and humans.

I would also point out that human elderly did not live to become infirm or senile either, not even close to it actually.

I'm glad I was talking about modern society when mentioning the objective uselessness of the elderly, then.

Bu that is why Moral, and Good are seperate concepts.

Err. No. Moral behaviour is generally considered the pursuit of a value defined as good. They are most certainly not seperate concepts.

The result is The Good, but the act was Immoral.

Now you say something interesting. How do you think an action that brings about good can be immoral? The morality of an act must take into account its context. Morality is not ethics (a general system of rules) it is about the assessment of the good of actions.

In general, the act of killing someone is immoral. The act of killing an actor who furthers 'evil' is not.

Another opposite example: Giving money to a pan-handler at christmas time is a moral act. It is in line with the rules our society has developed as a survival strategy. However, said Pan-handler uses that money to buy Smack. So my giving him money to support the drug trade is not The Good, it is bad. but the act of giving money was itself moral.

Why is it good? It benefits society? How is this an absolute truth? Societies based around eliteism and the exploitation of the unfortunate can manage just fine when violating this 'universal' truth.

And again, these things are not 'universal truths' even among humans. There are examples of societies violating pratically every rule you can think of and thriving (infanticide for example, was quite popular in Rome). What's more, you are actually trying to say that things that are objectively beneficial are likely to be considered moral. That is a long way from being a universal moral standard.

[Robert Walper]

I have yet to see a single example of any established 'universal' moral truth.

For example, killing the elderly can be either good or bad depending on how you look at it. Bad; losing the elderly's experiences and knowledge which can better increases the group's ability to survive. Good; one less mouth to feed that cannot feed itself, freeing up more food for the young and healthy that better increases the group's ability to survive.

Same with infanticide. Right off the bat this sounds irrefuteably bad, yet it could serve the purpose of removing unhealthy specimens from the gene pool. Which is good for the group as a whole as it does not weigh them down with more and more resources and efforts being taxed to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Whoever these hukmen are, you ignore the fact that through the majority of history, many societies have practiced grand scale murder and violation of morality that your posts suggest that you hold. Fuedal Japan lasted for thousands of years, despite having such abuses of power as Samurai testing their blades on the necks of peasants. In Imperial China, it was acceptable (though not universally practiced, I may in fact be wrong on this, it may be a fairly isolated matter) for Emperors to be buried with thousands of courtesans, and this society holds, as I recall, the record for any human society's endurance. The Aztecs lasted for hundreds upon hundreds of years, and, as well as sacrificing prisoners (though given the way flower {flowery} wars worked, you may as well call them kidnapees) to their gods, indulged in sacrificial destruction of their own people (who were, if their propaganda is to be believed, willing). Ancient Rome again, survived as the pre-eminent regional power for centuries with what seems to us to be gross injustice and barbarity, and longer with simple cruelty to its slaves. Europe lasted for a long time with Fuedalism, the gross mistreatment of the lower classes of society.

Here is the thing though. The universal moral truth is that one does not murder within your group. This can be applied as broadly or narrowly as any given culture wants. but the rule is still there. Samurai killed peasants, and this was considered at least "not bad" because they were in a different class of people. Not in the Samurai's group.

I am not familiar enough with china to really comment. I will have to get back to you.

As for the Aztecs... they were engaged in "war" with those people. As far as the Aztec were concerned, it was not considered murder. but thy punished murder within their own society. Same with the human sacrifice of volunteers. Not considered murder at all. Assisted suicide?

With gross injustice and barbarity on the part of rome, you will not that ther government and society decayed rather nastily after tha assassinations and the like really got started. But most of their cruelty was n ot felt against roman citiens, but rather conquered people. They actually did punish murder within their own. Unless you were becoming emperor... but eventually that sort of political structure leads to collapse...

Feudalism... Well there is a reason that failed as well. Of course, they punished murder as well. The society itself was just shitty. They violated their own moral codes when they slaughtered peasants. And there is a reason why the feudal system eventually weakened and died out.

But of course, there are identical selective pressures on elephants and humans.

I'll give you that

I'm glad I was talking about modern society when mentioning the objective uselessness of the elderly, then.

it is true. From a resource conservation point of view, killing the elderly was irrelevant because of the high mortality rate. It was in fact beneficial to keep the elderly alive so that their experience could be used. So once they were able to survive...

Err. No. Moral behaviour is generally considered the pursuit of a value defined as good. They are most certainly not seperate concepts.

Note the word "persuit" Morals are not The Good. They are an attempt at Achieving The Good.

Imagine a graph. The Good makes up a curve on that graph. The good represents, for me at least, maximum societal functioning. Now, we dont know every point on this graph, but we know a few of them. So we do our best to derive the equation for that curve. This equation being a moral/ethical system (the two are the same.. if you want to get into a semantic argument... I suppose we could do that as well).

