|
| Thread: Good and Evil Terms transfered to Physics |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Miru
Supreme Hero
A leaf in the river of time
|
posted November 20, 2013 05:22 AM |
|
|
You may think that in the end good always prevails, but unfortunately entropy always increases. It might seem unfair, but I assure you energy is conserved.
____________
I wish I were employed by a stupendous paragraph, with capitalized English words and expressions.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 05:43 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Sure, but cancer is always medically bad for people.
I could think of scenarios where one person getting cancer would benefit someone else.
Quote:
Diseases are bad for people.
Not always. Some genetic diseases persist because their phenotypes provide an evolutionary advantage to some segment of the human population. Sickle cell trait is one example, which in this case provides some measure of protection against malaria, a worse disease if you're living in Africa, particularly in the days before the proliferation of modern antimalarials. In climates where malaria isn't so much a problem, the trait doesn't offer a benefit. Therefore whether the disease is good or bad to an individual, and certainly to a large population, depends on one's geographic location.
Quote:
But due to human nature, people have common goals under a reflective equilibrium.
If people have common goals, they are general and broad and reflected to different degrees in different people. I'd say this supports a stand of moral relativism more.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 06:04 AM |
|
|
I mean, the disease is bad for the person who has it. Also, as I said to FOG, situational is not the same thing as relative. If you want me to be more precise than I think is necessary, I'll put it differently: all else equal, a disease is bad for you.Quote:
If people have common goals, they are general and broad and reflected to different degrees in different people.
That's true, but that doesn't mean that there aren't common goals, and common behaviors/actions/ways of being that are conducive to those goals. Also, I said "in a reflective equilibrium" - which is not a condition that many people are in. There are more ways to be wrong than to be right. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 06:07 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 06:07, 20 Nov 2013.
|
cancer can result in change of lifestyle
can result in the sufferer or survivor to go about encouraging people in 1000+ ways
It is still unfortunate but there can be this whole  yin yang thing easily on this particular example.
But there are plenty of absolute horrid situations like crack babies
____________
What are you up to
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 06:11 AM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 06:59 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 07:00, 20 Nov 2013.
|
Morality is not about the goals, it's about what is considered legitimate to achieve those goals. And unless you are talking about overwhelmingly obvious things like "don't kill a group member without a reason" which dates back to our mammal ancestors, there is no "universal" morality as you claim. In the related thread, you have been given examples of historical contexts in which even things like infanticide or honor killings were considered moral according to the conditions .You completely ignored them and you continue to do so, there's nothing wrong in admitting when you are off the track every once in a while. It can even be considered the morally right thing to do.
Your morality based on the untouchableness of some individual rights can also lead to many deaths in various scenarios. (Once I've read that if for 2 years, people in developed countries stopped using perfume and use that money to stop starvation, starvation actually ends.) So comparing immorality to diseases is not to your advantage if we are expected to think, if it kills it's bad.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 07:08 AM |
|
|
People can be mistaken about what's moral, just as they can be mistaken about what's healthy. (See the anti-vaccination people.) I don't think I agree about the "goals" thing, but it requires more clarification on my part, that I may give here later, or more likely in some OSM thread.Quote:
So comparing immorality to diseases is not to your advantage if we are expected to think, if it kills it's bad.
If it kills, it's bad, but that's not the only consideration.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 07:27 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:14, 20 Nov 2013.
|
Yes, people can be wrong but we are not talking about personal misjudgements here, if there is a set of norms you should examine the conditions that PRODUCE those norms. In the case of anti-medicine people, it is an anachronic stance in which their reasoning is based on a morality that derives from not interfering with God's plan. And 300 years from now, some of your principles may be considered as anachronic as sacrificing a virgin to stop a famine.
For example, as human population and the level of pollution and destruction of natural habitats increased, our moral norms transformed. We now started to consider killing wild animals immoral, 100 years ago it was about sports and bravery. Your principles of individual freedom have already started to contradict with what is considered to be moral and sometimes even legal. (protected species and environment)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 07:29 AM |
|
|
Groups are made of individuals. If enough individuals are in moral error, a group is in moral error. Moral norms can be mistaken.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 07:35 AM |
|
|
|
Groups are more than the sum of their individuals and I'm not saying they can never be wrong, I'm saying your reasoning in determining when they are right or wrong has no valid base and the alternative "correct" explanation isn't an idealistic set of norms that are infallible everywhere and every age.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 07:48 AM |
|
|
Because you don't believe in an objective human nature. Right. I don't think we can have many fruitful discussions as long as everything comes down to that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 07:52 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 07:53, 20 Nov 2013.
|
mvassilev said:
That sounds like excuse-making for cancer.
