Are people basically good?

[ding]

I've quoted this before on this board, so excuse me for repeating myself, but it is one my emotional favorites because there is nothing more human than hope.

In this broad Earth of ours,
Amid the measureless grossness and the slag, 5
Enclosed and safe within its central heart,
Nestles the seed Perfection.

By every life a share, or more or less,
None born but it is born—conceal’d or unconceal’d, the seed is waiting.

When it comes down to it, the flip side of grossness and slag is perfection, so I don't have to quibble with it, but I think Whitman meant something else, something closer to what Ding is saying. When I put my mind to it, I have to ask, what is perfection? Sez who?

The perfect splitting of the atom that led to Little Boy?

Ding says all humans are born recognizing the virtue of getting along. So does Ricechickie. Where that concept of virtue comes from seems to be the catch.

So ding , do you believe it is a universal truth beyond the human mind because it is universally recognized and worked toward? If it were a universal truth that it is born in us to follow, wouldn't we all be working toward it a little harder than we seem to do? If it were universal and immutable and inborn, it would be more like thirst or hunger, wouldn't it, something we automatically act on in our daily lives much more often?

I believe we are evolving towards it because it is the logical conclusion. Whether we get there as a people or an individual remains to be seen. But I do believe intelligence exists outside the material world and that is why we are drawn to it.

it is the logical conclusion.
It is the logical conclusion if the survival of the human race is what you're aiming for, but who said our survival is the desired outcome for any but us?

I didn't say anything about the survival of the human race.

The logical conclusion is the continued evolution of consciousness until it makes the next evolutionary leap.

You are familiar with the stages of the evolution of of time and space, right?

 

[ding]

The consequence of violating moral laws is not immediate. It isn’t like violating a physical law. It is probalistic in nature. But given enough time, predictable consequences will occur such that relationships that are built on virtuous behaviors will always be better than relationships that are devoid of virtue.

I would argue that in any failed marriage it involved behaviors that were less than virtuous. The biggest one being selfishness.

I have a real problem if you can point to one behavior and call it an instigator of failure, especially when you just admitted that consequences of “bad” behavior can take time.

You take out of the equation all other behaviors, how others handle the behaviors, how others behave toward you, if the behaviors are generally acceptable or not to our society......

Maybe I don’t know what you are getting at because I am not pointing to one behavior. I am discussing two diametrically opposed groups of behaviors; virtue and the absence of virtue.

It is self evident to me that virtue is an organizing principle. That no matter what other challenges a relationship or a society encounters they will always stand the best chance of weathering the storm if their behaviors are virtuous as opposed to devoid of virtue.

But we don’t exist as static behaviors. I don’t know anyone who is all virtue or devoid of all virtue.

Therefore, you have to point to individual actions. And you claim that individual actions lead to success or failure. But you also can’t (because no one can) trace how each individual decision leads to an outcome because we don’t exist in a vacuum.

You want to speak about “sharp contrasts,” but most people are simply not that “sharply” virtuous or unvirtuous.

Making your entire argument collapse like a house of cards, because humanity is much more nuanced than you want to present.

First of all it’s not really my argument. The importance of behaving with virtue is as old as man and is the basis for every religion -major, minor and primal - and is the oldest moral theory in Western philosophy. The Greek term for virtue is arete, which means “excellence.” Throughout the history of literature and cinema the morality of our heroes and villains has been on display in terms of their respective virtues and vices and their successes and failures hinged on their virtuous or vicious character traits. We teach our children to be virtuous and we teach them to not be vicious. Reason and experience tells us that actions and behaviors have consequences. These actions and consequences are the logical reasons for what we teach our kids to do and not do.

I speak of sharp contrasts to illuminate my point and because those sharp contrasts are the basis of the importance of being virtuous instead of vicious.

Of course there are degrees in our behaviors but people and societies do not go from being virtuous to vicious overnight. That is an incremental process. Which is all the more reason to be vigilant and guard against it.

If you want to believe that what I am saying is a house of cards then so be it. I am more than happy to agree to disagree, but I would like to add two more things. While the concept I have presented to you may be difficult for you to agree with, I am certain that when you have an exchange with someone who is devoid of virtue you will not want to associate with that person anymore and it will be because of their behaviors. Lastly my discussion in no way implies that doing the right thing or even figuring out what the right thing is is easy to accomplish. Being virtuous is not easy.

