Are people basically good?

[G.T.]

So these evil political figures are space aliens, or are they simply a reflection of the society from which they came?

Additionally, who threw the Jews in the ovens? Hitler?

Why did the Catholic church remain so silent during the Holocaust?

Why did FDR not let more Jews flee to America?

People are basically good, eh?

I don't buy it!

No, your first sentence is a non-sequitur. I didnt say all people are good, or that people are good all of the time. Do you know your question included the word, "basically." YOURE THE ONE that framed things this way, and you're taking my answer based on the basic, and challenging it in terms of the specific.

Your inability to critically think may be why you're so easily brain-washed by Religions.

So if people are basically good, then we really should allow people to arm themselves instead of ban guns.

Additionally, the never ending number of laws and regulations passed by government are unnecessary, correct?

1st off, this is another non-sequitur.

I'm pro-liberty where it doesn't infringe on anyone else's.

That includes for gun rights, so....moot point.

To the question regarding Laws, that's also a non-sequitur. You CONTINUE to not understand that "basically" does not mean "everyone," so I'm not sure I understand what the fuck the problem is.

The Laws are there to prevent folks from doing harm to society, not everyone is a good guy.

If people were basically good, then we would not need government.

If people were basically good, we would not need car insurance

If people were basically good, then we would not need to lock our doors at night.

If people were basically good, then we would not need lawyers, etc.

No Votto cc: G.T.
Being basically good is not the same as being perfectly good.

Even married people, even good friends who know each other well,
BENEFIT from "writing up agreements" so we communicate what we consent to
and what to do if something changes, what is the process we agree to?

So we still need laws and govt to manage "social contracts" or agreements
when "something goes wrong" or "conflicts arise"

Even good law abiding people don't run around conducting business without a contract!

Good post, Emily.

 

[Votto]

I remember how things were when I grew up. Most kids are pretty rotten. They have to be taught to be good most of the time.

Good = Doing things that don't harm others
Bad = Doing things that are intended to do harm

Teaching the Golden Rule to children in school would bring out the ACLU and their lawyers.

It starts in Pre-K. Daycare even. Don't be stupid.

Exactly, there's plenty of innate good you see in children.

The bottom line is, we are all born with an inner voice that tells us what is good or bad, unless they are a select few who are sociopaths who go onto a political career.

However, we all, at some point, violate this voice, do we not?

So to be "bad', how many times must we violate this inner voice or does it only come down to the severity of the infraction?

You spent your first two sentences here agreeing with my initial claim, which you proceeded to spend 15 non-sequitur posts attempting to debunk.

The last sentence is a question of subjective opinion, one which I've already answered: "people are BASICALLY" GOOD.

That means, that most of the time for most people, we go ahead and listen to the voice.

You fail to define what is good. How many times not listening to the voice do you become bad, or does it depend on the severity of their crime?

For example, is a pathological liar bad or a one time murderer?

 

[G.T.]

Teaching the Golden Rule to children in school would bring out the ACLU and their lawyers.

It starts in Pre-K. Daycare even. Don't be stupid.

Exactly, there's plenty of innate good you see in children.

The bottom line is, we are all born with an inner voice that tells us what is good or bad, unless they are a select few who are sociopaths who go onto a political career.

However, we all, at some point, violate this voice, do we not?

So to be "bad', how many times must we violate this inner voice or does it only come down to the severity of the infraction?

You spent your first two sentences here agreeing with my initial claim, which you proceeded to spend 15 non-sequitur posts attempting to debunk.

The last sentence is a question of subjective opinion, one which I've already answered: "people are BASICALLY" GOOD.

That means, that most of the time for most people, we go ahead and listen to the voice.

You fail to define what is good. How many times not listening to the voice do you become bad, or does it depend on the severity of their crime?

For example, is a pathological liar bad or a one time murderer?

I defined good in my first post in this thread.

To determine if someone, specifically, is a bad person, would be a completely subjective endeavor (an opinion), i.e. there is not transcendent "fact" of the matter but only opinions either subjectively supported using arbitrary criteria, or wholly unsupported.

Back to my definition of good, a "bad person" to me would be a person who causes needless suffering of others, in abundance of either frequency or scale.

 

[emilynghiem]

​

To translate this G.T.
YES the natural and universal laws are by definition INDEPENDENT of Western/Judeo-Christian expression.
Or else that is dependent on man made religious language and culture, which isn't universal and isn't the pure laws themselves.

