There is no good and evil, just smart and dumb

[David Cain]

I think morality is a mistake, and that those who do wrong are just unskillful at life. Living in a way that hurts others (such as living a criminal lifestyle) just does not bring fulfillment. So-called 'bad' people are bad not because they lack morals, but because they lack wisdom. The best way to serve oneself is to be compassionate and generous, not greedy and petty.

I hear this quote all the time and I think it's ridiculous:

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

But everyone thinks they're the good guy. Making others out to be evil is really just a way of justifying one's own cruel actions. All wars are instigated and supported from the point of view that we're good and they're bad. I want to examine the popular philosophy that there are indeed good people and bad people. I think it's BS.

I just finished a huge article on this topic that I think you guys and girls might like. I'd love to hear your opinions. There is no good and evil, just smart and dumb

[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?

[Xanafax]

I disagree completely.

At this point in my life I believe in morality.

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.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

I disagree completely.

At this point in my life I believe in morality.

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.

However, other people would disagree with you. You might think such people bad, and they might reciprocate in thinking you are the one that's bad. It's definitely not absolute.

So, who decides? You can define your own "good" and "bad," but I agree with the article that's mostly just to label others. If so, why not just dump that and do what works for you?

[Parthon]

Xanafax: would you then say good is being smart, and bad is being dumb?

Wow, that's an awesome article. I'm a little biased though, after finishing reading it, it sounds very much like one I would have written.

Spot on the truth, and lots of interesting points David.

As for the 10 commandments, I think they should be called "The 10 suggestions for better living." because they really are.

[Dan.Linehan]

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

This takes many different forms..

[Brutha]

In general I also think that the categories of good and evil should be ignored to analyze behavior.
Unfortunately they are deeply ingrained in how humans do reason.

But then there are things that differ from individuals that do things that are considered bad to individuals that don't.
Having monetary incentives is for example something that

Some say there is indeed a sturdy moral baseline: their religion.

For a very significant percentage of the population, good and evil are defined in scripture

If that would be true you wouldn't have one the one hand Christians who hate gays and on the other Christians who think that loving everyone is the thing they ought to do.
If you just watch how the actions for people who "believe" in the same scripture differ it's pretty obvious that the scripture doesn't define good and evil.

The message changed from “follow the scriptures, and you will learn a better and more loving way to live” to “do what we say, or we’ll hurt you.”

No.
It changed from stone everyone who works on Sunday to just judge people badly who work on Sunday's over time.

But once you have accepted that scripture doesn't define morality, is scripture worthless?
No it isn't. When you ask people to recite the ten commandments they behave better afterwards. The do that regardless of whether they are religious or aren't.

The very act of thinking about how to behave is the thing that's important.
Having role models and heroes does change actions to be more moral.

It's no random occurrence that the most successful religions like Christianity, Islam and Buddhism all have a clear human role model.

The same way identifying somebody who steals as a bad person makes you effectively less likely to steal yourself.

A good talks in that area:
Barry Schwartz on our loss of wisdom | Video on TED.com

[Diandra25]

i dont have time do read now,but will read when arrive from work.

nevertheless just by looking at your post,i agree.

it is we ( or consider oursleves good)that "makes" other´s "bad".because we judge them,we put a label on them,and by doing so,we are in fact,turning ourselves bad guys....

my truth is that each one of us had made some "soul contracts" to live our lives in a certain way....therephore,we really cannot judge why others are doing sth we consider "bad" or "evil" - it was sth that their soul had chosen to complete its task for "self-realization" as an individual.

and the 10 commandments certainly are not orders given by God-they are just guidelines,cause God doenst want us to stop experience sth,just cause the comandment says one thing.....what God wants is for us to choose.to have that liberty.

to be FREE....and wether we choose a life of criminality or choose to be a priest,we are essencialy made of the same thing:Love.

And we are only "obligated" to one thing:to he Happy and experience Life the way it makes us feel fullfilled.

[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.

By talking about those who do wrong, you have already made a judgement and thus it is no longer truly objective. The thing is that those people aren't doing wrong at all. They are just doing things, that seem to be wrong according to your beliefs.

I believe the friendly and nice way is the way to go. Help others, you know. And I am not an advocate for torture and killing people and all that jazz.

However, it is not evil. I Think it's evil, but that doesn't make the act evil. Relative to my way of life and seen from my perspective, it is wrong. Remove me from the chain, and it is no longer an act of wrongdoing.
Yes, it hurts people. It's simply less beneficial for them, and the 'evil' acts thus simply have a more egoic flavouring. It is actually a very effective method to get what you want.