But the person with no virtue in your eyes could be successful and happy. Virtue is therefore subjective. In nature a lot of the time, the more vicious the animal, the more successful it is.

It is probabilistic in nature. Why do you suppose all through out the history of literature and cinema vicious behaviors were not celebrated? Why do you suppose they showed vicious behaviors as leading to the downfall of the antagonists?

 

[Taz]

I have a real problem if you can point to one behavior and call it an instigator of failure, especially when you just admitted that consequences of “bad” behavior can take time.

You take out of the equation all other behaviors, how others handle the behaviors, how others behave toward you, if the behaviors are generally acceptable or not to our society......

Maybe I don’t know what you are getting at because I am not pointing to one behavior. I am discussing two diametrically opposed groups of behaviors; virtue and the absence of virtue.

It is self evident to me that virtue is an organizing principle. That no matter what other challenges a relationship or a society encounters they will always stand the best chance of weathering the storm if their behaviors are virtuous as opposed to devoid of virtue.

But we don’t exist as static behaviors. I don’t know anyone who is all virtue or devoid of all virtue.

Therefore, you have to point to individual actions. And you claim that individual actions lead to success or failure. But you also can’t (because no one can) trace how each individual decision leads to an outcome because we don’t exist in a vacuum.

You want to speak about “sharp contrasts,” but most people are simply not that “sharply” virtuous or unvirtuous.

Making your entire argument collapse like a house of cards, because humanity is much more nuanced than you want to present.

First of all it’s not really my argument. The importance of behaving with virtue is as old as man and is the basis for every religion -major, minor and primal - and is the oldest moral theory in Western philosophy. The Greek term for virtue is arete, which means “excellence.” Throughout the history of literature and cinema the morality of our heroes and villains has been on display in terms of their respective virtues and vices and their successes and failures hinged on their virtuous or vicious character traits. We teach our children to be virtuous and we teach them to not be vicious. Reason and experience tells us that actions and behaviors have consequences. These actions and consequences are the logical reasons for what we teach our kids to do and not do.

I speak of sharp contrasts to illuminate my point and because those sharp contrasts are the basis of the importance of being virtuous instead of vicious.

Of course there are degrees in our behaviors but people and societies do not go from being virtuous to vicious overnight. That is an incremental process. Which is all the more reason to be vigilant and guard against it.

If you want to believe that what I am saying is a house of cards then so be it. I am more than happy to agree to disagree, but I would like to add two more things. While the concept I have presented to you may be difficult for you to agree with, I am certain that when you have an exchange with someone who is devoid of virtue you will not want to associate with that person anymore and it will be because of their behaviors. Lastly my discussion in no way implies that doing the right thing or even figuring out what the right thing is is easy to accomplish. Being virtuous is not easy.

But the person with no virtue in your eyes could be successful and happy. Virtue is therefore subjective. In nature a lot of the time, the more vicious the animal, the more successful it is.

It is probabilistic in nature. Why do you suppose all through out the history of literature and cinema vicious behaviors were not celebrated? Why do you suppose they showed vicious behaviors as leading to the downfall of the antagonists?

Movies aren't real life. Anyways, all the horror movies say different.

 

[ding]

Maybe I don’t know what you are getting at because I am not pointing to one behavior. I am discussing two diametrically opposed groups of behaviors; virtue and the absence of virtue.

It is self evident to me that virtue is an organizing principle. That no matter what other challenges a relationship or a society encounters they will always stand the best chance of weathering the storm if their behaviors are virtuous as opposed to devoid of virtue.

But we don’t exist as static behaviors. I don’t know anyone who is all virtue or devoid of all virtue.

Therefore, you have to point to individual actions. And you claim that individual actions lead to success or failure. But you also can’t (because no one can) trace how each individual decision leads to an outcome because we don’t exist in a vacuum.

You want to speak about “sharp contrasts,” but most people are simply not that “sharply” virtuous or unvirtuous.

Making your entire argument collapse like a house of cards, because humanity is much more nuanced than you want to present.

