The Origin of Dark vs Light

[Nithavela]

Too many questions, please pick 3, or just make point you want to make.

 

[MotherFirefly]

I don't know if it's a delusion...

Perhaps it would make more sense to just think of it as an opinion. In certain circumstances you have an idea of what's "good" or "right"...and so do I. Maybe we agree on what that is...maybe we don't.

The big clue here is that we can never prove what's right or wrong...we would always just be arguing our opinions.

In any case, human morality serves human purposes, and that´s a good thing.
I wouldn´t call human concepts and feelings "delusions" just because they aren´t things out there.

Are opinions and feelings not conceptual delusions? Afterall, if we take away these things are we not the same as every other animal? Why or why isn't that the case?

The fact we can form thoughts fueled by imagination and ambition and pride, is that not the definition of humanity?

Humans seem to constantly need something to make themselves feel good. Do you think a major way they cope is by creating these mental 'rules' and 'justifications' just so they can feel above the carnal desires of the flesh and the random chance of the universe?

Afterall, have you never felt good when comparing yourself to a murderer? No matter how bad of a human you may be, 'at least you have never killed anyone!'
What about when comparing yourself to the victim?

Don't you think Humans have this sense of undeserved self-righteousness? Perhaps that is the base layer of fuel for the pyre that is conditional human morality.

 

[MotherFirefly]

Too many questions, please pick 3, or just make point you want to make.

Spoiler

Why do you feel there are too many questions?
Why do you limit another's introspection to a finite number?
Is it because you are unable to answer these questions?
Perhaps you are afraid to ask them, and ones like them, to begin with.
Do you fear what may happen to your perfectly structured thought process?
Perhaps this mindset of yours, which drives you to limit others' of the questions which elude yourself, was half created for you and half a mess of these unanswered questions, that you could never be bothered to even guess at?
Or, perhaps, you are a welcoming example of the human delusion of undeserved self-righteousness.

Who knows.

Afterall, rather than actually contribute to something, you decided to write a post void of any substance or thought.
So there must be -some- reason...

 

[Nithavela]

Spoiler

Why do you feel there are too many questions?
Why do you limit another's introspection to a finite number?
Is it because you are unable to answer these questions?
Perhaps you are afraid to ask them, and ones like them, to begin with.
Do you fear what may happen to your perfectly structured thought process?
Perhaps this mindset of yours, which drives you to limit others' of the questions which elude yourself, was half created for you and half a mess of these unanswered questions, that you could never be bothered to even guess at?
Or, perhaps, you are a welcoming example of the human delusion of undeserved self-righteousness.

Who knows.

Afterall, rather than actually contribute to something, you decided to write a post void of any substance or thought.
So there must be -some- reason...

The reason is that I wanted to contribute, but I couldn't spare the time to answer a dozen very open ended questions, so I wanted you to narrow it down a bit. But your idle attempts to psychoanalyse me and insult me at the same time has cured me of the notion.

Your leading and loaded questions and insinuations are very tiresome and have no place in serious discussion, but rather make you appear as condescending and as if you felt you were educating anyone here.

Go and question your navel.

 

[MotherFirefly]

The reason is that I wanted to contribute, but I couldn't spare the time to answer a dozen very open ended questions, so I wanted you to narrow it down a bit. But your idle attempts to psychoanalyse me and insult me at the same time has cured me of the notion.

Your leading and loaded questions and insinuations are very tiresome and have no place in serious discussion, but rather make you appear as condescending and as if you felt you were educating anyone here.

Go and question your navel.

 

[quatona]

Are opinions and feelings not conceptual delusions?

What gives you this opinion? As it reads there, it doesn´t make any sense to me. Can you explain?

Afterall, if we take away these things are we not the same as every other animal?

I´m not sure I understand. You seem to be arguing that everything that makes us different from other animals must therefore be a delusion. Please clarify.

Why or why isn't that the case?

No two animals are the same - only if you ignore the differences.

The fact we can form thoughts fueled by imagination and ambition and pride, is that not the definition of humanity?

Well, no, I don´t think that this is the definition of humanity (it may be one of the capabilities unique to humans, though), but more importantly, it´s not the definition of "delusion".

Humans seem to constantly need something to make themselves feel good.

.,..which they seem to have in common with all other mammals.

Do you think a major way they cope is by creating these mental 'rules' and 'justifications' just so they can feel above the carnal desires of the flesh and the random chance of the universe?

Some (particularly objectivists come to mind here) may do that - but I don´t think this is the driving force behind forming moral ideas. Rather, the driving force seems to be the need to get along with each other.

