What good have humans done?

[Avatar]

Fair enough, and I certainly don't disagree that "good" and "evil" are social constructs, just as "right" and "wrong" are. Murder, without a law against it (or a religious injunction for that matter) would simply "be".

And although I also agree that we are part of nature, and spread at the expense of other "natural" things, I think we have long since passed the point where we are subject to the checks and balances that nature usually applies to other species.

If weeds proliferate, the bugs that live on them do too, as do the small predators that rely on the bugs. I think that on the whole, most of nature automatically falls into "harmony". Species spread, or die back, as their environment permits.

Overpopulation of a species eventually leads to starvation, until the "natural balance" is restored. Although in a sense, the same could still apply to humanity, we do our best to interfere. i.e. sending food aid, ect. We are not permitting adaption to changing environments, we are attempting to force the environment to acommodate us.

[Revan]

Darth,

When you ask "What good have humans done?" I would ask "from who's perspective?". Answer that question and I will address your concerns.

From the Earths. From natures... from all animals on this plain of existance... Just to name a few. Also from our own.

[Avatar]

...Because all morality is opinion. As is the concept of right and wrong.

As I often say, it's ALL a matter of perspective.

--A

[ZefaLefeLaH]

If by saying 'if we had no law against [murder]', you mean if our society did not consider it wrong, then it would still not be 'right'. It would be neither right nor wrong, since right and wrong are concepts we ourselves have created. There is no 'right' or 'wrong', no 'good' or 'evil'. No act has any inherent value or meaning.

Hmm… somehow I think that if I pulled rusty barbed-wire over your mother’s face for awhile, you’d start to change your point of view pretty quickly. Or if I ran into your burning home to save your 16month old son, that you might change your view pretty quickly.

Oh it’s easy to say, no I wouldn’t when there isn’t a situation in your life right now when something someone did greatly affected you. I’ve always hated it when someone I care about does something to me or against me and they cannot see past their own nose to have the simple empathy to turn the table and feel the pain they’ve caused me. So it’s easy for you to say, no I wouldn’t feel any different about it. But, in fact, when people have great or terrible things affecting their lives, we do indeed view them as heroic and good or criminal and evil.

From my point of view, your nihilistic viewpoint arises from your atheist perspective. If there is no God, then there is no right or wrong, good or evil. But now, because you have these values in your life, anything that you do is an “act has any inherent value or meaning”. This is a very sad way to perceive your existence. It is without hope; with the only outcome being that you would eventually grow old, in a body that is in constant dull pain, only to die and lose everything that was you. Does it seem wise or educated to believe in this hopeless viewpoint of inevitable, complete loss? What benefit does it give to live a life that attaches no significance to your actions? And does the person truly believe it in the first place? I mean, if it were truly the way a person believed, then s/he would be always looking for shortcuts to pleasure, seeing that their lives were merely transient shells of mortality with no need for morality. I mean, why not thieve, rape, kill, drive recklessly, imbibe illegal drugs, lie perpetually for self-gain, and otherwise do anything and everything to amass riches, toss women aside because you met another, or have sex with men too, animals as well, and always live your life for the gain of pleasure and nothing more. If you truly believed that no action was good or evil, then you would live as you believed. Cut your wrists, just to see the blood flow, right in front of a hospital , knowing that they would be shocked at your audacity, and pleasure yourself with every seemingly evil pleasure simply because evil does not exist, and bathe in it like a pig in the mud, urine, and feces of his own helpless ignorance. That doesn’t seem like much of a life, even if you do enjoy it. It seems like the epitome of selfishness.

[Avatar]

If by saying 'if we had no law against [murder]', you mean if our society did not consider it wrong, then it would still not be 'right'. It would be neither right nor wrong, since right and wrong are concepts we ourselves have created. There is no 'right' or 'wrong', no 'good' or 'evil'. No act has any inherent value or meaning.

Hmm… somehow I think that if I pulled rusty barbed-wire over your mother’s face for awhile, you’d start to change your point of view pretty quickly. Or if I ran into your burning home to save your 16month old son, that you might change your view pretty quickly.

I think you've got the wrong take on this one, he's not saying that he doesn't consider those things wrong, just that an act in itself is nothing without the context of our society.

To illustrate this, there is a certain tribe in Africa, the Masai, who spit in each others faces as a form of greeting. To us, it's one of the most contemptuous insults, to them, its perfectly normal.

Our world, our social environment, our conditioning, all contribute to the way that we percieve any action.

And not believing in god doesn't necessarily have any affect on a persons morality. The point is not how we could live, but how we choose to live.

