The True Root of All Evil...

[Not2BSubjugated]

This guy seriously ignored me over a philosophical debate. I'm so charmed right now.

One of those open minded Christian types lol!

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Up to if so I agree, you and I see eye to eye. The rest of your post describes the particular demands of your moral code, some of which I agree with, some of which I disagree with.

My argument here never had anything to do with what -is- good or what -is- evil. My argument has been, all along, that selfishness is a given and therefore isn't the dividing line between the two.

The dividing line between good and evil is much blurrier, as morality ultimately boils down to a dogmatic baseline. None of our morals can be proven right or wrong, so one person's values can't be said to be definitively more correct than someone else's.

That said, if you're using selfish and unselfish as your criteria for good and evil, you're building your dogma on a logical fallacy.

OK what do you think about these distinctions then:
thoughts/words/actions done
* in the spirit of fear vs. love
* by unforgiveness vs. forgiveness
* by ignorance vs. truth
* rejection of problems vs. seeking solutions

Is there a better way to describe the
* negative energy vs. positive energy
that determines the difference between good and evil?

Doctors researching the difference in prayer processes
have noted a "clash" between
negative energy used in sorcery, occult, witchcraft, voodoo, spells, curses
and other forms of spiritism or demonic/satanic type practices
vs.
positive energy in spiritual healing prayer and forgiveness therapy
(I believe the Buddhist meditations and even studies on agnostics/atheists
show the same type or quality of brainwaves are invoked regardless of faith,
but another friend said there were studies showing prayer had more positive
effects than just meditation; but either way these are on the positive side of the spectrum)

So these two types of energies are distinct, have different effects, and could be objectively
measured either in terms of the quality of energy and/or statistical correlations with
effects on people's health of mind body and relationships. These can potentially be distinguished
by applying scientific studies and technology sensitive enough to detect the differences.

In general, are you okay with making the distinction between
* retributive justice, or seeking to judge, reject and exclude others (again to AVOID responsibility for problems and/or project blame on others)
* restorative justice, or seeking to restore relations and include all people (to ACCEPT shared responsibility for solutions, and not blame others more or less than ourselves)

Do you see a distinct difference between
* ill will
* good will
that can be quantified, even if it can vary from person to person and per situation.

Another Buddhist-Jewish peacemaker explained it in terms of
* being all inclusive of all people without exception
* excluding even one person or one group from being counted and respected equally as oneself
and said that even the slightest division or exclusion is selfish or destructive enough
in its negative division to cause disruption and defeat the purpose, so it will not sustain;
the universe naturally leads toward full inclusion, so anything less than that causing division will not last over time.

Do any of these distinctions seem more clear or quantifiable to you?
Thanks!

Thank you, Emily, I love your debate style. Unfortunately, I've been lucky enough today to have several people with complex arguments that necessitate complex responses (like this one) and while I love such debates, I've run out of time at the moment. You're next in line, soon as I got a chance I'll hit you back. Thanks again

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Up to if so I agree, you and I see eye to eye. The rest of your post describes the particular demands of your moral code, some of which I agree with, some of which I disagree with.

My argument here never had anything to do with what -is- good or what -is- evil. My argument has been, all along, that selfishness is a given and therefore isn't the dividing line between the two.

The dividing line between good and evil is much blurrier, as morality ultimately boils down to a dogmatic baseline. None of our morals can be proven right or wrong, so one person's values can't be said to be definitively more correct than someone else's.

That said, if you're using selfish and unselfish as your criteria for good and evil, you're building your dogma on a logical fallacy.

OK what do you think about these distinctions then:
thoughts/words/actions done
* in the spirit of fear vs. love
* by unforgiveness vs. forgiveness
* by ignorance vs. truth
* rejection of problems vs. seeking solutions

Is there a better way to describe the
* negative energy vs. positive energy
that determines the difference between good and evil?

Doctors researching the difference in prayer processes
have noted a "clash" between
negative energy used in sorcery, occult, witchcraft, voodoo, spells, curses
and other forms of spiritism or demonic/satanic type practices
vs.
positive energy in spiritual healing prayer and forgiveness therapy
(I believe the Buddhist meditations and even studies on agnostics/atheists
show the same type or quality of brainwaves are invoked regardless of faith,
but another friend said there were studies showing prayer had more positive
effects than just meditation; but either way these are on the positive side of the spectrum)

So these two types of energies are distinct, have different effects, and could be objectively
measured either in terms of the quality of energy and/or statistical correlations with
effects on people's health of mind body and relationships. These can potentially be distinguished
by applying scientific studies and technology sensitive enough to detect the differences.

In general, are you okay with making the distinction between
* retributive justice, or seeking to judge, reject and exclude others (again to AVOID responsibility for problems and/or project blame on others)
* restorative justice, or seeking to restore relations and include all people (to ACCEPT shared responsibility for solutions, and not blame others more or less than ourselves)

Do you see a distinct difference between
* ill will
* good will
that can be quantified, even if it can vary from person to person and per situation.

