81 replies to this topic

[Lazarus]

...been away for a while, so I dont really know what to say, I was probably havoing a bad day, I have those occasionally and when I do well, no one is sparred, sory, in any case I am back now, have been trying to get a job, place to live, food, ect. all of those things that are still more nesicary than the evolution of my mind at the moment. in any case whatever I may have said know that I dont have anything against anyone here personally, but I will try and state when I am having a bad day and that usually when you should just not respond immediatley, wait a day and I will be more civil.

[Discarnate]

Curious how this one died w/out any resolution. Could it be that the dilemma of good and evil - or, as was previously phrased, Good *V* Evil - is insoluable?

*impish grin*

[Lazarus Long]

It is not dead yet and perhaps stories of its burial are somewhat premature. Particularly in light of the delicious serendipity that I was writing a response in a separate post that addresses the same specific issue even as you were writing your entry above Discarnate.

Building a Bridge to the Brain
http://www.imminst.o...st=0

[Discarnate]

Ah... Methinks thou referencest ye following...

Quote LL (elsewhere): "Also the reason the absolute power paradigm is a paradox for God is that it creates the premise and necessity for duality; hence God is the Devil, because absolute power corrupts absolutely. Well we can be cautious but at least comforted a little by the fact that we are still a long, long way from facing this aspect of the dilemma. Though we are clearly about to light a fire that threatens to consume us if we do not harness it first."

Well, first reaction - I don't believe that there has to be a paradox in the 'absolute power paradigm,' by which I assume you mean the old chestnut 'Can God make a rock too heavy for Him to lift?'.

What's to say God can't limit Himself/Herself/Itself/Themselves? Is that not a perogative of 'absolute power'? And might not that rock be movable by a mortal?

BTW - meant to comment earlier - I like your paradigm/mantras: Quote- "Genius is the ability to transmute ugliness into beauty and madness is the desire to turn beauty into ugliness"

I'd twist it a bit, because that's me, twisty. "Genius is the ability to find beauty anywhere. Madness is the inability to overlook ugliness anywhere."

*shrug* Different, but... *grin*

[Lazarus Long]

"Genius is the ability to find beauty anywhere. Madness is the inability to overlook ugliness anywhere."

You are welcome to twist it into any form that is positive and pleasing to you but there is a qualitative difference between the two.

My point is about the active creative/destructive process and yours describes the passive activity of the observer.

[immortalitysystems.com]

THE ONLY LIMIT IS OUR IMAGINATION

Let's use it!!!

To be IMMORTAL (Unsterblich) as a choice, is the goal.

What kind of meme mutation will it take to reach it?

[Lazarus Long]

To be IMMORTAL (Unsterblich) as a choice, is the goal.

What kind of meme mutation will it take to reach it?

For people to learn to "love all life" is the meme shift in my humble opinion. It is not likely to happen for many people very soon but a surprising number of people world wide are learning.

People who live in fear and apprehension of their own lives, or of other lives (people/animals, bugs, aliens, boogiemen) are what contribute to the every widening cycles of violence and destruction like a memetic plague.

When we learn a type of “synergistic behavior of rational resolution” we will also have created a "meme” that will correspond to a dynamic relationship of life and technology that minimizes unnecessary conflict and death while maximizing opportunity for the expression and adaptation of life, and I don't mean just human life.

Now I understand in advance that what I have just said has a kind of Pollyannaish ring but I decided to add it anyway and allow myself to hear the ridicule this will engender because we are talking about a "meme" not a technical or organic adaptation, not a "gene".

It sounds "quaint" because most of you have heard it all before and ignored it. But it is only "logical" because such a "love of life” will provide a needed paradigm shift to endure the hardships necessary and commitment required to even approach the problem but also it begins to address the more subtle conflict of balancing the various competing interests that will arise from overruling basic Natural Selection.

The necessity for large scale social, local, and personal conflict analysis and resolution to be a part of a "Memetic System" is a requisite of a comprehensive socio-psychological adaptive change that improves "viability" not only for a few individuals but all life.

The good news is that since the Meme I have proposed is already an integral part of most of the world's religions some aspects don't need to be invented nearly as much as refined and applied, the bad news of course is that the meme has to date only succeeded in fits and starts to overcome basic Natural Selective ones that generally dominate behavior.

