Knowledge of Good and Evil

[juantoo3]

Knowledge of Good and Evil​

Kindest Regards, all!

Some long timers here know about a thread begun quite some time ago about the development of morality in an evolutionary context. I am pleased that thread grew to be as long as it has, but at this point I think the core message has gotten overlooked. Not to mention, being so long, I guess it must seem quite intimidating to newcomers.

Luna suggested beginning a new thread to start over. I wish to thank her for the name in the title.

I am a little pressed for time (so what else is new?), so I am taking the beginning question and a few comments from the first posts to begin over. As before, the question remains open, and all comers are invited to join in.

What place does morality hold within the context of evolutionary theory?

Perhaps I would do well to explain somewhat. I recently completed Stephen J. Gould's book "Rocks of Ages" in which he describes what he calls "Non Overlapping Magisteria." This he describes as the respectful separation of science and religion, implying that the two attempt to answer completely different aspects of a given puzzle. In effect, science cannot address matters of faith, and religion cannot address matters of fact.

Given some posts I have seen from others elsewhere here, sometimes in association with nature oriented religions, I am puzzled. Can morality be the result of natural evolution? Or, as Gould implies, is this a matter of human psycho-social development that cannot be adequately addressed by scientific scholarship? Can nature based religions rightfully claim scientific basis for their moralities? Or should the whole subject of moral development be held aside, restricted to the "magisteria" of religion?

In terms of Sociobiology there may perhaps be an argument to be made that human morality itself is a direct development from the rules of interaction that govern social apes.

Of course, some animals eat their young. Some animals make babies and the father either leaves the mother, or both leave their babies to fend for themselves. Some male animals mate with as many females as they can get away with. The list continues...can these things be acceptable to humans as examples of morality?

I accept this premise, but I question nature as a source. Perhaps humans are better left to define morality from other human examples? Or perhaps morality, at least as defined by and for humans, is something that distinguishes us from animals?

It is really difficult to say with any certainty just exactly where religion did come from…Even in considering the cave paintings at Lascaux and other places, the "religious" aspects are educated guesses by the researchers, they simply have no real way of knowing. It is a fair guess to say that religion and morality came out of nature, but we have no way to show that as fact. Or at least, I haven't seen anything.

… each religion does have basically good principles of morality. I just wonder where this morality comes from...

Each religion has its leaders or founders (Moise, Jesus, Muhammad, Lao Zi, Confucius, Zoroaster, etc). They were all very wise people. They were also philosophers and reformers. Maybe they didn't like the behaviour of people around them, so giving moral rules was the best solution to teach them to behave otherwise.

Yes, I agree. Philosophy (religious or otherwise) I would think to be distinct from socio-biology. Yet not inseparable. Perhaps some religious philosophers (here I am thinking of the foundation of Hinduism) looked to nature as a source, but realized many things in nature were not suitable to human society. At some point somebody must have realized that "animal morality" was not beneficial for the advancement of human society, and began teaching morality apart from nature. Just a thought...

The nature has its means to perform selection.

Yes, but so much of human society and morality is to circumvent natural selection. In the wild, a handicapped child would likely die. In modern society, even children born very pre-mature are saved alive, and society frowns on allowing handicapped individuals to wither and die. It still happens, but it is not encouraged as a social norm, even though it would be very much in accord with nature.

Because a moral code exists, does not mean that each and every individual follows that code strictly. Especially since so many moral codes seem to be constructed in such a way as to guarantee failure, or at least sabotage absolute compliance. But there is social pressure on each individual to comply, and non-compliance carries social penalties.

I think you have found something. There are indeed to many moral codes and religions and each of them seemed to work perfectely only for his founder. Does this mean the followers of a religion cannot understand the moral code as it was expected to ? Why we cannot get the same result as Jesus or Budda or the other founders ?

It's like we have the potential, but we have not enough strenght to use it.

There have been many other thoughtful and insightful posts added to the discussion, but we were never fully able to answer the question. Perhaps the question has no singular answer.

It seems to me that what we deem morality in modern society is a far cry from what may be deemed natural morality. Nature is a beautiful creation, balanced and in harmony. Yet, humans have long outgrown natural morality in most cultures, excepting it seems to me such indigenous cultures as the Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians and African Bushmen. Perhaps I would be remiss if I overlooked some Pagan traditions, so I am fishing for some insight in this direction.

I look forward to a meaningful and enlightening discussion. Kindest Regards to all! 

