Are people basically good?

[ricechickie]

Humans make the standards.

Do you think the cuckoo feels bad for emptying out an occupied nest and laying their own eggs in it? Do you think the strong, young lion feels guilty for chasing the old, weaker lion away from his pride? Do you think sharks feel bad for eating the seal lion pups?

No, humans are social animals with big brains and as such invented this concept called “morality” and think they solve all possible problems if everyone just follows the rules. But the problem with our big brains is that we think we can improve upon others’ ideas. And often we can. However, it means that very few of us will agree on everything, including morality. So, in the absence of that, humans at least have empathy....

Animals operate on instinct an impulse. Humans do too but we have the unique ability to override our instincts and impulses for the sake of good of others. So yes, animals have no concept of right and wrong.

The question is can we make our standards be anything we want and still get the same results. The answer to that question is no. So there is something about the standard which is independent of man.

But we’ve already established that there’s more than one way to be successful. Why is there, then, only one kind of successful behavior?

Yeah, different behaviors get different results. So it depends upon what your goal is.

We don’t all want the same things.

So then you believe a society that prized dishonesty, thanklessness, cruelty, selfishness, cowardice and any other failed behavior you can think of would get the same or better results than a society that behaved the opposite way?

No, but some societies value honesty less than others, because raw honesty is considered harsh. Some value what we would call “cowardice” because they are pacifists. Some value selfishness, so they read Ayn Rand and learn why it’s ok to let kids who can’t afford healthcare to die. Some cultures value what we would call “cruelty” because it shows strength. Hell, our culture has very recently defended cruelty (separating children from parents).

The thing is that there has never been a society which prized diametrical values. Some societies have allowed more than one wife but there has never been a society that said you can take any woman you want. Same for every one of your examples. There has never been a society that prized running away from battles. They have never celebrated cowards and traitors. What you are talking about are degrees not diametrical values.

The Amish prize turning the other cheek. They do not engage in fights, whether individual or wars.

When you talk about “taking any woman you want” are you referring to free love or rape?

 

[ricechickie]

NO.

Others should listen when someone expresses that they are hurt by someone else’s actions, and try to make amends. It’s not automatic knowledge; it must be learned.

Now, once a person hears, “Don’t call me stupid” (for example) enough times, generalization should kick in, and they should start to think that calling people stupid is generally hurtful to others.

Not in the Flame Zone, of course.

Why should they listen? Why should they be empathetic? You are literally making shall statements. Shall statements imply a law or a rule. If there is no common standard of conduct that is universally or generally understood, then you have no justification to get upset when someone violates it.

You’re right. But instead of a universal “shall,” it’s a transactional thing between individuals.

“Hey, if you stop calling me a pedophile, I’ll stop STFUing every one of your posts”

For example.

So you are saying there is no real standard that it can be anything we want as long as we agree to a contract?

Sorry, but I have to call BS on that.

So in other words if a husband says I'll stop beating you if you do a better job at cleaning the house and cooking my meals that would be OK, because they agreed upon a transaction?

You think that never happened?

It’s not ok for me, nor for many people now, but wife-beating used to be considered a right of men, and a private matter for the couple to deal with.

Hell, even my mom said, “My husband might hit me once, and then maybe twice, but never a third time.”

And I thought, “why the fuck would he get the second time?”

Because she was raised in a different time.

Standards are discovered over time, but even in those times there were men who didn't do it. That's how the standard was discovered.

No matter how hard you argue against it, you know that logically the results we get from behaviors make sense. Men who beat and cheat on their wives will never have the kind of loving relationship that men who cherish and respect their wives. The latter is the standard. Some men may wish the standard were different, but the standard is independent of what they desire.

The standard was discovered when women stopped pretending it was a normal, necessary part of marriage.

 

[ding]

Animals operate on instinct an impulse. Humans do too but we have the unique ability to override our instincts and impulses for the sake of good of others. So yes, animals have no concept of right and wrong.