But what is MEANT by the Western Civilization being dominant:
1. the Constitution made STATUTORY or PUT INTO WRITING
the universal principles of natural laws governing all humanity.
People USE American historic language for "due process" "equal protection of the laws"
"free exercise of religion" "separation and balance of powers" "no taxation without representation"
"Consent of the Governed" etc etc
to DESCRIBE the universal "DEMOCRATIC PROCESS"

NOTE: If you want other cultural terms for these things, YES you can look into
Native American sources of the Confederation of States concept that US govt is based on,
and even Muslim/Mohammad teachings of natural laws of democracy that predated the US laws
and Constitutional language for these.

What the dominance points to is that the Constitutional language is
more universally and commonly cited as the best way to express these concepts.
Perhaps more liberals would respond to the Muslim or Native American way
of defending democratic principles, but the US cultural language of the law
using the Constitution is historically and globally recognized worldwide
as established institution and principles.

2. The Bible PUT INTO WRITING the spiritual laws that
Jews Christians and Muslims commit to follow as their authority by conscience.

This is a dominant LANGUAGE and authority by which
these tribes rebuke and enforce common standards among their MEMBERS.

in short G.T.
we have church laws and we have state laws.
The Constitution serves as the standard for democratic principles
for the STATE, to CHECK AND BALANCE AGAINST ABUSES
using COMMON LANGUAGE that everyone can learn to defend their rights.

The Bible serves as the central authority for people of
faith to CHECK AND BALANCE and rebuke in cases
of abuses of church or religious authority.

And G.T. America has been dominating in public and global policy
because we are built on both church and state authority
and standards of checking BOTH religious and political authority
against abuses. The Bible is used to hold religious groups
members and leaders to their own policies and correct abuses.
The Constitution is used to hold political groups and govt
to their own policies to correct abuses.

So that's why these two STANDARDS OF LAWS
are predominant. One is to check the church functions
and institutions against religious abuses. One is to check
govt and public policies against abuses of political power.

The Constitution and the Bible happen to put into writing
what are universal principles, laws and process.

G.T. it is an important point that the process of democracy
to reach lasting Peace and Justice is independent of language
in the Bible and the Bill of Rights/Constitution. But these tools
happen to CAPTURE the language of the laws in ways that
more people are able to use to organize agreements in order to correct wrong
to establish "Equal Justice Under Law" or "Peace and Justice for All"
which is what the Bible teaches as the authority under Christ Jesus for all humanity.

Whichever LANGUAGE you use for these laws and Concepts,
they are still universal. But yes, the American tradition of invoking
the Constitution and the Bible is predominant in forging agreement on the laws.
and that is credited to "Western" civilization and culture.

 

[G.T.]

​

To translate this G.T.
YES the natural and universal laws are by definition INDEPENDENT of Western/Judeo-Christian expression.
Or else that is dependent on man made religious language and culture, which isn't universal and isn't the pure laws themselves.

But what is MEANT by the Western Civilization being dominant:
1. the Constitution made STATUTORY or PUT INTO WRITING
the universal principles of natural laws governing all humanity.
People USE American historic language for "due process" "equal protection of the laws"
"free exercise of religion" "separation and balance of powers" "no taxation without representation"
"Consent of the Governed" etc etc
to DESCRIBE the universal "DEMOCRATIC PROCESS"

NOTE: If you want other cultural terms for these things, YES you can look into
Native American sources of the Confederation of States concept that US govt is based on,
and even Muslim/Mohammad teachings of natural laws of democracy that predated the US laws
and Constitutional language for these.

What the dominance points to is that the Constitutional language is
more universally and commonly cited as the best way to express these concepts.
Perhaps more liberals would respond to the Muslim or Native American way
of defending democratic principles, but the US cultural language of the law
using the Constitution is historically and globally recognized worldwide
as established institution and principles.

2. The Bible PUT INTO WRITING the spiritual laws that
Jews Christians and Muslims commit to follow as their authority by conscience.

This is a dominant LANGUAGE and authority by which
these tribes rebuke and enforce common standards among their MEMBERS.

in short G.T.
we have church laws and we have state laws.
The Constitution serves as the standard for democratic principles
for the STATE, to CHECK AND BALANCE AGAINST ABUSES
using COMMON LANGUAGE that everyone can learn to defend their rights.