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Are you refering to biological evolution or socio-cultural evolution? Are the processes similar? IOW, does the evolution of "civilization" follow a process similar to the evolution of animals? I'll have to think about it a bit more, but just off the cuff: it seems to me that the mores of society come mostly from the establishment of stratified class structures and the concept of property rights. IOW, what is moral is that which informs individuals of their status within a society, and creates stability through perpetuating the class structure. Morality establishes what is mine and who I am (in terms of the social structure.)

A distinction should be made between ethics and morals, IMO.

Chris

 

[DIKL]

Hi juantoo3!

I was thinking of starting a similar thread, but I figure it might fit better here. It's a more limited question really, but that's probably good. That way, we can divide the huge topic of "Knowledge of Good and Evil" into smaller, more manageable pieces.

I would like to ask the CR members how they define evil? Not how the concept has evolved through history, or for what reasons. Just what parameters we use to explain 'evil' today? Understanding that could give us a starting point for further discussion.

The way I see it, most people explain evil with the following parameters:
-Cause of suffering in living beings. An act is evil when it causes other living beings to suffer, physically or mentally. (Could the opposite be true? Could an act be evil even if no one suffers? Is it evil if the act is directed towards oneself?)
-Joy in causing suffering. A person is evil when he enjoys causing suffering.
-Intent. An act is evil if it had the intent to cause suffering.
-Lesser evil equals good. An act that causes suffering is good if it averts greater amount of suffering elsewhere. (What of torturing a suspected terrorist to retrive information that might avert greater suffering? Intent is clearly there. What if there's joy, too? Should the evil avoided be even greater, to justify the intent and the joy?)

Are there other parameters? Are the ones above false, in your opinion?

Another question I had is: is it possible for someone to think of himself as 'evil'? I don't mean in the sense that a person is aware of that his acts are considered evil by society. Rather, is it possible to internally think of oneself as evil?

What do you think?

Regards,
DIKL

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, China Cat, and welcome to CR!

Thank you for your response!

Are you refering to biological evolution or socio-cultural evolution? Are the processes similar? IOW, does the evolution of "civilization" follow a process similar to the evolution of animals?

Not to seem flip, but "yes." Both biological and socio-cultural evolution. IOW, is morality something that developed from biology, or is it strictly a human-made creation?

The previous discussion can be found on the philosophy board:
morality within evolution

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1360

it seems to me that the mores of society come mostly from the establishment of stratified class structures and the concept of property rights. IOW, what is moral is that which informs individuals of their status within a society, and creates stability through perpetuating the class structure. Morality establishes what is mine and who I am (in terms of the social structure.)

I agree that morality became entangled in these things, as formal religious structures were founded and used for political purposes. Actually, I was (and still am) looking towards pre-history, towards neolithic culture. Why are we moral to begin with?

A distinction should be made between ethics and morals, IMO.

Very well, what would you propose? Correct me if I am not correct, but I see ethics as applied morality. Ethics would seem to me a formal framework to house morality in. Yet, we can be, and even some animals seem to be, moral without a formal framework.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, DIKL, and welcome to CR!

Thank you for your post!

I would like to ask the CR members how they define evil? Not how the concept has evolved through history, or for what reasons. Just what parameters we use to explain 'evil' today? Understanding that could give us a starting point for further discussion.

I'm not certain I have any specific answers. Evil can be a rather vague term. Depending who you ask, and others are welcome to address the issue, evil may not even exist as such, in that it may well be a "man-made" creation. Or not.

Personally, I don't see something like having too many beers as evil. Stupid maybe, but not evil. On the other hand, it is hard to justify something like genocide as anything but evil. Where would you draw the line?

We make mistakes, it is a part of being human. If we cause suffering unintentionally, are we then "evil?" I do think intent is a deciding factor.

Another question I had is: is it possible for someone to think of himself as 'evil'? I don't mean in the sense that a person is aware of that his acts are considered evil by society. Rather, is it possible to internally think of oneself as evil?

I posed a similar question on the other thread. I am inclined to agree with the response, in that I don't think we tend to view our own actions as evil, even if others might. We tend to find ways to justify actions that are typically viewed as evil, turning "evil" actions into something other than evil within our minds.

Of course, this presupposes that evil actually exists...

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kathe!