The question is can we make our standards be anything we want and still get the same results. The answer to that question is no. So there is something about the standard which is independent of man.

But we’ve already established that there’s more than one way to be successful. Why is there, then, only one kind of successful behavior?

Yeah, different behaviors get different results. So it depends upon what your goal is.

We don’t all want the same things.

So then you believe a society that prized dishonesty, thanklessness, cruelty, selfishness, cowardice and any other failed behavior you can think of would get the same or better results than a society that behaved the opposite way?

No, but some societies value honesty less than others, because raw honesty is considered harsh. Some value what we would call “cowardice” because they are pacifists. Some value selfishness, so they read Ayn Rand and learn why it’s ok to let kids who can’t afford healthcare to die. Some cultures value what we would call “cruelty” because it shows strength. Hell, our culture has very recently defended cruelty (separating children from parents).

The thing is that there has never been a society which prized diametrical values. Some societies have allowed more than one wife but there has never been a society that said you can take any woman you want. Same for every one of your examples. There has never been a society that prized running away from battles. They have never celebrated cowards and traitors. What you are talking about are degrees not diametrical values.

The Amish prize turning the other cheek. They do not engage in fights, whether individual or wars.

When you talk about “taking any woman you want” are you referring to free love or rape?

Rape. That's what taking any woman you want means. Can you imagine how chaotic and disorderly that society would be? Men may wish that was the standard, but the results they get would show them that is not the standard.

 

[ricechickie]

So I ‘ve got to interject here.

In your view, ding, standards are universal, not changing, but some haven’t been “discovered” yet?

How is that different from changing standards?

 

[ricechickie]

But we’ve already established that there’s more than one way to be successful. Why is there, then, only one kind of successful behavior?

Yeah, different behaviors get different results. So it depends upon what your goal is.

We don’t all want the same things.

So then you believe a society that prized dishonesty, thanklessness, cruelty, selfishness, cowardice and any other failed behavior you can think of would get the same or better results than a society that behaved the opposite way?

No, but some societies value honesty less than others, because raw honesty is considered harsh. Some value what we would call “cowardice” because they are pacifists. Some value selfishness, so they read Ayn Rand and learn why it’s ok to let kids who can’t afford healthcare to die. Some cultures value what we would call “cruelty” because it shows strength. Hell, our culture has very recently defended cruelty (separating children from parents).

The thing is that there has never been a society which prized diametrical values. Some societies have allowed more than one wife but there has never been a society that said you can take any woman you want. Same for every one of your examples. There has never been a society that prized running away from battles. They have never celebrated cowards and traitors. What you are talking about are degrees not diametrical values.

The Amish prize turning the other cheek. They do not engage in fights, whether individual or wars.

When you talk about “taking any woman you want” are you referring to free love or rape?

Rape. That's what taking any woman you want means. Can you imagine how chaotic and disorderly that society would be? Men may wish that was the standard, but the results they get show them that is not the standard.

Rape of certain groups of people used to be condoned, tolerated, accepted.

 

[ding]

Why should they listen? Why should they be empathetic? You are literally making shall statements. Shall statements imply a law or a rule. If there is no common standard of conduct that is universally or generally understood, then you have no justification to get upset when someone violates it.

You’re right. But instead of a universal “shall,” it’s a transactional thing between individuals.

“Hey, if you stop calling me a pedophile, I’ll stop STFUing every one of your posts”

For example.

So you are saying there is no real standard that it can be anything we want as long as we agree to a contract?

Sorry, but I have to call BS on that.

So in other words if a husband says I'll stop beating you if you do a better job at cleaning the house and cooking my meals that would be OK, because they agreed upon a transaction?

You think that never happened?

It’s not ok for me, nor for many people now, but wife-beating used to be considered a right of men, and a private matter for the couple to deal with.

Hell, even my mom said, “My husband might hit me once, and then maybe twice, but never a third time.”

And I thought, “why the fuck would he get the second time?”

Because she was raised in a different time.

Standards are discovered over time, but even in those times there were men who didn't do it. That's how the standard was discovered.