The Bible serves as the central authority for people of
faith to CHECK AND BALANCE and rebuke in cases
of abuses of church or religious authority.

And G.T. America has been dominating in public and global policy
because we are built on both church and state authority
and standards of checking BOTH religious and political authority
against abuses. The Bible is used to hold religious groups
members and leaders to their own policies and correct abuses.
The Constitution is used to hold political groups and govt
to their own policies to correct abuses.

So that's why these two STANDARDS OF LAWS
are predominant. One is to check the church functions
and institutions against religious abuses. One is to check
govt and public policies against abuses of political power.

The Constitution and the Bible happen to put into writing
what are universal principles, laws and process.

G.T. it is an important point that the process of democracy
to reach lasting Peace and Justice is independent of language
in the Bible and the Bill of Rights/Constitution. But these tools
happen to CAPTURE the language of the laws in ways that
more people are able to use to organize agreements in order to correct wrong
to establish "Equal Justice Under Law" or "Peace and Justice for All"
which is what the Bible teaches as the authority under Christ Jesus for all humanity.

Whichever LANGUAGE you use for these laws and Concepts,
they are still universal. But yes, the American tradition of invoking
the Constitution and the Bible is predominant in forging agreement on the laws.
and that is credited to "Western" civilization and culture.

The Biblical Laws are not uniquely good, and are in many cases bad.

 

[OldLady]

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

What say you?

I remember how things were when I grew up. Most kids are pretty rotten. They have to be taught to be good most of the time.

Good = Doing things that don't harm others
Bad = Doing things that are intended to do harm

Teaching the Golden Rule to children in school would bring out the ACLU and their lawyers.

It starts in Pre-K. Daycare even. Don't be stupid.

I'm reminded of a school in Ohio that had a student get raped during study hall. When the parent found out about it he came down to the school to talk to them. The very first words out of the mouth of the school officials was, "Let's not alert the press, we can handle this". Again, they were more focused on their own welfare than the child's welfare.

The teacher of that study hall said that it was not the job of the school to teach morality. Again, the teacher was only focused on defending herself, not the child.

Can you imagine?

Votto, I'm not sure how you made the leap from teaching simple empathy (the Golden Rule) to this situation. The teacher (the principal or superintendent, more like) was trying to protect the school district's reputation but not alerting the press doesn't preclude the child being protected.
I don't agree that humans are born good. I believe we are taught to be good and that the negative consequences of laws are pretty much there to curb the antisocial instincts in all of us.

 

[emilynghiem]

​

To translate this G.T.
YES the natural and universal laws are by definition INDEPENDENT of Western/Judeo-Christian expression.
Or else that is dependent on man made religious language and culture, which isn't universal and isn't the pure laws themselves.

But what is MEANT by the Western Civilization being dominant:
1. the Constitution made STATUTORY or PUT INTO WRITING
the universal principles of natural laws governing all humanity.
People USE American historic language for "due process" "equal protection of the laws"
"free exercise of religion" "separation and balance of powers" "no taxation without representation"
"Consent of the Governed" etc etc
to DESCRIBE the universal "DEMOCRATIC PROCESS"

NOTE: If you want other cultural terms for these things, YES you can look into
Native American sources of the Confederation of States concept that US govt is based on,
and even Muslim/Mohammad teachings of natural laws of democracy that predated the US laws
and Constitutional language for these.

What the dominance points to is that the Constitutional language is
more universally and commonly cited as the best way to express these concepts.
Perhaps more liberals would respond to the Muslim or Native American way
of defending democratic principles, but the US cultural language of the law
using the Constitution is historically and globally recognized worldwide
as established institution and principles.

2. The Bible PUT INTO WRITING the spiritual laws that
Jews Christians and Muslims commit to follow as their authority by conscience.

This is a dominant LANGUAGE and authority by which
these tribes rebuke and enforce common standards among their MEMBERS.

in short G.T.
we have church laws and we have state laws.
The Constitution serves as the standard for democratic principles
for the STATE, to CHECK AND BALANCE AGAINST ABUSES
using COMMON LANGUAGE that everyone can learn to defend their rights.

The Bible serves as the central authority for people of
faith to CHECK AND BALANCE and rebuke in cases
of abuses of church or religious authority.