Well I am simply pointing out the grey area. Excuse or not its a truth. There is some good that comes from some bad things. As terrible and tragic as cancer is, good can come out of the darkness of its reality.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 07:55 AM |
|
|
Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it...
So far, about morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after.
Now in terms of good and evil, evil feels good after something immoral!
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 07:58 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 08:06, 20 Nov 2013.
|
Quote:
Because you don't believe in an objective human nature.
Well, to quote Zenofex:
Quote:
There is no logical, psychological, philosophical, social or any (other) scientifically valid reason to acknowledge the existence of such a thing.
It's almost religious. It's self-fulfilling prophecy. When asked what this objective nature consists of, you failed to present it. How can it be as self-evident as you claim when you are the only one who is convinced by it and it's not executable.
Quote:
So far, about morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after.
Now in terms of good and evil, evil feels good after something immoral!
That doesnt mean anything clarifies nothing. If you measure the moral ground of things by how they make you feel but you also claim that evil also makes you feel good, how are you going to know the difference? And obviously, if wrong is still wrong even if you think it's right, you will feel good when you do wrong because you believe it to be right.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 08:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
When asked what this objective nature consists of, you failed to present it.
That's because it's not quantifiable. It's something you have to observe, I can't just tell you. I mean, I can tell you things that get at it, but if you don't agree, that's not something that can be reconciled without observation, unless someone misunderstands something, and understanding can be achieved through clarification.
I'm hardly the only person to believe in an objective human nature, though. There's a whole branch of ethics that deals with it, and some people outside that branch as well.
But I'd also imagine that you believe in human nature too. Is heroin good for people? No. People also don't like pain (like chronic pain from a disease, say, not BDSM). They don't like being killed - some people are willing to sacrifice themselves or to die to end pain, but no mentally healthy person wants to be randomly shot in the street. They don't like having family members die, under normal circumstances and all else being equal. They don't like to feel hungry. They like having friends (though people's thresholds and standards for compatibility differ). They like to be happy. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 08:22 AM |
|
|
Miru said:
You may think that in the end good always prevails, but unfortunately entropy always increases. It might seem unfair, but I assure you energy is conserved.
Hi, not in a 'recycling' universe, where all ends again in a big bang (all energy pressed into one point of pure energy)
But i admit, that this theroy is just that, a theory.
BTW to the discussion if good things make you feel bad and the other way around: this is why i tried to offer a model, where you can measure moral in enropy 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 08:29 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 09:02, 20 Nov 2013.
|
Okay, I'll take that as a valid answer because I agree that not everything is quantifiable and can be measured scientifically. Yet, the reason it's not true isn't because it's not quantifiable, the reason it's not true is, it actually contradicts with human history. You can observe how "objective" human nature and moral norms change even within a scale of 50 years, not to mention a real anthropological approach that examines thousands of years. You don't go from observation to conclusion, you go from conclusion to observation. And when presented contradictory examples, you simply bail out by saying "that's because those people are unaware of their own nature." Even such a presumption could have been considered a possibility if you had came up with some convincing alternate foundation but you don't. You WISH humans to fit into your "objectivity" and that is actually the opposite of objectivity, that's ideology.
Btw, wishing to have friends or wishing not to get hurt are not moral norms.
(And may I remind you we already ruled out overwhelmingly obvious things like killing a group member without a reason. Yet, that is because of our biological heritage as social animals, not because of an infallible set of ideals).
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 08:45 AM |
|
|
@artu:
i disagree, a (mentally healthy) person will not randomly shot at the street, because we are a product of evolution.
And evolution 'sees' no sense in such a behavior, otherwise all would be dead.
1 Step of Evolution=thousands of bad mutations(put in here all your deseases) and ONE, exactly ONE mutation, that shines.
You cant even say this mutation is bad or good, because you dont know if lifesituation on the planet will change, if suddenly there would be no sound at all (mmh, ok thats unrealistic ) there wouldnt be a need to grow ears.
So then actually all with ears are called 'sick'.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 08:47 AM |
|
|
|
Where have I said a mentally healthy person can randomly shoot in the streets???
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2013 09:04 AM |
|
|
oh, sry for misunderstanding, i meant the REASON for not randomly shooting is evolution, and NOT the fact we are social animals.
The fact that we arent shooting randomly is what makes us social, not other way around.
IMO
|
|
|
|