No matter how hard you argue against it, you know that logically the results we get from behaviors make sense. Men who beat and cheat on their wives will never have the kind of loving relationship that men who cherish and respect their wives. The latter is the standard. Some men may wish the standard were different, but the standard is independent of what they desire.

The standard was discovered when women stopped pretending it was a normal, necessary part of marriage.

Even before that there were men who behaved decently and it was those results that showed what the standard was. It couldn't be just anything we desired. Standards exist independent of what we want. Standards exist for logical reasons. And when we deviate from those standards predictable surprises will eventually occur. It's all very logical.

 

[ding]

So then you believe a society that prized dishonesty, thanklessness, cruelty, selfishness, cowardice and any other failed behavior you can think of would get the same or better results than a society that behaved the opposite way?

No, but some societies value honesty less than others, because raw honesty is considered harsh. Some value what we would call “cowardice” because they are pacifists. Some value selfishness, so they read Ayn Rand and learn why it’s ok to let kids who can’t afford healthcare to die. Some cultures value what we would call “cruelty” because it shows strength. Hell, our culture has very recently defended cruelty (separating children from parents).

The thing is that there has never been a society which prized diametrical values. Some societies have allowed more than one wife but there has never been a society that said you can take any woman you want. Same for every one of your examples. There has never been a society that prized running away from battles. They have never celebrated cowards and traitors. What you are talking about are degrees not diametrical values.

The Amish prize turning the other cheek. They do not engage in fights, whether individual or wars.

When you talk about “taking any woman you want” are you referring to free love or rape?

Rape. That's what taking any woman you want means. Can you imagine how chaotic and disorderly that society would be? Men may wish that was the standard, but the results they get show them that is not the standard.

Rape of certain groups of people used to be condoned, tolerated, accepted.

Sure, but why don't societies still condone it? If that were truly the standard, it would still exist today as the standard. Like I said before, standards like truth are discovered. You can't argue no standard exists because it hadn't yet been discovered and accepted as the standard.

 

[ricechickie]

You’re right. But instead of a universal “shall,” it’s a transactional thing between individuals.

“Hey, if you stop calling me a pedophile, I’ll stop STFUing every one of your posts”

For example.

So you are saying there is no real standard that it can be anything we want as long as we agree to a contract?

Sorry, but I have to call BS on that.

So in other words if a husband says I'll stop beating you if you do a better job at cleaning the house and cooking my meals that would be OK, because they agreed upon a transaction?

You think that never happened?

It’s not ok for me, nor for many people now, but wife-beating used to be considered a right of men, and a private matter for the couple to deal with.

Hell, even my mom said, “My husband might hit me once, and then maybe twice, but never a third time.”

And I thought, “why the fuck would he get the second time?”

Because she was raised in a different time.

Standards are discovered over time, but even in those times there were men who didn't do it. That's how the standard was discovered.

No matter how hard you argue against it, you know that logically the results we get from behaviors make sense. Men who beat and cheat on their wives will never have the kind of loving relationship that men who cherish and respect their wives. The latter is the standard. Some men may wish the standard were different, but the standard is independent of what they desire.

The standard was discovered when women stopped pretending it was a normal, necessary part of marriage.

Even before that there were men who behaved decently and it was those results that showed what the standard was. It couldn't be just anything we desired. Standards exist independent of what we want. Standards exist for logical reasons. And when we deviate from those standards predictable surprises will eventually occur. It's all very logical.

And the men who didn’t “discipline” their wives were considered whipped, not in charge, not keeping the woman in line, tolerating lip, and the dress-wearer in the family.

You do know about the saying, “the one who wears the pants in the family.” While not about wife-beating per se, it’s a direct reference to how a man should be the ruler of the house.

 

[ricechickie]

So ding......

are these “undiscovered standards” just floating out in the universe, waiting to land on earth and be adopted bu grateful citizens?

Or do our standards simply change as people discover more about health and happiness?