Afterall, have you never felt good when comparing yourself to a murderer? No matter how bad of a human you may be, 'at least you have never killed anyone!'
What about when comparing yourself to the victim?

I don´t have the habit of comparing myself to other people. I honestly have no idea what your point is, here. Even if it is the case that some people find comfort in comparing themselves to people who are, by their standards, immoral - what gives you the idea that this is the main point of morality? Is that why you personally make moral and ethical considerations?

Don't you think Humans have this sense of undeserved self-righteousness?

Some may. Doesn´t mean this is the deeper motive behind forming moral ideas.

Perhaps that is the base layer of fuel for the pyre that is conditional human morality.

To me this doesn´t make much sense, it appears quite far fetched.
I see way more self-suggesting, very manifest, concrete, practical need to form moral ideas - seeing that we are a social species and interdependent on each other and the systems we are part of.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Are opinions and feelings not conceptual delusions? Afterall, if we take away these things are we not the same as every other animal? Why or why isn't that the case?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that a number of animals have "feelings". Why do you think opinions and feelings are conceptual "delusions"? Is it because they don't necessarily reflect anything external to yourself? Why would something that reflects something "internal" be a delusion?

The fact we can form thoughts fueled by imagination and ambition and pride, is that not the definition of humanity?

I wouldn't say so.

Humans seem to constantly need something to make themselves feel good. Do you think a major way they cope is by creating these mental 'rules' and 'justifications' just so they can feel above the carnal desires of the flesh and the random chance of the universe?

Sure, there's a lot of justification going on for pleasure seeking behaviors. Wouldn't we expect that? It is pleasure after all...

Afterall, have you never felt good when comparing yourself to a murderer? No matter how bad of a human you may be, 'at least you have never killed anyone!'
What about when comparing yourself to the victim?

I tend to dehumanize people in non-personal situations.

Don't you think Humans have this sense of undeserved self-righteousness? Perhaps that is the base layer of fuel for the pyre that is conditional human morality.

I think a lot of people make the mistake of thinking that the way they think is the way everyone thinks...

Or they make the mistake of thinking that no one thinks like them lol.

 

[CodyFaith]

Do you think morality is defined by the action or the reaction?

Is murder evil? If so, is that simply because someone died? Or is it because of the feelings invoked in those involved? The possible regret in the one who did the deed, or the fear in those who witness, afraid of finding a similar fate?

What if someone attacks your family, and you kill them of self defense? What seperates that from murder of an 'innocent'? The action is the same, the result the same, yet the feelings invoked in those involved is different. Is it these 'justifications' we create for different circumstances that set the foundation for morality?

A robber who steals from a bank compared to a mother stealing food for her starving children. The action is the same, yet we find it easy to justify one side over another, right?

If morality is so set, why does it seem humanity can sway it on a whim when emotions fuel such positions?

Perhaps morality is a delusion created to feel a sense of control in the chaos of circumstances which we cause upon ourselves.

I can't go too far indepth to it haha, my mind won't let me. But I'd say it's many things that would cause something like murder to be wrong. Number one though in my eyes is, because it's not justice, an innocent life leaving the world is not right. Right and wrong are apart of morality, if not the whole, hence the word righteousness. Has the word right in there purposely, it's literal. A righteous person person does and strives to do what is right.

Murder and justified killing are 2 different actions. They both cease a life, but just because they both cease a life does not make them the same thing or even comparable to each other. I don't really like this example though, because even justifiably killing to me has an element of wrong to it, but that's my personal beliefs that is pretty complex to go into discussion here over.

Morality is not set in the sense that we can say "all stealing is equal and wrong" or "all thise type of action is wrong". It's not set like that in my opinion, but set in hearts, when we hear of things that are evil happening in the world for example, our hearts and minds work together and say automatically "that's evil.". Our conscience.

It gets even more indpeth when things like compassion and mercy come into play as well. Therein comes your example of a mother stealing to feed her children. The book of Proverbs even has a proverb saying a poor person can receive mercy for stealing to feed his mouth, let alone someone stealing to feed little mouths.

 

[MotherFirefly]

@CodyFaith
Despite having many opportunities, even justifications for anger and pride, you hold fast to a set good/evil - right/wrong mindset. An ever flowing river of karma that has but one direction. You have a kind soul, my friend.


It is my opinion, that despite the selfish desires of those who wish to re-write the laws of justice and condemnation, it is the few who hold the defense of the innocent and the dreams of peace and companionship as a species, that truly hold the key to the universal love. Whether we find that in righteous deeds, a supreme deity, or merely in the strange capability for goodness in the human mind - to me, it is love that these moral pillars were established upon. And love that will uphold them.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So, you define evil as the creation of destruction and corruption?
Do you define good as that which is destroyed or corrupted?
How then do you define destruction?
Corruption?

