"Good and Evil" Don't Exist

[andre1984]

A response to a believer in "good and bad people".

I was trying to push you to examine why you believe in this concept of "right and wrong". The basis of it is religious and economic, as the concept did not exist before those two things colonized the human mind and soul.

Good and evil is a reduction of what human beings are, and why we do what we do, into the realm of incomprehensible pseudo-metaphysics which were designed for the purpose of subjugating the people to the whim of the economic system. It is very difficult to make an argument for good and evil without making an argument for the existence of the devil. I don't believe in the devil.

As far as humans "knowing the difference between right and wrong", that is not exactly an objective or scientific analysis. It is an unfounded assumption which is taken for granted by men due to centuries of psychological programming regarding the nature of what human beings are.

Let me elaborate on why I dub antisocial behavior as a mental illness.

Our emotional make-up is a function of survival. We like to take care of each other, naturally. That is the way we are programmed, genetically, given that our survival - in nature - requires a stable community structure. Thus behavior which is detrimental to the structure of the community is not only looked down upon, but goes against our own biological nature.

When a dog "rapes" another dog, there is no moral question involved, because this is a common method of reproduction among dogs, and it is not harmful to the continued existence of either dog's lineage. Human beings, on the other hand, require a complex social structure in order to continue their existence, and this social structure can generally not tolerate rape (unless it is institutionalized and practiced within certain boundaries, as was the case among some American Indian tribes - though this type of practice would not really fit the definition of what we presently consider rape, as there was no breach of social contract), and as such, committing rape within a human society is a behavior which is detrimental to the stability of the whole of the community, and thus of the survival of the individual who committed the rape; as such, engaging in that behavior is a form of mental illness.

We must look at what society has become in order to understand why people are engaging in all types of socially and personally destructive behaviors. The main factor is the loss of community, and the conditioning that such a state inflicts on the members of such a society (or "non-society"). We you lose community, you have simply a network of strangers, and thus there is no more internal drive to maintain the stability of the "society" as a whole, the drive is simply to maintain the survival of the individual - this is the fundamental change which takes place with the introduction of economics into a society, the transformation of the mode of self-preservation from being based on the community to being based on the individual. Because we are still biologically structured in such a way as to exist within communities, our biology is now in conflict with our environment, which causes complete psychological breakdown on every level, hence the introduction of "evil". These behavior patterns which are dubbed as "bad" are purely a result of man's incapacity to reconcile his biological nature with this new situation.

This concept of "sin" was invented by the church in order to create a makeshift bond between human biology and the new non-society which resulted from the introduction of economics, which creates a new environment, a new means of survival, and a new set of behavioral guidelines to go along with these. It is very interesting to see here in the tribal communities where Christianity has been introduced into areas that still have community. I asked them why they believe in Jesus, and they said "because he died for our sins"; I said "what is your sin?" they said "well, murder is a sin, having sex with your neighbor's wife is a sin". I said "do you murder people and have sex with your neighbor's wife?"; they of course do not do that, because that would be harmful to their community, and they have no reason to do so anyway. And so there is no sin. There are no "bad people", because the community is functioning as a community is supposed to function.

In Rome, when the idea was first introduced, the society was broken completely, with all types of murder and rape and whatever else it is these bad people do. As such, the concept was taken as valid, as it was addressing an existing problem in the society, and it presented a ham-fisted but still workable solution to it - the fact that the behavior existed, and that there was no memory of a time when it didn't exist, meant that man was somehow intrinsically prone toward this "bad" behavior, and thus needs a fear of divine retribution to keep him in line.

So, to summarize, "good and bad people" is a fallacy that was adopted by a deformed society in order both account for and to regulate behavior patterns which developed as a result of the clash between human biology and the unnatural environment created by economics.

I ask you now: why do you believe in "good and evil"?

[major seven]

andre1984

"A response to a believer in "good and bad people".

"I was trying to push you to examine why you believe in this concept of "right and wrong". The basis of it is religious and economic, as the concept did not exist before those two things colonized the human mind and soul."

"There are no "bad people", because the community is functioning as a community is supposed to function."

"So, to summarize, "good and bad people" is a fallacy that was adopted by a deformed society in order both account for and to regulate behavior patterns which developed as a result of the clash between human biology and the unnatural environment created by economics."

I ask you now: why do you believe in "good and evil"?





M7

Heres a Clue for ya Sigmund!

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.s...hicopee_c.html

[openwide333]

You haven't really given your definition of good and evil, from what I can tell you do understand right from wrong and good and evil although I don't think the dog analagy works.

Do you mean the theists perspective vs an atheist perspective on good and evil?

