Good and Evil

[unclesammy]

Good and Evil
Dimitri Marshall, December 10th, 2008

Good and evil are one of many contrasting terms defined by human beings, including day and night, high and low, introvert and extrovert, fascism and Marxism, and so forth. Humans are, by nature, observational creatures and we are constantly trying to make sense of what we observe. Some of our termed polar opposites are much more subjective than good and evil, like day and night for example. Most, if not all, humans perceive day to be when the sun is above the horizon, whereas, by contrast, night is when the sun is below the horizon. In both cases, humans generally agree on the same perception of day and night.

Good and evil, on the other hand, are completely self-orientated perceptions. What one person considers any level of good, another may consider some level of bad. This is, arguably, the most basic form of conflict between people on (among others) an interpersonal, multicultural, and international scale. The question, then, begs, why do we not all have the same perception of good and evil? The answer, I believe, is both simplistic fundamentally, yet very complex socially, and the solution to this conflict would appear to have no existence based on the fundamentals of the problem (that being good vs. evil, and the personal and social extremism associated with preserving good and eliminating evil).

Good and evil, I believe, can be defined quite simply and universally (although the attributes for each would be unique to each person) both psychologically and biologically. Psychologically, good equates happiness, enjoyment, bliss, joy, security, and so on, and evil equates sadness, despair, depression, fear, distress and so forth. Biologically we can relate each (good and evil) with chemical releases within the brain to obtain (or create) a certain emotion. What, then, creates ones perception of good and evil, resulting in different emotions psychologically and biologically (that is, the release of, say, dopamine vs. adrenaline).

In simplistic form, our perception of good and evil can generally be observed in universal forms when we are younger, before we have been absolved into our cultural and social construct. Good and evil will generally be the same for a young child. According to Maslow, this would include our physiological, safety, and love/belonging needs, respective in order according to level of importance. Because our needs are vastly more basic when we are younger, we generally have the same concept of good and evil, because the situations that would incite fear, distress, sadness, or happiness, joy, security for one child, will, in the vast majority of cases, be the same for another child. Playing with a toy will make most children happy, whereas a hungry child will make them distressed.

As we grow older, or mature (however that term can be defined), our inter-relationship dependence and involvement begins to become more obvious. Our needs become much more complex, considering, now, our diverse amount and level of relationships, as well as our life experiences. Our perception of good and evil are now also defined by our parents, peers, culture, society, religion, and whatever other variable you can imagine. Good and evil is now not just simply what your basic needs were as a child, but is now an evolving, dynamic and complex definition. This is where, I believe, humanity falters.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau had a philosophical model of humanity in which he believes humans are happiest when their life is as simple as possible. The fewer variables, simplistically, that can contribute to our perception of good and evil, I argue, is the key to contentment. In Rousseau’s model, he uses indigenous people for evidence of his theory, and some critics of Rousseau argue that this is too small of control for basis of argument. True, that might be, but let us consider the argument that I subject; that of the nature of our children and their innocence.

The problem with society, today, is that we confuse our perceptions of good and evil by complicating our relationships with secondary priorities (materialism, religion, ideals) which trump our primary priorities (see Maslow’s hierarchy). Historically, this argument can be supported by religious crusades, war, genocide, and so forth, which continue to repeat themselves today. Humans are confused with the importance of defending our ideas rather than preserving humanity, love, and altruism, which are our most basic needs for survival (among others).

Rousseau believed that you cannot turn back history; that is, in our current society and world, we cannot go back to being simplistic indigenous beings. Our complexity is so great and interweaved at this point, that it would be impossible to reverse our current construct. The argument, however, I present, is that the change that humanity needs, in this sense, is not external, but rather internal. I agree that our current social construct is impossible to reverse, yet we can change our attitude and control our perceptions; we have fee agent (or choice). Rousseau argued this perspective as well, that self-love was the ultimate key to happiness. If we were to realize that our priorities, which we believe are survivalist, are in the wrong order, we can exist in our current structure still, with only a much different perspective of the world.

At this point it would appear as though I suggest that humanity needs to reduce itself to a simplistic, child-like form. In a sense, that is correct, however much to simplified. I believe, in our current construct, it is also important for us to develop and progress, as a species, intellectually, artistically, technologically. This is a very vague idea, and is meant to be so, as the ultimate destination of this progression can be something different for everyone. I suggest, at this point, a more liberal view in our progression, one which emphasizes tolerance and removal of prejudice. The child-like form I propose is that we ensure our priorities for survival remain as simplistic as possible; so as to not allow ideas, such as materialism, trump our other basic needs such as love and belonging.

Ultimately, it is our disagreement of good and evil, which is responsible for our condition, but only because we confuse which “good” and which “evil” is more important. If we can reduce our behaviour to a more mature child-like form (basic needs of Maslow), then we can successfully align our perceptions of important good and evil. It is cliché to say, yet we are all 99% more alike than we are different, yet we are at war with ourselves and each other over the remaining 1%.