The view of the ancient fathers--and which has tended to be the normative view for most Christian theologians and philosophers--has been that evil has no objective existence on its own. That is to say, Christianity has frequently rejected any attempt at cosmic dualism; that the cosmos is dominated by two opposite powers: Good and Evil, Light and Darkness. Such dualism has more in common with certain Gnostic sects, and in particular is a major facet of the Manichean religion.

The fathers asserted that evil does not, itself, exist; evil is instead the perversion, or malformation, of the good. A rational creature is evil only because it is in some sense malformed; such is the case with the devils and with human beings who, fallen, act and behave in discordance with God. In some sense it's to understand (as just one example) that hatred is the deprivation or absence of love.

The historic Christian teaching can vary whether we're talking East or West; but both tend to understand that evil results from a perverse [mis]use of the natural appetites; the natural appetites are not themselves evil because they are an intrinsic quality of our created nature which is innately good ("And God saw all that He made and said, 'It is exceedingly good'") but there is something fundamentally broken which results in the misuse and abuse of the appetites toward evil ends, which are in discord with God, one another, and the rest of creation. The West has typically taken the approach of speaking of Original Sin and a brokenness intrinsic to human nature in the form of concupiscence, that is, selfish desire; the East on the other hand has taken the approach of speaking of the Ancestral Sin which in some sense bent creation wrongly and so while it is not our own human nature that is itself fundamentally broken, we are part of a fallen creation in which the misuse and abuse of the appetites becomes inevitable. Speaking as a Lutheran (and therefore from the Western tradition) we have often said that sin is homo incurvatus in se, man bent or curved inward upon himself. Sin, and therefore human evil, flows from man being turned inward upon himself to satisfy his own desires rather than bent properly, in love, toward God and neighbor (e.g. the Great Commandment).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ananda]

Within every human being lies a capability for good and evil. This is something which seemingly cannot be argued... right?

It certainly seems indisputable simply by reading the news every day. The scope of which humanity can practice evil is appalling, but our tendency to do good can be just as encouraging.
But why are certain actions defined as good or evil? Is what I find good similar to what you find good?
Is how I define good perhaps what you define as evil?

For most religious people who worship a benevolent god, it is a bit simpler as they have an 'ultimate good' to compare everything to. Anything of their god, and to the benefit of mankind as a whole, could be seen as good. While the polar opposite is evil.
What if your god and my god are that polar opposite of eachother?

However, how would you define good and evil in an atheistic world?
If we had not a sun, could we distinguish between dark and light?

In the primal carnage of animalistic society, is it evil to kill a fellow creature?
Is it evil to eat them?
Is it good to give up your family's food for another?

What is it that makes us cringe at a bloody murder, and smile at the happiness of another?
What is it that causes us to indulge in satisfaction of the death of a criminal, while feeling angry when they are released?
Why are these feelings two-fold when the victim is someone we hold dear?

In the case of a planet given life by the sun, where did darkness come from?
What of a planet that knows no sun, from where did light first shine?


For what reason do those who hold seperate beliefs in a deity, and those that believe in none, come to a distinct crossroads of defining the ethics and morality of the human race?

Evil and good ... are concepts imposed by a conscious observer onto the unconscious neutral world.

Is light good? Is darkness bad? Without darkness, it would be difficult to fall asleep, and in that sense, darkness is a "good".

IMO, ultimately, ideas about what is evil and what is good revolves around the subjective idea of dukkha (aka dissatisfaction, suffering, etc.). If "something" is judged as producing dukkha in one's self or another, it might be labeled as "evil" - for that judge. The same "something" which, at another time, produces sukkha (aka ease, satisfaction, bliss, relief of suffering, etc.), might then be re-labeled as "good" - for that judge.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Within every human being lies a capability for good and evil. This is something which seemingly cannot be argued... right?

That's pretty obvious.
Considering that "good" and "evil" are merely value judgement of certain actions.
And on top of that, it's also context related. What is "good" in situation A, might be very evil in situation B.

But why are certain actions defined as good or evil? Is what I find good similar to what you find good? Is how I define good perhaps what you define as evil?

I'ld say we can consider different "levels" of morality here. Level 1 being something that every culture/society would agree on, Level X being things that are very cultural related and even beyond that level, another level where things are actually rather personal.

Level 1 morals would cover things that we see in every human civilisation / society. From the small tribes in the jungle to the big empires stretching accross the globe.

These are things like unjustified killing (murder), stealing, etc.

