If you want this proposition to be taken seriously, you might look to the language you employ. — Vera Mont

You got lost in the detail and missed the wood for the trees so to speak and are no closer to giving the answer to the question in the thread.

If the good is inherent and the evil is not, why hasn't the good triumphed yet, in the apical top peak of evolutionary progress? — Vera Mont

See OP again, in terms of WW2 history, the allies the good guys triumphed. Although it’s not as black and white as that

To anyone else misunderstanding the nature of the question, being the apex of evolution does not imply moral perfection.

Apparently, the OP's author fails to recognize his own biases in the premises of his question and thereby misunderstands its implications even when pointed out to him repeatedly.

:100: :up:

Human nature is neither good nor bad. We can look at the human being as having capacities, which provide for the reality of power. And as Plato explained, one can direct one's own capacities toward good, or towards bad. So the same person who has the power to do great good in the world , also has the power to do great evil in the world — Metaphysician Undercover

This makes sense. They have the capacity for both good and bad.

Take toddlers for example, occasionally one of them will take the others toy away. If this happens as adults that looks very much like theft. One then must be taught to not perform such wrong actions. But could it be that doing good is as simple as not doing bad? One needn’t need to be a hero to be a good guy, just not to do wrong.

Apparently, the OP's author fails to recognize his own biases in the premises of his question and thereby misunderstands its implications even when pointed out repeatedly. — 180 Proof

I don’t understand the point of this response nor am I aware of being intentionally biased towards either side of human nature. My personal view as that human beings want to do good, I expressed that a few posts on. Sometimes they do good for goodness sake, sometimes they do good because they know that doing bad might eventually bite them in the backside.

You got lost in the detail and missed the wood for the trees so to speak and are no closer to giving the answer to the question in the thread. — invicta

Here was my answer:

Since humans invented both concepts, and humans describe and define the world and everything in it as a reflection of themselves, humans must possess the characteristics they designate as good and bad. What's confusing is that they individually disagree at any given time on which is which, and the majority opinion shifts over time.

See OP again, in terms of WW2 history, the allies the good guys triumphed. Although it’s not as black and white as that — invicta

Aha. It's about 50,000,000 shades of grey.
There was a bit of human history even before 1939 and a bit of evolutionary history even before humans learned to tell stories about their own creation and magnificent destiny.
The "good guys" always win, because the winners get to designate heroes and villains after the fact, regardless of any inconvenient facts. They even get to hang a whole great big global conflagration on one skinny madman, because icons of Good and Evil are soooo satisfying to the rational, law-making, story-telling human.
And yet, in all that nature's-crowning-glory human history, Good as a force, has not been able decisively, conclusively to defeat Evil. Neither is bigger or stronger or more prevalent in individual humans and human societies; it's just that evil means and methods are more effective in getting results.

Thanks.

Since humans invented both concepts, and humans describe and define the world and everything in it as a reflection of themselves, humans must possess the characteristics they designate as good and bad. What's confusing is that they individually disagree at any given time on which is which, and the majority opinion shifts over time.

It’s not as complicated as that, if say you’re in a mall and someone starts shooting randomly because of some mental derangement and you get shot in the foot, you wouldn’t say you’ve had a good day would you ?

I think it’s as simple as that, would the person though be bad person doing that or would just the action be bad in itself ?

I think it’s as simple as that, would the person though be bad person doing that or would just the action be bad in itself ? — invicta

Either, neither or both.

Then you’d have to bring the matter of intent into at as @Metaphysician Undercover pointed out. This obviously deranged individual, had some prior intent to carry out a shooting of said mall, because pissed off at his colleagues, fired unfairly, bullying etc etc

The intent itself is to kill.

Is killing another human being at this mall good or bad ?

How could you say it’s neither, in this scenario @Vera Mont

Ok, the person doing this act might have actually been a good member of society up to this point, but a switch was flipped somewhere leading to up to this hideous act.

I still maintain however, that human beings would rather do good than bad, emotion got to the guy here, a bit of talking to maybe from a friend could have prevented it altogether, and he or she would have continued being a nice member of society.

I must further emphasise as well that it’s not necessarily the person that is bad(evil) but rather the act.

The intent itself is to kill.

Is killing another human being at this mall good or bad ? — invicta

In what way good or bad? In which category? Subjective, moral, legal, social or statistical? Intent, causation, character or outcome? From what perspective? What are the consequences of the shooter's success or failure, escape or capture?

say you’re in a mall and someone starts shooting randomly because of some mental derangement and you get shot in the foot, you wouldn’t say you’ve had a good day would you — invicta

That's a subjective judgment, and still can be comparative. If the person next to me was shot in the head, I've had a better day than his. Are we comparing an injury to a random adult foot to the death of a six-year-old bystander? Did the delay cause me to be miss a fatal encounter with a fire-engine?
See, if you mix categories, there can be no single verdict.

would the person though be bad person doing that or would just the action be bad in itself — invicta

Was his intention to start a war or to prevent one? Is he delusional, antisocial or fanatical? Did the shooting spree benefit some political or religious faction, directly or indirectly? Did it finally push a legislature into enacting gun control and thus saving thousands of lives? (Call me crazy, but I'd take a bullet in the foot for that any day!)