What I am proposing is not a panacea. It is however a rational place to start. Obviously the Universe also contains numerous VERY REAL threats and ignoring them will get you killed but also there is a level of induced paranoia derivative of the competition to survive that has severely clouded most people's judgment to the point that they appear trapped in counter productive struggle to survive that actually reduces rather than enhances their probable success.

The irony is that this concept of the “Love Meme” is not new and is already a part of the meme scheme and represents a socio-evolutionary influence already that is reflected as the often fruitless and misguided application of social engineering methodologies that are obvious from a historical analysis of the transition to a “Rule of Law” instead of the Natural Selection imperative “Law of the Jungle” but psychologically are more subtle as the paradigm of “Love & Reason,” which is the transcendent “meme” shift from “Lust and Instinct.”

Humanity has not only reached the top of the food chain, we have laid waste to virtually all competition. For the moment the largest and most serious threat to our existence collectively and individually is from ourselves (a known quantity) and the unknown (asteroids, pathogens, Cosmic Ray bursts and [?] etc.) It is only rational to start with the known hazards and not ignore the search into the unknown. But in answer to the request for a meme, it is already there, what is lacking is the “common will and common cause” to make the meme a dominant environmental factor.

In the case of meme schemes it is not as effective to try and reinvent the wheel, as the “new meme” would be largely untested and “foreign” to too many people to be quickly accepted and effective but what can be done is to repackage the "old meme" in a new box, with a new promotion that achieves a more universalized appeal.

The Immortality Meme is already here:
Balanced and Sacred living for secularists.

[immortalitysystems.com]

Lazarus,

your "Love of Live" sounds good, but it does not seem to bring us the choice of "Immortality" in the near future.

A long long time ago in human evolution there was a meme that called for the sacrefice of a human being to please the god/s and get their help. It was wraped in some kind of ritual and a good time was had by all or it would not have worked. That meme lasted a long time and we still have some ritualistic enactement of it.

What if there would be a meme mutation leading to having human voluntares to test "Gene Engineering". I am sure it would speed up the discovery of beneficial treatments for sickness and disease.

The present day religions/gods are an extension of the survival instict by providing some form of live after death.
That is why all "Churches" are so oposed to gene engineering. To religions/gods sicknes and death is the bread and butter that keeps them in buisines. And it is a BIG buiseness, so they will do whatever it takes to stop us from reaching "Immortality" without using their services.
How can we find a new "religion/meme that will be helpfull in using "Gene Engineering" without restrictions to speed up the goal of physical immortality as a choice.

DNA=GOD=DNA=GOD=DNA=GOD=DNA=GOD=DNA=GOD=DNA=GOD

Homo Sapiens=DNA=GOD=Homo Immortalis.

[immortalitysystems.com]

It should have said

DNA = Homo Sapiens = GOD = Homo Immortalis

Homo Sapiens Sapiens created GOD/S (immortal and omnipotent) but up in the sky.
Let's create the real thing HOMO IMMORTALIS, a new branch on the tree of live.

I would love to then move in to the sky (orbital space), because there is so much of it. I have lived over 60 years on the 5 continents of this planet. I love it, but as they say, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

[Saille Willow]

What is the difference between what is good and what is evil?

"Good is when you carry away somebody else's wives and cows, and evil is when yours are carried away from you."



I think the following old Russian tale of The Two Hermits illustrates what Lazarus was saying, earlier on.

"Two hermits had gone out into the Nitrian Desert to save their souls. Their caves were not fardistant from each other, but they themselves never talked together, except that they occasionally sang psalms, so that they could hear each other. In this way they spent manyyears, and their fame began to spread in Egypt and the surrounding countries. It came to pass that one day the Devil managed to put into both their minds stimultaneously one and the same desire, and without saying a word to each other they collected their baskets and mats made of palm leaves and branches, and went off to Alexandria. They sold their work there, and then for three days and three nights they sought pleasure in the company of drunkards and sinners, after which they went back to their desert.

