My question is whether or not a natural good and/or evil exists in humans? Is our concept of good and evil solely shaped by society, or is there some inherent good that we are naturally born with? Is one of these natural "goods" empathy? If a human were born into the wild would it develop the ability to feel for other animals? Say it had plenty of food, would it give it to an obviously starving animal that it had never seen before? From the other side of the spectrum, would this human ever kill just for fun ---as some human hunters do?

This makes me think about whether or not the "bad things" that criminals do --such as theft, murder, etc.--- is really inherently/naturally bad when taken out of the context of society? Is it a primal instinct to survive which causes all bad, and therefore isn't <I>really</I> bad? Or is it only considered bad because it is destructive to the order of society?

I read somewhere in another thread that someone didn't think that it was bad for Spartans to drop unwanted babies off of cliffs --because that is what they did back then, that is how their society functioned. Is this purely and completely bad, or do we only consider it bad because its burned into our brains by society?

What are your thoughts?

Society definitely shapes what is good and bad. If there was a tribe on a remote island that raised their children to raise their children to raise their children that murder was perfectly fine, casual even, then the children would grow up thinking murder is OK. How could they not? Most of what a child learns is from it's parents and the environment it is in, so if the parents teach the children that murder is commonplace (without the child having any outside sources tell him/show him otherwise), then you've got yourself a veritable killing machine who is completely emancipated from the manacles that bind other society's members.

AmishRakeFight

....after a quick look at the google definions for good and evil.....
How does one go about making desired and undesired outcomes objective?

I wouls say some people are born with a gene carried on from earlier generations , and that they will never get away from , only controled with special help.

Others use their social circumstances as an excuse .

isnt this all down to balance

If there wasn't an element of 'goodness' and 'evilness' within us, we could not have invented it, society does dictate, but men make up societies and we were not always civilised.

As humans we are defenseless when born and we need to therefore elicit a 'love' response from our parents in order that they feel compelled to care for us and protect us. If there was not this 'natural' love to begin with, the parents would either eat or abandon their babies. This is not unique to humans either, it is the same for all animals who require parental care when born. We have special 'features' which we are designed to be find attractive, large forehead, large eyes, small nose etc, hence most of us fund seal puppies very very cute! We are programmed to do so.

I guess with this natural predisposition to care and nurture comes an element of care/nurturing that we can then associate with others aside from our own young.
Within that care and nurturing is 'goodness'.

If there wasn't an element of 'goodness' and 'evilness' within us, we could not have invented it, society does dictate, but men make up societies and we were not always civilised.

You realize that this contains a contradiction correct? Just because I can think of the concept 'unicorn', and even draw one, doesn't mean that one exists, nor that somewhere 'within' me there is an element of 'unicornness'.

....



I guess with this natural predisposition to care and nurture comes an element of care/nurturing that we can then associate with others aside from our own young.
Within that care and nurturing is 'goodness'.

I'm not sure what you mean by "within", but if you're equating goodness with care/nurturing, then this is an equivocation; there is no need to introduce the term 'goodness'.

What is needed here are some definitions. People seem to be thinking that "good" and "evil" are real things unto themselves, and not concepts.

You realize that this contains a contradiction correct? Just because I can think of the concept 'unicorn', and even draw one, doesn't mean that one exists, nor that somewhere 'within' me there is an element of 'unicornness'.




poor example, horses exist, reindeers and rhino exists, hence horse, hence horn, nothing invented here, just mix of what already exists.



I'm not sure what you mean by "within", but if you're equating goodness with care/nurturing, then this is an equivocation; there is no need to introduce the term 'goodness'.


Goodness defined in this context, as caring and nurturing of others, google
all three words if you like.It makes perfect sense to me, not here to teach you.



What is needed here are some definitions. People seem to be thinking that "good" and "evil" are real things unto themselves, and not concepts.

If you take what is good to be what exists in nature and naturally then as I
have already briefly stated that would be caring and nurturing and protecting.

NOT hitting you kids would not be classed as natural goodness for example, but society deemed correctness - or inherited belief of correctness/goodness.
As in nature parents of all species use small amount of physical force to reprimand 'naughty' youngsters, take lioness 'cuffing' her playful cubs for example.

To find 'natural' evil we would again have to refer to nature. There is very little/no 'evil' in nature, the killing that goes on in the animal kingdom cannot be deemed as evil as it is all with purpose.

