Is the construct of good and evil an artifact of intelligence?

[CWayne]

Do you believe the construct of good and evil to be an artifact of intelligence?

Yes. Man's intelligence. That is why the concept varies so much between cultures and evolves over time. An example is the OT focus on an eye for an eye and the NT focus on turning the other cheek.

Has it ever been diametrically opposed? Has man celebrated being evil for the sake of being evil?

No need, man just redefines evil. Do you know an evil that can't be redefined as good by some culture?

Can you provide a culture that finds the eating of still-born infants as good?

Not off hand but that doesn't mean there was never one. A lot of cultures practiced cannibalism so it doesn't seem like much of a stretch. I bet the Donner party would have looked on the practice with less disdain than we might.

Hence, the concept of good and evil. As we evolve away from the animal state, recognizing evil from cultural practices seems a logical step.

A culture that does not revere life would eat the still-born until everyone in the culture determined that it was evil to do so.

Primitive cultures may practice things we consider evil, but that is because a primitive culture is closer to the animal kingdom than modern humanity and the intellectual construct of evil.

 

[there4eyeM]

[QUOTEAn example, if a Polar Bear catches and eats a salmon from a stream, does the salmon consider the bear evil? Does the bear consider that eating the fish is evil?[/QUOTE]
No; that is a part of their blessing. Animals are spared the pain our consciousness brings. Still, all living things endure pain. Ours is of another dimension.

 

[ding]

Do you believe the construct of good and evil to be an artifact of intelligence?

Yes. Man's intelligence. That is why the concept varies so much between cultures and evolves over time. An example is the OT focus on an eye for an eye and the NT focus on turning the other cheek.

Why limit it to man’s intelligence?

If other creatures evolved in intelligence wouldn’t you expect the same thing?

 

[ding]

Do you believe the construct of good and evil to be an artifact of intelligence?

Yes. Man's intelligence. That is why the concept varies so much between cultures and evolves over time. An example is the OT focus on an eye for an eye and the NT focus on turning the other cheek.

Has it ever been diametrically opposed? Has man celebrated being evil for the sake of being evil?

No need, man just redefines evil. Do you know an evil that can't be redefined as good by some culture?

Can you provide an example of what you are discussing?

We generally consider killing innocent children to be evil (lets ignore the abortion thing). We also bombed German cities knowing that innocent children would be killed and hailed those that dropped the bombs as heroes.

Do you believe that we rationalized that dropping bombs in war to be moral and good?

 

[ding]

Yes. Man's intelligence. That is why the concept varies so much between cultures and evolves over time. An example is the OT focus on an eye for an eye and the NT focus on turning the other cheek.

Has it ever been diametrically opposed? Has man celebrated being evil for the sake of being evil?

No need, man just redefines evil. Do you know an evil that can't be redefined as good by some culture?

Can you provide a culture that finds the eating of still-born infants as good?

Not off hand but that doesn't mean there was never one. A lot of cultures practiced cannibalism so it doesn't seem like much of a stretch. I bet the Donner party would have looked on the practice with less disdain than we might.

Hence, the concept of good and evil. As we evolve away from the animal state, recognizing evil from cultural practices seems a logical step.

A culture that does not revere life would eat the still-born until everyone in the culture determined that it was evil to do so.

Primitive cultures may practice things we consider evil, but that is because a primitive culture is closer to the animal kingdom than modern humanity and the intellectual construct of evil.

The reality is that regardless of how men have behaved they have always rationalized their beliefs as morally good. Even when they weren’t.

There has never been a society that celebrated their evil acts for the sake of evil.

So regardless of what they did, they believed it was good and just. They celebrated being good.

 

[ding]

So it seems that the default position of intelligent beings is a profound belief in good.

And that is an artifact of intelligence.

 

[ding]

[QUOTEAn example, if a Polar Bear catches and eats a salmon from a stream, does the salmon consider the bear evil? Does the bear consider that eating the fish is evil?

No; that is a part of their blessing. Animals are spared the pain our consciousness brings. Still, all living things endure pain. Ours is of another dimension.

I agree. We are different. We have knowledge of good and evil. Good and evil is a human construct. And we can’t seem to abandon this belief. You can see this behavior in every quarrel. Where each side believes they are right and expects that what they believe is right and should be universally known and understood. It is this expectation that sets us apart. A wolf doesn’t apologize or rationalize killing and eating a lamb.