And one of them cried out in bitterness and agony of the soul:" Iam lost eternally! Cursed am I! No prayers and penance can atone for such madness, such abominations! All my years of fasting and prayer gone for nothing! I am ruined, body and soul!"
The other man, however, was walking by his side, singing psalms in a cheerful voice.
"Brother," said the repentant one, "have you gone mad?"
"Why do you ask that ?"
"But why aren't you grieving?"
"What should I grieve about?"
"Listen to him! Have you forgotten Alexandria?"
' What about Alexandria? Glory to God who preserves that famous and God-fearing city!"
"But we, what did we do in Alexandria?"
"You know well enough yourself what we did; we sold our baskets, worshipped St. Mark, visited other churches, called on the pious governor of the city, conversed with the good prioress Leonilla who is always kind to monks..."
"But didn't we spend the night in a house of ill fame?"
"God save us! No! We spent the evening and the night in the patriarch's court."
"Holy martyrs! He has lost his mind...Where then did we treat ourselves to wine?"
"We partook of wine and food at the patriarch's table on the occasion of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin."
"Poor, miserable creature! And who was it whom we kissed, not to mention worse things?Are you making a fool of me?Or has the Devil himself entered your soul as punidhment for yesterday's abominations? They were wretched libertines, you blackguard, that you kissed!"
"Well, I don't know which of us the Devil has entered; Whether he has entered me, who am rejoicing in the gifts of God and in the benevolence of the godly priests, and am praising my Creator-or whether he has entered you, who are now raving like a lunatic and calling the house of our blessed father and pastor a house of ill fame."
"Oh, you heretic! You offspring of Arian! Accursed mouth of Apollinarius!"

At this the hermit who had been grieving over his lapse from virtue fell upon his comrade and began beating him. When the outburst was over they returned siliently to their caves. All night long the repentant one wore himself out with grief, filling the desert with his groans and cries, tearing out his hair, throwing himself on the ground and dashing his head against it, while the other quietly and happily sang his psalms. Next morning the repentant one was struck by a sudden thought: "By my many years of self-denial I had been granted a special blessing of the Holy Spirit which had already begun to reveal itself in miracles and apparitions. And if after this I gave myself up to the abominations of the flesh, I must have commited a sin against the Holy Spirit, which, acccording to the word of God, is for all eternity unpardonable. If, however, I am irrevocably doomed, what can I do in the desert?" And so he went to Alexandria and gave himself up to a wanton life. It so happened that soon afterward he badly needed money, and, in company with other dissolute fellows like himself, murdered and robbed a wealthy merchant. The crime was discovered;he was tried by the city court, sentenced to death, and died an unrepentant sinner.

At the same time his old friend, continuing his life of devotion, attained to the highest degree of saintliness and became famous for his great miracles. When finally the day of his death arrived, his decrepit and withered body suddenly became resplendent with the beauty of youth. A wonderous light surrounded it; from it proceeded the perfume of sweet spices.

The pilgrims both commited every other crime, but only one met his doom - the one who became despondent."
Vladimir Slovyov - War, Progress and the End of History

[darktr00per]

A lot of what you all makes sense, lets see if i can lump into one idea. Evil and Good first of all are defined not by the individual(those are morals and ethics) but the super organism or group in which they are a part of. What we are tought as good is only good for the group as a whole. Evil would be anything that breaks down this machine(society or group). As the survival of the individual doesnt matter unless it is productive within the group. Criminals for example- they do not add to the functionality of the super organsim, so it is therefore "Evil". Roman empire slaughtered and enslaved many. Might be "Evil" but it was for the survival of the empire as a whole. In summary, evil and good are only perpectives of the group/super organism such as a society.

[Lazarus Long]

I think you are a bit oversimplifying what I for am trying to say Darktrooper but you are generally accurate. I do think there exists a cumulative effect of bottom up impact that does incorporate individual ethics into the large scale definitions. The idea of morality is more a psychological function of evolutionary psychology and biology, but more or less you are getting the drift of what I was hoping astute readers might extract from this topic when I started it.