And sure, in the higher levels, we most certainly will find things that are considered moral (or neutral) while in other cultures those same things are considered immoral.

In one culture, it is considered for example polite/respectfull to NOT look your boss/authority in the eye while talking to him/her, while in another culture the opposite is true.

In one culture, it is considered polite to shake hands, while in another culture that is considered a vile habbit.

These are small things, but they illustrate well how certain practices can be perceived in complete opposites as we go from culture to culture.

In general, I think we need to take a step back from our cultural background and preconceived notions and need to dare question the status quo.

My "moral theory" comes very close to what Sam Harris describes in his book The Moral Landscape.

In a nutshell, he asks to imagine 2 hypothetical worlds:
- world 1: a world with the best possible well-being for all sentient beings
- world 2: a world with the worst possible suffering for all sentient beings

World 1 is the most possible "good", while world 2 is the worst possible "bad".

Now, whenever one needs to make a value judgement about an action or decision, one can simply analyse if such behaviour gets us closer to world 1 or closer to world 2.

If 1, then it is moral.
If 2, then it is immoral.

And off course, there are gradations in there. And it's not as simple as it is written here. There's also the issue of moral dilemma's etc.
But basically, in a nutshell, that's how I view morality in general.

For most religious people who worship a benevolent god, it is a bit simpler as they have an 'ultimate good' to compare everything to. Anything of their god, and to the benefit of mankind as a whole, could be seen as good. While the polar opposite is evil.

This is what is commonly refered to as "Divine Command Theory". And, honestly, it is a completely morally bankrupt system. It is not a moral system. It is not a system of ethics. It is not a moral compass. What it is, essentially, is nothing but obedience to a perceived authority.

"Befehl ist befehl" is what that boils down to.
It is the "morality" of psychopaths.

Whenever this comes up, I feel compelled to refer to the social experiment in a class of 6-year olds. It goes like this...

Kids aren't allowed to drink in class. It's a general rule. However, on a very hot day, the teacher tells the children that it is okay to drink in class, cause it's so hot outside.
The children are asked if it is fine to drink in class in that situation (with the teacher giving permission). Children answer that with a clear and convinced "yes".

Next, they move on to another rule of the school: no fighting.
The children are asked if it is fine to punch one of their classmates on the nose, if the teacher gives permission to do so.

Children immediatly realise that no, it's not okay - not even if the teacher allows it. However, some kids don't see it that way. Some kids will say that if the teacher says that it's okay - then it is okay.

These are the children with psychopathic tendencies. These are children that aren't able to work out moral judgements through their own reasoning. These are children that have to rely on a perceived authority to tell them what they can and cannot do. If the authority says that raping is wrong, then raping is wrong. But if the authority says that raping is okay, then raping is okay.

And that is exactly what "divine command theory" is. The perceived authority, in that case, is the god of the religion in question.

What if your god and my god are that polar opposite of eachother?

Jihad, or something similar, I guess.

However, how would you define good and evil in an atheistic world?

See above.

In the primal carnage of animalistic society, is it evil to kill a fellow creature?
Is it evil to eat them?
Is it good to give up your family's food for another?

Humans are social creatures. We depend on cooperative societies to prosper.
That's exactly why we developed "rules of conduct" and "social contracts" and whatnot.

Our personal "succes" in life, is directly dependend on the "succes" of the group/society we belong to. A society where stealing isn't wrong, isn't going to prosper like a society where it is. In fact, without such "rules of conduct", society as a whole would simply not survive.

What is it that makes us cringe at a bloody murder, and smile at the happiness of another?

Our instinctive social nature. Empathy.

What is it that causes us to indulge in satisfaction of the death of a criminal, while feeling angry when they are released?

Tribe mentality. We care about "the group". A criminal is a danger to "the group".

Why are these feelings two-fold when the victim is someone we hold dear?

Because it hurst extra at the personal level, obviously.

In the case of a planet given life by the sun, where did darkness come from?

I disagree that this is a proper analogy. Light and dark are not the same kind of thing as good and evil.

Light is physical thing caused by photons. Darkness is what you have by default if the photons aren't there.

Good and evil... those aren't physical things. Those are value judgements. Labels invented by and applied by humans.

For what reason do those who hold seperate beliefs in a deity, and those that believe in none, come to a distinct crossroads of defining the ethics and morality of the human race?

Because our social nature is older then our religions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Other animals have a much more narrow look.. basic needs and survival. They kill to eat, and provide only for themselves.

That is just not true.

Other social creatures most certainly have a "group organisation" as well. They most certainly also have "rules of conduct". They most certainly also have "social contracts". All together, you could perfectly say that they have their own moral compass.