A lot of questions there Vera Mont, for the sake of brevity let me pose a slightly different question…

You’re walking down the road one day and a stranger snatches your phone or handbag.

Good or bad, or neither?

It seems to me by your answers so far that you’re either unsure or just in denial as to what is good or bad.

A lot of questions there Vera Mont, — invicta

You might consider asking them yourself before demanding clear answers on muddled topics

You’re walking down the road one day and a stranger snatches your phone or handbag.

Good or bad, or neither? — invicta

As usual, it depends.
Good or bad act? Good or bad person? In which category: moral, legal, subjective or social? What is being judged: intent, character, reason or outcome? What POV? Does someone directly or indirectly benefit? Does the event cause direct or indirect unintended harm?

It seems to me by your answers so far that you’re either unsure or just in denial as to what is good or bad. — invicta

I'm trying to convey that "good" and "bad" are concepts subject to evaluation, and that valuations originate in conscious entities, and conscious entities may have different criteria.
As such, there can be no more absolute "good" or "bad" than "big" or "small": they have meaning only in in a specified situational context.




.

I'm trying to convey that "good" and "bad" are concepts subject to evaluation, and that valuations originate in conscious entities, — Vera Mont

They’re not concepts at all and I’m afraid you’re mistaken here, there’s no grey area in the hypothetical situations I’ve just outlined.

It’s becoming obvious now that you don’t know right from wrong, or maybe you’re just arguing for the sake of it.

There’s no point over-rationalising, if a mall shooter goes on a killing spree in such a mall, with you getting shot in the foot during the massacre, under the rationalisation that “hey, at least I didn’t get shot in the head”

Everyone got a bum deal, but at least you walked away with your life, getting shot in the foot ain’t good stupid, no matter how much you wish to apply to it the relative consequentialism that you’re doing, because that same bullet would have easily turned you into a quadriplegic - I’m sure you’d see the upside to that as well but only as a form of argument on an internet forum.

It’s becoming obvious now that you don’t know right from wrong, or maybe you’re just arguing for the sake of it. — invicta

Not anymore!

So are human beings good or bad (or evil) or is the leaning to either side just a misunderstanding of human nature or are there genuinely good reasons why evil takes place ?

Or is evil just a manifestation of a human beings nature and his worst side — invicta

I think we're more human the better we are at working together and less human when we work against each other. We're political beings in the best sense when we are living together in a functioning "city." It is self-centeredness, whether in terms of the individual or "my group," that sustains so many avoidable woes. So, I think we are inherently good in terms of potential but actually bad at being human. Evil is a lack and we lack the skill to be human, too often.

But could it be that doing good is as simple as not doing bad? — invicta

There's a few reasons why this doesn't work. First, human beings like other animals are active, so they can't be told to do nothing, which one might be inclined toward if simply directed not to do anything bad. Since they must be allowed to do things, we can't list off all the bad things, and tell them not to do these, because human beings are creative, and they will develop new, unnamed bad things. So, it's better to direct them toward doing good, so that they happily occupy themselves doing good rather than spending their time looking for loopholes around the named bad things which they are not supposed to do.

But man must eventually learn right from wrong good from evil and hence morality. — invicta

We usually say that the beasts are innocent; that their kindness and cruelty are innocent because they do not know right from wrong. Man knows already, and having lost innocence, is always in the moral conflict, choosing now one, now the other. Another way of putting this is as a split in consciousness, such that one second guesses what one has the urging of desire and fear to do, with ideas of what the m(other) requires one to do.

"Eventually", man will move 'beyond good and evil' through enlightenment. This is a reintegration of consciousness that resolves the conflict of good and evil in similar way to the way that the innocent awareness resolves the conflict of desire and fear. But the worst evil of all is the pretence that it has happened when it has not.

Have you ever seen an evildoer who seemed genuinely happy? They all seem miserable to me in one way or another, or at the very best parked in some form of joyless limbo.

Evil is a product of delusion (perhaps is in fact synonymous to it), because surely only ignorance would move man to act in ways that make him miserable.

Man is inherently good, because he desires above all things truth and genuine happiness.
However, man is also inherently ignorant, which has a tendency to delude him in regards to the nature of these things, especially when deprived of those things he desires most.

Have you ever seen an evildoer who seemed genuinely happy? — Tzeentch

Where does one normally see confirmed evildoers? I suspect the situation itself creates a bias.
I have seen people happy because they were doing something blessed or patriotic in their own estimation, which to me seemed quite wrong.

A fish of course is incapable of having such a discourse as we’re having but if they could speak they’d immediately acknowledge our superiority to them in almost every aspect apart from being able to breathe under water. — invicta

Okay. But if a fish could speak and be intelligent enough to have enough self-awareness, introspection, and skilled enough understanding and use of language to deem humans "superior" in the first place, then OMG, they would not be fish. They would be almost equal competitors and demonstrate we are NOT superior.