I am pleased you found the other thread, I brought your comments here. I hope you find this acceptable.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the Yin/Yang of Taoist thought does not correspond to "good and evil", per se, rather, it corresponds with the passive/active aspects of awareness. often, the terms are masculine/feminine or light/dark etc. remember, Taoist thought comes from China where the world view is drastically different than is found in the west, which essentially have Greek world views. for the Taoist, the entire cosmos is Li.. organic pattern.. everything is part and parcel of the universe as an organic whole. seperating things into "good" or "bad" are derivations from the Way and are sicknesses of the mind.

...the views expressed above are *very* similar to the Pagan worldview.

Although I'd say that Pagans are more likely to see dividing the wold up into good vs. evil as just simplistic (perhaps a sign of intellectual laziness) rather than a sickness of the mind. For us, evil is *intentional and avoidable* causing of harm.

And the worst kind of evil is *doing* evil and then justifying it rather than taking responsibility for what you've caused.

Nature is not the sole source for Pagan morality, nor even the primary source. Morality doesn't apply to Nature. Nature is not evil, nor is She good.

Certainly we revere Nature, and feel that we have MUCH to learn from Her. We see that we are, in part, pack animals with hard-wired pack animal reactions. We also recognize that we have the ability to both adapt to our environment in ways that many other animals do not, and very specifically we have the ability to adapt our environment to suit ourselves (usually in pursuit of suvival; as individuals, as a "tribe" or as a species).

OK, I am learning something.

The primary ethic of Paganism is personal responsibility.

Very well. While I do not pretend to speak for the whole of Christianity, I view myself as personally responsible for my actions. While in my walk I have forgiveness, even so I must deal with the consequences of my actions, forgiven or not.

We don't have a list of forbidden actions.

We also don't have a list of "do these things" as many other religions do.

That's neither better nor worse; it *is* decidedly different.

Just to be clear, I have no intent whatsoever on my part of making this a "better or worse" discussion. I accept that others approach matters of morality in different ways. My purpose is to find out what some of those ways are in an attempt to trace the roots.

IOW, if there is no "G-d" in some form or manner, why have all pre-historic cultures we are aware of made an attempt to reach toward "It." Mass delusion seems to me a rather unsupportable idea. Lies *strictly* for the purpose of what could be called political power in neolithic times (equating roughly with tribal societies) seems to me an equally unsupportable idea. Wasted effort chasing phantoms and ephemora in a "survival" mode of a hunter-gatherer society makes no sense to me. Energy is precious, wasted on something that doesn't exist in a neolithic setting just seems so...contrary.

There a lot of folks out there in the wide world who join Neo-Pagan groups because they think it's "cool" or becasue they are rebelling against something, or some equally odd reason. ~shrug~ There's a LOT of misinformation out there, too.

My understanding is very limited, and my concern is that it may well be clouded with misinformation.

One thing to keep in mind is that Paganism has more than one tradition; as mentioned earlier, there's "schools" of Pagansim, usually culturally-related.

So there's a lot of varity of opinion, as well as variety of actual practice.

Yes, that much I learned.

I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify something about the Rede ("An it harm none, do as you will").

This is something that has spawned a lot of disagreement within the larger Pagan community, and even in the Wiccan community.

Some say it boils down to "Harm none".

Others say it boils down to "Do the least harm" (in recognition of the fact that it's not always (ever?) possible to do NO harm, unless one doesn't do *anything* at all - and that can certainly be harmful too).

This is my understanding of those eight words.

1. It is expressed in the terms of an "If...then" statement.

Here's another example of an "If...then" that might serve as an example:

"If it rains today, then I'm going to make soup for dinner"

With just the information above, what will be for dinner if it does NOT rain today?

1. Soup.
2. NOT soup.
3. No way to tell; it could be soup, it could be something else.
4. No way to tell; we can't even tell that there will BE dinner.

Very well. As with factionalism and denominationalism in other faith walks, I can see variety of interpretation.

Originally Posted by juantoo3
Can nature based religions rightfully claim scientific justification for nature based moralities, and are such moralities valid in a modern civil social setting? How does the concept of spirit figure in, if science looks beyond spirit? Can nature based religions still justify spirit if they claim scientific validation?

First I think we'l need to define our terms.

Which nature based relgions do you assert derive their morality from nature?

It has been a long time since I wrote that. As I recall, it was in response to a rather, ummm, "fundamentalist" person of the Asatrau (sp?) persuasion.

And, what on this good green Earth do you mean by the question "Can nature based religions still jutify spirit if they claim scientific validation"????

