@Jack Cummins @Sherry @Alejandro @Hanover Fantastic comments from all of you! I am sooo impressed!
Of course there is no human society and no progress without judjement. It is something indispensable. It is real that in this post I gave mainly emphasis to the negative aspects of it. Many people judge a bit too much and too often. Subconsious, "evolutionary" mechanisms can be in work here. I always try to understand why some behaviours persist for centuries or millenia despite thee fact that societies and morals change.

Jack , by and lagre, I agree with you about conspiracy theories. I have often though about this ,also persisting, phenomenon and i wrote down some thought in my blog if you wish to read https://philosophience.wordpress.com/2020/05/08/thoughts-on-the-conspiracy-theories-problem/

Thanks a lot for the advice!

Thanks for your comment!

Then the fact is not that Earth's magnetism is unchangable but that it has the potential to change or be reversed. This is the fact. Science can not get the 100% of things but is a method that help us come as close as it gets.

Thanks for your opinion!

Hi! It is a philosophical blog. Why looks spammy to you? It didn't look stramge to admin because they know purpose here is to talk about ideas and exchange opinions. So you can cite en excerpt från a book or an article and give the source, but whem I do this it is peculiar to you. I gave the whole text before the link so you do not have to open it. It is for those who want to read it from the original and for those who liked it and want to read more fron the writer. Think about what you wrote and consider why are you here?

Thank you for your advice. You are very kind! I am sure you are here to learn and exchange ideas in a respectful way. Good luck!

If there is advertizing in there, I myself can not see them and surely I earn absolutely nothing. I do not care about extra money, that is why I have the simplest costfree form of wordpress. I am family phycisian in Sweden and earn very good money. I just wanted to write my thoughts in a more structured way in a blog istead of single writings here and there that would disappear. But why was that more interesting to you than the essence of what I wrote? You do not have to agree, write your opinion and I ll respect it.

Well written again! I agree that whatever behaviour, good or bad, exists in human societies it is because evolution has favoured such a behaviour when it had increased the survival and reproduction of its bearers. I use a lot of the evolutionary theory in my blog philosophience.wordpress.com ; I would be glad if you read my articles and make similar, lucid comments even there

Thanks for your comment! Interesting thoughts! Perhaps not 100% on this topic, but still a valid analysis, I mostly agree.

"Perhaps a real dilemma could be your friend asking you how the golf trip was with his/her partner, when you realize the partner used you as an alibi for an affair. How do you answer? This may be a simple answer for some people. But there is a real dilemma, knowing you will cause pain either way." - @Sherry

Well written!

Philosophims hypothetical answer to mamma and my "interview example" and your "golf trip example". All illustrate the fact that what is virtuous depends not on whether we tell a truth or a lie , but on whether we want to cause pain or not to others. We can often use the truth as an excuse to deliberately inflict damage.

Lies in white satin will also be sweet..

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/457915 Exactly!

Thanks for your comment! In theory it sounds perfect to have the ability to express a brutal truth with kindness. But in practice? In the example with the atheist and his mother, how would it go?
About the risk to indict our character: Not if the person understands that we didn't want to hurt his/her feelings.

Exaggerating or not, we all believe that a militant truth-teller is not a person we would admire, rather a person we would try to avoid...

《I think that sounds wonderful Mom," The situation you painted will be mine in the future. My mother is fiercely religious. I still love her. I want her last moments on Earth to be wonderful. Its not about, "Who wins". If you're an atheist, you're pretty confident that the end is the end. It would be cruel to be petty and deny her those final moments of peace.》 -Philosophim

Yes! Exactly!

Perhaps you (or the atheist) do not need to pretend and exaggerate . One can be kind and empathic by simply beckon with the head or just try to change the subject. An "honest" atheist would reply "I tell you one more time, mamma, therr s no heaven! Stop believing fairytales!". How cruel and how foolish!

"Personal truth is a journey and while it is important to cast out self-deception, surely it is better for each individual to be tell his or own mythic story, choosing what facts to disclose and wish to omit in the spirit of creativity and truth, allowing others the freedom to do the same. Sometimes fiction is a the most free medium as it allows juxtaposition which tells the main truth which can be hidden amidst the trivia and chaos of fabrication and fact." -Jack Cummins

Very nice formulated and poetic!! I really liked it!

Philosophim, Sherry Thanks for your long comments and thorough analysis! I absolutely agree that there are various types of truths, of half-truths and of lies. The decision we often have to make about what should we do/say is not always easy and obvious. As you said, something can make one sad today, but can spare him/her much trouble and pain in the future.
If a person I love and care about has an interview for very important job for her career and I know from experience that she is not appropriate dressed, I would perhaps tell her to choose another cloth even if that would embarass or make her little sad.
The harmless lies I mention in my post are in cases where not only harm is avoided for the lie-receiver (immediately or later), but where the other alternative, i.e. the truth, would cause irreparable damage. Or, where the disclosure of the truth would not help, because it would concern non-fixable things or situations.
An example/question: Think of an atheist whose beloved, deep religious mother is dying and says that she is happy and content because she 's going to heaven, to God and she 'll meet her son again there someday in the future. And she asks him what he thinks of it. What should her son answer?

Thanks for your opinion! I m happy you found discussion interesting!
《So the “force of Evolution” can be defeated. But that is always going to be a pyrrhic victory of man over nature.》
Elaboration:A pyrrhic victory is often a kind of defeat. The person who has few desires lives perhaps a happier life but will always be less productive in evolutionary terms and thus his/her genes and memes(ideas) will stay low in the generations to come. It may be a real victory for the specific individual but not for these particular "suppressed desires-content and satisfied with very little" traits. The constant unappeased struggler who desires more and more will always be the norm.
Regarding the freedom of the mind from the bonds of physical existense...I just don't believe in it. The body is not the prison of the self but the creator of the self. The demise of the sarx is also the demise of the self.

Hi and thanks for your comment! I agree that a desire may even bring good things or beautiful emotions. I can understand sages' advice to reduce our desires in order to be happy, but I am not sure that their suppression will bring redemption as I believe their fulfillement will not bring happiness either. I doubt that a desireless person has ever existed and I doubt that even if existed, she/he would be happy. Or if this living being would be still a human being.

Hi Thomas! Thanks for your reply. I do not know how common is my position. If it is indeed, I can understand why. It seems to be the best avaliable explanation of the emergence of morality in the human world.To accept this thesis there is a prerequisite: the profound understanding of the evolution theory. One who really understands it, knows that if an individual strives for the good of his community to her/his own detriment, then her/his moral values, cultural traits and genome would be wiped out in the generations to come. But if the good of the community promotes her/his well-being too (and this is the case for the majority), then a "morality of the people" will emerge. This is not to say that we are selfish creatures, because there is no choice to be made. We are products of the inexorable process of evolution.

Can anyone provide an example of a moral precept held by any community past or present who did not come to that position on the belief that it served human flourishing?@Thomas Quine
Hi! In my opinion there cannot be moral precept held by a community but a moral precept held by one, some or all the individuals that are members of a community. An individual, consciously or subconsciously, espouses moral values that promote its own progress and improvement. Happily, there were humans that understood that a thriving community can be beneficial for them. But these moral precepts could at the same time be damaging for the individuals of another community. And there were also humans who pursued success by harming other members of their own community. In conclusion, there is no humanity;there are humans with various needs and purposes.