All religons in some way or another portray the idea of what is right(good) or wrong(evil). This is done through varies means of communications; Gods and Demons, Holy books, stories, tradtions, ect. From this information, many different view points arrise on how we should live, there seems to be little consensus upon who is right. However, they share the same idea.
I feel if we can figure out what is the Good that all religons try to achieve, then we can live better lives, and create a better society that is free from the confusing "creative expressions" of how we should live our lives.
The main question is:
What is the definition of Good?
What is the definition of Evil?
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.
Basically you're saying social order is the aim of all Good actions, and entropy is the product of all Evil actions. Common ways to increase social order are called obedience, conformity, and credulity - judging strictly by behavior, these are not yet observed as Good by most Virians.
To reach out to more hosts, you suggest Virus must embrace a definition of moral opposites (preferably yours). But to become more fecund, Virus will have to overcome some obstacles that take the form of no less than full-fledged social institutions - certain religions, for example. By your very simple normative statements, it seems to follow that only a decline into nothingness can be considered Good on Virus's part. Social institutions must compete for existence; your morality says it's Evil to put up a fight. As a meme, that doesn't seem like it should have much staying power in the course of memetic evolution (just as an organism that refused to remove energy from the atmosphere wouldn't last long in biological evolution).
Here are some different definitions:
Good: Anything that increases the loss of human life.
Bad: Anything that decreases the loss of human life.
What makes your definitions, or anyone else's, more worthy of following than mine? Yours appeal more directly to most normal people's altruism instincts, but so what? Those instincts are the product of biological evolution, a competition that couldn't have been won by other subconscious meta-ethical frameworks.
First of all I am not stating that my point of view is better than any one else’s. I understand that I could a very possibly be wrong.
My (attempted) definition is based on this idea:
1. The right molecules and environment came together and created a life form.
2. In the beginning all life forms were single celled, and independent of one another.
3. Eventually two independent life forms developed into a single life form.
4. The two life forms working together to form a bi-celled life form must of have had some advantage, because eventually a multi-celled life forms emerged
5. Eventually some of the multi-celled life formed into social groups (packs, flocks, schools, etc.)
6. Then these social groups started relating with other social groups, creating a society.
What I was trying define as Good are the conditions or energies that are necessary for two independent life forms to come together in a competitive environment; and thus increase both life forms survivability.
As the collaboration of life forms become more and more complex, the energy required to maintain those orders increases. Energy that is invested into the social system is Good relative to that system. If the conditions or energy of Good are not present in the system, then Evil(Entropy) will result. The life forms in the system will regress back to independent life forms, and be only concerned with their own survival.
“What makes your definitions, or anyone else's, more worthy of following than mine?”
If I want to live in a good world, I must will what I know is good. If I do not know what is good how can will it? That is why I believe that this answer is necessary. If your definition was taken seriously, then the followers of that idea would die out, because they would kill each other. Which means that the group could not evolve. If the idea of Good is, what brings us closer to becoming a single life form, then the survivability of those followers would be higher than an independent being. Which means that this idea of Good, would allow the beings of the society to evolve past other societies that believe human life is worthless.
Also if the worthless human life society, decided to attack the single being society. The single being society would protect itself from the attacker the same way an independent being would protect itself. Which society would survive, the society that is killing itself, or the society that acts as a single being?
And these - obedience, conformity, and credulity
These action only appear to increase social order. They actually cause social stagnation. If a society stops growing then the energy that maintained the society diminishes, and society falls into decay. Because, if the beings of the society just accept what is, then a virus (for example: a person who believes human life is worthless) can easily infect the dormant society.
Things that increase social order - innovation, exploration, relations/confrontations with other societies.
Being good means you are selfless. You think about others (the society) first and yourself second. this is reflected in all your actions. when your actions need no justification.