[exu156]

I think you are making a weak argument sorry Andre. Yes good and evil changes according to cultures and times but certain facets of it have remained consistent for good reason. They are part of what make societies cohesive and in turn what allowed us as a species to develop and progress as a species. Otherwise we would still be at a primal, feral stage.

You comment about dogs raping is also weak because it is only the domesticated dog that rapes. His wild counterpart (the wild dog) and his more ancient ancestor (the wolf) both do not rape. Even the Australian Dingo (a native wild dog which looks very similar to an ordinary dog) does not rape.

Perhaps the domesticated dog rapes because it has been exposed to the devil called human.

[andre1984]

Originally Posted by openwide333

You haven't really given your definition of good and evil, from what I can tell you do understand right from wrong and good and evil although I don't think the dog analagy works.

Do you mean the theists perspective vs an atheist perspective on good and evil?

I'm talking about the idea of "bad people" and "good people". The concept itself.

Atheists only believe in "good and evil" because they are a post-Christian group. A sort of evolution of Christianity. Pre-Christian people had no concept of "good people and bad people".

[andre1984]

Originally Posted by exu156

I think you are making a weak argument sorry Andre. Yes good and evil changes according to cultures and times but certain facets of it have remained consistent for good reason. They are part of what make societies cohesive and in turn what allowed us as a species to develop and progress as a species. Otherwise we would still be at a primal, feral stage.

I am not arguing "moral relativity", though I think that is what you are responding to (I hope you read the whole post). Obviously there are many universally "wrong" behaviors. I am discussing here specifically the idea that when we look at behavior in terms of a person "choosing good or evil", we are reducing the human being to meet ridiculous pseudo-metaphysical concepts. It is against human nature to engage in behaviors which are damaging to the community, and as such, these behaviors represent a mental illness caused by environmental conditions, rather than some type of "badness" on the part of the individual who engages in the behavior.

You comment about dogs raping is also weak because it is only the domesticated dog that rapes. His wild counterpart (the wild dog) and his more ancient ancestor (the wolf) both do not rape. Even the Australian Dingo (a native wild dog which looks very similar to an ordinary dog) does not rape.

Perhaps the domesticated dog rapes because it has been exposed to the devil called human.

I am not an expert on the mating habits of wild canine, but there are obviously a plethora of examples in the animal kingdom of species who reproduce in a manner where the male chases after and holds down the female in order to perform the sex act upon her.

[knightofthegrail]

Originally Posted by andre1984

It is against human nature to engage in behaviors which are damaging to the community, and as such, these behaviors represent a mental illness caused by environmental conditions, rather than some type of "badness" on the part of the individual who engages in the behavior.

Mental illness can be as much faulty nature as faulty nurture (although the Enlightenment era philosophers would have you believe otherwise).

[andre1984]

Originally Posted by knightofthegrail

Mental illness can be as much faulty nature as faulty nurture (although the Enlightenment era philosophers would have you believe otherwise).

I've responded to the genetic mental illness theory on another forum, I'll just quote it.

Originally Posted by andre

I've read quite a bit on the topic. Regrettably, it is rather evident that you haven't, and are simply taking Watt and the rest of the people promoting this ridiculous concept at their word.

The original term for what is now called a "psychopath" was "inferior", and referred to all types of criminals. For political reasons - both not wanting to address the root causes of behavior, as well as wanting to push a eugenics agenda - they came up with the concept that this alleged "disease" was something inborn.

Emil Kraepelin was responsible for standardizing the type of thinking - the belief that not only psychopathy, but all behavior was a result of genetic make-up - in an allegedly scientific manner, but his whole weird theory was pretty well disregarded completely after Freud, and those following his psychodynamic model, explained why it was completely stupid. However, when psychiatry really gained a foothold, they brought back all of this debunked nonsense in order to support the mass drugging of populations based on the premise that they were genetically inferior.

So no aspect of the "born delinquent" theory has anything to do with psychology, but is exclusively of the domain of psychiatry: psychopharamcology and eugenics.

I have no idea what you are saying about blood tests and autopsies, I think you probably accidentally made that up, but the brain scanning has been thoroughly debunked. Remember, all of this "genetic psychology" is absolutely funded by pharmacutical companies, and you can't isolate this "born bad" concept from the "born sad" idea that all of these people are now "depressed" because of their genetic make-up and so need Prozac - this is all part and parcel of the same psychiatric genetics theory that you and antipro have been pushing as of late.

The brain scan research was funded by the psychiatric industry (read:big pharma) with the specific intent of attempting to justify these unfounded theories that they had already come up with a century ago without any evidence, and "proven" by vote.