And G.T. America has been dominating in public and global policy
because we are built on both church and state authority
and standards of checking BOTH religious and political authority
against abuses. The Bible is used to hold religious groups
members and leaders to their own policies and correct abuses.
The Constitution is used to hold political groups and govt
to their own policies to correct abuses.

So that's why these two STANDARDS OF LAWS
are predominant. One is to check the church functions
and institutions against religious abuses. One is to check
govt and public policies against abuses of political power.

The Constitution and the Bible happen to put into writing
what are universal principles, laws and process.

G.T. it is an important point that the process of democracy
to reach lasting Peace and Justice is independent of language
in the Bible and the Bill of Rights/Constitution. But these tools
happen to CAPTURE the language of the laws in ways that
more people are able to use to organize agreements in order to correct wrong
to establish "Equal Justice Under Law" or "Peace and Justice for All"
which is what the Bible teaches as the authority under Christ Jesus for all humanity.

Whichever LANGUAGE you use for these laws and Concepts,
they are still universal. But yes, the American tradition of invoking
the Constitution and the Bible is predominant in forging agreement on the laws.
and that is credited to "Western" civilization and culture.

The Biblical Laws are not uniquely good, and are in many cases bad.

Dear G.T. See Matthew 18:15-20
With both good and bad interpretations going on,
the good is used to check and correct the bad.
Christians are called to establish agreement in truth,
and the truth shall set us free from error and division,
and conflict and suffering that comes in cycles from that.

 

[G.T.]

​

To translate this G.T.
YES the natural and universal laws are by definition INDEPENDENT of Western/Judeo-Christian expression.
Or else that is dependent on man made religious language and culture, which isn't universal and isn't the pure laws themselves.

But what is MEANT by the Western Civilization being dominant:
1. the Constitution made STATUTORY or PUT INTO WRITING
the universal principles of natural laws governing all humanity.
People USE American historic language for "due process" "equal protection of the laws"
"free exercise of religion" "separation and balance of powers" "no taxation without representation"
"Consent of the Governed" etc etc
to DESCRIBE the universal "DEMOCRATIC PROCESS"

NOTE: If you want other cultural terms for these things, YES you can look into
Native American sources of the Confederation of States concept that US govt is based on,
and even Muslim/Mohammad teachings of natural laws of democracy that predated the US laws
and Constitutional language for these.

What the dominance points to is that the Constitutional language is
more universally and commonly cited as the best way to express these concepts.
Perhaps more liberals would respond to the Muslim or Native American way
of defending democratic principles, but the US cultural language of the law
using the Constitution is historically and globally recognized worldwide
as established institution and principles.

2. The Bible PUT INTO WRITING the spiritual laws that
Jews Christians and Muslims commit to follow as their authority by conscience.

This is a dominant LANGUAGE and authority by which
these tribes rebuke and enforce common standards among their MEMBERS.

in short G.T.
we have church laws and we have state laws.
The Constitution serves as the standard for democratic principles
for the STATE, to CHECK AND BALANCE AGAINST ABUSES
using COMMON LANGUAGE that everyone can learn to defend their rights.

The Bible serves as the central authority for people of
faith to CHECK AND BALANCE and rebuke in cases
of abuses of church or religious authority.

And G.T. America has been dominating in public and global policy
because we are built on both church and state authority
and standards of checking BOTH religious and political authority
against abuses. The Bible is used to hold religious groups
members and leaders to their own policies and correct abuses.
The Constitution is used to hold political groups and govt
to their own policies to correct abuses.

So that's why these two STANDARDS OF LAWS
are predominant. One is to check the church functions
and institutions against religious abuses. One is to check
govt and public policies against abuses of political power.

The Constitution and the Bible happen to put into writing
what are universal principles, laws and process.

G.T. it is an important point that the process of democracy
to reach lasting Peace and Justice is independent of language
in the Bible and the Bill of Rights/Constitution. But these tools
happen to CAPTURE the language of the laws in ways that
more people are able to use to organize agreements in order to correct wrong
to establish "Equal Justice Under Law" or "Peace and Justice for All"
which is what the Bible teaches as the authority under Christ Jesus for all humanity.

Whichever LANGUAGE you use for these laws and Concepts,
they are still universal. But yes, the American tradition of invoking
the Constitution and the Bible is predominant in forging agreement on the laws.
and that is credited to "Western" civilization and culture.

The Biblical Laws are not uniquely good, and are in many cases bad.