Those people are quite intelligent, just in a different way then most of us. Think about it. They know exactly how to cause fear, how to torture people and so on.
It might not seem very hard to 'be evil'. This is also because the good is so clearly present in this world. 'Good' and 'evil' act as eachother's blueprints. Any 'good' deed creates it's (potential) oposite 'evil' pole right at the same instant (and vice versa).

For those that commit these acts, it is a very good way to get things done. It might not be socially acceptable, but that's not important when discussing this, just as all the other dogmas are to be excluded.

Anything I've said so far can be inverted, and then it talks about 'good' people.

Does this mean I find it acceptable that there are such people in this world? Not at all. I simply removed myself from the process of observing things, and so I see them as they really are.
I prefer to choose for the way that is considered to be 'good', although I do find several aspects of being good quite a nuisance (several laws for instance). Heh. In the end we all create our own 'style'.

[Xanafax]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

However, other people would disagree with you. You might think such people bad, and they might reciprocate in thinking you are the one that's bad. It's definitely not absolute.

So, who decides? You can define your own "good" and "bad," but I agree with the article that's mostly just to label others. If so, why not just dump that and do what works for you?

Maybe other people do disagree with me. But so what?

As far as I am concerned good is using your mind properly and doing what is, as best you can tell in any given situation, what is best for you.

For example should I walk to work or get the bus?

If you live 50 miles from work, walking wouldn't be wisest move, but if you only live a 20 minute walk maybe you could save some money and walk.

Thats a prertty emotionally neutral situation.

So what about when you see a person being attacked on the street?

If your strong, or you know martial arts or are just generally good at fighting, then stepping in to help someone, because it makes you feel good to help, is a good thing.

Stepping in to help someone because you think you should, even if you can't fight, or aren't strong, is bad. It's stupid.

Have I made my stand on it clearer or just confused the issue further?

[timothydrake]

I believe there is no such thing as good and evil. Those perspectives are 100% human and hold inconsistent value. Both sides think they are the good side. The winning side is almost always the "good guys" by force of perspective or by majority. If good is truly good and evil is truly evil then the winner's alignment will always be the same no matter what.

I also believe that if you do believe in such a system of good and evil you are highly prone to discrimination, racism, and other such emotions because of your judgement system of belief. When you label such things as "evil" and "good" you are judging them with a name that has a profound impact on how society should perceive their character.

[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.

[GHI]

Originally Posted by David Cain

I think morality is a mistake, and that those who do wrong are just unskillful at life. Living in a way that hurts others (such as living a criminal lifestyle) just does not bring fulfillment. So-called 'bad' people are bad not because they lack morals, but because they lack wisdom. The best way to serve oneself is to be compassionate and generous, not greedy and petty.

I agree completely... except one thing:

If "good" is smart and "bad" is stupid, why do you claim morality to be a mistake?

Don't you get it? You've just discovered the basis for an absolute morality system, which is independent of any personal bias. Wisdom is good. Stupidity is bad. Morality and logic are unified here into a single framework.

[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.

[argonaut1313]

some say:
good=god
evil=devil

Surely being evil is just breaking an established program.
Different societies create different programs for their subjects.

Hindering the furtherment of society for personal gain is also seen by many as being wrong.
All criminal acts that slow down the evolution of people, society, or our species for me could be described as wrong. I do find myself reluctant to use the word evil because as already mentioned, really (in the eyes of nature) there is no boundary, only being.

All sociable behaviour -that can be observed in many species- has a code of conduct, constructed for the furtherment of that specific species.

Ultimately I judge myself as a contributor not a hinderer.
Good, isn't for me about self gratification, it is about sacrifice to cause.

Reaching the stars for me seems to be a worthy cause.

[David Cain]

Surely being evil is just breaking an established program.
Different societies create different programs for their subjects.

Hindering the furtherment of society for personal gain is also seen by many as being wrong.
All criminal acts that slow down the evolution of people, society, or our species for me could be described as wrong.

This is the philosophy I don't agree with.

Many 'established programs' are intrinsically harmful. Afghanistan just passed a law that allows men to rape their wives every four days, for example.

I think that furthering society means precisely not to fall in line with existing expectations. Laws certainly are not congruent with right and wrong, because the people making them are not always saints. All societal progress humans have made has been a result of people insisting on following their hearts, rather than their rulers.