Well, science can't very well "prove" the existence of spirit. It just seemed ironic to me that a person claiming scientific validation for a spiritual practice, well..., could not be quite accurate.

 

[taijasi]

I would like to ask the CR members how they define evil?

Hi, DIKL. I wanted to respond to this post. There's already a thread on the Paganism board, but I think the question is a broad one, and cuts across all religions, all worldviews.

The way I see it, most people explain evil with the following parameters:
-Cause of suffering in living beings.
-Joy in causing suffering. A person is evil when he enjoys causing suffering.
-Intent. An act is evil if it had the intent to cause suffering.
-Lesser evil equals good. An act that causes suffering is good if it averts greater amount of suffering elsewhere.

Agreed. To cause unnecessary suffering, when we have it in our power to avoid it, could be defined as "evil." When directed towards ourself, this is equally true. And when dealing with cases of torture, the end cannot be said to justify the means, or otherwise we enter the slippery slope. How much torture, and of what kind, is "justifiable" ... and in order to benefit (or prevent suffering among) how many people? What if the exchange rate is two for one? How about three for one? I'm not saying that questions like this don't come up in the real world - but I do think we're dealing with the devil's arithmetic. Better to acknowledge from the get-go that things like torture are dead wrong, then let ourselves wrestle with our conscience a thousand ways from Sunday in trying to justify it ...

Are there other parameters?

Yes. Imo, a good definition for "evil" is that which needlessly slows or prevents the progress of the human soul on its long pilgrimage from darkness to light, from ignorance to wisdom, and from death to immortality (to borrow from the Upanishad). In this sense, we're dealing with something which can at times be rather at odds with the above definition, in that Humanity often (usually?) only learns through pain/suffering. While we certainly don't want to be so presumptuous as to get in the way and assume the role of deliverer of a particular karmic lesson (involving learning, through pain) - we must acknowledge that this is how people learn. Better, imo, to leave the means and the learning, itself, up to G-d. In this respect, minding one's own business is what we're really here to do, though we can always seek to help others learn, if our intentions and modus operandi are pure enough.

Another question I had is: is it possible for someone to think of himself as 'evil'? I don't mean in the sense that a person is aware of that his acts are considered evil by society. Rather, is it possible to internally think of oneself as evil?

Yes. And to be such, from a relative point of view. Unless one is a Mithraist/Manichean, however, we need to recognize that "Good" and "Evil" as we know them, are but two sides of the same coin. Or to be even more 3-dimensional about it, they are like I, Brian's old avatar (the spinning yin-yang).

Imagine that that apparent duality, which is - after all - in perfect balance, is like a marble, in the palm of Deity's hand. We can observe all around us that people are bent on holding up the marble - as a lens through which we might perceive G-d - and focusing on God, reality, themselves, the world, each other, etc. only through the "Good" aspect. We want to somehow catch a glimpse of a Good World (reality, being, etc.) which is static. Yet, the moment we feel we've had one, here comes the other aspect of the duality, the "evil," to upset things. And then we feel victimized, or we lose our faith in G-d. Yet G-d, as that being holding the yin-yang duality marble ... is as accessible as ever, since "He" isn't the one who hides from us from time to time, but vice versa.

What do you think?

So are Good and Evil, then, purely relative? Nope. But until we can learn and master the relativity of the "marble," of the earthly yin & yang, then it's a bit much for us to take on these aspects in their more Cosmic guise, now isn't it? I suppose that's a bit out there, but then, it's about time I started speaking from closer to home.


Brian's old logo, and a similar one

cheers,

andrew

 

[Käthe]

The way I see it, most people explain evil with the following parameters:
-Cause of suffering in living beings. An act is evil when it causes other living beings to suffer, physically or mentally. (Could the opposite be true? Could an act be evil even if no one suffers? Is it evil if the act is directed towards oneself?)
-Joy in causing suffering. A person is evil when he enjoys causing suffering.
-Intent. An act is evil if it had the intent to cause suffering.
-Lesser evil equals good. An act that causes suffering is good if it averts greater amount of suffering elsewhere. (What of torturing a suspected terrorist to retrive information that might avert greater suffering? Intent is clearly there. What if there's joy, too? Should the evil avoided be even greater, to justify the intent and the joy?)

Well, I have to take issue with that last.

Committing a "lesser evil" is not good. It is still evil. It may be neccessary, but that doesn't make it good.