Dear G.T. See Matthew 18:15-20
With both good and bad interpretations going on,
the good is used to check and correct the bad.
Christians are called to establish agreement in truth,
and the truth shall set us free from error and division,
and conflict and suffering that comes in cycles from that.

I'm not interested in debating Religious dogma at the moment, Emily. That could be, perhaps, for another time girl.

 

[Crepitus]

We have the chioce to be either, but we are not inherently good or bad.

Would you say that the Holocaust was bad or good or are you arguing that Hitler had his good points?

Hitler chose to be evil. Why did you bring him into it? What are you trying to say?

Hitler is used because he is seen as universally evil. Really no other figure compares.

However, Jesus is seen as universally good, yet he said not to call himself good which I find thoroughly fascinating.

That is why I brought these two up in conversation.

As for Hitler, as I pointed out, he thought that he was doing "good", did he not?

Surely he knew putting people in ovens was wrong.

Jesus was not a real person as far as I know.

So we all know that throwing people in ovens is evil? Really?

Don't look now, but today we put aborted babies in furnaces to heat our buildings.

Shocking Report Shows 15,000 Aborted Babies Incinerated to Heat British Hospitals | LifeNews.com

Is this wrong? My guess is that since you are not a Christian, you think that the unborn are not really people. And if they are not really people, there is no problem with throwing them in ovens.

If so, the Nazi regime thought the exact same way you do. For the Nazi, Jews were not really people either.

Drawing false equivalency isn't helpful.

 

[Votto]

It starts in Pre-K. Daycare even. Don't be stupid.

Exactly, there's plenty of innate good you see in children.

The bottom line is, we are all born with an inner voice that tells us what is good or bad, unless they are a select few who are sociopaths who go onto a political career.

However, we all, at some point, violate this voice, do we not?

So to be "bad', how many times must we violate this inner voice or does it only come down to the severity of the infraction?

You spent your first two sentences here agreeing with my initial claim, which you proceeded to spend 15 non-sequitur posts attempting to debunk.

The last sentence is a question of subjective opinion, one which I've already answered: "people are BASICALLY" GOOD.

That means, that most of the time for most people, we go ahead and listen to the voice.

You fail to define what is good. How many times not listening to the voice do you become bad, or does it depend on the severity of their crime?

For example, is a pathological liar bad or a one time murderer?

I defined good in my first post in this thread.

To determine if someone, specifically, is a bad person, would be a completely subjective endeavor (an opinion), i.e. there is not transcendent "fact" of the matter but only opinions either subjectively supported using arbitrary criteria, or wholly unsupported.

Back to my definition of good, a "bad person" to me would be a person who causes needless suffering of others, in abundance of either frequency or scale.

So here was your definition of good.

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution

So what if the God of the Bible was doing the same? Who is to say that he did not cause the least amount of suffering?

Do you see the problem here? Who is to say what the least amount of suffering is?

In addition, when someone is hurting, do they really give a damn? No, they are just focused on the suffering.

There still is then the problem of defining good. It reminds me of Obama who said that we needed a stimulus package to stop the economic suffering. His predictions that so many jobs would be created fell short, but at the end of the day, he said that it would have been far worse had he not implemented the policy.

So who is to say?

 

[G.T.]

Exactly, there's plenty of innate good you see in children.

The bottom line is, we are all born with an inner voice that tells us what is good or bad, unless they are a select few who are sociopaths who go onto a political career.

However, we all, at some point, violate this voice, do we not?

So to be "bad', how many times must we violate this inner voice or does it only come down to the severity of the infraction?

You spent your first two sentences here agreeing with my initial claim, which you proceeded to spend 15 non-sequitur posts attempting to debunk.

The last sentence is a question of subjective opinion, one which I've already answered: "people are BASICALLY" GOOD.

That means, that most of the time for most people, we go ahead and listen to the voice.

You fail to define what is good. How many times not listening to the voice do you become bad, or does it depend on the severity of their crime?

For example, is a pathological liar bad or a one time murderer?

I defined good in my first post in this thread.

To determine if someone, specifically, is a bad person, would be a completely subjective endeavor (an opinion), i.e. there is not transcendent "fact" of the matter but only opinions either subjectively supported using arbitrary criteria, or wholly unsupported.

Back to my definition of good, a "bad person" to me would be a person who causes needless suffering of others, in abundance of either frequency or scale.

So here was your definition of good.