I certainly never cited gratification as the path to a better society. In fact, a focus on gratification is probably the greatest cause of harmful and atrocious behavior.

Characterizing 'doing good' as a sacrifice, I think, is another mistake. It implies that it isn't really something you want to do. Helping others is extremely rewarding, unless it is done out of guilt or approval-seeking. That was my point.

[bluedragon]

I agree that being "evil" is usually being inefficient in your actions, but only if you look at it from the point of view of the greater good. For your own personal well-being, being evil could help you as much as being good, as long as you're smart Like the concept of darkworkers - supposedly, they are more powerful than unpolarized people, because they are consistent in their actions and know exactly what's the right choice for them in every situation, and therefore they are more effective than people who are inconsistent and hesitate.

[David Cain]

I agree that being "evil" is usually being inefficient in your actions, but only if you look at it from the point of view of the greater good. For your own personal well-being, being evil could help you as much as being good, as long as you're smart Like the concept of darkworkers - supposedly, they are more powerful than unpolarized people, because they are consistent in their actions and know exactly what's the right choice for them in every situation, and therefore they are more effective than people who are inconsistent and hesitate.

Ah, that's a good point.

In my life I've taken both approaches: serving my own needs the best I can, and serving others the best I can. Maybe I'm just not a very skillful darkworker, but to me there is no comparison to the quality of life that 'lightworking' produces.

In my article I do not argue that it is necessary to have the greater good in mind in order to choose kindness and generosity. I really do believe they are just better choices, even if self-service is all you care about. I guess my belief is that darkworkers don't know what they're missing. In terms of physical abundance (money, fame, etc) I think lightworking is more a more efficient approach to those ends too. It is far easier to get people behind you when you demonstrate that you value them.

I have never experienced the world through any mind other than my own, so I can't ever know for sure. But looking around at the people I know who appear to enjoy life the most (and I think this is easy to determine,) they are invariably kind and forgiving. Those acquaintances with habits of manipulation and deception usually appear unsettled and preoccupied. I can't deny those observations.

[Cigaro]

Sorry, lame article.

The whole "everything is not black or white, it's grey" has been done a million tims before. For example, the popular example that killing a man during peace time is murder but killing a thousand men during war time is heroic. This is by the way a very popular defense in court, so I don't blame the author for being confused.

The article is confusing 'good' for 'lawful' or 'accepted by morality as defined by the majority of the population'.

Example: I'm at home. Somebody burts into my appartement and threatens me or my family. I kill them forcefully in an attempt to defend myself. That's not evil in my book.

Now, I'm a hutu in rwanda, I walk drunk in a village, rape 5 year old girls in front of their mothers, then beat the civilian father in front of the mother for fun, then kill the mother and the kids by torturing them with a knife, laughing as I do it. This by the way, happens all the time. And erm, that's definitely evil. Anyone saying it's not, that it's just 'dumb', is 'dumb' himself, and really needs professional help.

Problem is the article is clearly politicaly motivated, repeatidly refering to terrorists (ie, Jihadis in current conflicts) and 'crusaders' (ie, us). Yes we get it, western civs have commited evil atrocities in the past and continue to do so. Yes we get it one's person freedom fighter is another person terrorist. That has nothing to do with the debate of good vs evil. The problem with the author is that if I give him the above rwanda example, he will reply 'But the americans killed tons of people during ww2/iraq/vietnam/afghanistan'. Well no buddy, some did, not all, and NO ONE ever said the atrocities commited were good. The atrocities were evil. An atrocity, regardless of your skin color, or political party, is still an atrocity, and still evil. The 9/11 bombings will never be good. The killing and rape of vietnamese by American soliders will never be good either.

Good exists. Evil exists. If you don't belive evil exists, you should get out more, read some news. When people comit violent crimes against the weak while laughing, then laugh at the families of the victims while in court, they aren't just dumb, they are evil.

[timothydrake]

Originally Posted by Cigaro

Sorry, lame article.

The whole "everything is not black or white, it's grey" has been done a million tims before. For example, the popular example that killing a man during peace time is murder but killing a thousand men during war time is heroic. This is by the way a very popular defense in court, so I don't blame the author for being confused.

The article is confusing 'good' for 'lawful' or 'accepted by morality as defined by the majority of the population'.

Example: I'm at home. Somebody burts into my appartement and threatens me or my family. I kill them forcefully in an attempt to defend myself. That's not evil in my book.