--Avatar

[Nathan]

I mean, why not thieve, rape, kill, drive recklessly, imbibe illegal drugs, lie perpetually for self-gain, and otherwise do anything and everything to amass riches, toss women aside because you met another, or have sex with men too, animals as well, and always live your life for the gain of pleasure and nothing more. If you truly believed that no action was good or evil, then you would live as you believed. Cut your wrists, just to see the blood flow, right in front of a hospital , knowing that they would be shocked at your audacity, and pleasure yourself with every seemingly evil pleasure simply because evil does not exist, and bathe in it like a pig in the mud, urine, and feces of his own helpless ignorance. That doesn’t seem like much of a life, even if you do enjoy it. It seems like the epitome of selfishness.

I would do all these things if I thought it would be worth it in the long run. I don't do them because society places a sign above them saying "if you do this you will suffer". Also because I am intelligent enough to know that just because actions have no real good/evil orientation doesn't mean that I won't be punished if society thinks they do.

[Avatar]

So only the threat of punishment prevents you from murdering/raping etc.?

No moral convictions of your own that suggest to you that it may not be a nice way to conduct your life? No thoughts that perhaps others have the same right not to have these things done to them that you do?

If we removed the social/legal injunctions against these things, would you then do them? And be equally happy to have them done to you?

--Avatar

[Nathan]

No moral convictions of your own that suggest to you that it may not be a nice way to conduct your life? No thoughts that perhaps others have the same right not to have these things done to them that you do? If we removed the social/legal injunctions against these things, would you then do them? And be equally happy to have them done to you?

My moral convictions are a result of mass social opinion on these things. My opinion of 'evil' is a rough copy of society's opinion of evil, therefore I would feel guilty for performing the actions because it has been built into me that such things are wrong. If the pleasure of the action outweighed the guilt then I would do them, if the legal/social injunctions against them were removed.
However, since the injunctions stem from society's opinion of evil, they wouldn't have existed if society didn't view the acts as evil, therefore I wouldn't have felt the guilt of doing them.

If there were no social/legal injunctions against them and therefore no social opinion that the actions were evil I wouldn't have any reason to feel guilt about doing them (Unless my personal beliefs about good and evil covered the subject).

I'm using good and evil subjectively here, good for each person/institution, not good in a pure sense as christianity would call it.

[Avatar]

Why not then apply yourself to your own definition of "evil"? There's no requirement that you accept societies view on "evil" or any other moral question. One is responsible for one's own opinions. As long as you evaluate them often, in order to make sure you still feel the same way, and don't simply accept them out of habit.

Society has no monopoly on "right" and "wrong". Indeed, I'm of the opinion that all too often, societies idea is based on habit and conformity. Challenge them!

To rely on society to tell you what you should feel guilty about seems a cop-out to me. It may be very difficult to overcome social conditioning, but doing so doesn't mean that you have to reject everything that society tells you. Some of the "rules" are quite sensible. The trick lies in sorting them out.

As I've said before, obey the sensible laws, and ignore the obnoxious ones. Laws against murder are fairly sensible. They protect you as well. (In theory at least).

You didn't mention how you would feel about these things being done to you though.

--Avatar

[I'm Murrin]

Zef - Avatar is right. I did not say that I personally do not perceive any act as 'right' or 'wrong' - I stated that no act is inherently so. Acts only have the value we assign them. I doubt the rest of reality is concerned about what we do to each other.

[Avatar]

I doubt the rest of reality is concerned about what we do to each other.

Of course, this could open up a whole new question: What is reality? Is reality really "real", or is it, as I maintain, a consensual hallucination that humanity as a whole have subconciously agreed upon?

[Nathan]

Of course, this could open up a whole new question: What is reality? Is reality really "real", or is it, as I maintain, a consensual hallucination that humanity as a whole have subconciously agreed upon?

You're not serious are you?

[Avatar]

Completely. Think about it:

Physics tells us that every solid in the universe is composed of billions of tiny particles, with BIG gaps in between them. Yet despite the presence of these big gaps, if nothing else, should at least render objects porous. In "reality", nothing is solid or stable. Ask any Quantum Physicist.

The only reason that we can't walk through walls, or on water, is that we are so indoctrinated into believing it impossible, that our belief makes it so

If we really believed that we could (and I'm not talking about belief in a religious sense, or in an opinion held, but in the sense of knowing it in our bones) there is nothing to prevent us from walking on water. Unfortunatley, we know in our bones that walls are solid. Thus, they are.

Wierd huh?

[Nathan]

The only reason that we can't walk through walls, or on water, is that we are so indoctrinated into believing it impossible, that our belief makes it so

That's absurd.
We cannot walk through walls because we too are made of billions of atoms with lots of space between them. The force we feel when we touch something is the repulsive effect between electrons. Why don't the atoms of the wall fill the holes in your body? Sometimes they do, but mainly the electrons of the outer surface of the wall repel the electrons of your skin and prevent them from touching.