Another Buddhist-Jewish peacemaker explained it in terms of
* being all inclusive of all people without exception
* excluding even one person or one group from being counted and respected equally as oneself
and said that even the slightest division or exclusion is selfish or destructive enough
in its negative division to cause disruption and defeat the purpose, so it will not sustain;
the universe naturally leads toward full inclusion, so anything less than that causing division will not last over time.

Do any of these distinctions seem more clear or quantifiable to you?
Thanks!

Okay, I'll preface by saying that my morals, like any set of morals, are designed to most effectively promote a set of values. My particular set of values is pretty distinctly agnostic, thus other than a healthy respect for the power of faith and positivity, as illustrated by the effectiveness of placebos and a slew of studies, I tend to eschew all religious and spiritual theories from the equations deciding those values. I like to think of my values as one part emotion and one part practicality.

Acting out of fear vs love: Acting out of fear goes against my morals for purely practical reasons. It's my belief that all humans, on a base, emotional level, desire to embody their values and to shape their environment to those values. Acting out of fear always, -always- implies that one is deferring the advancement of those values. Essentially, fear is anti-happiness, and I seek happiness.

Acting out of love is a much trickier proposition. Depending on one's values, love can motivate them to do things that I would consider good as well as things that I would consider evil. Since love can drive one to do things either practical or impractical, I would include it with motives in general: Irrelevant criteria.

Unforgiveness vs Forgiveness: This argument is almost purely dogmatic, and I have no dogma in the fight. My only thought is this: unforgiveness implies unresolved emotion, and that's always impractical. The stress is unhealthy and unresolved emotions often lead to conflictions between one's emotion and one's consciousness, which is a pain in the balls. I won't say that my morals demand "forgiveness" in the biblical sense, but I am a firm believer in doing what you gotta do to let shit go. Resolve your conflicts! It's healthy.

Ignorance vs Truth: I feel like this answer's obvious. I believe we'd all be better off if ignorance was physically painful, but alas, I wasn't in on the original design.

Rejection of Problems vs Solutions: Again, obvious. Solving shit's simply more practical than putting it aside.

In terms of describing energy to define good or evil, I'm not buying in. Until someone designs a machine that can measure good or evil energy and can convince me that the thing is accurate (which I really can't even imagine in a convincing context), nobody's gonna convince me that there are measurable energies that can indicate good and bad.

As far as doctors noticing a difference in these "energies", I haven't seen any study that substantiates what you're claiming. I've seen studies that conclude that faith and expectations seem to have a very real physical effect on outcomes, and so I can imagine there might be differences in the brain patterns when someone is acting from a place of negativity vs when their prayers are positive. I've also seen studies that show that atheist/agnostic meditation practices engage the same parts of the brain as Buddhist meditations, whereas active prayers engage the speech processing areas of the brain, as the process is more akin to speaking to one's God/Gods. What I've never seen is a study that could identify good and evil.

In terms of justice, I believe that every individual is responsible for their actions. I believe retributive justice is arguably correct when responsibility is assigned correctly. I don't believe in shared justice. I believe that actions that one had no hand in are not one's responsibility, thus any shared consequence is inarguably unjust. According to observable physical reality, we are not a collective consciousness, so any morality demanding adherence to the standards of one is an errant morality.

AS I've stated before, I see -no- factual moral difference between ill will and good will. First off, everyone's definitions of ill will and good will are based on their definitions of good and bad to begin with, so you can't really lock down factual definitions of either. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, neither good will nor ill will dictates the nature of your actions. The nature of your actions dictates the nature of your actions. Again I'd point to the Hitler example.

Whether you believe that he was trying to create a more pure Human race and achieve peace and Human advancement by eliminating what he believed to be the genetically inferior, or you believe he just really didn't like Jewish people, the end result is that he murdered 6,000,000 of them. Does the possibility of noble motives make this action better, in your eyes?

If good will implies that one's actions are inherently good, then murder in the name of one's God is inarguably admirable, as one never murders for their God someone they don't truly believe the world would be better off without.

Being all inclusive of all people without exception? Minus a blind belief in some spiritual maxim, this directive is HOLY SHIT silly. There's nothing emotionally healthy about spending your time around people who make you miserable. Since nobody can truly know what will make anyone happy except for themselves, the only practical way for us to live is to focus -first- on the satisfaction of our -own- individual standards, as the backside of that coin implies that one can -only- count on oneself for emotional contentment. Therefore, discriminate in any way you feel fit and let everyone else fend for their own satisfaction. . . you can't reliably provide theirs anyway.

There's also no reason to automatically respect everyone as you respect yourself. Respect what you deem worthy of respecting and discard that which you've determined unworthy. I don't see any logical reason to pretend that I believe every human aspect is positive because its the aspect of a human. I also don't see any logical reason to believe that every human being should be precious to me in any way simply by virtue of being a human. Depends on your values and how any person in question fits with those values, and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, what purpose is it that you speak of defeating? Why is it that you assume that we all share that purpose? I'm willing to bet that I don't.

On what are you basing your assumption that the universe leads to full inclusion? What do you even mean by that?