I am hoping that more and more people begin the self reflective process as a part of the inquiry and by doing so transform their own awareness rather than having to beat them over the head with this understanding like a nun with a ruler. )

Also it is a very big assumption that such a Super-being Consciousness exists for humans as we have very little evidence to support the suspicion and what we call "a social consciousness" or even a "social contract" may be simply the result of pragmatics or just common reasonableness, or it could be a function of social genetics, and this is where the Super-being behavioral aspects begin to complicate the matter because how is the Super-consciousness of humanity reasoning?

I suggest that it is still us, the "individual neurons" of this process that do most of the actual "reasoning" and anything else smacks of prayer and the madness of hearing the voice of Gods but...

We will change the rules dramatically when we introduce true AI into the relationship because we are inventing a super-rational calculator for ethical modeling.

Ethics are essentially a question of behavioral choice and we almost universally assume this to be a rational process or we would not be able to hold anyone responsible for any action.

Morality is a more complicated psychological process that resolves distinctions between social mores and individual ethics but these "mores" are not the same as ethics except in that they are assimilated psychological standards for behavior that are the result of social conditioning and learning derived from generations of ethical debate recorded memetically. They operate as a subroutine of consciousness and may have only a cursory level of encryption genetically but are the result of an ability to be programmed that is genetic in origin.

For this process to have a bottom up contribution of individual thought is much harder to see and understand than the idea that there exists a top down imposition of behavioral programing predicted on the imposition of taboo and law but each individual does contribute and this is why the result is cumulative of not simply large scale behavioral models but of the historical analysis of individual behavioral choices as well.

Ethics tend to be the result of the rational process (pragmatics) as it affects the creation of paradigms for behavior but we are also still creatures of "faith based reasoning" (social apes) psychologically and morals are how we got programed to behave by the larger social structure into which we are born.

[extofimpediments]

Lazarus, Let me be very simplistic. Good and evil come in very many gradations depending on the degree of suffering and happyness perceived and the numbers of individuals affected in common by the action that generated it. Some actions will be interpreted in more concordance by larger groups than others, the interpretation of good or evil is based on very specific learned social values acquired by many years of civilization of the instinctive(animal or primitive) nature of man. This degree of concordance will determine the degree of evil and good the observers will ascertain. Yet, the irony of this is that the interpretaton of suffering and happyness will always remain an individual phenomeno no matter how common the cause is shared by others.
Since there is one thing all beings agree upon, and that is that everybody wants to be happy and nobody wants to suffer, then we can only be aware of our actions in the sense of their effect upon others. The golden rule will still be a practical tool in sharing our space in this universe or dimension. Guilt and punishment are created respectively by our mind and the society that asks for retribution.

[darktr00per]

Well as far as good and evil goes, I must say lazarus summed it up. I think this post string is complete. Unless it strays into another subtopic.

[imminstmorals]

Let's clarify evil and good bases on human behavours

Money, wants power, selfish, lazy, promiscuous sexual desires = evils
work medicine, science = good

[Lazarus Long]

Money does not want power, wealth like intelligence is power.

The conundrum of human character is the ability to be corrupted. The axiom about power is empirically true, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely".

Is power evil; no. But omnipotence leads inevitably to the corrupt use of power and this dilemma not only confounds mere mortals such as ourselves but those that are identified by themselves or others a Gods. It is the source of the duality and the conscience of heavens and hells.

It may be our own creation not something divine but it is derivative of the problems of the learning curve and the quantum leaps of faith used to overcome such Faustian contradiction.

Good and Evil do exist if only as a human construct. To quote myself (a bad habit to get into I know [8)] )

"There is no evil science and good spirituality, there are only powerful forces and dangerous minds balanced by love and reason".

BTW, the multiple entendre is intentional not a linguistic mistake.

[shedon666]

if the proposed dilemma is the discernment of GOOD vs. EVIL, then i ask this: Where do these words stem from? god and satan? or were the words good and evil before god and satan? and why is it good vs. "evil" ??? why did good/bad (true balanced duality) turn into good/EVIL. true balance in that change would be HOLY/EVIL (if the god/satan is applicable in this debate).

i wish i could reply more to this thread but #1) i didn't/don't have the time to read the whole thread preceding and #2) i have no more time to state more on the subject that i do have.

if time don't exist, why don't i have any? waaaaaaa!!!