First of all it’s not really my argument. The importance of behaving with virtue is as old as man and is the basis for every religion -major, minor and primal - and is the oldest moral theory in Western philosophy. The Greek term for virtue is arete, which means “excellence.” Throughout the history of literature and cinema the morality of our heroes and villains has been on display in terms of their respective virtues and vices and their successes and failures hinged on their virtuous or vicious character traits. We teach our children to be virtuous and we teach them to not be vicious. Reason and experience tells us that actions and behaviors have consequences. These actions and consequences are the logical reasons for what we teach our kids to do and not do.

I speak of sharp contrasts to illuminate my point and because those sharp contrasts are the basis of the importance of being virtuous instead of vicious.

Of course there are degrees in our behaviors but people and societies do not go from being virtuous to vicious overnight. That is an incremental process. Which is all the more reason to be vigilant and guard against it.

If you want to believe that what I am saying is a house of cards then so be it. I am more than happy to agree to disagree, but I would like to add two more things. While the concept I have presented to you may be difficult for you to agree with, I am certain that when you have an exchange with someone who is devoid of virtue you will not want to associate with that person anymore and it will be because of their behaviors. Lastly my discussion in no way implies that doing the right thing or even figuring out what the right thing is is easy to accomplish. Being virtuous is not easy.

But the person with no virtue in your eyes could be successful and happy. Virtue is therefore subjective. In nature a lot of the time, the more vicious the animal, the more successful it is.

It is probabilistic in nature. Why do you suppose all through out the history of literature and cinema vicious behaviors were not celebrated? Why do you suppose they showed vicious behaviors as leading to the downfall of the antagonists?

Movies aren't real life. Anyways, all the horror movies say different.

Yes, but they imitate real life. Additionally, we teach our children to be virtuous and not to be vicious.

So I'm pretty sure that most reasonable people understand this.

 

[ricechickie]

Ding, what is your most basic definition of virtuous?

 

[there4eyeM]

A 'virtuous' practice in one place may be a felony in another.

 

[OldLady]

I've quoted this before on this board, so excuse me for repeating myself, but it is one my emotional favorites because there is nothing more human than hope.

In this broad Earth of ours,
Amid the measureless grossness and the slag, 5
Enclosed and safe within its central heart,
Nestles the seed Perfection.

By every life a share, or more or less,
None born but it is born—conceal’d or unconceal’d, the seed is waiting.

When it comes down to it, the flip side of grossness and slag is perfection, so I don't have to quibble with it, but I think Whitman meant something else, something closer to what Ding is saying. When I put my mind to it, I have to ask, what is perfection? Sez who?

The perfect splitting of the atom that led to Little Boy?

Ding says all humans are born recognizing the virtue of getting along. So does Ricechickie. Where that concept of virtue comes from seems to be the catch.

So ding , do you believe it is a universal truth beyond the human mind because it is universally recognized and worked toward? If it were a universal truth that it is born in us to follow, wouldn't we all be working toward it a little harder than we seem to do? If it were universal and immutable and inborn, it would be more like thirst or hunger, wouldn't it, something we automatically act on in our daily lives much more often?

I believe we are evolving towards it because it is the logical conclusion. Whether we get there as a people or an individual remains to be seen. But I do believe intelligence exists outside the material world and that is why we are drawn to it.

it is the logical conclusion.
It is the logical conclusion if the survival of the human race is what you're aiming for, but who said our survival is the desired outcome for any but us?

I didn't say anything about the survival of the human race.

The logical conclusion is the continued evolution of consciousness until it makes the next evolutionary leap.

You are familiar with the stages of the evolution of of time and space, right?

No. I did not know time and space evolved. Or is that a typo?

I am also not familiar with consciousness evolving. What will it leap to?

 

[there4eyeM]

I've quoted this before on this board, so excuse me for repeating myself, but it is one my emotional favorites because there is nothing more human than hope.

In this broad Earth of ours,
Amid the measureless grossness and the slag, 5
Enclosed and safe within its central heart,
Nestles the seed Perfection.

By every life a share, or more or less,
None born but it is born—conceal’d or unconceal’d, the seed is waiting.

When it comes down to it, the flip side of grossness and slag is perfection, so I don't have to quibble with it, but I think Whitman meant something else, something closer to what Ding is saying. When I put my mind to it, I have to ask, what is perfection? Sez who?

The perfect splitting of the atom that led to Little Boy?