The whole thing is just ridiculous and stupid.

http://www.blehert.com/essays/MRIs.htm

So, it's fine if you want to believe all of this on the basis that it was decided and voted on by eugenicists and drug companies, but I think you should at least try to have a basic grasp of the material you are promoting before you push it like it is something scientific, because it simply is not.

[neutrino]

Good and Evil exists and always has, it's just that lower animals don't understand what it is, Humans however have the intelligence and understanding to know what it is.
A Human has the capacity to kill another person for sick pleasure and will understand what they've done, other animals don't have that level of capability or understanding.
Just because we as Humans have come to know what good and evil is doesn't mean good and evil only exists because we think it does and therefore in reality it doesn't exist at all. Of course it exists and we've evolved to a point where we understand what it is.

A human torturing other people, something which has happened for centuries is evil. You wouldn't see another animal build a place within which they would torture for pleasure another member of their own species.
Good and evil isn't a Human creation, any species out there in the cosmos with the same or greater intelligence will also know what good and evil is.

[vooei]

Evil exists so that good can show its purity above it - Buddha

[dedicate]

People live like dogs,, and then whatever they do is good.. or neither good nor bad..

People live like people and develope a sense of what is good.. ie. worthwhile, beneficial, etc..

People live like gods and move beyond the sense of duality in good and evil.

[openwide333]

Originally Posted by andre1984

I'm talking about the idea of "bad people" and "good people". The concept itself.

Atheists only believe in "good and evil" because they are a post-Christian group. A sort of evolution of Christianity. Pre-Christian people had no concept of "good people and bad people".

Its just a way of describing people who relatively behave in a way that is positive or negative for themselves and others.

I think you're overcomplicating the atheist perspective on this.

[mithios]

I don't believe in good and bad as absolutes. The loose definitions adhered to in day to day life are simply too malleable. I consider hurting animals in any way the worst possible thing. And generally hurting humans. So those are the only lines I have drawn. And the "not hurting humans" one - that line isn't a straight one at that. The notion that there is always an underlying psychological reason for the Bad Things People Do,as if those who believe in that need to justify a reason for absolvement,is one that I find kind of flimsy. I have no problem accepting that some people do Bad Things purely because they WANT to,because they CAN,that there is absolutely no motivation except maybe curiosity. That feels natural to me. But then maybe it's simply because I am not troubled by any such thing as a conscience,and therefore have no need to project mine onto others. There are reasons I don't go around doing Big Bad Things,and the concept of conscience is not one of them. I have rules. Those are what I am governed by - those two simple rules: Do not hurt animals or people (or is that really just the one rule?) And the rest....meh. I have NEVER hurt an animal (hmmmmm....does squashing mosquitos count? :O ) I have probably hurt people. Not intentionally. Okay,once or twice....haha.

See,that's where the tide rushes in to make a big mess of that line in the sand. It's flexible. And it seems most people would admit that should someone they love be raped,murdered or severely beaten (particularly in cases where the victim is a child) they would have no moral problem with inflicting the same damage upon the perpetrator. And conscience has nothing to do with it;that's where the notion of conscience fails and the truth of humanity reveals itself (conscience - "you cannot depend on it to be your guide when it's you who must keep it satisfied" ~ Bob Dylan ) So if you beat up the bad guy does that make you the good guy,and beating up the good guy makes you the bad guy,when the action (the beating) is exactly the same?

Personally;once a person acts in an inhuman manner,they no longer deserve to be treated as a human. And yet everything is so subjective that I'm sure I would qualify for that in the eyes of a puritanical few. So,no,I don't believe in good and bad at all. Not as absolutes. I just believe in individual situations and how good and bad applies to them at any given moment.

[andre1984]

Originally Posted by neutrino

Good and Evil exists and always has, it's just that lower animals don't understand what it is, Humans however have the intelligence and understanding to know what it is.
A Human has the capacity to kill another person for sick pleasure and will understand what they've done, other animals don't have that level of capability or understanding.
Just because we as Humans have come to know what good and evil is doesn't mean good and evil only exists because we think it does and therefore in reality it doesn't exist at all. Of course it exists and we've evolved to a point where we understand what it is.

A human torturing other people, something which has happened for centuries is evil. You wouldn't see another animal build a place within which they would torture for pleasure another member of their own species.
Good and evil isn't a Human creation, any species out there in the cosmos with the same or greater intelligence will also know what good and evil is.

Why would a person get pleasure from killing or torturing?

And yes, such things have existed for centuries, but only within broken, sick societies.

What is good and evil?