 

[ding]

So ding......

are these “undiscovered standards” just floating out in the universe, waiting to land on earth and be adopted bu grateful citizens?

Or do our standards simply change as people discover more about health and happiness?

According to you there are no universal standards.

 

[ding]

So you are saying there is no real standard that it can be anything we want as long as we agree to a contract?

Sorry, but I have to call BS on that.

So in other words if a husband says I'll stop beating you if you do a better job at cleaning the house and cooking my meals that would be OK, because they agreed upon a transaction?

You think that never happened?

It’s not ok for me, nor for many people now, but wife-beating used to be considered a right of men, and a private matter for the couple to deal with.

Hell, even my mom said, “My husband might hit me once, and then maybe twice, but never a third time.”

And I thought, “why the fuck would he get the second time?”

Because she was raised in a different time.

Standards are discovered over time, but even in those times there were men who didn't do it. That's how the standard was discovered.

No matter how hard you argue against it, you know that logically the results we get from behaviors make sense. Men who beat and cheat on their wives will never have the kind of loving relationship that men who cherish and respect their wives. The latter is the standard. Some men may wish the standard were different, but the standard is independent of what they desire.

The standard was discovered when women stopped pretending it was a normal, necessary part of marriage.

Even before that there were men who behaved decently and it was those results that showed what the standard was. It couldn't be just anything we desired. Standards exist independent of what we want. Standards exist for logical reasons. And when we deviate from those standards predictable surprises will eventually occur. It's all very logical.

And the men who didn’t “discipline” their wives were considered whipped, not in charge, not keeping the woman in line, tolerating lip, and the dress-wearer in the family.

You do know about the saying, “the one who wears the pants in the family.” While not about wife-beating per se, it’s a direct reference to how a man should be the ruler of the house.

Not sure what your point is here exactly.

It certainly does not negate that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Or that standards exist for logical reasons.

Or that when one deviates from the standard that predictable surprises will eventually occur.

 

[ricechickie]

So ding......

are these “undiscovered standards” just floating out in the universe, waiting to land on earth and be adopted bu grateful citizens?

Or do our standards simply change as people discover more about health and happiness?

According to you there are no universal standards.

Because they reflect the time and place in which we live, and are beneficial to most people in that time and place.

But you argue that there are universal standards, and some are just “undiscovered.”

So where are they until they’re discovered?

 

[ding]

So ding......

are these “undiscovered standards” just floating out in the universe, waiting to land on earth and be adopted bu grateful citizens?

Or do our standards simply change as people discover more about health and happiness?

According to you there are no universal standards.

Because they reflect the time and place in which we live, and are beneficial to most people in that time and place.

But you argue that there are universal standards, and some are just “undiscovered.”

So where are they until they’re discovered?

No. They don't.

These standards have always existed and people who followed them reaped predictable rewards.

Just because they were not universally recognized or adopted did not affect the logical outcomes of success or failure.

 

[ricechickie]

You think that never happened?

It’s not ok for me, nor for many people now, but wife-beating used to be considered a right of men, and a private matter for the couple to deal with.

Hell, even my mom said, “My husband might hit me once, and then maybe twice, but never a third time.”

And I thought, “why the fuck would he get the second time?”

Because she was raised in a different time.

Standards are discovered over time, but even in those times there were men who didn't do it. That's how the standard was discovered.

No matter how hard you argue against it, you know that logically the results we get from behaviors make sense. Men who beat and cheat on their wives will never have the kind of loving relationship that men who cherish and respect their wives. The latter is the standard. Some men may wish the standard were different, but the standard is independent of what they desire.

The standard was discovered when women stopped pretending it was a normal, necessary part of marriage.

Even before that there were men who behaved decently and it was those results that showed what the standard was. It couldn't be just anything we desired. Standards exist independent of what we want. Standards exist for logical reasons. And when we deviate from those standards predictable surprises will eventually occur. It's all very logical.

And the men who didn’t “discipline” their wives were considered whipped, not in charge, not keeping the woman in line, tolerating lip, and the dress-wearer in the family.

