Wouldn't the pertinent info be whether they feel it's negative or positive (or neutral) to be unpopular in the group? — Terrapin Station

If the group is a right acting group, someone would be quite wrong to reject popularity within the group. If the group is wrong acting, then seeking popularity is still correct as it will be needed whilst fixing the group's negative aspects (IE if you are popular, they should listen when you tell them what is wrong).

Effective Intelligence = IQ * Correctness

They are wrong - they will make themselves unpopular in the group which is detrimental to that individual in the long term.

If a person needs help its right to offer help. If a person does not need help, its wrong to offer help.

It's about people's preferences, their desires, — Terrapin Station

No its about maths. NET PLEASURE = PLEASURE - PAIN. It's about maximising net pleasure for the individual and the group.

If S wants to take 3 hours rather than 1 (IE because S enjoys it) then offering help is wrong.

But I was referring to the situation where offering help is appropriate; IE S does not enjoy the task and some help from another would make it much easier. Often people can be helped just by dropping a word of advice. Time is money. Free time is valuable. Excepting help is right.

If I have a task to complete, rejecting help will result in it taking longer to complete which is clearly sub-optimal.

Rejecting help for example is sub-optimal therefore wrong. If you accept help, you get more pleasure than pain so it is the right thing to do.

Offering unhelpful 'help' is wrong.

if we're talking about a person or persons who do not approve of or feel that helping others, sharing ideas, etc. are recommendable? — Terrapin Station

Such a person is wrong, so should be corrected. Trying to help them understand the difference between right and wrong would be the correct approach. Once they understand that, they can join normal, well-adjusted society and they will respond positively to good/right actions.

This is an original idea; it is not covered by existing research. It's incorrect of you to try to suppress new ideas. Your effective intelligence is on the low side.

Anthropic principle — karl stone

- The Weak Anthropic explains the universe must be compatible with life for us to be here. It does not explain why the universe is compatible with life.

- The Strong Anthropic explains that the existence of multiple universes with different properties account for our fine-tuning. But other universes are statistically likely to be like this one (Life supporting) so the SAP does not explain why the multiverse is fined-tuned for life.

Doing the right thing is painful in the short term and takes willpower. Thats the main reason people get it wrong; lack of willpower.

I think humans want to do the right thing but sometimes fail. They are attracted by the short term pleasure of wrong. But humans are more right than wrong; we would not be the dominant species if we got it wrong most of the time.

Really? What exactly, in science points to a creator? — karl stone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

So you're the absolute arbiter of right and wrong — karl stone

Right and Wrong are mathematical. The Nazis did what was pleasurable for them in the short term, but they were wrong because it was painful for them in the long term (loosing the war).

But it is by disproving others, potentially causing them pain — karl stone

Scientific progress is an example of right: Pain in the short term (working on the discovery) but pleasure in the long term (exploiting the discovery). Even the person who's theory was superseded benefits in the long term.

But Evil is merely getting it wrong; IE making sub-optimal decisions.

Humans are natural optimisers so we tend to get it right (=good) rather than wrong (=evil)

If everyone was doing the right thing, the world would be a happy place.

but wish to retain the comforting sense that someone is on overall charge? — karl stone

Science points to a creator of the universe (of some form). I do find it reassuring to know the universe was designed rather than just a random occurrence.

But if your tribe believes that eating the heart of a vanquished enemy will give you his strength - then killing and cannibalism are good — karl stone

That makes the tribe as a whole wrong and unpopular with other tribes. They would not last long as a tribe.

Acting on those idea - just following orders, they murdered millions of people, and they thought it right and good — karl stone

The Nazis were wrong and they paid the price for it.

because right and wrong is a sense, not a definition — karl stone

Right and wrong are mathematical concepts:

Right = pleasure>pain
Wrong = pleasure<pain

what are your view on my statement "People are not fundamentally good" — diesynyang

That would mean people are evil=wrong. We defined wrong as what's pleasurable in the short term and painful in the long term. That would make people short term creatures. But we are long term creatures: even an 80 year old has an average life expectancy of 10 years.

So normal people are long-term creatures. Right=Good is what's pleasurable in the long term. So people are fundamentally good.

Theists are not perfect I agree. But mostly they are well-meaning but misguided. They are trying to help people.

Atheists are also misguided but not all are well-meaning (e.g. Dawkins). They hurt people and do not enlighten them.

I spent some years as an atheist and it was a depressing experience; would not wish that on anyone.

I'm agnostic leaning towards Deism.

Evil = Wrong = What is pleasurable in the short term (and painful in the long term).

People are fundamentally not evil; they are fundamental Good (=Right) because its in their own interests to be right. Being Evil (=Wrong) is in no-ones best interest.

Please read the first post.

