I think this applies to some definition of 'evil' because it suggests that wrongdoing is harmful to the self. That's what I understand you to mean when you say 'they do not value themselves.'
And that they've succumbed to the idea that their behavior can't be helped is aggravating to me, because it is horrid to believe that compulsion makes it acceptable to them. It's as if they have no self-control.
I can see the point, that 'good' is subjective as what satisfies he who commits evil deeds, making an act of revenge against a perceived slight a positive act for the one committing the act of revenge.
However, the concepts of good, evil and even morality is also subjective, so claiming acts as falling clearly on either black or white side of evil and good becomes complex, without resorting to the more malleable 'gray' area, or just barreling headlong into the biological and neurological instinct of a high-evolved animal that humans are not far removed from.
Yes, I have a fascination for exploring what makes people kill one another. Absolutely fascinating...
A simple sense of right and wrong, one that's set in black or white, doesn't seem to function well in reality.
But, if I understand you correctly, you also think that much of our choices are "the biological and neurological instinct of a high-evolved animal that humans are not far removed from."
It's an argument that could be made for the basic motivations of humanity. I don't think it's the definitive argument, however, we as self-aware organisms are still influenced by chemicals and ingrained, evolved instincts learned from our ancestors and culture, no matter how much we try not to act like animals.
Sometimes I think the good/evil measuring system is flawed...instead our moral model should look more like scale that's build like this:
Extreme-Moderate-Extreme Truth
And that what we see as evil is equally opposed by something that is not really good but evil as well. Perhaps one side is intolerance and the other is apathy, and that truth is the fulcrum on which we find the truly moderate centered.
Of course that isn't a good model for the simple nomadic tribes who first invented religion, it's too complex, and invokes too much rational doubt but in my view it's the model that makes more sense and the one we should be looking at. It's not hands off for sure, but I think it's closer to the truth of things.
Yes. Extreme "Good" leads to arrogance, ideas of revenge, self-righteousness, puritanical self-denial, intolerance and even crusades.
And yeah, it is my belief that truth is fixed and irrefutable but always underneath the moral compass, morality, instead tries to balance on the top of the truth but in most cases we can only initially guess at it's position.
The undiluted truth is that which is devoid of logical fallacy by it's definition, the thing that science, philosophy, religion and even art searches for and often finds pieces of. It's simply the current state of the universe.
People like to believe that the truth is relative, but it's not...perception is relative but truth isn't.
Comments 11
Reply
And that they've succumbed to the idea that their behavior can't be helped is aggravating to me, because it is horrid to believe that compulsion makes it acceptable to them. It's as if they have no self-control.
Reply
I think evil can be so much more than just a singular action, or deed. I think it can also be a "destination" of sorts.
For example, Adolf Hitler. There are many people who say he was evil. I do not know that he was evil, yet his actions in total have been judged evil.
Reply
However, the concepts of good, evil and even morality is also subjective, so claiming acts as falling clearly on either black or white side of evil and good becomes complex, without resorting to the more malleable 'gray' area, or just barreling headlong into the biological and neurological instinct of a high-evolved animal that humans are not far removed from.
Yes, I have a fascination for exploring what makes people kill one another. Absolutely fascinating...
Reply
A simple sense of right and wrong, one that's set in black or white, doesn't seem to function well in reality.
But, if I understand you correctly, you also think that much of our choices are "the biological and neurological instinct of a high-evolved animal that humans are not far removed from."
Or do you?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Extreme-Moderate-Extreme
Truth
And that what we see as evil is equally opposed by something that is not really good but evil as well. Perhaps one side is intolerance and the other is apathy, and that truth is the fulcrum on which we find the truly moderate centered.
Of course that isn't a good model for the simple nomadic tribes who first invented religion, it's too complex, and invokes too much rational doubt but in my view it's the model that makes more sense and the one we should be looking at. It's not hands off for sure, but I think it's closer to the truth of things.
Reply
Yes?
Reply
And yeah, it is my belief that truth is fixed and irrefutable but always underneath the moral compass, morality, instead tries to balance on the top of the truth but in most cases we can only initially guess at it's position.
The undiluted truth is that which is devoid of logical fallacy by it's definition, the thing that science, philosophy, religion and even art searches for and often finds pieces of. It's simply the current state of the universe.
People like to believe that the truth is relative, but it's not...perception is relative but truth isn't.
Reply
Our interpretation of truth is relative, agreed.
Reply
Leave a comment