By what I know, there seems to be three types of forces that exist in the universe.
entrophy, static, and attaction
entrophy - is a force that cause to object to repel one another.
attraction - is force that draws two objects to come together
static - is force that exist when entrophy and attraction cancel each other out, or a force that causea an object to be the same.
The order I speak about is not really an order. But an inevitable possibility. I belive that in the begining of the universe there was only a massive Static force.
Neglect the last post on this subject, I was not in the right frame of mind.
The order I talk about is the order of the universe. There are three types of forces in the universe. That my primitive mine can comprehend.
Entropy- move apart static, - stay attraction- come together
sometimes I wish I could put a plug into my head and upload the visual information I have for this idea.
Try to follow me:
each step is a more integrated version requiring more energy to main the static energy.
Column of intregration
atom - composed of electron proton neutrons molecule - composed of different types of atoms. RNA or DNA- composed of different type of molecules Protein - composed of RNA or DNA (I forget) Organelles - composed of Protein Cells - Made of Organelles Animal - Made up of cells Group - made up of Animals Society - made up of groups (humans) World - made up of Societies
There are energies in each category to prevent entropy.
atom - polar forces Organelles - ATP Animals - Oxygen and food intake
Now Society
If Society falls under this hierarchy, then what energy allows for it to exist?
I think the energy for this is not physical, but abstract. This abstract energy is what I believe the common sense idea of what good and evil is. Because with out this idea, we as a society would crumble.
World society
Is there a different abstract energy for World society vs local society. Or does the world develop into one society.
Example religion There is a growing problem with multiple religions, everyone believes they are right, and everyone else is wrong. Is there a way to have multiple religions, or do need to develop one religion.
Some people in the US view religious evangelist as evil, because they constantly pressure there religious values on them. This idea is developed outside the society of the church. Which suggest a new set of values between two societies.
The Diamond fallacy It is true that a diamond is very well structures. And it does have great value to people, they think it is pretty, or useful. However, it is low in the integrated of parts column. Its integration of other parts stop at the molecular stage. Where a life form parts are past the molecular stage, where the molecular stage creates the parts of the cell.
The point I am trying to get at is that, if we as a society wants to determine an action to forbid it should follow from this reasoning.
By allowing this action to exist, will it cause entrophy within the society.
If yes, then it might be good idea restrict it If no, do not restrict it
Looking at the way this thread is progressing, it's beginning to sound as if morality is a purely social and cultural convention.
In fact, I'm reminded about what Marx said (sorry, but Kitha started it ) about human beings essentially being intrinsically tied to the circumstances of their society.
I doubt anyone here would disagree: A C16th feudal lord, a !Kung tribesman and a modern westerner are all going to be different in what they believe to be right and wrong. The needs of the culture will always impose some sort of conditioned ethical standard on those within it. We can't escape this conditioning, only be aware of it and factor it into our reasoning.
But here's the rub: there are moral universals. And I would argue that they have roots in both our genetic heritage and our present nature and faculties.
Nobody likes being oppressed, tortured or having members of their family killed, or their possessions stolen, etc etc. Consequently there is always a common core of ethical standards in all cultures. More than that, as I've said before: there is such a thing as an innate moral sense- a genetically inherited faculty present in all humans.
I'm not entirely sure you could ever precisely pin down these universals to everyones satisfaction except in the very broadest terms. But they are there.
romanov
I concur. I doubt it possible to define 'good' and 'evil' in a way to satisfy all. There are basic wants at work, but 'good' and 'evil' are, in my opinion, by definition more than those. To me, it seems that 'good' and 'evil' by definition include, or -are the same as-, 'right' and 'wrong'. If you want a definition of 'good' and 'evil' to satisfy everyone, the best course would be to abandon it, I would think. It would make more sense in my mind, for one, to uphold rationality rather than 'right' and 'wrong'.
If you want a definition of 'good' and 'evil' to satisfy everyone, the best course would be to abandon it, I would think. It would make more sense in my mind, for one, to uphold rationality rather than 'right' and 'wrong'.
I agree with this.
God's apprentice, only in the biological sense does your reasoning seem sound. But to form even the smallest of societies causes friction and takes away individuality, and doing this makes people unhappy. You form bigger societies and you get bigger friction. In your ideal world, there is no individuality left. There would be no-one left who chose not to have children. This good sounds pretty bad to me.
Does this action cause entrophy within the society - if yes, restrict it:
Person A - I choose to marry a member of my own sex. Evidently this causes entrophy in the society, so you restrict it, yet I am still expected to contribute and work to fund the society that negates me. In time, I will hate the society so much that I will wish it harm. Therefore, it is in the societies best interests to execute or expel me right now.
Person B - I choose to subscribe to a dogma or a moral code that is offended by same sex marriage. If this marriage institution takes place in my society, I feel it cheapens the value of heterosexual family values, and I no longer want to be a part of it. My leader places more value upon one person's choices and opinions than he does on mine, so I want to leave right now. It is in the best interests of the society to execute or expel me, because I no longer contribute.
etcetera ad infinitum. Ego and human rights unfortunately exist. You can't figure out the species on paper.