[tha Guardians]

This is well thought out. Kudos to you.

Now what exactly should I be debating?

[unclesammy]

Originally Posted by tha Guardians

Now what exactly should I be debating?

Debate, or contribute, any part of the ideas .

Cheers.

[tha Guardians]

I believe that good has a large "gray area". What one may consider good or righteous, others may consider despicable. As for evil, I think it's well-defined. Any act that intentionally harms some one or some animal and is not necessary for survival is evil. Killings cows isn't evil. It's true, you can supplement yourself in other ways, but you must eat, and without cows a lot of people would be hungry.

If you kill a deer for hunting, that's bad. I wouldn't call it evil, because it keeps disease and animal population down, making towns and cities safe—namely the roads that occupy them. We're like a virus that takes over the land of others', but I know its not my fault for being born, so I must find some way to live.

If I go seal clubbing however? That's evil. It's killing for fun. How deranged.

Take these ideas and mold them to fit a human society, and there's my opinion.

[unclesammy]

Originally Posted by tha Guardians

I believe that good has a large "gray area". What one may consider good or righteous, others may consider despicable. As for evil, I think it's well-defined. Any act that intentionally harms some one or some animal and is not necessary for survival is evil. Killings cows isn't evil. It's true, you can supplement yourself in other ways, but you must eat, and without cows a lot of people would be hungry.

If you kill a deer for hunting, that's bad. I wouldn't call it evil, because it keeps disease and animal population down, making towns and cities safe—namely the roads that occupy them. We're like a virus that takes over the land of others', but I know its not my fault for being born, so I must find some way to live.

If I go seal clubbing however? That's evil. It's killing for fun. How deranged.

Take these ideas and mold them to fit a human society, and there's my opinion.

You articulate my point exactly. These are all YOUR perceptions of good, evil, bad, and so forth. In some cultures, cows are sacred and killing them is evil. To the people clubbing the seals, they are not evil.

I believe something can be said about what is universally (more or less) good and evil, and that is within the thesis.

[devonin]

I think the distinction that tha Guardians was trying to make was not just that "Good and Evil are subjective" but instead "Good and Bad are subjective, Evil has, in my opinion an objective and fixed definition"

[Ground_Breaker]

Originally Posted by unclesammy

I believe, in our current construct, it is also important for us to develop and progress, as a species, intellectually, artistically, technologically. The child-like form I propose is that we ensure our priorities for survival remain as simplistic as possible; so as to not allow ideas, such as materialism, trump our other basic needs such as love and belonging.

This seems pretty contradictory to me. You claim that it's important to develop intellectually and technologically, while also claiming that we shouldn't allow materialistic things to surpass a true need as defined by Maslow. (Let me just take a moment to say that Maslow's hierarchy of needs is simply a theory, and is by no means the ultimate definition of what we actually need at the bottom line.)

I don't think there's a way to reduce the importance of such "secondary priorities" to the point that they no longer have a major influence on people. Once their "primary priorities" are fulfilled, people are going to want more.

Originally Posted by unclesammy

Humans are confused with the importance of defending our ideas rather than preserving humanity, love, and altruism, which are our most basic needs for survival (among others).

I agree with preserving humanity, but not love and altruism. Preserving the human race is a pretty obvious need for our survival as a human race, but love and altruism are not necessary at all for our survival as a human race. True, humans do need human contact, but to say that love and altruism are basic needs for survival is rather ridiculous, in my opinion.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with wanting to defend one's ideas. It has the potential to lead to quite a bit of conflict, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will. I don't shoot everyone in the head who disagrees with me about things.

Originally Posted by unclesammy

I suggest, at this point, a more liberal view in our progression, one which emphasizes tolerance and removal of prejudice.

People can have differences of opinion and still be tolerant of them, but that isn't going to stop them from defending their ideas as well. I think what you're suggesting here is that if we remove the reasons people disagree (I believe you define those reasons as "secondary priorities"), then people will never disagree. The problem is that people are always going to find something to disagree about.

[unclesammy]

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

This seems pretty contradictory to me. You claim that it's important to develop intellectually and technologically, while also claiming that we shouldn't allow materialistic things to surpass a true need as defined by Maslow. (Let me just take a moment to say that Maslow's hierarchy of needs is simply a theory, and is by no means the ultimate definition of what we actually need at the bottom line.)

Indeed, but most psychological ideas are only theories, and most can't be called scientific. This includes, Essentialism, Aristotle, Christian philosophy, Liberalism, Marxism, Darwinism, Freud, Non-self Theories, Feminism, and so forth. Even the scientific theories of today are just that; theories until proven wrong.