Ding says all humans are born recognizing the virtue of getting along. So does Ricechickie. Where that concept of virtue comes from seems to be the catch.

So ding , do you believe it is a universal truth beyond the human mind because it is universally recognized and worked toward? If it were a universal truth that it is born in us to follow, wouldn't we all be working toward it a little harder than we seem to do? If it were universal and immutable and inborn, it would be more like thirst or hunger, wouldn't it, something we automatically act on in our daily lives much more often?

I believe we are evolving towards it because it is the logical conclusion. Whether we get there as a people or an individual remains to be seen. But I do believe intelligence exists outside the material world and that is why we are drawn to it.

it is the logical conclusion.
It is the logical conclusion if the survival of the human race is what you're aiming for, but who said our survival is the desired outcome for any but us?

I didn't say anything about the survival of the human race.

The logical conclusion is the continued evolution of consciousness until it makes the next evolutionary leap.

You are familiar with the stages of the evolution of of time and space, right?

No. I did not know time and space evolved. Or is that a typo?

I am also not familiar with consciousness evolving. What will it leap to?

Isn't that just the effing question!

 

[ding]

I've quoted this before on this board, so excuse me for repeating myself, but it is one my emotional favorites because there is nothing more human than hope.

In this broad Earth of ours,
Amid the measureless grossness and the slag, 5
Enclosed and safe within its central heart,
Nestles the seed Perfection.

By every life a share, or more or less,
None born but it is born—conceal’d or unconceal’d, the seed is waiting.

When it comes down to it, the flip side of grossness and slag is perfection, so I don't have to quibble with it, but I think Whitman meant something else, something closer to what Ding is saying. When I put my mind to it, I have to ask, what is perfection? Sez who?

The perfect splitting of the atom that led to Little Boy?

Ding says all humans are born recognizing the virtue of getting along. So does Ricechickie. Where that concept of virtue comes from seems to be the catch.

So ding , do you believe it is a universal truth beyond the human mind because it is universally recognized and worked toward? If it were a universal truth that it is born in us to follow, wouldn't we all be working toward it a little harder than we seem to do? If it were universal and immutable and inborn, it would be more like thirst or hunger, wouldn't it, something we automatically act on in our daily lives much more often?

I believe we are evolving towards it because it is the logical conclusion. Whether we get there as a people or an individual remains to be seen. But I do believe intelligence exists outside the material world and that is why we are drawn to it.

it is the logical conclusion.
It is the logical conclusion if the survival of the human race is what you're aiming for, but who said our survival is the desired outcome for any but us?

I didn't say anything about the survival of the human race.

The logical conclusion is the continued evolution of consciousness until it makes the next evolutionary leap.

You are familiar with the stages of the evolution of of time and space, right?

No. I did not know time and space evolved. Or is that a typo?

I am also not familiar with consciousness evolving. What will it leap to?

Nor are you really interested in finding out.

Let's not waste each others time, OK?

 

[harmonica]

WW2 unleashed/surfaced/uncovered/etc the natural ''evil'' of humans
neighbors murdered/robbed/spied on/snitched/etc on neighbors
atrocities of many, many aspects all over the world
Asia
Pacific
Europe
Russia/France
Balkans
etc
WW2 dropped the ''restrictions''/allowed murder/robbery/etc
from The Third Reich at War:

..a regular army officer noticed a laughing and cheering crowd of men, women and children......

bold mine
they were cheering/etc the beating to death by club of other humans
the murder of groups of humans happened all over the world
still does
...there have been genocides and massacres for hundreds of years--and still are

...when the ''restrictions''/law and order break down/etc--the natural evil of humans comes to the surface

 

[ding]

I've quoted this before on this board, so excuse me for repeating myself, but it is one my emotional favorites because there is nothing more human than hope.

In this broad Earth of ours,
Amid the measureless grossness and the slag, 5
Enclosed and safe within its central heart,
Nestles the seed Perfection.

By every life a share, or more or less,
None born but it is born—conceal’d or unconceal’d, the seed is waiting.

When it comes down to it, the flip side of grossness and slag is perfection, so I don't have to quibble with it, but I think Whitman meant something else, something closer to what Ding is saying. When I put my mind to it, I have to ask, what is perfection? Sez who?