There is zero doubt that knowledge of good and evil is a higher order function. And thus, is an artifact of intelligence.

 

[ding]

Do you believe the construct of good and evil to be an artifact of intelligence?

What do you think?

I have zero doubt that the concept of good and evil is a human construct and is an artifact of intelligence. That any intelligent being would be hardwired for morality because morality is logical. That this phenomenon is written into the laws of nature so to speak because it is innate to intelligence.

 

[ding]

And that’s how I interpret ancient man’s understanding of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Whose meaning was lost through time but easily discernible if one reads for meaning instead of criticism.

 

[CWayne]

Has it ever been diametrically opposed? Has man celebrated being evil for the sake of being evil?

No need, man just redefines evil. Do you know an evil that can't be redefined as good by some culture?

Can you provide a culture that finds the eating of still-born infants as good?

Not off hand but that doesn't mean there was never one. A lot of cultures practiced cannibalism so it doesn't seem like much of a stretch. I bet the Donner party would have looked on the practice with less disdain than we might.

Hence, the concept of good and evil. As we evolve away from the animal state, recognizing evil from cultural practices seems a logical step.

A culture that does not revere life would eat the still-born until everyone in the culture determined that it was evil to do so.

Primitive cultures may practice things we consider evil, but that is because a primitive culture is closer to the animal kingdom than modern humanity and the intellectual construct of evil.

The reality is that regardless of how men have behaved they have always rationalized their beliefs as morally good. Even when they weren’t.

There has never been a society that celebrated their evil acts for the sake of evil.

So regardless of what they did, they believed it was good and just. They celebrated being good.

How do you celebrate good if you have no concept of it?

 

[Picaro]

Do you believe the construct of good and evil to be an artifact of intelligence?

There is a growing body of research that demonstrates 'morals', religion, etc, may be hardwired into our brains. I'll see if can find my links on the topic. this make sense for mammals, given how long our 'childhood' lasts and the need for the survival of a community mentality, i.e. organizations,, legal systems of some sort, distribution, and other 'irrational' behavior. I think William James developed a theory on this in the 1800's.

The propensity and drive of the left and right wing ideologues to destroy these traits as barriers to indulging in their degeneracy is a key priority of sociopaths and lunatics and other dysfunctional outliers, like faggots, serial killers, thieves, etc. It takes effort to desensitize humans to commit these atrocities, an aberrant cultural 'norm', to make it possible for people murder others; some personality types are easier to desensitize than others, but few are 'born that way', they're created and conditioned as such. Ideologies are invented to do this while still offering the possibility of control over people.

Google up "biological roots of religion" for a starter, as my links are now behind pay walls. Stick with the books and article by neuroscientists and avoid the psychology quacks, as they're mostly loons and deviants.

 

[Picaro]

Do you believe the construct of good and evil to be an artifact of intelligence?

Yes. Man's intelligence. That is why the concept varies so much between cultures and evolves over time. An example is the OT focus on an eye for an eye and the NT focus on turning the other cheek.

Has it ever been diametrically opposed? Has man celebrated being evil for the sake of being evil?

No need, man just redefines evil. Do you know an evil that can't be redefined as good by some culture?

Can you provide an example of what you are discussing?

We generally consider killing innocent children to be evil (lets ignore the abortion thing). We also bombed German cities knowing that innocent children would be killed and hailed those that dropped the bombs as heroes.

Yes, cuz good people would just let Nazis do whatever they wanted to without any resistance.

 

[ding]

No need, man just redefines evil. Do you know an evil that can't be redefined as good by some culture?

Can you provide a culture that finds the eating of still-born infants as good?

Not off hand but that doesn't mean there was never one. A lot of cultures practiced cannibalism so it doesn't seem like much of a stretch. I bet the Donner party would have looked on the practice with less disdain than we might.

Hence, the concept of good and evil. As we evolve away from the animal state, recognizing evil from cultural practices seems a logical step.

A culture that does not revere life would eat the still-born until everyone in the culture determined that it was evil to do so.

Primitive cultures may practice things we consider evil, but that is because a primitive culture is closer to the animal kingdom than modern humanity and the intellectual construct of evil.