In the realm of psychology, though, it is hard to develop a distinct science based on controlled variables due to many reasons, including the inhumanity associated with testing human behavior. Much of the theories based on human behavior are full of speculation, but many make persuasive theories for argument, Maslow being among them.

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

I don't think there's a way to reduce the importance of such "secondary priorities" to the point that they no longer have a major influence on people. Once their "primary priorities" are fulfilled, people are going to want more.

I will not argue that humans will continue to want to improve on their existence. "Wanting more" is quite vague though, and when you consider the argument of the secondary and primary priority that I put forward, it is only after the realization that without the knowledge that our primary priorities, unless ignored, are the most vital to our survival.

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

I agree with preserving humanity, but not love and altruism. Preserving the human race is a pretty obvious need for our survival as a human race, but love and altruism are not necessary at all for our survival as a human race. True, humans do need human contact, but to say that love and altruism are basic needs for survival is rather ridiculous, in my opinion.

"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows is acting for the good of his pation; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benifit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind..."

--Charles Darwin

It is after the realization that in order to preserve our existence, we must acknowledge the inherent importance of cooperation with the whole of humanity, and the preservation of our entire environment. Consider bacteria as a contrast; a bacterial infection can surely kill you or I, yet in order for us to maintain a healthy digestive system, we depend on a sustainable, good bacteria within it. Even this bacteria, if not checked and balanced (not sustained), would kill us.

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

I don't see anything inherently wrong with wanting to defend one's ideas. It has the potential to lead to quite a bit of conflict, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will. I don't shoot everyone in the head who disagrees with me about things.

Indeed it is very important for a diversity in opinions, and that I will not argue against either. But, historically, there are many who would kill or be killed to preserve their ideas or oppress others' ideas (Catholicism, Nazism, and so forth).

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

People can have differences of opinion and still be tolerant of them, but that isn't going to stop them from defending their ideas as well. I think what you're suggesting here is that if we remove the reasons people disagree (I believe you define those reasons as "secondary priorities"), then people will never disagree. The problem is that people are always going to find something to disagree about.

I'm not suggesting people shouldn't disagree at all, you must have misunderstood. There is no doubt in my mind that people will have many different experiences in their life, all contributing to their own perception of "good and evil," which in turn will translate to conflict. Tolerance is exactly what I am suggesting here. It is important that people understand that their constructed perceptions are less important than their natural and primary perceptions of good and bad.

[unclesammy]

Originally Posted by devonin

I think the distinction that tha Guardians was trying to make was not just that "Good and Evil are subjective" but instead "Good and Bad are subjective, Evil has, in my opinion an objective and fixed definition"

And what is your perception of Evil? If it had a fixed definition, then it would be uniform throughout the entire race, which it most certainly is not. The same can be said for good and bad.

[Ground_Breaker]

Originally Posted by unclesammy

It is after the realization that in order to preserve our existence, we must acknowledge the inherent importance of cooperation with the whole of humanity, and the preservation of our entire environment.

Cooperation with the whole of humanity and preservation of the natural environment does not translate to love and altruism. I work with people I can't stand on a daily basis simply because through that cooperation we can achieve a goal: good customer service. I agree that the importance of cooperation between the individual and society/humanity should not be overlooked, but your argument brings you no closer to a parallel between cooperation and love/altruism. Your original point was that those two were fundamental for survival, and I'm telling you they aren't. Is cooperation fundamental for our survival? I think there's enough evidence to support that yes, cooperation among people has never been a detriment to any institution.

Originally Posted by unclesammy

Much of the theories based on human behavior are full of speculation, but many make persuasive theories for argument, Maslow being among them.

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."

Originally Posted by unclesammy

The problem with society, today, is that we confuse our perceptions of good and evil by complicating our relationships with secondary priorities (materialism, religion, ideals) which trump our primary priorities (see Maslow’s hierarchy).

This is what I believe to be your main point. I'm sure you've caught on to my logic here, but in case you haven't, here's the problem. You claim that the problem is that we've confused "our perceptions of good and evil by complicating our relationships with secondary priorities which trump our primary priorities." You define primary priorities as Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which you've admitted is 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? Where is the distinction between what is a "primary" priority and a "secondary" priority?

Originally Posted by unclesammy

But, historically, there are many who would kill or be killed to preserve their ideas or oppress others' ideas (Catholicism, Nazism, and so forth).

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.

Originally Posted by unclesammy

I'm not suggesting people shouldn't disagree at all, you must have misunderstood. There is no doubt in my mind that people will have many different experiences in their life, all contributing to their own perception of "good and evil," which in turn will translate to conflict. Tolerance is exactly what I am suggesting here. It is important that people understand that their constructed perceptions are less important than their natural and primary perceptions of good and bad.