[Avatar]

Thats not the point dude. The point is that it is theoretically possible to pass through something, because it's not solid as the definition would have us believe.

Quantum physics exists to explain why we don't fall through the floor, or get catapulted into space when we take a step (those atoms are in constant motion aren't they?).

It's a shared illusion. When I get a chance, I'll dig out something that illustrates the concept of a consensual hallucination as reality, and post it somewhere.

Half-serious -- Completely serious -- not serious. I can't always make up my mind.

Take it easy
--Avatar

[Nathan]

The point is that it is theoretically possible to pass through something because it's not solid as the definition would have us believe.

Solid? What do you mean by solid?
Solid at the macroscopic level is distinctly different from solid at the microscopic level.
It doesn't matter whether it is solid microscopically because the forces in motion cause the effect of solidity at the macroscopic level, the level we see, feel and touch.

[A Gunslinger]

The point is that it is theoretically possible to pass through something because it's not solid as the definition would have us believe.

Solid? What do you mean by solid?
Solid at the macroscopic level is distinctly different from solid at the microscopic level.
It doesn't matter whether it is solid microscopically because the forces in motion cause the effect of solidity at the macroscopic level, the level we see, feel and touch.

YAWN!

Back to topic: There is plenty that man has done and created that is good.

Art

Medicine

etc

The problem is that we also created concepts like money that have driven us to greed and evil.

If we survive the next few centuries, I belive the good we have created will finally empower mankind to greatness, and allow us to surpass the need to create financial winners on the backs of predetermined losers.

[Brinn]

Gunslinger,

I agree that man has done much that is good and I think you list some fine examples but I disagree with your view of money as evil.

I don't think that money is evil as it is merely a marker or reward for production. Do you feel that being productive is evil?

Greed, envy and "evil" would exist without money as they are part and parcel of the human condition.Whether we talk about an economy based in trade (greed and envy still present as those with more to trade in effect become "the wealthy") or one based solely upon survival of the fittest (Physical intimidation and violence become the norm which makes the strongest and most vicious "the wealthy") it can be seen that currency is not the cause of greed nor "evil". IMHO, the root of "evil" is the desire for that which has not been earned and/or is undeserved.

[A Gunslinger]

Gunslinger,

I agree that man has done much that is good and I think you list some fine examples but I disagree with your view of money as evil.

I don't think that money is evil as it is merely a marker or reward for production. Do you feel that being productive is evil?

Greed, envy and "evil" would exist without money as they are part and parcel of the human condition.Whether we talk about an economy based in trade (greed and envy still present as those with more to trade in effect become "the wealthy") or one based solely upon survival of the fittest (Physical intimidation and violence become the norm which makes the strongest and most vicious "the wealthy") it can be seen that currency is not the cause of greed nor "evil". IMHO, the root of "evil" is the desire for that which has not been earned and/or is undeserved.

Money, in and of itself is not evil. I meant not to imply such. Money and our financial infrastructure(s) have created a breeding ground which exacerbates, IN FACT ENCOURAGES, evil and the enhancement of at least two of the deadly sins (Greed and Gluttony inclusive)

The reason men such as Ken Lay, or any other individual or group to defraud their employees, robbing them of their rightfully generated resources is because our money-driven culture and it's lazzie faire institutions allow it. This of course begs the question of what truly is evil?

I would submit that any action that knowingly will destroy the existence of any other person or group for the benefit of yourself is indeed evil. Eveyone knows that killing those not marked for death is evil. It doesn't make it any less so (IMHO) if the killing is done immediately or over a longer span of time by degrees.

Being productive ...evil? No. No way. Producing products that cause sickness and/or death in an absence of eduacation of the dangers? I do think that that is evil. A great example would be when tobacco Companies Management structure would seek to hide the carcengenic qualities of their product. At the time, they were essentially making money at the knowledeable expense of public health. That was a form of evil.

Later, of course when the public became knowledgeable and free will enters into the picture, then it is no longer evil of the producers, but the pure stupidity of the users...in this case.

You suggest that the root of evil is envy "the desire (for) that which has not been earned and/or is undeserved". This definiton is also appicable to GREED. For men will greedily try to gain that which belongs to another person or group to satisfy their own appetites.

Envy is a far more benign deadly sin, as it can actually lead to motivation. If I envy the fact that my neighbor has a great car, I might try harder to excel in my work to afford such a ride? Greed is not so forgiving.

[A Gunslinger]

By "those not marked for death"...let me clarify.

We as an american culture allow a "death penalty" & go to war to eliminate our enemies. The inmate and the enemy are in a sense "marked for death".

Both these actions are either sponsored by the state, or sanctioned by our churches. This IMHO, eliminates EVIL from the equation. This is of course another topic.