Now, we dont know how well the equation we derive fits that curve. So yes, the curve and the equation are different.

In general, the act of killing someone is immoral. The act of killing an actor who furthers 'evil' is not.

I would disagree. The act, as describe the the "equation" previoysly mentioned, does not fit. However, it does fit the curve for The Good (hypothetically speaking)

Now, there has to be a Good. There MUST be a way to maximize societal functioning.

Why is it good? It benefits society? How is this an absolute truth? Societies based around eliteism and the exploitation of the unfortunate can manage just fine when violating this 'universal' truth.

Oh, they can manage. But they arent maximized. The good is maximized societal functioning.

And again, these things are not 'universal truths' even among humans. There are examples of societies violating pratically every rule you can think of and thriving (infanticide for example, was quite popular in Rome). What's more, you are actually trying to say that things that are objectively beneficial are likely to be considered moral. That is a long way from being a universal moral standard.

If you would give me until a bit after this post to colate my thoughts on this. My brain is fried from first round of exams

[The Necron@Uni]

As for the Aztecs... they were engaged in "war" with those people. As far as the Aztec were concerned, it was not considered murder. but thy punished murder within their own society. Same with the human sacrifice of volunteers. Not considered murder at all. Assisted suicide?

Not always true. Some gods had volunteers. The worshippers of others went out, drugged some sod, and then ripped his heart out at dawn.

With gross injustice and barbarity on the part of rome, you will not that ther government and society decayed rather nastily after tha assassinations and the like really got started.

Only when you consider the Republic by default somehow better than what followed. Some of the Emperors, Vespasian, for example, were far better at running the empire than the senate ever was.

But most of their cruelty was n ot felt against roman citiens,

People sold themselves into slavery. The Romans considered the slaves the lowest class of their own society, not simple prisoners. This is getting rediculous. Eventually you're going to start saying 'people don't consider it morally acceptable murder within their own family group' (which of course, is untrue, see for example, widow burning and honour killing) by simply reducing the scale to 'the Samurai class' and then down to smaller units of organisation. Which ignores the practice of infanticide by Roman parents previously raised as an example, which is surely about the closest bond you can get.

Unless you were becoming emperor... but eventually that sort of political structure leads to collapse...

Why? The vast majority of human history has been dominated by autocracies. To assume that 'democracy' will last longer is totally unsupported by evidence.

Feudalism... Well there is a reason that failed as well. Of course, they punished murder as well.
[/quote]How did it fail? It lasted for over a millennium in some places, and still exists quite happily in some places, either thinly vieled or not at all disguised in one (small) case.

I would disagree. The act, as describe the the "equation" previoysly mentioned, does not fit. However, it does fit the curve for The Good (hypothetically speaking)

Now, there has to be a Good. There MUST be a way to maximize societal functioning.

Good is more than 'maximal efficiency of society' in most people's reckoning. A communist society nuking all opponents and using ethnically-targetted plagues (just suspend your disbelief and assume they're developed) against all groups outside one's own is not what most people would consider good, but without external pressure, an autocracy of that form can last for a very long time, with a maximum of efficient functioning.

Oh, they can manage. But they arent maximized. The good is maximized societal functioning.

So, a total authoritarian society, where everything functions like clockwork, and is run with computerised efficiency in production and management, with people operating like worker ants, is preferable to modern Western society, then? It is, after all, maximised societal functioning by any objective yardstick.

[Robert Walper]

On the infanticide example, here's a useful link to back the arguement:

Wiki - Infanticide

Of particular note:

Infanticide in other species
Other species, beside from homo sapiens, commit infanticide. One, perhaps surprising, example is the bottlenose dolphin, which has been reported to kill its young through impact injuries [2].

[Narsil]

Other species, beside from homo sapiens, commit infanticide. One, perhaps surprising, example is the bottlenose dolphin, which has been reported to kill its young through impact injuries [2].

That's probably by accident, child-rearing is often made extremely hard when you don't have opposable thumbs.

[Robert Walper]

Other species, beside from homo sapiens, commit infanticide. One, perhaps surprising, example is the bottlenose dolphin, which has been reported to kill its young through impact injuries [2].

That's probably by accident, child-rearing is often made extremely hard when you don't have opposable thumbs.

I'd suggest you read here.

And WTF does opposable thumbs have to do with child rearing? The majority of species on Earth doesn't have them and raise their young just fine.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Good is more than 'maximal efficiency of society' in most people's reckoning. A communist society nuking all opponents and using ethnically-targetted plagues (just suspend your disbelief and assume they're developed) against all groups outside one's own is not what most people would consider good, but without external pressure, an autocracy of that form can last for a very long time, with a maximum of efficient functioning.