Now, I'm a hutu in rwanda, I walk drunk in a village, rape 5 year old girls in front of their mothers, then beat the civilian father in front of the mother for fun, then kill the mother and the kids by torturing them with a knife, laughing as I do it. This by the way, happens all the time. And erm, that's definitely evil. Anyone saying it's not, that it's just 'dumb', is 'dumb' himself, and really needs professional help.

Problem is the article is clearly politicaly motivated, repeatidly refering to terrorists (ie, Jihadis in current conflicts) and 'crusaders' (ie, us). Yes we get it, western civs have commited evil atrocities in the past and continue to do so. Yes we get it one's person freedom fighter is another person terrorist. That has nothing to do with the debate of good vs evil. The problem with the author is that if I give him the above rwanda example, he will reply 'But the americans killed tons of people during ww2/iraq/vietnam/afghanistan'. Well no buddy, some did, not all, and NO ONE ever said the atrocities commited were good. The atrocities were evil. An atrocity, regardless of your skin color, or political party, is still an atrocity, and still evil. The 9/11 bombings will never be good. The killing and rape of vietnamese by American soliders will never be good either.

Good exists. Evil exists. If you don't belive evil exists, you should get out more, read some news. When people comit violent crimes against the weak while laughing, then laugh at the families of the victims while in court, they aren't just dumb, they are evil.

Exhibit A.

[Cigaro]

Originally Posted by timothydrake

Exhibit A.

When you say "The winning side is almost always the good guys by force of perspective or by majority." - I think you're absolutely right when it comes to war for example. I don't think any of this is a 'secret' either - If you read the autobiography of Chuck Yeager for example you'll read all about American heroes strafing civilians just because they could. Oh, and, well, Hiroshima.

But - I don't think you can apply "The winning side is almost always the good guys by force of perspective or by majority" to everything . You cannot say that someone saving someone else's life is good - just because society said so. You cannot say the rape of a child is bad - just because 'they' decided it was bad, or that we were somehow conditionned to beleive it was bad.

If you really beleive that a rape is neither good or bad, and that it's only considered bad because our society said so, well, I'm a bit worried about you now

Oh and by the way I'm not sure why the author got this fixation on Christianity. It feels very strange that someone who appears to be intelligent would someone go "ah-ah! guess what I found out! Crusaders weren't good after all! We were all manipulated by our sunday school teachers!" It's just bizarre - because everyone today, including school children, are all perfectly aware that Christianity has been the source of immense misery and atrocities. It's not a secret.

That the line between good and bad is often blurred isn't a secret either - but then again the author seems to believe that "ANYONE" who see a prisonner in an orange jumpsuit is automatically a monster who deserves no right. So the author doesn't 'do' subtle.

What's next - News at 11! Politicians don't necessarily have our best interests at heart? Democracy does not always reflect the popular opinion? LOL. Groundbreaking stuff.

My two cents only of course.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Cigaro

Sorry, lame article.



Good exists. Evil exists. If you don't belive evil exists, you should get out more, read some news. When people comit violent crimes against the weak while laughing, then laugh at the families of the victims while in court, they aren't just dumb, they are evil.

I agree the crimes should be punished as if the offender was "evil", but it doesn't prove evil exists.

Many of those committing the crimes have also had similar crimes against them. A deranged mind does not prove evil, it just shows the human psyche can be damaged to an extreme level. Rarely does anyone commit such crimes when raised in a peaceful environment and when they do we usually see some type of psychological defect.
From the point of view of a superior intelligent alien race, they would see lions killing cubs from other prides and homo sapiens doing similar, they may see it as instinct. A very base level consciousness but not actual evil.
To assume evil exists based on human actions would be rather anthromorphological wouldn't it?

[David Cain]

Originally Posted by Cigaro

Sorry, lame article.

The whole "everything is not black or white, it's grey" has been done a million tims before. For example, the popular example that killing a man during peace time is murder but killing a thousand men during war time is heroic. This is by the way a very popular defense in court, so I don't blame the author for being confused.

The article is confusing 'good' for 'lawful' or 'accepted by morality as defined by the majority of the population'.

Example: I'm at home. Somebody burts into my appartement and threatens me or my family. I kill them forcefully in an attempt to defend myself. That's not evil in my book.

Now, I'm a hutu in rwanda, I walk drunk in a village, rape 5 year old girls in front of their mothers, then beat the civilian father in front of the mother for fun, then kill the mother and the kids by torturing them with a knife, laughing as I do it. This by the way, happens all the time. And erm, that's definitely evil. Anyone saying it's not, that it's just 'dumb', is 'dumb' himself, and really needs professional help.

