I can't grasp what you are trying to say about the context. To differentiate between this object, as a brussels sprout and that object, as an eggplant, is to make a judgement. This is regardless of whether you are saying that you prefer one to the other. — Metaphysician Undercover

Seems to me by your standard just about any statement would be a judgment.

... history ["the bronze age"] has devised ways [religions] to make us homicidal [scapegoat "them"]. — ENOAH

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ~Steven Weinberg

Of course, one must decide which words to use. Don't you agree?

And how do we get evil people to do good things?

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." — 180 Proof

More bigoted baloney.

And how do we get evil people to do good things? — Metaphysician Undercover

We don't. :mask:

More bigoted baloney. — T Clark

Yeah, but which happens to be true.

We don't. :mask: — 180 Proof

Kill them then?

"What would your good do if evil didn't exist, and what would the earth look like if shadows disappeared from it? After all, shadows come from objects and people. Here's the shadow of my sword. But there are also shadows from trees and living things. Do you want to strip the entire globe bare, wiping out all the trees and all living things because of your fantasy of enjoying naked light? You're stupid."

These are the words Woland (the lord of darkness) used to reply to Matthew Levi from Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita.

We cannot say lion's are murderous or evil. We alone have transcended nature

I don't agree. If a cat "plays" with a mouse until it dies, yet doesn't eat the mouse, many would call that torture.

Great book. :up:

Kill them then? — Metaphysician Undercover

That's evil, sir!

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ~Steven Weinberg — 180 Proof

Not quite. All it takes is making someone believe something—anything—that results in dehumanization (or dehumanization by proxy ie. elevation of one's self over others, which per human ego and evolutionary confidence is an easy, almost natural ingrained dynamic of the human experience to appeal to). Very easy. Natural, even, per our scientifically recognized "own race" bias. Sure, most beliefs that have profound effect incorporate some idea of a higher power, otherwise it's just one man's opinion in a sea of innumerable others. There are few people on Earth who at the end of the day aren't looking out for number one first and foremost. If it comes down to your kid or a stranger's kid getting fed, let's not kid ourselves as to who you're going to act toward getting fed, irrespective of gods, religion, and who's food it "rightfully" is or should be.

While I do not dispute your points, I should clarify. As we inevitably have violence in our conditioning, the violence is not in our natures. Killing for food or territory, though evident in nature, is not the same as war, or murder. We cannot say lion's are murderous or evil. We alone have transcended nature

Yes, I agree with your premise, but there are tendencies in our natures which appear to be there from birth for certain people to be disrupters, a tendency for psychopathy, sociopathy etc.
Such that in any society these people can disrupt or take control and themselves have to be controlled. This might be an evolutionary development.

call that torture. — LuckyR

...which illustrates the point: we call it torture, as a result of a chain reaction involving images in memory, once properly input into "all" of us. As a result of that signifier, we are triggered to feel xyz as bodies. These feelings, in turn, trigger more images, proceeding as a dialectical chain, ending now at a judgement. The cat is a sadistic creature. But we who must assign meaning as part of that same process, don't really know why the cat does this. We might say it evolved to as a conditioned response for its species' survival. It must be always engaging in the hunt because prey is scarce. Don't worry about the mouse, it has evolved its own conditioning for survival. Although cause and effect are also mechanisms only applicable in our dialectical processes, let's concede that because of these evolved/conditioned behaviors both species has survived. But what about the poor mouse, only we ask.

Where we are most severely mistaken is in our singling out of the cat as individual and the mouse as same. They are not selves. We construct that pronoun, again, as a function of that process. That's the same error which causes us to judge our own species as inherently evil, or selfishness as permeating nature.

Organisms, of which we are one, really, and, by that, I mean naturally, behave by evolved drives and conditioning. But for humans born into history (i.e., not prehistoric humans) our dialectical process--Mind/History--displaces our natures. We are born as a species, our drives are to bond and mate and survive together. Good and evil have no place. Mind displaces that with laws, the manifestation of those processes. And because yet another mechanism of that process is difference, not that but this, good and evil are inevitable; but not as a result of our natures.

ENOAH
977
If we're, by nature, evil (or, even sinful, violent, hostile or aggressive), why do we express it with contempt, as though we ought not be? Or why would we raise that as a topic to debate, if it was, like hunger, our nature? — ENOAH

Can you imagine life without a concept of evil? The bible presents evil as some kind of spirit that affects our lives and requires us to be saved by a god, to be free of evil, and even escape the evil of death by having immortality if we are pleasing to god.

However, what do we do differently from the animals? Whether animals mate for life or mate for one day is determined by the animal's survival needs, and we don't get excited if a female or male animal has other unions that result in having offspring. We accept their sexuality as their nature. But boy, can we get a little crazy about our sexuality?