Much of what we 'deem' as evil is in fact not so much evil but now socially unacceptable, or outisde of the 'norms' of natural human behaviour.
Torture for example is not a thing that occurs in nature and so could be defined as 'evil'.

Evil is actually more of a concept than Goodness when goodness is defined as caring/nurturing as caring/nurturing is instinctive and neccessary behaviour in humans. Evil is the unannatural element, but only when evil is taken to be something that exists outside of nature. Killing for example in order to preotect family and home is not evil, just illegal and undesirable culturally. Killing your lovers admirer is also not evil, again, just socaiily unaccceptable.

In nature, animals compete and kill for the affections of others.

Summarising:

Goodness can be seen to be naturally occurring in some species when taken as caring/nurturing/protecting. 'Good' outside of what occurrs in nature, is socially defined.

What act of gooness does not fall within those three catagories listed above?

Evil cannot be seen in nature and so is concept, derived from 'unnatural' practices and expanded socially and culturally.

poor example, horses exist, reindeers and rhino exists, hence horse, hence horn, nothing invented here, just mix of what already exists.

Nonetheless, the logic is sound.

Simply because one has an idea doesn't mean it ontologically obtains. The problem here is a category mistake: good an evil are comceptual components of an ethical system, not an ontological one.

the idea of morality stems from our natural instinct. we have the instinctual desire to group together; to be around people who are like us. from this, increasingly complex social interactions cause specific communities to adopt generally accepted ideas of how one should and shouldn't act. these ideas are usually dependant on the surrounding environment and the common genetics of the group.

this way you can think of morality as being both subjective and objective. we can see it as objective in that it is all dependant on the interactions of our unique genetics, the genetics of those around us, as well as our specific location. but it is subjective in that our individual differences cause us to view these accepted 'rules' from differing perspectives.

a question of good and evil, perhaps asking hitler what made the jews evil enough to order mass genocide would be a fairly decent point to start, then again, i dont believe adolf ever pulled the trigger or threw the gas into the showers himself.

i suppose we could say that hitler wasnt an educated man and so he isnt a good enough candidate to judge, so lets look at Dr Mengela - educated man - wealthy - practiced the most despicable deeds - unhuman levels of torture and cruelty.

see also - pol pott - pinochet - the bulger murderers - hindley, brady - sarah paynes murderer, the rapist paedophile roy whiting - Mary-Ann Leneghan torturers, rapists murderers.

I do not find it difficult to spot evil.

Natural goodness is called altruism, and it's fundamentally selfish in origin. Humans are somewhat different in that we have cultural values, but even those may be motivated by self-interest.

I agree with 'theoryofrelativity' except on that of "evil" being purely a concept. I think that straight foward evilness exists both in humans and in nature, but has very strict limits. I feel that these limits are that of sanity, and only the insane --or evolutionarily "fucked up"-- humans/animals take on actions that we would consider purely evil.

However, that raises the question of whether or not they can be blamed for being "fucked up."

Natural goodness is called altruism, and it's fundamentally selfish in origin. Humans are somewhat different in that we have cultural values, but even those may be motivated by self-interest.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

From the above link:

"Biological Altruism
In evolutionary biology, an organism is said to behave altruistically when its behaviour benefits other organisms, at a cost to itself. The costs and benefits are measured in terms of reproductive fitness, or expected number of offspring. So by behaving altruistically, an organism reduces the number of offspring it is likely to produce itself, but boosts the number that other organisms are likely to produce. This biological notion of altruism is not identical to the everyday concept. In everyday parlance, an action would only be called ‘altruistic’ if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another. But in the biological sense there is no such requirement. Indeed, some of the most interesting examples of biological altruism are found among creatures that are (presumably) not capable of conscious thought at all, e.g. insects. For the biologist, it is the consequences of an action for reproductive fitness that determine whether the action counts as altruistic, not the intentions, if any, with which the action is performed.

Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures. For example, vampire bats regularly regurgitate blood and donate it to other members of their group who have failed to feed that night, ensuring they do not starve. In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked. In social insect colonies (ants, wasps, bees and termites), sterile workers devote their whole lives to caring for the queen, constructing and protecting the nest, foraging for food, and tending the larvae. Such behaviour is maximally altruistic: sterile workers obviously do not leave any offspring of their own -- so have personal fitness of zero -- but their actions greatly assist the reproductive efforts of the queen.