Look at Tenoch Huerta Mejía (the fish people) from the 2nd black panther movie. It would be just like that.

Do you really think so Cobra? I think we’re better designed than fish for the fact of having opposable thumbs giving us a huge advantage in tool making. Their little fins would be absolutely useless in manufacturing a bicycle or a plane. Or even just writing a letter.

Still fish if they were as smart as us would eventually overcome such physical limitations and even be considered our equals so perhaps you could be right there.

The last competitors to Homo sapiens were the Neanderthals whom we still retain some of their features genetically but very small amounts.

Fish of course are more then welcome to try.

But if a fish could speak and be intelligent enough to have enough self-awareness, introspection, and skilled enough understanding and use of language to deem humans "superior" in the first place, then OMG, they would not be fish. — Cobra

Who says they can't speak? We don't speak their language; that doesn't make them inferior.
Look, instead, at their system of values, which is formed by their environment and evolution - just as our system of values is formed by our environment and evolution. From a fishy POV, we're lousy swimmers, slow and poorly co-ordinated; can't even stay underwater without those big clumsy fish-imitation devices we wear in the water; can't change colour; can't attract minnows with our tongues; can't puff up and harpoon something with a poison dart; can't groom a shark; can't burrow into the silt and disappear; can't chase down a meal... bloody useless! We're not superior, or even barely adequate in any way that would make sense to a fish.

Then why do them dummies keep falling for the bait at the end of the fishing rod ? If it wasn’t for our catch and release policy they’d be our dinner. And sometimes they are, delicious with freshly squeezed lemon.

Next time I catch a fish and it talks it’s way out of ending up as my dinner, heck I might even let them go.

@invicta

I worded that badly. I don't think fish are inferior, I think they are fish, and yes they have means of communication. Look at sharks. My point in that post was to respond to his point, not necessarily to make mine.

I am not a misanthrope, so I think humans, we're.. fine. For the most part. It could be worse. We are fine. No need to trash us so badly. We can hold our own on this planet, and in spite of all these crazy "predators" roaming around, we are alive by the billions. We are an ok animal, not as weak as we think just to make the other animals without brain power feel better. We're all animals at the end of the day if we aren't extinct yet. Yes, we are a shitty dumb species too, but I'm fine being a human and not some apex Cheetah that runs fast or a great white shark. I don't care for their skills. It's the same way I don't want to be Tiger Woods.

I am mostly in agreement that the superiority/inferiority argument is irrelevant. Honestly, I don't think it has anything to do with anything and it's a false comparison of some kind unless we are comparing parts and natural skills of animals to each other, but unless OP is making a transhumanism or supernatural kind of argument, I don't see how humans by the nature of being humans can be superior to other animals as animals themselves. They would have to super in someway, and there is nothing that can justify the -super. What is super about humans, OP? What makes us super .. natural?

I think humans and fish are both animals and neither of us can transcend the animal kingdom, we will both always be a part of it, but what even is the relevance of that, anyway also?

If can't transcend the animal kingdom? Well, we could hypothetically but then we lose what makes us human. We are looking at Transhumanism if not supernatural. That's the only way out of this.

When we are no longer humans, we are no longer animals. That means to me personally, the entire OP just dissolves in on itself. If we are not animals, we cannot be superior/inferior to one. Like a goldfish. We are apart of a different classification. We are competing with AI, computers, and technology. We are a part of the technology kingdom now and have to conform to the rules of IT. The tech master race. It's not too far off, the human brain is computational. But we will never be able to keep up with the "tech master race". We will be the fish of their world. Swimming around aimlessly in a bunch of data soup. That alone should humble you.

By OP I’m assuming you mean opening poster rather than opening post which is a different question to the one we’re discussing now, slight detour if you like into the superiority of man in relation to every other animal in the animal kingdom.

Firstly I, as a human being don’t go around feeling smugly superior to cats OR fish. Or any other animal for that matter.

But imagine for a second that I was stupid and arrogant enough to do this and encountered a cat say I’d be like “Ha! Cat, I’m so much better and smarter then you hahaha!!! You can’t even walk upright” or upon seeing a fish and uttering to it “Ha! Stupid fish don’t even know how to ride a bike let alone read a book! Ha, loser!”

This would be madness.

I don't see how humans by the nature of being humans can be superior to other animals as animals themselves. — Cobra

That was my whole argument regarding all those "crowning achievement" superlatives early in the thread. I wasn't putting humans down; merely pointing out that better or worse depend entirely on the criteria of comparison.

Human beings whilst in one regard are capable of performing completely selfless acts of kindness are equally capable of doing the opposite to such extremes as murder and endless wars. — invicta

This is a direct reflection of man being a cooperative and selfish animal, just as other social animals are. Being purely selfish or purely altruistic is no good, it is evolutionarily optimal to take on a strategy that mixes both. Many good strategies exist, this diversity of strategy, along with cultural diversity, along with our unique ability to conceptualize, is what makes all the confusion and complexity around morality.