Causing harm - intentional and avoidable harm - is evil. It may be that one *has* to do this in order to, oh, spare a child. I would choose to do that "lesser evil' myself. I would not, however, tell myself that the evil act was now "good". If I did, then I would no longer he someone who had simply "done" an evil act, I would now be someone who lied to myself about the evil I had done, and evaded responsibility for my actions, a distinctly unethical thing, by Pagan ethics.

And that's skating perilously close to the division between doing evil and *being* evil.

(This ties in to my commentary about the Wiccan Rede on the "morality within evolution" topic. Or rather, to the commentary that I'll post in a bit, where I get to what the Rede doesn't address.)

I would also expand this a bit to include intentional and avoidable harm to what most consider to be not living things (although I do consider them living things).

For example, intentionally and avoidably harming the landscape, the environment...graffitti on cliffsides, mounds of litter along roadways, setting fires "for the fun of it" that destroy acres and acres of forest, etc.

My 2cents' worth.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, taijasi and Kathe!

Thank you for your posts!

Committing a "lesser evil" is not good. It is still evil. It may be neccessary, but that doesn't make it good.

Causing harm - intentional and avoidable harm - is evil.

OK, hypothetically, is every untruth *just* an untruth? Is a lie evil?

I am thinking in terms of "little white lies." If I tell my wife she looks beautiful, even if she, well..., might look a little better, is that "evil?"

If I spare her feelings, and keep myself out of the dog house, is that "avoiding intentional harm?" Or should I be always plainly honest, in order to be "good?" Or is being plainly honest, even if it causes intentional emotional harm, "evil?"

Or should I remain silent and let her presume intentional emotional harm by my silence?

 

[lunamoth]

Yes. Imo, a good definition for "evil" is that which needlessly slows or prevents the progress of the human soul on its long pilgrimage from darkness to light, from ignorance to wisdom, and from death to immortality (to borrow from the Upanishad). In this sense, we're dealing with something which can at times be rather at odds with the above definition, in that Humanity often (usually?) only learns through pain/suffering. While we certainly don't want to be so presumptuous as to get in the way and assume the role of deliverer of a particular karmic lesson (involving learning, through pain) - we must acknowledge that this is how people learn. Better, imo, to leave the means and the learning, itself, up to G-d. In this respect, minding one's own business is what we're really here to do, though we can always seek to help others learn, if our intentions and modus operandi are pure enough.

I don't agree with this taij. When Jesus saw suffering his response was compassion and healing, not to say, oh, they're learning a good lesson from this pain.

2 c,
lunamoth

 

[taijasi]

I don't agree with this taij. When Jesus saw suffering his response was compassion and healing, not to say, oh, they're learning a good lesson from this pain.

2 c,
lunamoth

Absolutely! But he knew their karma. Why could Jesus not heal some people, and why - even when he did heal others - did he insist that it was God working through him (or words to that effect)?

The first group, had not yet learned; the second group, had learned - and Jesus knew it was imperative to point this out ... that he himself had done "nothing," save give them the last little tug necessary to get past the issue/sickness. He wanted us to remember this.

I'm not saying that we should all go cut off a finger and see if we can learn anything from it. Let's not run too far with this idea. Nor am I saying that suffering is the only way we can learn. In the future, I fully expect (and another way to say it is Hope) that our Planet Earth will be one of those planets where unnecessary suffering is no longer required by some souls as the only way to learn.

Yes, many would disagree or take issue with the notion that Earth is essentially a cosmic halfway house ... but such is what I have learned. We are no less Loved, and our little planet is important. But we are skid row, spiritually speaking.

Love & Light,

andrew

 

[Käthe]

Kindest Regards, taijasi and Kathe!

Thank you for your posts!


OK, hypothetically, is every untruth *just* an untruth? Is a lie evil?

I am thinking in terms of "little white lies." If I tell my wife she looks beautiful, even if she, well..., might look a little better, is that "evil?"

If I spare her feelings, and keep myself out of the dog house, is that "avoiding intentional harm?" Or should I be always plainly honest, in order to be "good?" Or is being plainly honest, even if it causes intentional emotional harm, "evil?"

Or should I remain silent and let her presume intentional emotional harm by my silence?

*evil grin*

The Rede is silent about doing harm...you have to decide for yourself.

(For anyone who I've just lost, this refers to the topic discussion "morality within evolution).