[Lazarus Long]

That which is good does what?

That which is bad does what?

Define the distinction between bad and evil?

We tend to use but one word for good or the dichotomy might be more apparent between ethics and morals.

What ethics and morals have in common is that they are derived of motive, not phenomenon. A "killing" is not "evil" the act of criminal intent is. Evil is real by virtue not of divine creation but of its simple man-made properties.

Good does not emanate from the divine but is found in the simplest aspects of all creative motive. If the appeal to finding the source of all Creation is the wellspring of "Good" then the vision of this Universal property is still the result of the mind of the perceiver more than from any Law of Nature (God).

Early on in this thread I argued that destruction is bad and creation is good but there is an ecological balance to this relationship that must also be understood because life in general has a balanced cycle of death and birth that has served the model of natural selection and evolution until now.

This then is the challenge before us, to create a paradigm of creation and destruction that goes beyond the reality of life and death we have inherited and retains the cleansing and recycling aspects of destruction that are recognizable in nature as "good" (healthy) and yet does not depend upon death for our 'selves' as necessary. This can be the core of Human Selection as it builds a standard of life and death for all that inhabits our world, not merely ourselves.

Is death evil? Is it always bad?

Perhaps the answer to these questions has much more to do with how one lives.

[bacopa]

I won't speak for others in this respect but for myself one way to resolve this good/evil balance is to have a higher goal. The realization that both being a servant or a master reduces one's own Freedom and combined with the overwhelming esteem in which I hold Freedom, makes the transcendence of the physics of power politics possible by keeping no servants and serving no master.

So in finding that middle ground in between servant and master you expect to attain knowledge and wisdom...that sounds 'good' to me...Interesting debate, I have to give much respect to acaveyogi's arguments because clearly he seeks out positive goals and mind states. I have the highest respect for people who go out of their way to be 'good,' (loosely defined) people, regardless of whether or not this makes sense from a biological standpoint. Should we put that much emphasis on science to run our lives?

There are too many people who hide behind the biological argument as an excuse not to go out of their way to be altruistic and really nice, sweet people. I would rather be in a world of caveyogi's who are nice and intellectual people than just intellectual, because in my experience philanthropic people tend to also be in touch with their's and others emotions...something people seem to devalue. The arguments put forth in trying to define 'good' and 'evil' were quite strong. I especially liked both Lazarus's arguments.

The article is well written. Bush obviously does look at things in overly simplistic terms and in doing so he's endangering our lives by making quick reaction type of decisions.

some simple questions that have been plaguing me regarding good and evil, without addressing the terminology, and the deeper rooted meanings for now...

How can we maintain altruistic goals when on a day to day basis negative emotions such as anger, frustration, envy, resentment, guilt, sorrow, regret seem to plague each one of us?

How can we remain 'good' when as the second Lazarus said we seem to go back and forth between the two so often? Should we accept our fait of being so grossly imperfect?

Don't we want to be fundementally 'good?' I know I do...and if so maybe we can do that through AI or IA, maybe that is humanities only real salvation?

[shedon666]

as i was pondering on how to add to this some more i realized that the whole debate is the conflicts of definitions of what? good and bad and holy and evil are all...opinions. yet i am seeing people of science debate the status of opinions. i think those words should be thrown out the window of discussion and that destruction and creation coupled with a desired outcome, should be the items on the plate of focus. this is because no matter how off or on track the discussion of good/bad go they all revolve around destruction or creation. as to whether destruction or creation is good or bad, i must say that both can be abused. hence: overpopulation. too much creation (i'll leave out specifics) is destruction.

[niggler]

Lazarus -

Could you explain to me what this discussion is about? Are we trying to define good and evil? The title is 'Beyond good and evil'. Are we saying good and evil are merely opposites, and is there something beyond that?

I'm a little confused!

[Lazarus Long]

Being confused by this is good niggler.

First off it is a title by a work of Nietzsche, second it is a distinction of morals and ethics, third it is a mythical construct of of human standards. do you believe Black Holes are evil and Sun's are God's good?

Fourth, if they are artificial constructs of human psychology, why and what do these constructs define?

Fifth, if they are simply constructs of human design does that make them less important? In fact what is the importance of such define (this relates to #4).