Good: Any force that allows a social instituion to come together or maintain the society.
Evil (aka Entropy): Any force that causes a social institution to decay, or prevents its creation.
The only problem with these definitions is that not all social institutions are necessarily good ones (i.e. racial supremacy groups, sexual orientation discrimination groups), so therefore, forces that cause certain social institutions to decay are not always evil.
Let me take a crack at this:
GOOD: That which encourages improvement and positive growth.
EVIL: That which discourages improvement and/or promotes redundancy and stagnation.
GOOD: That which encourages improvement and positive growth.
EVIL: That which discourages improvement and/or promotes redundancy and stagnation.
Much clearer than my definition. Now it can be applied to a person, or a social group, even though to me they are the same thing.
But, I disagree here
The only problem with these definitions is that not all social institutions are necessarily good ones (i.e. racial supremacy groups, sexual orientation discrimination groups), so therefore, forces that cause certain social institutions to decay are not always evil.
So what you are saying is :
Entrophy is evil, relative to any social group.
But If there is a Social group that causes entrophy to the society, then entrophy of that social group is good relative to the society.
I hope this makes sense
Bonds of Connnections
There are bonds that are collectively understood by a society, and the more bonds the stonger the connection within that society. These include Language, pride, myths, religon, arts, ideas, etc..
Connection bonds allow a social group to bond with others social groups easily. Trade, writing systems, borrowing language, art, etc..
But there Disconnnective Bonds that can cause a social group not to connect properly with other social groups. These bonds are good relative to the social group, but they are negative relative to the society.Some are pride, strict language, fundalmetalism, etc.
So the institutions that are claimed to cause entrophy to a society are groups who are bonded by diconnective bonds. So, inorder for these social groups to survive in the society, then they must connect to it, or die off. Which means they have to give up there Deconnective bond becasue they are causing entrophy in the social group, becasue of poor interaction with the society. Causing what was once good, to become evil.
This happends in the same sense as pre-society humans giving up killing one another for food, in order to form a social group.
Oddly enough these definition are not found in the The Virian Lexicon, and if the goals of this organization are to be achieved, they need to be. Becasue they are primaly the hearts of all religons.
My Definitions:
Good: Any force that allows a social instituion to come together or maintain the society.
Evil (aka Entrophy): Any force that causes a social institution to decay, or prevents its creation.
I am not convinced that this debate rests upon sound principles. Gods Apprentice has stated that definitions of Good and Evil are central to all religions. This may be the case, but Church of Virus should not be constructed on the basis of what has been used to construct previous religions, because our aim is not the same. Church of Virus should seek to open minds, not close them, as most religions do, and if we put out definitions of good and Evil down immutably then we lose the ability to do that.
Good and Evil are very personal concepts, and while there are many people who share similar ideas, that is only because society's norms impress these upon us at a very young age.
The ten commandments are good examples of these immutable laws of what is wrong and since their conception we have seen society's norms change. It is no longer considered that wrong to have sexual relations out of wedlock, or to covet thy neighbours ass. In fact Capitalism encourages covetousness, as a driving force to Consumerism.
If we set down what we believe to be Good and Evil then we again run the risk of becoming outdated. Even if we fully intend to change them as and when, it cannot happen as fluidly as it would have to to fully realise our goals.
Good and Evil are semantic concepts with no bearing on real life. We use then to classify ideas and actions according to society's norms.
A bacteria's 'instincts' are to reproduce and survive. For it that is good, death is evil. Most animals have decided that being killed is a bad thing, so it is evil. This trend is clearly present in many of our society's morals.
So killing bacteria is Evil? If I were a bacteria, I should say yes. I'm not a vegetarian, does that make me evil? I'm sure that cows have decided that being killed is a bad thing, so is it evil? I like a good steak, but perhaps all my steaks have been evil?
I know I am not being particularly constructive here - but Good and Evil are not as concrete terms as they are in fiction, or in role-play. I might think that Bush and what he is doing is evil, but another person might consider him and his actions good. I can still get along with that person.
History is written by the winners, and I think that Good and Evil are defined by similar people. Morally right and Morally wrong are perhaps more useful terms, but only because people tend to associate them less with absolutes, and think of them as more subjective.
I admit that good and evil are relative to the preciever. What I am trying to do is clarify the universal concept of good and evil. Which I belived orginated from the fact the human beings have not always been at the top of the food chain. Tiger evil, because tiger eat you. As man developed into society, the same behavioral characteristics were used to maintain the frame work. And religon is where the abstract concept was solidified.
Anything that has ever been considered evil, I belive had/has a reason for it being declared so. However, that reason might become obsolete with time, but due to the conservative nature of man, they hold on to the obsolete rule. And vice versa.
So by understanding the nature of why certain ideas are good, and others are evil, we can eliminate the garbage, maintain the reasonable concepts, and develop new concepts that will better our society. Which I belive is the purpose of the Church of Virus.