Being Evil means you are selfish. your actions are egotistical and self centered. this is reflect in your actions. when you have to justify your actions.
one example I like to use is from our old buddy the bible. In a metaphorical sense. Adam and eve ate from tree of life. the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Good and Evil are Dualistic concepts. The ego is an illusion necessary for self awareness. Duality is ego based. Sin is considered an evil act. The "original sin" is self awareness, the birth of the ego. Any "evil" act is egotistical in nature. thus evil is a force spawned from egotistical actions, and Good a force spawned from selfless actions.
of course, since the ego is an illusion so are such concepts of good or evil. Nature in its true sense is neither. nor is anything that is not self aware. Nature does not discriminate.
Karl Marx in his magnum opus suggests that the difference between the 'good' and the 'evil' in society differs with the social outlook of that particular society itself. For example, (to make it as simple as possible), a Soviet Russian would have been deemed 'good' in terms of contribution to the state and the economy. However, simultaneousy, an individual in capitalistic society would be termed 'good' if he made his million and gave a microscopic proportion of that to charity. I think we can safely say that Grandad Marx is right here, and that this theory applies, whether on Command and Conquer or in Havana...
What are some traits that must exist for any society to function?
How many of these traits are commonly known as good and how many evil?
If your body is compossed of many cells, which are living creatures. All living together, isn't that a society? And if so, are the requirments that a society of people differ from the requirments for the society of your cells?
Re:The Idea of Good and Evil
« Reply #6 on: 2004-03-06 21:23:09 »
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.
If only one being existed in the universe, then would good or evil exist?
If only one being existed, then the being's actions would only affect itself, and no other being. Becasue no other being exist.
Can one do evil to oneself, if no other being exist?
Consider the idea that the single being killed itself. Would this be evil? There is no one who cares for the being, and the being does not care for itself, so is it evil?
What good could can a being do, if it is the only being that exist?
Well, the only possibility I can think of is if the being creates another being. This means that if the being killed itself, then it would be doing evil, becasue that action would prevent the being from doing that good.
Of course, is creating another being acually good?
I belive that existence is better than non-existance. So I say yes. but I could be wrong.
As you follow this thought, notice as you try to develop possiblities of good and evil. How the evil actions lead to the destruction of the single being, and the good leads to the development of the being.
If not, then maybe the idea of a relationship between evil and entrophy is clouding my vision.
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.
A few sentences later, romanov disagrees with himself:
Quote:
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.
Gods Apprentice: "If only one being existed in the universe, then would good or evil exist?"
Me: Can we be certain that this is not the case? As a quasi-rational being, I am somewhat convinced of my existence as one, but less convinced of yours. As an intentional agent, can I really be sure that everything I see around me is not an extension of my body or will?
I can't rule out the possibility that the entire universe is Me, or that I'm just a component in something unique and larger than myself.
Even if I accept that other Beings exist, I may still have some difficulty deciding which objects I find around me are Beings and which ones are just things. It's generally polite to say all humans are worthy of equal respect because they are equal Beings, but it's equally impolite actually to act on this maxim. Children are thought to be worth more than adults (harming them is a greater crime); many defend infants as well, and some even stand up for fetuses.
What about non-human intentional agents? Chimpanzees reproduce most human behaviors except well-developed language; they are about as close to humanity as one can get without entering the species. How much are they worth, in terms of the effects of Good or Evil actions on them? Is it Evil to kill five chimpanzees to save three people? Is it wrong to kill a million chimpanzees to save one person?
What if we could isolate the DNA of humans' evolutionary ancestors, and we used this to clone them? What would be the status of these clones? By definition they could be arranged serially such that each must still be counted as a member of the species of its predecessor and its descendent, so if we could find enough DNAs, in principle we could go back to the beginning of our form of life without ever crossing a well-defined species barrier.
The point of all this: Where does one draw the lines that divide all of matter into discrete entities worthy (to varying degrees) of Good acts, and objects worthy of nothing but exploitation? Is there a meaningful, non-arbitrary way to make this divison?