If they are of human design does this 'legitimize' "moral relativity" and trap us all with 'evil' in a form of interdependent subjectivity, not to mention the duality of necessary opposites?

Can you contribute your responses to some of these questions and allow for everyone to discuss them?

I ask again that everyone do so frankly.

BTW, going "Beyond Good and Evil" is about humans moving toward a rational and less reactionary existence predicated on establishing choice for ethical constraints on legitimate causal determination and less on irrational mythology. This doesn't mean we have to like or accept all the choices we encounter but it does mean that where there is a "will there is a way".

Creative choice does not accept what is given it invents alternatives to meet the demands of individual conscience.

Beyond Good and Evil

[niggler]

Lazarus

"do you believe Black Holes are evil and Sun's are God's good?"

Nope.

" if they are artificial constructs of human psychology"

They're not.

"If they are of human design"

They are part of human nature, but not designed by humans.

"the duality of necessary opposites"

There are opposites in nature, like hot and cold, and there opposites in the mind like 'should' and 'should not'. Good and evil are not opposites except intellectually. They are unrelated in reality.

"where there is a "will there is a way"."

Yes, the way down! Will is essentially a desire for something, and is responsible for a lot of trouble. Goodness is not the excercise of the will.

"Creative choice does not accept what is given "

But I think we cannot but accept what is given, simply because there's no choice. What we do about it, however, is up to us. Life is what we make it.

[Lazarus Long]

Why aren't they constructs of human psychology niggler ?

Please give an example of objective evil, or better yet one not predicated on human behavior.

"If they are of human design"

They are part of human nature, but not designed by humans.

If "good and evil" are not designed by humans then what are they "designed" by?

"Creative choice does not accept what is given "

But I think we cannot but accept what is given, simply because there's no choice. What we do about it, however, is up to us. Life is what we make it. 

Your last comment is inherently contradictory since the conclusion depends upon a contradiction of your premise and so doesn't follow logically.

Regardless, of course we can "reject" what we are given, therein lies a choice as well. So it is a false premise anyway.

If we have no choice there is nothing we can do about it, ergo fatalism and no action afterward is a product of choice, or even really 'matters.' If we have choice then some form of "freedom of action" is possible and this is the only rational justification of "responsibility".

Anything less defaults to compulsory behavior and while fulfilling causality and deterministic logic, denies "Free Will". Free Will may be a creation of the human mind but it is also a standard of choice upon which all ethical analysis is predicated.

That is why I began this thread so long ago; to analyze 'choice' and the many definitions and distinctions of morals and ethics that we take for granted. Also to assist in developing mechanisms of rational judgment.

Here is another question: does bad or wrong equal evil?

[Lazarus Long]

I can't let this one go by.

"where there is a "will there is a way"."

Yes, the way down! Will is essentially a desire for something, and is responsible for a lot of trouble. Goodness is not the excercise of the will.

And a way up and a way out and a way in and a way over, in fact there may be an infinite set of choices regardless of their degree of relevance and effectiveness.

Goodness is not the product of sublimating the will (to service or otherwise). Trying to deny all desire is the source of apathy, decay, and stagnation. The harm done 'willfully' are acts that demonstrate responsibility even though it is through bad example.

The "Will to Love" is more important than the "Will to Power" and this is something I suspect Nietzsche got dead wrong. Love and desire are a product of the "will", not merely evolutionary psychology and biology, or else it isn't love. It is lust.

[th3hegem0n]

Because true "morality" is only defined by humans, and this subjecive morality is different between different people, simply put: Might is Right. Those who have the most power in enforcing their views (or indoctrinating them) are "truly moral".

[Lazarus Long]

That is the Law of the Jungle thhegem0n, not a social based "Rule of Law". You and niggler make a dynamic duo of opposites on this as he is alluding to theistic principle and you are opting for "Social Darwinism" but you both represent the same old ideas.

Might isn't "Right" but without the will and might to defend "Rights" they do not long exist or even come into being. Rights, are not granted by God such that they can be taken away by humans. "Rights", at least in English are derived of the notion of what is "thought" or "understood" to be "right". Their inalienability is not divine, they are derived of the logic, but still limited to human conditions for the subject of considered analysis.