From a Darwinian viewpoint, the existence of altruism in nature is at first sight puzzling, as Darwin himself realized. Natural selection leads us to expect animals to behave in ways that increase their own chances of survival and reproduction, not those of others. But by behaving altruistically an animal reduces its own fitness, so should be at a selective disadvantage vis-à-vis one which behaves selfishly. To see this, imagine that some members of a group of Vervet monkeys give alarm calls when they see predators, but others do not. Other things being equal, the latter will have an advantage. By selfishly refusing to give an alarm call, a monkey can reduce the chance that it will itself be attacked, while at the same time benefiting from the alarm calls of others. So we should expect natural selection to favour those monkeys that do not give alarm calls over those that do. But this raises an immediate puzzle. How did the alarm-calling behaviour evolve in the first place, and why has it not been eliminated by natural selection? How can the existence of altruism be reconciled with basic Darwinian principles?"


My comments on the above:
This (marked in red) indeed is a conundrum, science tries explain altruism away as being to do with the greater reproductive good, yet science also states it is the process of natural selection (survival of one fittest) that dictates evolution?

One or the other assumption is wrong? Or is it?

Is the author merely missing my point which goodness or 'altruism' comes from our biological requirement to care/nurture and protect our young? This innate desire then extends to other creatures not just our own young.
Many reptiles do not raise their own young, do those species demonstrate altruistic behaviour? If they do....and other species that do not raise their young do, then this of course would make my theory incorrect. My theory being that only animals that are required to raise/care for young (insects do this too!) show signs of altruism.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.06.Human_Origins.pdf

another interesting link on this subject, see pages 14 - 16.

That is a very interesting point.
I would say birds also show altruistic behavior. Some fly very far distances from their nests and even though her mate is out of earshot, it will still provide a warning call to any other birds in that area, even though this heightens the chances of her own detection.

There are some species of crocodile that do care for their young in those dangerous first weeks. However, I could not find any examples of ANY reptile showing altruism. If anyone can find an example please post it. It should be noted also that after the young crocodiles have left their mother, if/when they come back they risk the chance of being eaten by their own mother (which either implies there is no emotional connection or she does not recognize it).

Also for future posters: Altruism should not be confused with symbiotic relationships, for both animals are benefitting from the exchange.

There are some species of crocodile that do care for their young in those dangerous first weeks. However, I could not find any examples of ANY reptile showing altruism. If anyone can find an example please post it. .

I have since found this, further food for thought

http://pages.prodigy.net/anaconda/igu3tot.htm

"Sexually dimorphic anti-predator behavior in Juvenile green iguanas Iguana iguana: evidence for kin selection in the form of fraternal care.

By

Jesús A. Rivas and Luis E. Levín

Abstract: Animals that live in social groups may benefit from increased predator detection, deterrence and confusion. Juvenile green iguanas (Iguana iguana) are known to exhibit complex social behavior, often in sibling aggregations. Preliminary observations suggested that juvenile males and females performed different behaviors when facing predators. We conducted parallel lab and field experiments to study of the anti-predator behavior of juvenile green iguanas. First, we studied the behavior of juveniles in an enclosure when a model of a hawk was swung over them. Second, we measured the level of predation on males and females by free-ranging predators. Males showed more risk prone behavior when facing the simulated predator, and they also suffered higher predation by natural predators. Some males displayed a striking behavior that consisted of covering a female clutchmate with their body when the model hawk was diving over the enclosure. This behavior, in which a male assumes the predation risk of a female clutchmate, is the first report of fraternal care in a non-social vertebrate and may be related to the hierarchical social structure in green iguanas and the energetic contraints of herbivory.

Keywords: Iguana, kin selection, altruism, fraternal care, Antipredator behavior, herbivory.

Introduction

The benefits of sociality have been widely discussed. Because the probability of detecting an approaching predator increases with the number of guarding eyes, it has been proposed that animals gain protection against predators by living in groups (Brown and Brown, 1987; Da Silva and Therhune, 1988; Yáber and Herrera, 1994). Other benefits to sociality include decreased likelihood of predation, selfish-herd effect (Hamilton, 1971), active deterrence of predators (Gross and MacMillan, 1981), and confusion of predators through a perceptual bottleneck that leads to lower capture efficiencies (Krakauer, 1995).