Problem is the article is clearly politicaly motivated, repeatidly refering to terrorists (ie, Jihadis in current conflicts) and 'crusaders' (ie, us). Yes we get it, western civs have commited evil atrocities in the past and continue to do so. Yes we get it one's person freedom fighter is another person terrorist. That has nothing to do with the debate of good vs evil. The problem with the author is that if I give him the above rwanda example, he will reply 'But the americans killed tons of people during ww2/iraq/vietnam/afghanistan'. Well no buddy, some did, not all, and NO ONE ever said the atrocities commited were good. The atrocities were evil. An atrocity, regardless of your skin color, or political party, is still an atrocity, and still evil. The 9/11 bombings will never be good. The killing and rape of vietnamese by American soliders will never be good either.

Good exists. Evil exists. If you don't belive evil exists, you should get out more, read some news. When people comit violent crimes against the weak while laughing, then laugh at the families of the victims while in court, they aren't just dumb, they are evil.

Heh. Very bizarre interpretation you had, I'm not really sure what to say. You're arguing against points I never made.

The problem with the author is that if I give him the above rwanda example, he will reply 'But the americans killed tons of people during ww2/iraq/vietnam/afghanistan'. Well no buddy, some did, not all, and NO ONE ever said the atrocities commited were good.

Disagreeing is one thing, but now you are just putting words into my mouth. I don't know what you read that made you believe that I think retaliation killings of any kind are justified.

Suffice it to say, based on what you've written here it's clear you did not understand what I was getting at, and I doubt any further explanation on my part would make a difference anyway.

[Parthon]

There are definately good acts and evil acts.

Evil acts are commited by people acting stupidly, unwisely or foolishly.

There are no evil people or good people, just those that act wisely or unwisely.

That's the point David was making.

Also, stop making straw men.

[Jon Alan]

Actually I believe that morality is no match for compassion. If we would just focus on human need and stop worrying about all this crap about how things 'should' be we would be much better off. It's funny, you read the story of the fall in Genesis and the Gods warned man to stay away from both good and evil. People always assume that the evil was the only problem. How many wars have been fought over people believing that they were 'right' and the other person was 'wrong?' Every conflict boils down to that. Human needs are what really matters, seeing past right and wrong and seeing others as real people with needs and who are in pain without having them met. That pain is what causes people to inflict pain on others trying to set the 'wrong' things 'right', seeking justice instead of healing. That's how victims become victimizes. I agree, I think morality is over rated. Just about everyone has their own idea of what it is and whoever doesn't agree with them is somehow less important. Compassion is what really matters.

[songwriter]

yes I kind of agree


Then we should discuss if lack of morals should be seen as an "illness" or as "retard/disability".

I think lack of morals is not a fixed and inborn thing. It can change for the good and for the worse. So I see it like and illness... like... depression, for instance.

I'm looking forward for the day the world would see "evil" as an illness.
Then we won't have jails but recovery/educational places.

That´s the world of "Imagine" i know, but someday it will happen

[argonaut1313]

Sorry David but I have to admit I didn't even read your post
I was responding to somebody else.

This is the philosophy I don't agree with.

Many 'established programs' are intrinsically harmful. Afghanistan just passed a law that allows men to rape their wives every four days, for example.

"Established programs" I wouldn't deem to be governmental laws. More the laws of morality/stroke nature that are held by "good/average/normal people"

I think that furthering society means precisely not to fall in line with existing expectations. Laws certainly are not congruent with right and wrong, because the people making them are not always saints. All societal progress humans have made has been a result of people insisting on following their hearts, rather than their rulers.

You got the wrong end of my stick mate I agree with your views of law. But furthering society has to be done positively and in a way that ultimately fits in/appeals to the masses so that the new programs you introduce do eventually get incorporated. For this to happen you have to have the intellectual side of society on your side, and they will be, if your program is pointing in the right direction? Moving forward need not be forced on the masses? (only on multi-national behemoths!!)

I follow your point.
I believe that governments look at their coffers, not necessarily at the individual, but how could they? Things have to tick along.
The last sentence of the above quote is clearly highly debatable but I do follow your gist wholeheartedly. Saying "All" is a bit strong lol.

I certainly never cited gratification as the path to a better society. In fact, a focus on gratification is probably the greatest cause of harmful and atrocious behavior.

As I said I wasn't refering to your post. The (self gratification comment) was a response to xanafax's comments.