How does atheism correlate with sadism? — karl stone

Both Atheists and Theists try to spread their beliefs. Both beliefs are wrong but Atheism makes people unhappy and some Atheists use this to inflict pain on people. Theism in contrast makes people happy.

But I would argue we should put aside moral when we want to judge a person "Does he/she has High Intelligent or not?" — diesynyang

Well maybe we need the term 'effective intelligence':

IQ * Moral Correctness = Effective Intelligence

So for example:

Richard Dawkins: 180 IQ * 25% = 45 effective intelligence points
A normal person: 100 IQ * 75% = 75 effective intelligence points

Right and wrong is a sense — karl stone

No it's a mathematical relationship:

Right is pleasure > pain
Wrong is pain > pleasure
Long term > short term so its what right/wrong in the long term that matters.

I think (For now) the only factor that made up intelligence is IQ. Hmmm, you are free to teach me more though — diesynyang

I think what I'm getting at is that moral intelligence is different from IQ. Murder is wrong for example but intelligent people still do it (to their great detriment). Similarly you get good people who generally do the right thing but have a low IQ.

The intelligence of religious people is impaired by belief in something they can't know; such that the contents of the mind effectively disable the brain — karl stone

I'm not religious myself but it seems to me that Atheists are mentally impaired; there is no firm evidence either way for/against God but there is a simple choice between glass half full and glass half empty and Atheists choose empty; to the determent of themselves and those unfortunate enough to be around them. Atheism also seems to correlate with sadism; which is unhealthy mentally.

so we would go through twice the vegetation then we currently do speed up our eventually extinctio — Nathaniel

Meat is murder. Animal fat is solid at body temperature so it clogs up your arteries whereas vegetable fat is liquid at body temperature.

It takes 5 times as much land to produce meat calories as it does vegetable calories,

Meat is wrong.

But we'd miss your opinions if you were dead. It would be a loss to society.

At this point I must take some sleep...

It started because evil people do really awful things that demonstrate, what shall I call, a different source of motivation — Valentinus

Evil people are evil because of their upbringing. They are evil, therefore they are wrong, therefore they are suboptimal and therefore they need their neural networks retraining to do right. Then they would be motivated to act for their own good and thus the good of the group.

Would you like to be murdered for food?

It's wrong to murder for food.

Im a vegetarian.

Hell for meat eaters is being eaten by the animals they consumed in their lifetime.

Starvation is bad whatever way. Adding murder into the mix makes it worse.

If a group of people have no food (draught , natural disaster , climate change) they should wait for one of their members to die of starvation before any of them can eat? Does this also apply to small children and the elderly whom may be unable to wait for their kinsmen to die? So we eat the children and infirmed first because they will be the first to go — Nathaniel

I think you would refrain from killing anyone because they might come up with some ideas / be of some use / on general principles - once the morality of the group is compromised; the group itself is compromised.

The weaker will die first; IE those with the lower quality of living. The remaining people can share the remains.

This is a somewhat gruesome discussion.

Good and Evil are not just the results of how one values one thing over another. — Valentinus

I think you will find that all intelligent creatures value the same things.

Killing is wrong but putting something out of its misery is right.

So compassionate killing is right.
And incompassionate killing is wrong.

Killing is wrong.

Eating human flesh (without killing) (if there is nothing else to eat) is right.

Eating the dead is different from cannibalism and justifiable if there is nothing else to eat. So in the situation of the aircraft crash you outlined, I'd say eating the dead is right.

Cannibalism makes the group unpopular with other groups causing the group and individual to suffer persecution.

Cannibalism is wrong for the individual and the group.

Murder might seem right for the group if there is no other possible action; but we should not reach that situation - people are fundamentally the same barring their upbringing - it should always be possible to correct an individual (retrain their neural network for right).

But if a person is so pathetic that they really cannot be taught the difference between right and wrong then maybe a compassionate death is in that individual's interests (and the group's).

If person A is robbing/raping other people in a group and person B murders them, thus benefitting the majority of the group, is person B good or evil? both of them were acting in their own best interests,but by definition one if decidedly evil and the other good — Nathaniel

Person A is wrong; Robbing/raping is detrimental to the group.
Person B is wrong; murder is an extreme form of punishment; much better to keep them alive so they can contribute to the group once corrected.

Thats a separate discussion:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4395/defining-good-and-evil

Good = the (inter)personal behavior you approve of, the (inter)personal behavior you feel is recommendable, etc. — Terrapin Station

Good is what's demonstrably good for the individual (and therefore the group):

- Helping others
- Sharing ideas
- Exercise
- Consensual sex

Evil is what is bad for the individual and group:

- Murder
- Excessive eating
- Lying

That doesn't imply that other people will agree. Different people will have different opinions — Terrapin Station

I think you will find its a purely mathematical relationship; an individual is part of a group. What's right for the individual is right for the group.