Studies of anti-predator behavior in social reptiles have not been thorough in any species (Greene, 1988). In particular, studies of social behavior in iguanas have focused on territorial interactions and mating behavior (Alberts et al., 1992; Phillips et al 1993; Pratt et al., 1994; Rand and Rand, 1976; Rodda, 1992), although some attention has been given to the benefits of sociality in predator avoidance among green iguanas (Burghardt et al, 1977; Burghardt, 1977; see Burghardt this volume for a review). This studies have been observational rather than experimental.

Cooperation by relatives has been reported in many species of social insects as a mechanism to increase fitness by increasing the reproductive output of related individuals (Hamilton, 1964). For example, in honeybees there are a variety of social behaviors in which some siblings care for and brood younger ones (Wilson ,1971). Some vertebrates have been reported to show similar behaviors (Alexander et al., 1991). To date, there have been no reports of any reptile performing similar altruistic behavior, or of any vertebrate in which siblings protect other siblings of the same age."

Meanwhile re all the above, I myself am aware that artifically creating social groups in animals that in nature do not exist in social groups, does cause social behaviours to manifest. So there is a predisposition in all creatures it seems to be 'social'.

Example:
Tigers are not social animals and do not have 'mates' and do not live in social groups, males mate then move on. Yet if you put them in captivity they may groom each other , play with each other, sleep together, these are things that would not occur in the wild/nature.

do your actions define you as good or evil? is the sheer thought of an evil act enough to make you evil?

can a lifetime of good deeds be undone with one evil deed?

is evil defined by religion, graven images, working on the sabbath, perhaps even the 7 deadlies

is there a right or wrong answer? i know grey questions get grey answers

hitler - evil
pol pot - evil
saddam hussein - evil
slobodan milosevic - evil
the bastards in the west that put saddam in a position to put his evil into practice - some evil, some naive

is this a question of corruption, do we all start out noble and honest - are some of us more susceptible to being corrupted?

consider the 2 little bastard scum of the earth toss piles that killed james bulger - http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics3/bulger/

thompson and venables, two 10 year old boys that abducted a 3 year old little boy - tortured him and killed him - then hid him under a pile of bricks on a railway line in an attemt to cover up their crime.

these two spawns of satan ought to have been fed to the lions.

Evil is a word that can only be applied when talking about human cultural beliefs. Man is the only creature which attempts to differentiate good and evil. Animals simply exist, and do all in their power to continue to exist and mate, even if it means killing.
We do not consider the actual act of one animal killing another for food evil. When an invading male lion murders the cubs on this new territory so that he can mate with the females the situation is rarely ever described as evil, but rather necessary for procreation.

So taken in regards to only humans, I think most people consider evil to be the capacity to cause extreme pain and suffering or maliciously manipulate and lie..
1.) with no clear motivation, other than personal pleasure or personal gain
2.) while showing no remorse; conscience of actions
3.) with the full knowledge of the pain/lie being induced and its implications

psychopaths sometimes kill for no reason at all.

and what of rapists? the motivation is sex, sometimes by force, sometimes by drugging (date rape)

in both of the cases i have mentioned, neither would be alive after offending once.

Altruism in animals can be explained as preservation of genes. Even if an altruistic act may place an animal at some risk, the gene for altruistic behavior is still preserved in the animals it saves, since they are probably it's relatives. It's not precisely survival of the fittest animal, but survival of the genes in the gene pool.

Notice that people tend to be more altruistic towards their relatives, because they are more likely to share the same genes. Not that a person thinks of this when they do something nice, but that genes that lead to such behavior get preserved.

This is also what might have given rise to racism. It doesn't make any sense genetically to behave altruistically to people without a significant percentage of your genes.

psychopaths sometimes kill for no reason at all.

and what of rapists? the motivation is sex, sometimes by force, sometimes by drugging (date rape)

in both of the cases i have mentioned, neither would be alive after offending once.

you are not very well informed are you, most rapists rape for power not sex

Altruism in animals can be explained as preservation of genes. Even if an altruistic act may place an animal at some risk, the gene for altruistic behavior is still preserved in the animals it saves, since they are probably it's relatives. It's not precisely survival of the fittest animal, but survival of the genes in the gene pool.

Notice that people tend to be more altruistic towards their relatives, because they are more likely to share the same genes. Not that a person thinks of this when they do something nice, but that genes that lead to such behavior get preserved.

This is also what might have given rise to racism. It doesn't make any sense genetically to behave altruistically to people without a significant percentage of your genes.

