Good and Evil

[unclesammy]

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

While this may be true, you are basing a large part of your assertions on a "persuasive theory for argument" that is "full of speculation."

...My problem with this is that since Maslow's hierarchy of needs is simply a theory (that is actually quite subjective and inaccurate), how can you draw a line between it and such "secondary priorities" as materialism, religion, or ideals?

I'd like to hear your anti-thesis as to why Maslow's theory on human behavior is not basis for argument in this discussion. It seems your only rebuttal at this point is that Maslow's model is "subjective and inaccurate." If so, let's hear why.

Might I also suggest other models which would support my argument as well:
-Erik Erikson
-Freud (somewhat)
-Rousseau
-Voltaire

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

Alright, but all you did was prove my point. I said that defending your ideas had the potential to lead to conflict (and in those cases, did lead to conflict), but not that it necessarily would.

Wasn't disagreeing with you here, just convenient to point out that some conflicts do lead to war, genocide, cultural annihilation, and so forth (which is my point). You've side-stepped the bigger issue that the topics thesis covers by insisting that if you and I disagree I'm not necessarily going to go to war with you.

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

I'm not sure there's a difference between a "constructed perception" and a "natural and primary perception" of good and bad.

Constructed perception: morals you learn from society, culture, peers, and so on. The perceptions of "good and bad" which you develop based on your interaction with your environment.

Natural and Primary Perceptions: hunger=bad, pain=bad, playing=fun, exhaustion=bad. Anything you know to be "good" or "bad" instinctively.

And you prove my point here:

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

It doesn't matter what amount of personal experience influences you when making a decision about a certain topic. If you've chosen a side, then that side is either subjectively good or bad. Even if you have some experience that makes you switch sides on the debate, it's still subjectively good or bad. If I've never slapped my little brother before, and I tell him that I'm going to slap him, he's probably going to see that as a bad thing. If I've slapped him a hundred thousand times before, and I tell him that I'm going to slap him, he's not going to suddenly think that's a good thing and laugh it off.

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

I assumed you knew I was talking about the "secondary priorities" you had previously mentioned. My mistake. My point was that basic needs can easily be fulfilled, and humans will move on to non-basic needs, on which you're saying we should not base our definition of good and bad. Differing personal opinions about materialism, religion, and ideals (as you put it) is a natural part of becoming a more knowledgeable race, so to say that we should throw off all of that and strictly define good and bad by basic needs is not necessary.

Once again, you must have misunderstood the point here, but I'll repeat myself once more; humans will undoubtedly develop perceptions of good and bad, based on culture, peers, society (external environment). These are, as I'm suggestion, secondary priorities. I'm not suggesting we not have no other objectives, as an individual, other than our basic needs. What I am suggesting, is that we not confuse which priorities are more important.

On that note, when one considers war, genocide, rape, murder, and so on, they all have an inherent lack of "love and altruism." In which case, the lack of this has lead to the destruction of an amount of human lives (in the millions, possibly billions historically). And when one considers that our species is destroying itself (and its environment), then that in itself is argument for love/altruism as necessary for our survival.

Love: a strong positive emotion of regard and affection.
Altruism: the quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others.

When one considers that we are all as one (connected and effective upon one another), then it could be argued that altruism does not exist. That same argument could support it as well though. In other words, when we are aware that we are all connected, we know that caring for the other members of our species is preserving ourselves as well.