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution

So what if the God of the Bible was doing the same? Who is to say that he did not cause the least amount of suffering?

Do you see the problem here? Who is to say what the least amount of suffering is?

In addition, when someone is hurting, do they really give a damn? No, they are just focused on the suffering.

There still is then the problem of defining good. It reminds me of Obama who said that we needed a stimulus package to stop the economic suffering. His predictions that so many jobs would be created fell short, but at the end of the day, he said that it would have been far worse had he not implemented the policy.

So who is to say?

I dont have to make any reference to supernatural hearsay to have this conversation. Your god comments are irrelevant to me.

"who is to say what the least amount of suffering is"

Well, there's ways to measure these things. Pain, for one, is measurable. Consequences, for two. There's observation, data collection, and reasoning. You take two scenarios and run them through analysis. This is not really a problem, we've done quite well going from being cave men to sending folks to the moon.

This isn't a problem for defining good, it's your inability to think critically.

 

[Votto]

The bottom line is, we are all born with an inner voice that tells us what is good or bad, unless they are a select few who are sociopaths who go onto a political career.

However, we all, at some point, violate this voice, do we not?

So to be "bad', how many times must we violate this inner voice or does it only come down to the severity of the infraction?

You spent your first two sentences here agreeing with my initial claim, which you proceeded to spend 15 non-sequitur posts attempting to debunk.

The last sentence is a question of subjective opinion, one which I've already answered: "people are BASICALLY" GOOD.

That means, that most of the time for most people, we go ahead and listen to the voice.

You fail to define what is good. How many times not listening to the voice do you become bad, or does it depend on the severity of their crime?

For example, is a pathological liar bad or a one time murderer?

I defined good in my first post in this thread.

To determine if someone, specifically, is a bad person, would be a completely subjective endeavor (an opinion), i.e. there is not transcendent "fact" of the matter but only opinions either subjectively supported using arbitrary criteria, or wholly unsupported.

Back to my definition of good, a "bad person" to me would be a person who causes needless suffering of others, in abundance of either frequency or scale.

So here was your definition of good.

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution

So what if the God of the Bible was doing the same? Who is to say that he did not cause the least amount of suffering?

Do you see the problem here? Who is to say what the least amount of suffering is?

In addition, when someone is hurting, do they really give a damn? No, they are just focused on the suffering.

There still is then the problem of defining good. It reminds me of Obama who said that we needed a stimulus package to stop the economic suffering. His predictions that so many jobs would be created fell short, but at the end of the day, he said that it would have been far worse had he not implemented the policy.

So who is to say?

I dont have to make any reference to supernatural hearsay to have this conversation. Your god comments are irrelevant to me.

"who is to say what the least amount of suffering is"

Well, there's ways to measure these things. Pain, for one, is measurable. Consequences, for two. There's observation, data collection, and reasoning. You take two scenarios and run them through analysis. This is not really a problem, we've done quite well going from being cave men to sending folks to the moon.

This isn't a problem for defining good, it's your inability to think critically.

You seem to be rather harsh regarding the cave men.

Tell me, who has the most capacity to cause human harm? Is it the cave man, or is it those who have learned to exploit fossil fuels, thus causing global warming? Is it the Neanderthal or Oppenheim that created the A-bomb?

In the Garden of Eden, we are told of man's down fall. It was eating of the forbidden fruit, which ironically, was the tree of knowledge.

Could it be that knowledge, devoid of wisdom, causes the greatest harm of all?

 

[harmonica]

humans are basically animals
...most things we do--even charitable things/for our family/etc we do to make ourselves feel good
...I kind of change my answer to not good, not bad
...serial killers kill for the thrill/high/to feel good--they ''need'' that high
..others murder out of passion-- very human --they get MAD
..''bad'' people steal for many reasons--some because they did not have parents that raised them ''correctly''....they are products of their socioeconomic life
...most murders in my city are in the black/poor areas
why not equally distributed throughout the city????!!! --

Speaking of animals, is it OK to lock them up and kill and eat them?

Is that considered good or bad or neither?

I wouldn't lock up animals-but I eat them

It is one of the questions that most concerns me, do you view humans as glorified animals or a creation distinct from the animal kingdom that was made in the image of God?