Interesting point but none of it is actually true, altruism is not demonstrated in all sepcies as I have mentioned here already. So gene preservation is either restricted to certain gorups, if so why? Or as I have theorised is related instead to the need for some species to raise their own young, and in order to do so, they need to have an inate desire to 'care' 'nurture' and 'protect'. Qualities they are then able to transfer beyond their own young.

And re humans, well in the western world where we pop our elderly in care homes and take our mates on holiday, well not much evidence of altruism being demonstrated in greater degrees to relatives there either. I have observed no evidence that people are more altruistic towards own relatives, do you have some?

you are not very well informed are you, most rapists rape for power not sex

so long as its most then, im sure sex has nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

Interesting point but none of it is actually true, altruism is not demonstrated in all sepcies as I have mentioned here already. So gene preservation is either restricted to certain gorups, if so why? Or as I have theorised is related instead to the need for some species to raise their own young, and in order to do so, they need to have an inate desire to 'care' 'nurture' and 'protect'. Qualities they are then able to transfer beyond their own young.

And re humans, well in the western world where we pop our elderly in care homes and take our mates on holiday, well not much evidence of altruism being demonstrated in greater degrees to relatives there either. I have observed no evidence that people are more altruistic towards own relatives, do you have some?

It doesn't need to take place in all species to be true.

The raising of young is precisely a form of altruism. Altruism towards relatives is an extension of this, but for the same reason.

Caring for the elderly is a kind thing to do, it requires some expense that could be used on your own children. The elderly have perhaps something to offer in terms of life experience and advice, and if not too old, they offer child care.

"I have observed no evidence that people are more altruistic towards own relatives, do you have some?"
Yes. It has been discovered that maternal grandparents behave more altruisticly towards grandchildren than the paternal ones. Genetically, this is explained because they can be more sure that they share genes.

I think you may be joking somewhat, since behaving more kindly towards relatives is widely observed in human society. It's also observed among baboons and other apes. Male lions even kill baby lions that are not their own.

It doesn't need to take place in all species to be true.

The raising of young is precisely a form of altruism. Altruism towards relatives is an extension of this, but for the same reason.

Caring for the elderly is a kind thing to do, it requires some expense that could be used on your own children. The elderly have perhaps something to offer in terms of life experience and advice, and if not too old, they offer child care.

"I have observed no evidence that people are more altruistic towards own relatives, do you have some?"
Yes. It has been discovered that maternal grandparents behave more altruisticly towards grandchildren than the paternal ones. Genetically, this is explained because they can be more sure that they share genes.

I think you may be joking somewhat, since behaving more kindly towards relatives is widely observed in human society. It's also observed among baboons and other apes. Male lions even kill baby lions that are not their own.



Animals that do NOT raise their own young or live in social groups have been observed to show no altruistic tendancies and don't give a toss about their relatives. Hence altruism and raising of dependant young is likely directed connected, thus it can be shown that altruism is 'natural' in some species due to this requirement for parental care.

Well, when you raise your own young you can recognize your relatives.

I think what you are saying is that being a parent somehow "teaches" altruism? Or that once you care for your kids, then this behavior is extended to other arenas? Some gulls eat the chicks of other mothers when they are away, yet care for their own.

There are some cases where altruistic behavior satisfies some other social requirement and does not benefit genes, such as when a mother adopts an unrelated child.

Interesting point but none of it is actually true, altruism is not demonstrated in all sepcies as I have mentioned here already. So gene preservation is either restricted to certain gorups, if so why?

I think you're right about parenting leading to altruistic behavior. And what does parenting tend to correspond with? Long developmental periods, which means parents have to care for their young longer and be better parents. Parents that must be more attentive to their young seem to develop a greater sense of empathy.

Long developmental periods mostly has to do with brain size. Bigger brains, more stuff to learn, less instinct, more time spent with mom being taught what to eat, how to find it, etc. The caring for one's offspring probably carries over to interaction with other individuals, both in the way the organism sees the world and how its evolution was driven.

I think you're right about parenting leading to altruistic behavior. And what does parenting tend to correspond with? Long developmental periods, which means parents have to care for their young longer and be better parents. Parents that must be more attentive to their young seem to develop a greater sense of empathy.