[andre1984]

Originally Posted by vooei

Evil exists so that good can show its purity above it - Buddha

Buddha is just another Jesus-type figure designed by the ruling class to psychologically castrate the people.

I have been meaning to write an article on that.

Here is my Jesus article:

Christianity as Psychological Warfare:

http://realitysituation.com/christia...esus-was-weak/

[andre1984]

Originally Posted by openwide333

Its just a way of describing people who relatively behave in a way that is positive or negative for themselves and others.

I think you're overcomplicating the atheist perspective on this.

99.999% of anything I have ever heard from atheists amounts to Christian-style moralizing. It is generally just a lot more extreme and weird.

[andre1984]

Originally Posted by mithios

I don't believe in good and bad as absolutes. The loose definitions adhered to in day to day life are simply too malleable. I consider hurting animals in any way the worst possible thing. And generally hurting humans. So those are the only lines I have drawn. And the "not hurting humans" one - that line isn't a straight one at that. The notion that there is always an underlying psychological reason for the Bad Things People Do,as if those who believe in that need to justify a reason for absolvement,is one that I find kind of flimsy. I have no problem accepting that some people do Bad Things purely because they WANT to,because they CAN,that there is absolutely no motivation except maybe curiosity. That feels natural to me. But then maybe it's simply because I am not troubled by any such thing as a conscience,and therefore have no need to project mine onto others. There are reasons I don't go around doing Big Bad Things,and the concept of conscience is not one of them. I have rules. Those are what I am governed by - those two simple rules: Do not hurt animals or people (or is that really just the one rule?) And the rest....meh. I have NEVER hurt an animal (hmmmmm....does squashing mosquitos count? :O ) I have probably hurt people. Not intentionally. Okay,once or twice....haha.

See,that's where the tide rushes in to make a big mess of that line in the sand. It's flexible. And it seems most people would admit that should someone they love be raped,murdered or severely beaten (particularly in cases where the victim is a child) they would have no moral problem with inflicting the same damage upon the perpetrator. And conscience has nothing to do with it;that's where the notion of conscience fails and the truth of humanity reveals itself (conscience - "you cannot depend on it to be your guide when it's you who must keep it satisfied" ~ Bob Dylan ) So if you beat up the bad guy does that make you the good guy,and beating up the good guy makes you the bad guy,when the action (the beating) is exactly the same?

Personally;once a person acts in an inhuman manner,they no longer deserve to be treated as a human. And yet everything is so subjective that I'm sure I would qualify for that in the eyes of a puritanical few. So,no,I don't believe in good and bad at all. Not as absolutes. I just believe in individual situations and how good and bad applies to them at any given moment.

Once again, I'm not talking about "moral relativity", I'm disregarding the concept entirely.

What is conscience, if not a biological mechanism? If a person has no conscience, how are they different from a person who lacks the ability to distinguish reality from fantasy? How could a lack of conscience - something that exists naturally within the structure of our psychology - be classified as anything other than a mental illness?

Hopefully that clears things up a bit. It seems there is a lot of confusion about what I am actually saying. Apparently people are unfamiliar with the argument I am making, and are simply assuming I am saying something about moral relativity.

[passerbye999]

I think good and evil does exist not just in the psychology of the human mind and our programmed reactions to it but even in nature itself or fear would not exist in the animal kingdom. You ever watch a cat torture a mouse? There is no mental illness involved. The mouse if deathly afraid for good reason and tries to escape the cat views it as a game. this behaviour can be found in human beings as well and it is safe to say there is no mental illness involved but it is definately inexusable behaviour, like that of a bully or worse. So goodness is social behavior badness is anti social behaviour.

[andre1984]

Originally Posted by passerbye999

I think good and evil does exist not just in the psychology of the human mind and our programmed reactions to it but even in nature itself or fear would not exist in the animal kingdom. You ever watch a cat torture a mouse? There is no mental illness involved. The mouse if deathly afraid for good reason and tries to escape the cat views it as a game. this behaviour can be found in human beings as well and it is safe to say there is no mental illness involved but it is definately inexusable behaviour, like that of a bully or worse. So goodness is social behavior badness is anti social behaviour.

Well said.

Though I would still argue that due to the structure of natural human societies, in which we were biologically designed to live, antisocial behavior almost never existed.

[passerbye999]

Originally Posted by andre1984

Well said.

Though I would still argue that due to the structure of natural human societies, in which we were biologically designed to live, antisocial behavior almost never existed.

Not within the society but between different societies that were competitive for land or food or water. The Neanderthals went extinct because they existed in small tribes with now trade with other tribes. We survived as a species because in times of hardship there was raiding but the majority oif small tribes had trading relations that sometimes spread out to 600-1000 miles.