That is an important question to answer because if human beings are merely animals, then you can treat them as such. If not, then we have innate rights that separate us from the animal kingdom.

very complicated/etc question
...but--I think more animal than a lot of people want to believe/feel comfortable with believing
..I believe most of these questions and answers are far beyond our comprehension

..we have many serial killers with genius IQs--what's with this?? physiological + mental wires gone haywire? from my readings, they kill for power/a mental high/etc--not so much for the sex
...some murder for passion--
...the ex-husbands murder for revenge/stop the pain/etc
..stopping pain seems to be a reason for suicide and murders
then we have wars that kill millions--humans running around the jungle--trying to KILL other humans
..digging into the ground like animals...hiding like animals...hiding in ambush like animals
..living and 'feeling; and killing '''like'' animals.....?--''needing'' to be like animals

 

[G.T.]

You spent your first two sentences here agreeing with my initial claim, which you proceeded to spend 15 non-sequitur posts attempting to debunk.

The last sentence is a question of subjective opinion, one which I've already answered: "people are BASICALLY" GOOD.

That means, that most of the time for most people, we go ahead and listen to the voice.

You fail to define what is good. How many times not listening to the voice do you become bad, or does it depend on the severity of their crime?

For example, is a pathological liar bad or a one time murderer?

I defined good in my first post in this thread.

To determine if someone, specifically, is a bad person, would be a completely subjective endeavor (an opinion), i.e. there is not transcendent "fact" of the matter but only opinions either subjectively supported using arbitrary criteria, or wholly unsupported.

Back to my definition of good, a "bad person" to me would be a person who causes needless suffering of others, in abundance of either frequency or scale.

So here was your definition of good.

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution

So what if the God of the Bible was doing the same? Who is to say that he did not cause the least amount of suffering?

Do you see the problem here? Who is to say what the least amount of suffering is?

In addition, when someone is hurting, do they really give a damn? No, they are just focused on the suffering.

There still is then the problem of defining good. It reminds me of Obama who said that we needed a stimulus package to stop the economic suffering. His predictions that so many jobs would be created fell short, but at the end of the day, he said that it would have been far worse had he not implemented the policy.

So who is to say?

I dont have to make any reference to supernatural hearsay to have this conversation. Your god comments are irrelevant to me.

"who is to say what the least amount of suffering is"

Well, there's ways to measure these things. Pain, for one, is measurable. Consequences, for two. There's observation, data collection, and reasoning. You take two scenarios and run them through analysis. This is not really a problem, we've done quite well going from being cave men to sending folks to the moon.

This isn't a problem for defining good, it's your inability to think critically.

You seem to be rather harsh regarding the cave men.

Tell me, who has the most capacity to cause human harm? Is it the cave man, or is it those who have learned to exploit fossil fuels, thus causing global warming? Is it the Neanderthal or Oppenheim that created the A-bomb?

In the Garden of Eden, we are told of man's down fall. It was eating of the forbidden fruit, which ironically, was the tree of knowledge.

Could it be that knowledge, devoid of wisdom, causes the greatest harm of all?

The stupid here in your post really, really fuckin hurts.

 

[ding]

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

What say you?

Man knows right from wrong; good from evil. He is born a moral being and is hard wired for morality.

Man knows right from wrong so much so that when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. That's how much man knows right from wrong and prefers right over wrong.

 

[ding]

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

What say you?

Evil, like cold and darkness are not extant. They do not exist by themselves, they exist as the absence of something else. Darkness is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. And evil is the absence of good. So to answer your question, man is good as evil is not extant.

 

[MarathonMike]

There are some Biblical sayings that ring true. In this context "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" comes to mind.

 

[ding]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

No, it is due to standards which exist independent of man. Standards which are discovered through a conflict and confusion process and provide functional advantage. These standards are not a result of evolution. Man discovering these standards and passing them down are a result of "bio and socio" evolution.

There are two components to natural selection; functional advantage and the transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.

 

[G.T.]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

No, it is due to standards which exist independent of man. Standards which are discovered through a conflict and confusion process and provide functional advantage. These standards are not a result of evolution. Man discovering these standards and passing them down are a result of "bio and socio" evolution.

There are two components to natural selection; functional advantage and the transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.

i dont care what you have to say in any discussion, youre flame zone fodder and too fuckin irrational, sloganeer driven and stubborn for rational conversation

go impress the religious with your slogans

 

[G.T.]

There are some Biblical sayings that ring true. In this context "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" comes to mind.

how would you define spirit? would it require a mind? have you verified it exists? what method(s) did you use, if so?