[David Cain]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

I loved these articles. I have thought this way for a long time, but you have clarified and expanded upon it for me.

The only thing I tripped over in the second article is, what about those who do questionable things, but have no qualms over it? Do you just have to trust they'll eventually get the consequence of their actions?

I think they probably do have some kind of qualms about it. I have done things that have hurt other people, and there were always negative consequences for me, though guilt wasn't always one of them. When you are used to certain conditions in life, it can be difficult to recognize them as having being caused by your choices. I think people who habitually hurt others quickly learn to shut the door to empathy and compassion, or otherwise rationalize what they do so that they can continue.

Originally Posted by Xanafax

Good, to me, is working towards ones own rational self interest. And living for the sake of your own life as the highest value. Good is using your brain, thinking, using logical and rational thought processes in conjunction with emotions to decide your life.

Bad is living for values other than those which you hold dear. It's living impulsively, emotionally, without thinking or analysing. It's not using the brain and refusing to think. I.E/ Believing in something without proof, like religion.

I agree with you completely, I'm not sure what you disagree with, other than my interpretation of the word morality. I meant it as condemning people for their behavior, but I realize it has other connotations.

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Wrong (evil) occurs when a person initiates force or violence against someone else.

This takes many different forms..

Yes, definitely. I guess I suppose the force or violence doesn't actually originate in the person. It seems to me that destructive behavior is almost always a response to suffering they themselves have received.

Originally Posted by JMononoetoe

Saying that there isn't good and evil, just smart and dumb is saying the same thing twice. Now, what I am going to say could be considered controversial. This is just my absolutely objective look at things.

I would say... There isn't good and evil, it just is. That act is more or less beneficial for others and depends on the perspective.

Very good post, and I agree here too. I didn't mean to suggest that we exchange the binary categories of good and evil with smart and dumb; nothing would be accomplished by that. My contention is just people in the habit of destructive behavior are not intrinsically different than those who aren't; they want to be happy too, they just don't know very good ways of going about it.

Originally Posted by Angela

I get and agree with your basic point, but I would stay away from "smart and dumb" because, like "good and evil" or "right and wrong", they are value judgments, and value judgements, as you've noticed, tend to limit rather than increase choice. The more emotionally charged the words, the more limit on choice. And one way to really charge up words emotionally is to use them in relation to the person, rather than the behavior. (As an example, "You're dumb." has a lot more emotional charge than "That (behavior) was dumb.")

And when I talk about limited choice, I'm talking about the person who is doing the judging, far more than the entity being judged. One limits one's own choices by judging and labeling, and makes one's self less supple in being present in the moment.

Instead, I like to use "works well or doesn't work so well." It just seems to make it easier (it works well!) for getting the results I want and for assisting others in getting the results they want.

Sometimes what looks like evil is really a person who has a positive intention (which is everyone) that they're just not very skilled at fulfilling, and they use ineffective, even desperate thoughts, actions, and habits to try to reach. Everyone is doing the best they can with the resources they have available to them.

You are right, Angela, and I wish now I had picked a less polarizing headline. 'Emotional charge' was part of my reason, but I think I inadvertently undermined my point by using those words. What I perhaps failed to clarify is that we are all smart sometimes and dumb other times. I did not mean to perpetuate the 'two types of people' argument.

The theme of the article (and I think you recognize this) was that some behaviors work well and some don't. Society, I believe, has a habit of branding as 'evil' those who are in the habit of choosing ineffective and destructive methods.

Thank you so much for your feedback everyone! This was certainly my most controversial post yet, and that was intentional. I love hearing everyone's opinions on this issue, and I agree with almost all of the points in this thread.