Characterizing 'doing good' as a sacrifice, I think, is another mistake. It implies that it isn't really something you want to do. Helping others is extremely rewarding, unless it is done out of guilt or approval-seeking. That was my point.

Maybe my character is intrinsically darker than yours. But my belief isn't that I do good for others or for myself I just do it because it is right. The strong values my mother instilled in me definitely do not come naturally to me. But I have been educated, and these habits have stuck and become conscious decisions I make for a positive effect. An effect to, in my small way, play my part to the furtherment of our species. That is mine truth.

And yes I do sometimes sacrifice my furtherment to help others because I have had others help me and I believe that this action is one of fundamental importance to humans.

Doing good is NOT always a sacrifice but sometimes helping someone else may see you out of pocket? I welcome this temporary loss because in my experience I have received much more than I have given. Maybe that is why I am prepared to give.

Surely being evil is just breaking an established program.
Different societies create different programs for their subjects.

Hindering the furtherment of society for personal gain is also seen by many as being wrong.
All criminal acts that slow down the evolution of people, society, or our species for me could be described as wrong.

Many 'established programs' are intrinsically harmful. Afghanistan just passed a law that allows men to rape their wives every four days, for example.

I agree. That is definitely way out of order.

You have to remember that the majority of any given societies viewpoints do generally correlate to the views of the law in that society. In afghanistan this new law you speak of was probably backed wholeheartedly by the individuals in power and by the men in the country. To put our ideals onto them is a mistake. We -may/are not to- judge a faulty society(??). I personally am not really interested in the afghans folly in their approach. We need to get it right here? Our view of our society is paramount? What shall we do? Slaughter all of the afghans? Force our will upon them? If they fail, let them fail because their society (that is unable to compete because it is half as productive due to the oppression of women) is just unable to keep up?
In contrast, do the afghan women agree with the new law? Do they have a say? Much of our goodness comes from the fairer sex.
(Maybe a different topic?)

I am not refering to(in my statement) societies that do not function. I refer to societies that are actually productive (our's).

I have to stand by my statements. What criminal acts (within western culture) are beneficial to humanity?

What is best for humanity isn't always best for the individual, the few or the minority.

I know that I should have initially painted my views with more lucidity. Hope I have embellished my view somewhat.

Regards J

[GHI]

Originally Posted by Cigaro

Good exists. Evil exists

Of-course they do.

But how would you DEFINE Good? How would you DEFINE Evil?

Yes, I agree genocide is evil. The question is, how are you going to prove this to someone who thinks otherwise?

That's the beauty of that article. Once you define "good=smart, evil=dumb" you can PROVE that genocide is evil. Genocide is devilishly evil, precisely because it is devilishly stupid. It's similar to cutting off your own finger for the fun of it, only a billion times dumber.

[AlexL]

Very interesting discussion. One lesson for me: whenever you start a discussion about morality, expect intensity. A while back I wrote a post called "Evil Triumphs When Good People Do Nothing" based on the very quote by Edmund Burke that David Cain thinks is ridiculous. With all due respect I disagree with David, and wrote the post to explain my position about why I think that quote is so vitally important, especially today. I followed it up with another post called "Become A Force For Good" to clarify what I thought was a weakness of the first post. I'd be very interested to hear what folks here think of my positions in those two posts. Feel free to comment here or on my own blog.

AlexL
Happiness in this World

[neo1234]

So if I stab you in the face and I get away without the cops finding me or my identity, ever, I am not evil, but dumb ?

those who do wrong are just unskillful at life.

Oooooh, thats what it was...

morality is a mistake

Fu** morality.

Morality is a code or something.

But morality and good / evil are not the same thing.

Evil mens malitiousness, mean-ness, hatred, etc

And it implyes intention to hurt, destroy, etc

The means by which you doit are irelevant, its the intention that counts..

Whereas morality implies a moral code. A some rule or something. Like "its not moral to do x"

But what if by doing x I save somebody`s life ? By stealing their gun when I know they are really upset and wanting to kill their whole family.

Stealing is moraly wrong isnt it ?

Morality is a code, a set of rules, and is almost always used by somebody to impose theese rules on somebody else, because that is how it is "moral" to behave.

Good and Evil are different things, they are related to the intention, the goal of the action. And perhaps in lesser extent to negligence.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

That simply means that when you see somthing bad, and you can do something about it not to sit on your ass and let it happen.

which is exactly what you are doing now, with this post.