Our behaviors are regulated by hormones, just as is so for all other animals. Many animals are social animals, mothers nurse their young, and the young learn their place in their social group.

So are animals also evil and in need of being saved? :lol: Before a lion lies down with the sheep and eats grass alongside the sheep, it will need a whole efferent set of teeth.

Where we are most severely mistaken is in our singling out of the cat as individual and the mouse as same. They are not selves. We construct that pronoun, again, as a function of that process. That's the same error which causes us to judge our own species as inherently evil, or selfishness as permeating nature. — ENOAH

:chin: As I read your post, and the relationship of the cat and mouse, I began thinking of all the different stories about animals making special packs with humans, such as the buffalo giving its life so the people can meet their needs, in exchange for humans honoring the buffalo, or whichever animal is the main source of food. This comes up around the world because, obviously, humans felt bad about killing to eat. They needed a story to make killing okay.

I don't know how stupid white men came along and slaughtered animals for the fun of it. :chin: I never thought of this before. How could it be that some groups of people are more evil than others? They kill and destroy with no conscience, making them aware of their evil. How can that be? Why is the savage the better spiritual human being than the White man who comes with a gun and believes he is morally superior, and he needs to teach the savage about being saved and being moral? Is this justice of a god? Strange.

Why is the savage the better spiritual human being than the White man who comes with a gun and believes he is morally superior, and he needs to teach the savage about being saved and being moral? Is this justice of a god? Strange.

The White man is the savage and the Indian is morally superior. The White man has subverted the truth, twisted it around and inflated his ego. While all he’s doing is ruthlessly exploiting and destroying nature for his own selfish ends.
Wherever we encounter indigenous peoples they all say the same thing, They revere their environment and seek to live in harmony with it. They respect their environment and natural balance and inherent wisdom of the animals and plants they live alongside.

D

Organisms, of which we are one, really, and, by that, I mean naturally, behave by evolved drives and conditioning. But for humans born into history (i.e., not prehistoric humans) our dialectical process--Mind/History--displaces our natures. We are born as a species, our drives are to bond and mate and survive together. Good and evil have no place. Mind displaces that with laws, the manifestation of those processes. And because yet another mechanism of that process is difference, not that but this, good and evil are inevitable; but not as a result of our natures.

Here’s the rub, it is the fall of man you are describing. When Adam and Eve left the garden of Eden, they were leaving their instinctive behaviours which had been shaped by evolution in their evolutionary niche. They had to develop new drives, motivations, goals to replace them. But what they didn’t realise is that those finely honed instincts and behaviours had been fined tuned for millions of years achieving a balance with their ecosystem and that it couldn’t easily be replaced. From that point on, humanity became destructive (this doesn’t include many indigenous societies who have learned to live in harmony with their ecosystem).

Well that's one theory, but as you noted we don't know why the cat behaved the way it did. Another, equally possible explanation is that the cat is indeed a sadist. Similarly, you don't really know why a human sadist does what he does, maybe he's acting exactly as your explanation of the cat. Ultimately, no one knows why anyone (except perhaps themselves, though there are those who doubt that too), does what they do. However, the outcomes of those acts, both human and animal, are very clear. So you're right, humans have observed behaviors and their outcomes and have developed labels (such as good and evil) to describe them and Laws to try to manpulate them, but no one can see inside the Black Box that is decision making. Which is true of both humans and non-human animals.

The cat is a sadistic creature — ENOAH

Not so, if it occupies the world pre-judgement, which I believe is what you are illustrating when you say the cat and mouse are not 'selves'? Is it not fair to attribute your shift from 'human nature' to judgement the emergence of 'free will' in humanity? Very interesting OP/thread, btw!

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ~Steven Weinberg
— 180 Proof

Not quite. All it takes is making someone believe something—anything—that results in dehumanization — Outlander

:up:

Wherever we encounter indigenous peoples they all say the same thing, They revere their environment and seek to live in harmony with it. They respect their environment and natural balance and inherent wisdom of the animals and plants they live alongside — Punshhh

This is a pretty broad generalization when talking about a diverse population. I know indigenous people personally who would disagree with your statement, along with those who would agree.

Is it not fair to attribute your shift from 'human nature' to judgement the emergence of 'free will' in humanity? — Jeremy Murray

If I am understanding correctly, yes, it is fair to do so. But note, the emergence of free will in humanity. That is, free will too, is a construct, a mechanism in the operation of mind which upon "emerging" (along with the "self") proved to be functional in the operation of mind/history, and so, stuck.

"Ethics" and the necessary binary aspect, good/evil, only happens to humans. That is because those mechanisms and processes (admittedly, vaguely described) emerged. At nature, there is no good and evil, there is only bonding and surviving, for example.