 

[bob x]

On the little island of Komodo in Indonesia live the famous "Komodo dragons", the largest reptiles of the post-dinosaur era. They have a large brain and are a little too clever for their own good: they bury their eggs in the sand, and can learn to recognize the pattern in the sand that means buried dragon eggs, so they can hang around at that spot at the right time and have a tasty snack of little dragon hatchlings. This, of course, has a lot to do with why they are extinct except on one little island. They are endangered even on Komodo, since the introduction of dogs: dogs of course are smaller, and probably not even as smart, but dogs co-operate with each other.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, bob x!

Thank you for your post!

On the little island of Komodo in Indonesia live the famous "Komodo dragons", the largest reptiles of the post-dinosaur era. They have a large brain and are a little too clever for their own good: they bury their eggs in the sand, and can learn to recognize the pattern in the sand that means buried dragon eggs, so they can hang around at that spot at the right time and have a tasty snack of little dragon hatchlings. This, of course, has a lot to do with why they are extinct except on one little island. They are endangered even on Komodo, since the introduction of dogs: dogs of course are smaller, and probably not even as smart, but dogs co-operate with each other.

You bring up a very good point, one we never really quite got around to. Brian made a few comments pretaining to morality in the context of social apes, but beyond that we didn't really flesh out the concept. May I ask what it is you see regarding the development of morality in humans?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kathe!

*evil grin*

The Rede is silent about doing harm...you have to decide for yourself.

Oh my, that's not much help!

OK, I think I will look to what I understand to be the Divine for guidance. I think most people call it "prayer."

 

[DIKL]

Dear everyone,

thanks for sharing your views on evil. I will now try to summarize the discussion so far. As I see it, the following definition of evil meets the most agreement.
Evil is intentional and avoidable physical and/or mental suffering caused in a living being by a human.

Some comments (also open for debate):
-Why 'a human'? It wasn't explicitely mentioned in the discussion, but I believe it is part of the 'intent' parameter. Most people don't think animals are capable of evil, as it is assumed they can't act against their instincts. Humans have at least partial free will.
-The 'joy' parameter is left out. An act is evil regardless of the emotional state of the perpetrator.

There seems to be less consensus regarding the 'lesser evil' parameter. Here, Käthe introduces a new parameter/distinction:
Necessary vs. unnecessary evil
Evil is always evil. Even if an evil act prevents greater suffering, it is still evil. Nevertheless, most would opt for it if they think it's necessary.

Another point of less consensus seems to be harm done to non-living objects. Is littering and meaning-less destruction evil or not? If yes, is it evil because it (indirectly) causes suffering in humans? Would it still be evil if no human ever saw it? (This is tied to the question "what is life?" If one believes even a rock lives, and it can suffer, then it would fall under the first definition.)

Yet another point of less consensus is taijasi's addendum to the definition of evil:
Evil is an act which needlessly slows or prevents the progress of the human soul on its long pilgrimage from darkness to light, from ignorance to wisdom, and from death to immortality.
Maybe it could be restated like:
Evil is the intentional and avoidable hindrance of human intellectual and emotional development.

---
My thought was that we could start our journey towards 'Knowledge of Good and Evil' by defining how we see evil today. When we have reached 'enough' consensus, we could start looking to our past. What definitions of evil have been used throughout history? For what reasons?

The question now is, do we have 'good-enough' agreement on our definition of evil?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, DIKL!

How much of morality, "good and evil," is subjective, and how much is objective?

 

[bob x]

"May I ask what it is you see regarding the development of morality in humans?"
We are reaching the point where humans must take other humans into account, or we will extinguish ourselves as a species. Of course we do have both co-operative and competitive instincts, and could not have gotten to where we are without either. But co-operation is now more vital to our survival: evolutionarily speaking, this does not mean that we will necessarily WILL grow into more co-operative creatures, but that we EITHER will do that, OR die out. Which? That is entirely up to us.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, bobx!

Thank you for your post!

We are reaching the point where humans must take other humans into account, or we will extinguish ourselves as a species. Of course we do have both co-operative and competitive instincts, and could not have gotten to where we are without either. But co-operation is now more vital to our survival: evolutionarily speaking, this does not mean that we will necessarily WILL grow into more co-operative creatures, but that we EITHER will do that, OR die out. Which? That is entirely up to us.

This is a very good response! How would you suggest we carry forward? Is looking to our animal nature as a valid source for morality a viable option?

 

[bob x]

I am not one of those who believes we have two different natures, an "animal" nature and a "spiritual" nature. There is no such thing as "disembodied spirit", but on the other hand there is no such thing as "dumb matter" either. Our spirituality is part of our animal nature.