This is part of my criticism of such notions of "altruism" as somehow not innately anthropomorphic; whereas we have ample evidence of the universality of Natural Symbiosis.

[niggler]

Lazarus

Why aren't they constructs of human psychology niggler ?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'constructs'. They are part of human nature. They haven't been 'constructed' by human beings. We didn't invent good or evil. We may pursue evil and some may be good, but their origin is not of our own determination.

Please give an example of objective evil

The Nazi's deliberation to exterminate the Jews and anybody else they didn't like. Any deliberate attempt to hurt or harm.

If "good and evil" are not designed by humans then what are they "designed" by?

I suppose one could either by Nature or by God. You're asking what is the source of all life, really.

I think we cannot but accept what is given, simply because there's no choice

I meant that life brings us certain experiences whether we like it or not. It may bring pleasant or unpleasant things. It may bring us a love affair or a dreadful disease. We cannot choose what will happen to us in our lives; things happen come what may. However, it's up to us as to how we deal with them. In this sense, we have what is called 'free will'. Some run away and make a problem of life, some face them and profit by the experience. Life is a learning experience, and there is such a thing as a missed opportunity.

Choice

You know, choice is a strange thng. We have to make decisions in life, simple ones like what to wear or what to eat, or more complex ones. I'm wondering whether there is any other choice, though. In some things, especially with some of life's trickier problems, there's no choice at all. It's when we don't see that that we try to choose between courses of action, which in turn leads to frustration, indecision and conflict. For someone who sees clearly, these things don't exist.

You brought up morals and ethics. We are conditioned by such things. When we have standards, principles, beliefs and so on, all telling us how we should behave, no wonder we're completely confused! The free mind has none of these things. It sees clearly, acts out of that clarity, and the problems of choice and confusion simply don't arise.

does bad or wrong equal evil?

No. We all make mistakes, it is natural. Making a mistake, even quite a few, doesn't imply evil. Very few people are 'evil', and very few are really 'good'. Most of us just bumble along somewhere in between!

[niggler]

Lazarus

We should really go into this business of free will much more. Perhaps I should be putting this on the 'free will' thread!

I know what free will is. It means that we are not automatons. We have the ability, thank God, to decide our courses of action in some way.

However, it depends how one looks at it. If we take the words literally, there may be no such thing as free will. Will is basically the impetus, the strong desire to do or achieve something. But is it 'free'? The word 'free' means unattached, and I'm not sure the will is unattached.

When do we apply will? When we want to achieve something or get somewhere. So we are being driven by our desire to achieve, arrive and so on. Is that free? Or does it in fact bind us? Is it part of our social conditioning that says we must achieve in order to be somebody?

If it's part of our conditioning, then it's not free at all. All conditioning is voluntary. We accept conditioning through fear, the desire to fit in, and so forth. So, although we talk of 'free will', such choice as is made is in fact limited by our conditioning. It is bound very much by social dictates and customs. In the West, we can choose which career to follow, who to marry, where to live and so on. In other countries, that may not be possible.

In any case, we do not have completely free will. You may be able to choose which colour to paint your walls, but you can't reach up and move the stars, or turn back time! So our 'free will' is in fact quite limited, isn't it?

[Lazarus Long]

My test scenario niggler was

Please give an example of objective evil, or better yet one not predicated on human behavior

You parsed; to be fair my comma encouraged this.

The example you gave is anthropocentric, hence subjective and not objective.

You are correct that this overlaps the various "Free Will" threads that have started in a number of forum areas but I will add that I am sympathetic to "Soft Determinism" as the position you are laying out is labeled. The problem is that while it is appealing it is very difficult to either logically prove or completely rationally define.

I will try and get back to the rest of your articulate posts in the next few days please have patience with me.

I will add that it is in the predator's nature to hunt with intent to kill and its survival is based on this behavior. While intentionally inflicted "hurt" is not germane,"harm" is and the hurt that results is consequential. There is some question over the duality of "harm." For example an emotional versus physical injury or causing experiential pain versus actual physical impairment, scarification etc.

So is all predation evil?

Or just human predation?