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

"Wanting more" is quite vague though

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. The human race is too intelligent at this point to be stuck at:

Caveman: (growling) "Need...eat...food. Food...good. No...hungry. Hungry...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.

[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.

[tha Guardians]

Originally Posted by devonin

I think the distinction that tha Guardians was trying to make was not just that "Good and Evil are subjective" but instead "Good and Bad are subjective, Evil has, in my opinion an objective and fixed definition"

Yes. Any malicious action that goes without benefit is evil. I guess the subjective part, is to what degree of evil it is.

You punch a guy for lulz—that's evil.
You punch a guy to protect yourself—that's necessary.

Originally Posted by unclesammy

And what is your perception of Evil? If it had a fixed definition, then it would be uniform throughout the entire race, which it most certainly is not. The same can be said for good and bad.

Just because people sometimes choose to ignore their actions, or perceive them as pure or innocent, does not change the fact that what they've done is evil (man that word's being overused).

You think Manson, BTK, or any other serial killer feels a bit of remorse for what they've done. Of course not! They were not developed normally, so in they're minds they're exempt from punishment and guilt, when really they're only free from rational behavior.

Some serial killers will even admit that they have committed evil acts, but I doubt they care a single bit.

[unclesammy]

Originally Posted by tha Guardians

Yes. Any malicious action that goes without benefit is evil. I guess the subjective part, is to what degree of evil it is.

You punch a guy for lulz—that's evil.
You punch a guy to protect yourself—that's necessary.

Completely agreed! But those actions are in contradiction with your primary priorities (see Maslow), hence my definition of instinctual "good and (I'll use it one more time ) evil).

Originally Posted by tha Guardians

You punch a guy for lulz

This made me smile

[tha Guardians]

I don't want to "see Maslow". What primary priorities?
Here are the primary priorities I know:

1.) Do good and live in preparation for the afterlife.
2.) Don't do anything to contradict or compromise your life or the lives of others.

The question at stake is, "Why should this cow die for me? Why not I for the cow?"
Of course the cow wouldn't eat us, but you get the point.

Is my life more important the another's? Is it right that I live, or that I sacrifice my life to another being?

[Patricoo]

I say it very simply rather then in reply. I support Kantianism or however it's done.

Good and evil is undefinable, too generalized and has too many exceptions. Philosophically basing our actions in a way that is good or evil typically just involves more rationalization rather then justification. We are better off defining our own set of principals, patience and respect for others and defining ethics by our own individual standard of living rather then a concept as hazy as good and evil.

If we no longer have to forecast the future and all it's consequences, we no longer have the debate about intent. Thusly, I favor Kant's way of thinking. Ironically, his way of thinking is often dismissed as too "heartless" when I find it to have the most heart of all.

[devonin]

If we no longer have to forecast the future and all it's consequences, we no longer have the debate about intent.

Erm...if you aren't considering the intent of the action, OR the consequences of the action, what basis are you using to decide whether an action is good or bad?

And what is your perception of Evil?

I never claimed to have one. I thought it was pretty clear in my statement, when I said "I think the distinction that tha Guardians was trying to make " that I was suggesting that this was what the Guardians was saying, not what I said. I was trying to clear up what seemed to be a bit of a misunderstanding between the two of you.

[Patricoo]

Originally Posted by devonin

Erm...if you aren't considering the intent of the action, OR the consequences of the action, what basis are you using to decide whether an action is good or bad?

You can only decide if it's good or bad to certain people and to certain degrees in retrospect. The idea though isn't to base your decisions on the concept of "good or bad", which is why we ask the big question. We try and define it simply to we can easily make "good" decisions, but there are too many exceptions and considerations.

To me, evaluation a decision to see if it was "good" is really just for kicks and giggles. Like a "just for fun" statistics in sports.

[unclesammy]

Originally Posted by Patricoo

Good and evil is undefinable, too generalized and has too many exceptions. Philosophically basing our actions in a way that is good or evil typically just involves more rationalization rather then justification. We are better off defining our own set of principals, patience and respect for others and defining ethics by our own individual standard of living rather then a concept as hazy as good and evil.

Exactly! That is the point of the thesis, although I do believe there are universal concepts of good and evil, based on human nature. The thesis defines what I believe (supported by other theories) to be primary priorities and secondary priorities. It is our confusion with the importance of our secondary priorities which disregard our human nature. It can be somewhat generally summed up with this statement:

"It's not human nature which currently dictates our behavior; rather, it is our social construct which trumps our nature and dictates how we behave"

I haven't looked into Kantianism. I will though. I've covered most of the accepted (due to good argument and factual/evidential support) human behavior theories. Kantianism is most likely a derivitive of one of them.

[unclesammy]

Originally Posted by devonin

I was trying to clear up what seemed to be a bit of a misunderstanding between the two of you.

My mistake!