"The point of all this: Where does one draw the lines that divide all of matter into discrete entities worthy (to varying degrees) of Good acts, and objects worthy of nothing but exploitation? Is there a meaningful, non-arbitrary way to make this divison? "
Which is more worthy a rock or strain of bacteria? Which is more worthy a strain of bateria or an ant? Which is more worthy an ant or a tree? Which is more worthy tree or a monkey? Which is more worhty a monkey or dolphin? Which is more worthy a dolphin or a human? Which is more worthy a human or a society? whcih is more worhty a society or planet earth?
what i am trying to get at is this:
If good is what causes an increase in the order of the universe, then a distinction can be made between less ordered beings. Those being can used only to incrrease the overall order. If they are used for any other purpose, then it is wrong to exploit them.
for instance: if no other life but bacteria existed, then its good value would be equivalent to humans today. The bacteria would be free to use any resources to increase their order.
I understand that we might all be one being, but we are indepent relative to each other. If I die the other person can still live on. The same can be said with the cells of your body. Your cells together create you, but each of them are there own being.
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.
A few sentences later, romanov disagrees with himself:
Quote:
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.
Was this obvious contradiction on purpose?
Yes. That was the point of the sentence beginning with 'but' in between:
Quote:
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.
My point was that genetic and sociological factors influence our conception of right and wrong, not one or the other. I just wouldn't like to guess at the tradeoff.
Gods Apprentice: "If good is what causes an increase in the order of the universe, then a distinction can be made between less ordered beings. Those being can used only to incrrease the overall order. If they are used for any other purpose, then it is wrong to exploit them."
Your definition of order isn't clear. A diamond is a very ordered structure; should humanity's purpose in existence be to turn all carbon in the universe into a huge diamond, eventually including the carbon from which we are constructed?
Can you define order (of the kind that's apparently the aim of all good actions) non-circularly?
Re:The Idea of Good and Evil
« Reply #13 on: 2004-03-22 20:26:20 »
Good and evil are concepts created by humans to prescribe the way we think we should act. There is no "universial good/evil" because the term is meaningless outside human experience. In addition there is no widesweeping definition of good and evil that aplies to every human since in theory you are free to think however you like. It has been the mission of religions and society to develop a comprehensive definition of good and evil and impose it upon people in order to allow society to exist. You could choose to consider good and evil as actions that respectively propagate and destroy cohesive society as was suggested earlier, but you must then realize that there are an infinite combinations of morals that would facilitate this definition; all that is required by that definition is that all the members of said society agree or at least abide by that code. However, you are not required to think that way, and it would be 'right' for someone to believe the opposite.
In western society you are required to believe what is good and evil according to what the law dictates (at least in practice or you will face legal consequences), but are otherwise free to choose how you define good and evil actions yourself. Most likely you will develop these morals based largely if not entirely on that of your society. If you live in an Islamic nation then as a citizen you are required to hold the Quar'an as your moral book, in practise. In the United States you are required to hold a decidedly more Christian based law than if you lived in some Euorpean countries. This is your duty as a citizen. This is not to say that you have to BELIEVE these doctrines, just abide by them. Its the law.
Good and evil are the rules you choose to live your life by. Some are chosen for you by society, others are yours to choose. Some you will follow, some you will break and if you don't feel bad about it then it wasn't your moral in the first place, merely one leftover from your upbringing.
Earlier I said that good and evil are purely human concepts. I think that in fact all lifeforms naturally have a moral code, based on their instincts, including ours. 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.
I hope you do get that published. Also I agree with you people who read this stuff need to reply and criticize or it can’t get better. I am a hypocrite in saying this because I only had time to scan your piece. But you see this idea a lot but rarely laid out in one formal article that is short and concise. I would hope you could try and get that in a magazine or as a editorial (but I know little of what that would require.)
Just on a personal not I have always ascribed thes definitions to good and evil.
Good: An action or object that more than 50% of the time performs actions that increase the probability of the existence of life in the future.
Evil: An action or object that more than 50% of the time performs actions that decrease the probability of the existence of life in the future.
Author
Logged
) about human beings essentially being intrinsically tied to the circumstances of their society. 