You do know about the saying, “the one who wears the pants in the family.” While not about wife-beating per se, it’s a direct reference to how a man should be the ruler of the house.

Not sure what your point is here exactly.

It certainly does not negate that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Or that standards exist for logical reasons.

Or that when one deviates from the standard that predictable surprises will eventually occur.

It means that the standard used to be “beat your wife.” The government agreed with it, the church agreed with it, and the neighbors suspected you weren’t wearing the pants in the family if you didn’t do it.

 

[ding]

Standards are discovered over time, but even in those times there were men who didn't do it. That's how the standard was discovered.

No matter how hard you argue against it, you know that logically the results we get from behaviors make sense. Men who beat and cheat on their wives will never have the kind of loving relationship that men who cherish and respect their wives. The latter is the standard. Some men may wish the standard were different, but the standard is independent of what they desire.

The standard was discovered when women stopped pretending it was a normal, necessary part of marriage.

Even before that there were men who behaved decently and it was those results that showed what the standard was. It couldn't be just anything we desired. Standards exist independent of what we want. Standards exist for logical reasons. And when we deviate from those standards predictable surprises will eventually occur. It's all very logical.

And the men who didn’t “discipline” their wives were considered whipped, not in charge, not keeping the woman in line, tolerating lip, and the dress-wearer in the family.

You do know about the saying, “the one who wears the pants in the family.” While not about wife-beating per se, it’s a direct reference to how a man should be the ruler of the house.

Not sure what your point is here exactly.

It certainly does not negate that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Or that standards exist for logical reasons.

Or that when one deviates from the standard that predictable surprises will eventually occur.

It means that the standard used to be “beat your wife.” The government agreed with it, the church agreed with it, and the neighbors suspected you weren’t wearing the pants in the family if you didn’t do it.

Wrong. The standard was never that. Not every man beat his wife. The standard always existed even when it wasn't accepted. Which is exactly my point, the standard is independent of what man desires it to be.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Gracie]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

Put a bunch of people in the dark, with no cell phones, no food, no water and then scare the shit out of them. Pretty sure you won't find any good people in there.

 

[ding]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

Put a bunch of people in the dark, with no cell phones, no food, no water and then scare the shit out of them. Pretty sure you won't find any good people in there.

You might be surprised by that.

 

[ricechickie]

The standard was discovered when women stopped pretending it was a normal, necessary part of marriage.

Even before that there were men who behaved decently and it was those results that showed what the standard was. It couldn't be just anything we desired. Standards exist independent of what we want. Standards exist for logical reasons. And when we deviate from those standards predictable surprises will eventually occur. It's all very logical.

And the men who didn’t “discipline” their wives were considered whipped, not in charge, not keeping the woman in line, tolerating lip, and the dress-wearer in the family.

You do know about the saying, “the one who wears the pants in the family.” While not about wife-beating per se, it’s a direct reference to how a man should be the ruler of the house.

Not sure what your point is here exactly.

It certainly does not negate that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Or that standards exist for logical reasons.

Or that when one deviates from the standard that predictable surprises will eventually occur.

It means that the standard used to be “beat your wife.” The government agreed with it, the church agreed with it, and the neighbors suspected you weren’t wearing the pants in the family if you didn’t do it.

Wrong. The standard was never that. Not every man beat his wife. The standard always existed even when it wasn't accepted. Which is exactly my point, the standard is independent of what man desires it to be.

Thanks for proving my point.

So the standard is what EVERYONE does?

And you think everyone agrees on them?

Ok.

I think the closest thing to a universal standard is don’t kill people and the human race can’t even get that one right.

 

[Gracie]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

Put a bunch of people in the dark, with no cell phones, no food, no water and then scare the shit out of them. Pretty sure you won't find any good people in there.

You might be surprised by that.

I don't aim to find out, but I doubt if I would be surprised.

 

[ricechickie]

So, how do you know the standard is “Don’t beat your wife,” because clearly not everyone follows that..... ?