The perfect splitting of the atom that led to Little Boy?

Ding says all humans are born recognizing the virtue of getting along. So does Ricechickie. Where that concept of virtue comes from seems to be the catch.

So ding , do you believe it is a universal truth beyond the human mind because it is universally recognized and worked toward? If it were a universal truth that it is born in us to follow, wouldn't we all be working toward it a little harder than we seem to do? If it were universal and immutable and inborn, it would be more like thirst or hunger, wouldn't it, something we automatically act on in our daily lives much more often?

I believe we are evolving towards it because it is the logical conclusion. Whether we get there as a people or an individual remains to be seen. But I do believe intelligence exists outside the material world and that is why we are drawn to it.

it is the logical conclusion.
It is the logical conclusion if the survival of the human race is what you're aiming for, but who said our survival is the desired outcome for any but us?

I didn't say anything about the survival of the human race.

The logical conclusion is the continued evolution of consciousness until it makes the next evolutionary leap.

You are familiar with the stages of the evolution of of time and space, right?

No. I did not know time and space evolved. Or is that a typo?

I am also not familiar with consciousness evolving. What will it leap to?

Isn't that just the effing question!

It should be.

 

[Taz]

But we don’t exist as static behaviors. I don’t know anyone who is all virtue or devoid of all virtue.

Therefore, you have to point to individual actions. And you claim that individual actions lead to success or failure. But you also can’t (because no one can) trace how each individual decision leads to an outcome because we don’t exist in a vacuum.

You want to speak about “sharp contrasts,” but most people are simply not that “sharply” virtuous or unvirtuous.

Making your entire argument collapse like a house of cards, because humanity is much more nuanced than you want to present.

First of all it’s not really my argument. The importance of behaving with virtue is as old as man and is the basis for every religion -major, minor and primal - and is the oldest moral theory in Western philosophy. The Greek term for virtue is arete, which means “excellence.” Throughout the history of literature and cinema the morality of our heroes and villains has been on display in terms of their respective virtues and vices and their successes and failures hinged on their virtuous or vicious character traits. We teach our children to be virtuous and we teach them to not be vicious. Reason and experience tells us that actions and behaviors have consequences. These actions and consequences are the logical reasons for what we teach our kids to do and not do.

I speak of sharp contrasts to illuminate my point and because those sharp contrasts are the basis of the importance of being virtuous instead of vicious.

Of course there are degrees in our behaviors but people and societies do not go from being virtuous to vicious overnight. That is an incremental process. Which is all the more reason to be vigilant and guard against it.

If you want to believe that what I am saying is a house of cards then so be it. I am more than happy to agree to disagree, but I would like to add two more things. While the concept I have presented to you may be difficult for you to agree with, I am certain that when you have an exchange with someone who is devoid of virtue you will not want to associate with that person anymore and it will be because of their behaviors. Lastly my discussion in no way implies that doing the right thing or even figuring out what the right thing is is easy to accomplish. Being virtuous is not easy.

But the person with no virtue in your eyes could be successful and happy. Virtue is therefore subjective. In nature a lot of the time, the more vicious the animal, the more successful it is.

It is probabilistic in nature. Why do you suppose all through out the history of literature and cinema vicious behaviors were not celebrated? Why do you suppose they showed vicious behaviors as leading to the downfall of the antagonists?

Movies aren't real life. Anyways, all the horror movies say different.

Yes, but they imitate real life. Additionally, we teach our children to be virtuous and not to be vicious.

So I'm pretty sure that most reasonable people understand this.

We teach our children our subjective version of virtuous. In some circles, blowing yourself up for Allah is the best outcome possible.

 

[ding]

First of all it’s not really my argument. The importance of behaving with virtue is as old as man and is the basis for every religion -major, minor and primal - and is the oldest moral theory in Western philosophy. The Greek term for virtue is arete, which means “excellence.” Throughout the history of literature and cinema the morality of our heroes and villains has been on display in terms of their respective virtues and vices and their successes and failures hinged on their virtuous or vicious character traits. We teach our children to be virtuous and we teach them to not be vicious. Reason and experience tells us that actions and behaviors have consequences. These actions and consequences are the logical reasons for what we teach our kids to do and not do.

I speak of sharp contrasts to illuminate my point and because those sharp contrasts are the basis of the importance of being virtuous instead of vicious.