Um... that wouldnt work. It goes against human nature on such a fundamental level that it WOULDNT be that efficient.

Also, I did not say efficiency anywhere, I said maximal societal functioning. WHich is a bit different. Lets take this communistic system where everyone runs like clockwork. The governent will survive, but the ability of it to provide for its population is shot. In the example you provide, there is no external trade, so food will be more than a little bit tight. It will be the equal sharing of misery, qnd the GDP will probably not be the same/as high, or of as high quality, as the opponents they just nuked.

So, a total authoritarian society, where everything functions like clockwork, and is run with computerised efficiency in production and management, with people operating like worker ants, is preferable to modern Western society, then? It is, after all, maximised societal functioning by any objective yardstick.

Well for one, humans will not function like that. Plain and simple. Look at the former soviet union, or the eastern block countries for examples. If they do function like that, i9t will not be on a level which is maximized in the least. People work harder when they are rewarded for it, and enjoy doing their jobs. They produce better stuff if they take pride in thier work, and they are happier (and thus, probably more productive) if they have a measure of freedom and enjoyment in their lives.

Secondly. let me define what I mean by maximal societal functioning before you manage to twqist what I say around again, rather than actually read what I say and think of the meaning wihich ought to be obvious to anyone with an IQ over 60

Maximal Societal Functioning=The Good= A condiditon in which Suffering is minimized, Productivity is maximized, Wans can be fullfilled, and there is Justice. etc etc so on and so forth. What we classically we classically try to do with the application of ethical systems, are all met. Understand now? Or doI have to say it in some other language?

People sold themselves into slavery. The Romans considered the slaves the lowest class of their own society, not simple prisoners. This is getting rediculous. Eventually you're going to start saying 'people don't consider it morally acceptable murder within their own family group' (which of course, is untrue, see for example, widow burning and honour killing) by simply reducing the scale to 'the Samurai class' and then down to smaller units of organisation. Which ignores the practice of infanticide by Roman parents previously raised as an example, which is surely about the closest bond you can get.

OK, I will conceede that

That's probably by accident, child-rearing is often made extremely hard when you don't have opposable thumbs.

Nooo. Dolphins do in fact do it

[The Necrontyr Messenger]

Also, I did not say efficiency anywhere, I said maximal societal functioning. WHich is a bit different. Lets take this communistic system where everyone runs like clockwork. The governent will survive, but the ability of it to provide for its population is shot. In the example you provide, there is no external trade, so food will be more than a little bit tight. It will be the equal sharing of misery, qnd the GDP will probably not be the same/as high, or of as high quality, as the opponents they just nuked.

If it runs like clockwork, this means it actually operates without corruption, which by necessity means that it can feed everyone just as well as capitalist rivals. Call it a hypercorparation run by skynet if you must. It's a hypothetical example. If a government can coerce people into functioning like ants, and punish those who fail perfectly, you would consider it moral? Yes or no?

Well for one, humans will not function like that. Plain and simple.

Serfs worked rediculous hours because of the fear of persecution just fine.

Look at the former soviet union, or the eastern block countries for examples. If they do function like that, i9t will not be on a level which is maximized in the least.

This is in no small part, because the socialist governments don't work as advertised - this hypothetical communtopia does so - and because of shite geography (Russia only once had a food surplus in its entire history) - The Clockwork State of Communtopia hasn't got that problem.

Secondly. let me define what I mean by maximal societal functioning before you manage to twqist what I say around again, rather than actually read what I say and think of the meaning wihich ought to be obvious to anyone with an IQ over 60

Maximal Societal Functioning=The Good= A condiditon in which Suffering is minimized, Productivity is maximized, Wans can be fullfilled, and there is Justice. etc etc so on and so forth. What we classically we classically try to do with the application of ethical systems, are all met. Understand now? Or doI have to say it in some other language?

It would help if you'd actually fucking said this numbskull, rather than harping on about 'maximum societal functioning' - an obstructive term you pulled out of your ass to make yourself look clever.

And how do you rank these priorities? And why the hell is productivity even in consideration? If wants can be fulfilled, you have sufficient productivity, no? (Obviously, the degree to which wants can be fulfilled is linked directly to producivity) It's a reduntant term which is clouding your judgement and making you sound like a Technocrat - not a good thing in my book.

And you have yet to produce an example of such an integral human truth (Universal is a bit ambitious, as that'd cover every conceivable scenario, so I've renamed it for you :P ) that no human society can function without. Why don't we cut the rest, and go straight to you naming these integral truths that you claim exist? Surely you must have an idea of what they are, no?