The reality is that regardless of how men have behaved they have always rationalized their beliefs as morally good. Even when they weren’t.

There has never been a society that celebrated their evil acts for the sake of evil.

So regardless of what they did, they believed it was good and just. They celebrated being good.

How do you celebrate good if you have no concept of it?

Exactly!!!!!

 

[alang1216]

Yes. Man's intelligence. That is why the concept varies so much between cultures and evolves over time. An example is the OT focus on an eye for an eye and the NT focus on turning the other cheek.

Has it ever been diametrically opposed? Has man celebrated being evil for the sake of being evil?

No need, man just redefines evil. Do you know an evil that can't be redefined as good by some culture?

Can you provide an example of what you are discussing?

We generally consider killing innocent children to be evil (lets ignore the abortion thing). We also bombed German cities knowing that innocent children would be killed and hailed those that dropped the bombs as heroes.

Yes, cuz good people would just let Nazis do whatever they wanted to without any resistance.

Sometimes evil is good.

 

[ding]

Has it ever been diametrically opposed? Has man celebrated being evil for the sake of being evil?

No need, man just redefines evil. Do you know an evil that can't be redefined as good by some culture?

Can you provide an example of what you are discussing?

We generally consider killing innocent children to be evil (lets ignore the abortion thing). We also bombed German cities knowing that innocent children would be killed and hailed those that dropped the bombs as heroes.

Yes, cuz good people would just let Nazis do whatever they wanted to without any resistance.

Sometimes evil is good.

One should be so careful in describing the lesser of two evils as good that he never does it.

 

[Picaro]

Has it ever been diametrically opposed? Has man celebrated being evil for the sake of being evil?

No need, man just redefines evil. Do you know an evil that can't be redefined as good by some culture?

Can you provide an example of what you are discussing?

We generally consider killing innocent children to be evil (lets ignore the abortion thing). We also bombed German cities knowing that innocent children would be killed and hailed those that dropped the bombs as heroes.

Yes, cuz good people would just let Nazis do whatever they wanted to without any resistance.

Sometimes evil is good.

Nah. Evil people make a practice of hiding behind good people, like Hamas and the PLO do as a standard practice, criminals take hostages, etc. The blame for everything lies entirely on the evil people. They aren't forced to hide among hostages, and good people can and should hunt them down like rabid dogs they are where ever they're found..

 

[ding]

Has it ever been diametrically opposed? Has man celebrated being evil for the sake of being evil?

No need, man just redefines evil. Do you know an evil that can't be redefined as good by some culture?

Can you provide an example of what you are discussing?

We generally consider killing innocent children to be evil (lets ignore the abortion thing). We also bombed German cities knowing that innocent children would be killed and hailed those that dropped the bombs as heroes.

Yes, cuz good people would just let Nazis do whatever they wanted to without any resistance.

Sometimes evil is good.

Now if you were trying to say that good can come from bad, that is true but we should never rationalize that bad is good.

 

[alang1216]

No need, man just redefines evil. Do you know an evil that can't be redefined as good by some culture?

Can you provide an example of what you are discussing?

We generally consider killing innocent children to be evil (lets ignore the abortion thing). We also bombed German cities knowing that innocent children would be killed and hailed those that dropped the bombs as heroes.

Yes, cuz good people would just let Nazis do whatever they wanted to without any resistance.

Sometimes evil is good.

Now if you were trying to say that good can come from bad, that is true but we should never rationalize that bad is good.

Killing a child is an evil but, as you've said, sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.

 

[ding]

Can you provide an example of what you are discussing?

We generally consider killing innocent children to be evil (lets ignore the abortion thing). We also bombed German cities knowing that innocent children would be killed and hailed those that dropped the bombs as heroes.

Yes, cuz good people would just let Nazis do whatever they wanted to without any resistance.

Sometimes evil is good.

Now if you were trying to say that good can come from bad, that is true but we should never rationalize that bad is good.

Killing a child is an evil but, as you've said, sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.

No. I don’t believe I did say that killing a child is the lesser of two evils.

Please address the words I write and I promise to do the same for you. Fair enough?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Good" and "evil" are manifestations of dualistic thinking.

Correct. Anyone who has taken an ethics course learned that. What a grueling course that was.