Of course there are degrees in our behaviors but people and societies do not go from being virtuous to vicious overnight. That is an incremental process. Which is all the more reason to be vigilant and guard against it.

If you want to believe that what I am saying is a house of cards then so be it. I am more than happy to agree to disagree, but I would like to add two more things. While the concept I have presented to you may be difficult for you to agree with, I am certain that when you have an exchange with someone who is devoid of virtue you will not want to associate with that person anymore and it will be because of their behaviors. Lastly my discussion in no way implies that doing the right thing or even figuring out what the right thing is is easy to accomplish. Being virtuous is not easy.

But the person with no virtue in your eyes could be successful and happy. Virtue is therefore subjective. In nature a lot of the time, the more vicious the animal, the more successful it is.

It is probabilistic in nature. Why do you suppose all through out the history of literature and cinema vicious behaviors were not celebrated? Why do you suppose they showed vicious behaviors as leading to the downfall of the antagonists?

Movies aren't real life. Anyways, all the horror movies say different.

Yes, but they imitate real life. Additionally, we teach our children to be virtuous and not to be vicious.

So I'm pretty sure that most reasonable people understand this.

We teach our children our subjective version of virtuous. In some circles, blowing yourself up for Allah is the best outcome possible.

There is nothing subjective about standards. People are subjective. Standards are objective.

 

[Taz]

But the person with no virtue in your eyes could be successful and happy. Virtue is therefore subjective. In nature a lot of the time, the more vicious the animal, the more successful it is.

It is probabilistic in nature. Why do you suppose all through out the history of literature and cinema vicious behaviors were not celebrated? Why do you suppose they showed vicious behaviors as leading to the downfall of the antagonists?

Movies aren't real life. Anyways, all the horror movies say different.

Yes, but they imitate real life. Additionally, we teach our children to be virtuous and not to be vicious.

So I'm pretty sure that most reasonable people understand this.

We teach our children our subjective version of virtuous. In some circles, blowing yourself up for Allah is the best outcome possible.

There is nothing subjective about standards. People are subjective. Standards are objective.

Like what standards? Name some that apply to everyone.

 

[ding]

It is probabilistic in nature. Why do you suppose all through out the history of literature and cinema vicious behaviors were not celebrated? Why do you suppose they showed vicious behaviors as leading to the downfall of the antagonists?

Movies aren't real life. Anyways, all the horror movies say different.

Yes, but they imitate real life. Additionally, we teach our children to be virtuous and not to be vicious.

So I'm pretty sure that most reasonable people understand this.

We teach our children our subjective version of virtuous. In some circles, blowing yourself up for Allah is the best outcome possible.

There is nothing subjective about standards. People are subjective. Standards are objective.

Like what standards? Name some that apply to everyone.

Don't take what's not yours.

 

[Taz]

Movies aren't real life. Anyways, all the horror movies say different.

Yes, but they imitate real life. Additionally, we teach our children to be virtuous and not to be vicious.

So I'm pretty sure that most reasonable people understand this.

We teach our children our subjective version of virtuous. In some circles, blowing yourself up for Allah is the best outcome possible.

There is nothing subjective about standards. People are subjective. Standards are objective.

Like what standards? Name some that apply to everyone.

Don't take what's not yours.

 

[ding]

It seems to me that the existence of a moral law makes some people uncomfortable.


And for good reason too.

 

[Taz]

It seems to me that the existence of a moral law makes some people uncomfortable.


And for good reason too.

So "don't take what's not yours", I might see something as mine, and you see it as yours, and I take it before you do. So who decides whose it actually was? And what are the consequences of taking that something?

 

[ding]

It seems to me that the existence of a moral law makes some people uncomfortable.


And for good reason too.

So "don't take what's not yours", I might see something as mine, and you see it as yours, and I take it before you do. So who decides whose it actually was? And what are the consequences of taking that something?

The moral law makes you nervous.

 

[Taz]

It seems to me that the existence of a moral law makes some people uncomfortable.


And for good reason too.

So "don't take what's not yours", I might see something as mine, and you see it as yours, and I take it before you do. So who decides whose it actually was? And what are the consequences of taking that something?

The moral law makes you nervous.

Can't answer my questions?