who decides what is good and what is bad?

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: lokiju

Originally posted by: randomint

Originally posted by: paulxcook
I assume you're looking for a non-religious answer?

if possible, yes.

i understand the golden rule or the ethics of reciprocity which humans learned at very early stage and then were later cemented in various religions.

but outside of religion, is this a natural result of evolution? that overtime humans learned this through experience?

I think it's a somewhat necessary part of human evolution honestly.

Otherwise we're just a bunch of savage animals IMO.

Social constructs for social evolution is discussed in many books.

**EDIT**
Kant

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JS80
Social construction is made up bullshvt used as an excuse for pervert men to have sex with boys.

Just like Catholicism!

ZV <-- Christian, but can never resist a good joke at his own expense.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: Canun

Originally posted by: manowar821
The golden rule does not need to be a religious term or rule. I'm an atheist, and I try my best to follow it.

I also believe in eye-for-an-eye, though...

But how did the golden rule come about? Animals usually get along, except when food, territory, or mating come into play.

Money is what has the human race screwed up.

 

[randomint]

Originally posted by: DaShen
Social constructs for social evolution is discussed in many books.

**EDIT**
Kant

kant argues that a moral sense is not possible without believing in a supernatural being. see "a critique of practical reason".

 

[jmanny]

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson

 

[Mxylplyx]

I decide what is good and bad.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: randomint

Originally posted by: DaShen
Social constructs for social evolution is discussed in many books.

**EDIT**
Kant

kant argues that a moral sense is not possible without believing in a supernatural being. see "a critique of practical reason".

I'd argue that this is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on a forum for a while... And you know the internet, it's FULL of ridiculous people.

 

[randomint]

Originally posted by: manowar821
I'd argue that this is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on a forum for a while... And you know the internet, it's FULL of ridiculous people.

but remember i'm not the one saying this, kant is.

 

[paulxcook]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: randomint

Originally posted by: DaShen
Social constructs for social evolution is discussed in many books.

**EDIT**
Kant

kant argues that a moral sense is not possible without believing in a supernatural being. see "a critique of practical reason".

I'd argue that this is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on a forum for a while... And you know the internet, it's FULL of ridiculous people.

I'd argue that it's perfectly logical. Which of us is right? What is right? What is truth? Is it based on majority opinion? What about a 51/49 split? Without a higher 3rd party to determine truth, right, and wrong, how can any of these concepts exist as anything other than popular opinion?

edit: I'd also love to see any ATOTer go toe to toe with Kant.

 

[randomint]

Originally posted by: paulxcook

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: randomint

Originally posted by: DaShen
Social constructs for social evolution is discussed in many books.

**EDIT**
Kant

kant argues that a moral sense is not possible without believing in a supernatural being. see "a critique of practical reason".

I'd argue that this is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on a forum for a while... And you know the internet, it's FULL of ridiculous people.

I'd argue that it's perfectly logical. Which of us is right? What is right? What is truth? Is it based on majority opinion? What about a 51/49 split? Without a higher 3rd party to determine truth, right, and wrong, how can any of these concepts exist as anything other than popular opinion?

edit: I'd also love to see any ATOTer go toe to toe with Kant.

yes i have been studying this issue for some time now and the only explanation that seems complete comes from a religious point of view, i.e. the existence of a being higher than us telling us what is right and what is wrong.

however the overwhelming majority of ATOT would vehemently reject this.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: paulxcook

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: randomint

Originally posted by: DaShen
Social constructs for social evolution is discussed in many books.

**EDIT**
Kant

kant argues that a moral sense is not possible without believing in a supernatural being. see "a critique of practical reason".

I'd argue that this is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on a forum for a while... And you know the internet, it's FULL of ridiculous people.

I'd argue that it's perfectly logical. Which of us is right? What is right? What is truth? Is it based on majority opinion? What about a 51/49 split? Without a higher 3rd party to determine truth, right, and wrong, how can any of these concepts exist as anything other than popular opinion?

I understand what you're saying. Without the existence of a higher power that CAN make these rules, they're simply going to be arbitrary rules made up by human imagination.

However, I'd like to say that it SHOULD simple common sense that one should not steal, kill, rape, or otherwise do evil to others. It's built into our minds from birth, being that we're a social species. We STRIVE for positive social interaction, and kindness naturally must come from that desire.

 

[leftyman]

Tao Te Ching

Not praising the worthy prevents contention,
Not esteeming the valuable prevents theft,
Not displaying the beautiful prevents desire.

In this manner the sage governs people:
Emptying their minds,
Filling their bellies,
Weakening their ambitions,
And strengthening their bones.

If people lack knowledge and desire
Then they can not act;
If no action is taken
Harmony remains.

 

[randomint]

Originally posted by: manowar821
However, I'd like to say that it SHOULD simple common sense that one should not steal, kill, rape, or otherwise do evil to others. It's built into our minds from birth, being that we're a social species. We STRIVE for positive social interaction, and kindness naturally must come from that desire.

now you are sliding off into even murkier waters because to argue that it's "built into" us, then who "created" us? Did he ingrain into us this moral sense?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: JS80
God does. Social construction is made up bullshvt used as an excuse for pervert men to have sex with boys.

Ban

Do you like taking vacations to Thailand?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: randomint

Originally posted by: manowar821
However, I'd like to say that it SHOULD simple common sense that one should not steal, kill, rape, or otherwise do evil to others. It's built into our minds from birth, being that we're a social species. We STRIVE for positive social interaction, and kindness naturally must come from that desire.

now you are sliding off into even murkier waters because to argue that it's "built into" us, then who "created" us? Did he ingrain into us this moral sense?

No no, I'm not saying god did anything, I'm talking about WITHOUT god.

I'm saying that all social species on this planet have been observed to be mostly peaceful among their own kind. It's as if they've evolved a notion of what is good, and what is not good to do to one another, based on what will be most beneficial to the society as a whole...

Human beings are not exempt from being classified as a species of this planet, and as such, we can be labeled as a social species. Social species have an inherent knowledge of what is acceptable behavior, more likely taught by their parents. However, even as a baby, you can see from the moment their born that they wish to be loved. And how do we get love, in life? We GIVE love.

It's survival, it's natural.

 

[Dufusyte]

God determines what is good and bad, and since God created all things, there is some awareness of good and bad built into all things.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: randomint
if you were to raise up a child in total isolation from the rest of the world, would he know what is good and what is bad? how would he know that murder, stealing is bad and helping others etc. is good? i guess what i'm trying to say is that how did humans acquire the ocncept of good and evil in the first place?

we know it because we are taught this by our parents, peers, school, environment, media but how did human scome to know this? assuming of course that no mythical/supernatural being told us.

Basic morality (the golden rule) is very simple. We don't want people doing these things to us, therefore we do not do it to them. It's the only way a society can remain civil.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure it out. Morality is rooted in pure selfishness. Not religion, not altruism, but selfishness. I do not want to be murdered, therefore murder is bad. I do not want my stuff stolen, therefore stealing is bad.

According to Lawrence Kohlberg, Selfishness only represents the first level (of three) of moral development