Or why would we raise that as a topic to debate, if it was, like hunger, our nature? — ENOAH

I don't think the philosophical mind raises the question of evil, because the philosophical mind recognize that "evil" is a made up concept, unconsciously invented to cope with the lack of knowledge of the things that hurt us.

We are just nature, we are just part of a chemical soup which formed itself into increasingly complex emergent behaviors until it became so complex that it formed meta-interactions with itself through what we call consciousness. But in the end, we're still just that chemical soup, in which we attributed parts of its behavior as "evil" because we are yet to understand just how the physics of it all, works.

we're still just that chemical soup, in which we attributed parts of its behavior as "evil" because we are yet to understand just how the physics of it all, works. — Christoffer

Yes. I agree. "Attributed parts of its behavior," the point being that "evil" has no place in that chemical soup. Rather, some of the emergent behaviors, for a species which inescapably assigns "meanings" to things, were assigned to evil. I am thinking that both the assigning and evil, are "outside" of nature, not eternal truths which our complex thinking has uncovered, not inevitable vis a vis nature, but made-up.

The White man is the savage and the Indian is morally superior. The White man has subverted the truth, twisted it around and inflated his ego. While all he’s doing is ruthlessly exploiting and destroying nature for his own selfish ends.
Wherever we encounter indigenous peoples they all say the same thing, They revere their environment and seek to live in harmony with it. They respect their environment and natural balance and inherent wisdom of the animals and plants they live alongside. — Punshhh

Okay, we have agreement. I hope someday we all become spiritual and care for our planet and each other. That would be so much better than what is happening now. I no longer recognize the US as I remember it, and I fear that if we can not correct the problems before my generation dies, our democracy built on virtues will be lost.

I don't think we could get much more evil than we are now. I don't believe our wars have been wars against evil, but were wars for control of world resources and a wealthy banking system. We are capable of so much, and some people have very good hearts, but I don't think these are the people in control right now. We are in a period of transition with no guarantee of our future being a Garden of Eden New Age, a time of high tech and peace, and the end of tyranny.

I don't think the philosophical mind raises the question of evil, because the philosophical mind recognize that "evil" is a made up concept, unconsciously invented to cope with the lack of knowledge of the things that hurt us. — Christoffer

That is agreeable. I have a question. Do the world's spiritual people have the same understanding of evil as the three God of Abraham religions? For those who are spiritual, the snake represents all that is good, including wisdom and transformation for the good. However, in the mythology of the God of Abraham the snake is evil.

Until we embrace the spiritual point of view, is it possible for us to see the snake differently?

Wherever we encounter indigenous peoples they all say the same thing, They revere their environment and seek to live in harmony with it. They respect their environment and natural balance and inherent wisdom of the animals and plants they live alongside. — Punshhh

They also tend to engage in murderous cultural norms, sexual assault, xenophobia and plenty of other pretty ridiculous things. The Noble Savage concept should have died a century ago. Rousseau is perhaps the single worst thing for thinking about indigenous cultures of the 20th century. Its a weird European nonsense.

That is, free will too, is a construct, a mechanism in the operation of mind which upon "emerging" (along with the "self") proved to be functional in the operation of mind/history, and so, stuck. — ENOAH

Are you making a deterministic argument here/throughout?

Who was it that argued that they 'prefer' to believe in free will? I find myself aligned with that stance. Even if we likely do not have it, should it not remain a possibility, even if merely for the meaning it might bring to a determined life?

prefer' to believe in free will? I find myself aligned with that stance — Jeremy Murray

Me too. So likely, does everyone. Since we are born into history and generally share the same input, items like the self, free will, good, evil, ethics, etc. etc. are highly functional. And, since those items, and the rest of human history is what we are structured to perceive, we can hardly function without them.

My "purpose" is not to call for an existence without mind. It is to point out that all of these "things" are necessarily relative, and none of them are inherent, pre-existing or so called eternal truths.

Humans in history might be called evil because we despise our own actions, but we are not inherently so. We despise our own actions because they are not our natures. And, therefore, albeit a centuries or millennia long process, history can be constructed differently.

This is a pretty broad generalization when talking about a diverse population. I know indigenous people personally who would disagree with your statement, along with those who would agree.

I wasn’t referring to indigenous people living in modern civilisation. Rather indigenous peoples prior to their contact with modern civilisation.

They also tend to engage in murderous cultural norms, sexual assault, xenophobia and plenty of other pretty ridiculous things.

Yes, I know. I was specifically referring to how they regard the ecosystem they live in, usually a forest.

Certainly fair in general - I thikn my quibble is more that 'indigenous' cultures aren't monolithic. Most didn't exploit their environment for lack of technology. There's some speculation in that, but given the way almost all cultures did progress past those, lets say primitive while understanding there's nothing derogatory in that, cultural norms.
But yeah, fair - thanks for clarifying.