Long developmental periods mostly has to do with brain size. Bigger brains, more stuff to learn, less instinct, more time spent with mom being taught what to eat, how to find it, etc. The caring for one's offspring probably carries over to interaction with other individuals, both in the way the organism sees the world and how its evolution was driven.

absolutely....

so the breakdown of the family unit is to blame, the increase in bastard children directly correlates with the increase in evil.

i knew somewhere evil was societys fault. what a surprise.

so the breakdown of the family unit is to blame, the increase in bastard children directly correlates with the increase in evil.

i knew somewhere evil was societys fault. what a surprise.

look into the family background of our notorious serial killers and see what their family unit was, I think you'll find they were not as you say 'bastard' children etc. But interesting theory.


'http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc5.html

I really really really like this thread. This thread is why I joined sci. Intelligent discussion, impassionate, well written and with sources. I weep with happiness. Well, not this particular thread.

so the breakdown of the family unit is to blame
The nuclear family is a recent development in American culture. The family units wasn't man, wife and 1.5 kids.

In fact, the 'family unit' varies greatly from culture to culture. There is no 'correct' family unit, except that the family unit serves to raise a child to survive (and thrive!) in a particular environment. Environment here meaning culture as well as natural. TV, at least in America, serves to raise a child as much as any parent. The problems are not necessarily a product of the dissolution of the family unit, it's a product of bad parenting.

http://www.criminalprofiling.ch/character.html

Thats a good site, explains really well each stage of a childs developement, and what actions can seriously effect the outcome of the child.
You will find there is never just ONE factor that leads to violent behavior later in life.

Here's a provocative line of thinking re 'evil'.

I was viewing a documentary a while ago about a particular culture whereby a husband will do the following to their wives if they think the wife has 'looked' at another man: Hang them, cut out their tongues, gouge out their eyes and slice off their noses and ears. As a culture this 'punishment' is widely practiced and 'accepted'. It is the 'norm'.

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2005/05/29/news/world/6b7c37c090e1b02f8725700f006e2068.txt

"Men's treatment of women like property is nowhere more routine than in southern Punjab province. Here, a man controls the lives of his daughters or sisters, and often marries them off to other men to resolve debts, land disputes or family feuds.

Abusive men commonly kill or mutilate their wives on mere suspicion that the women might have "dishonored" them by speaking or meeting with another man. Attacks in which men use acid to disfigure a woman's face have been "growing alarmingly over the past three years ... most notably in southern Punjab," the human rights commission report said"

Now this culture is NOT litttered with psychopaths and deviant minds with disrupted childhoods.

The conversation that arose when viewing this story was this:
These are normal men, no different to men anywhere...so what makes normal men do things like this? There appears to be only one answer and this answer applies to those who do things in war time they would not normally do, and that is 'acceptance' and 'permission'. Men will rape, torture etc in war when NEVER would they commit these acts otherwise. In the case of 'war' not so much now as the eyes of the media are holding these actions to account, but in the past (Vietnam) normal family men committed horrendous acts of rape and torture and murder.

So what turns a 'normal' man into a killer ...........permission?

There will always be (as is the case within the culture I mentioned) those men who can rise above this 'accepted' behaviour and still say NO, this is wrong. However, when something is practiced in the majority, it becomes 'normal' as this is the definition of normal. So is it therefore normal to be as evil and we are allowed to be?

Provocative thought.

Further more:

Maybe psychopaths and other murderers merely lack the need for 'permission'?

I know this is the case in the criminal underworld, that the only thing that separates their acts from ours, in that they are living outside the law and hence set their own standards of right and wrong and thus violence maybe permissable in thier sub culture in certain circumstances that are diffrent to ours.

Further more:

Maybe psychopaths and other murderers merely lack the need for 'permission'?

I know this is the case in the criminal underworld, that the only thing that separates their acts from ours, in that they are living outside the law and hence set their own standards of right and wrong and thus violence maybe permissable in thier sub culture in certain circumstances that are diffrent to ours.

I'd say that within hardcore criminal subcultures violence is not only permissible but is required, as a matter of 'honour', and as a means of maintaining your reputation; thus, as a means of continued survival in the business. Killing a rival is therefore seen not as an act of evil but as a calculated business decision.

Permission, or failing to recognize a woman is a person too?

I'd say that within hardcore criminal subcultures violence is not only permissible but is required, as a matter of 'honour', and as a means of maintaining your reputation

Arguably, in that sort of culture, it's kill or be killed.

Permission, or failing to recognize a woman is a person too?



Arguably, in that sort of culture, it's kill or be killed.

I know this culture as part of my own family live within it, it's NOT as dramatic as kill or be killed, but they do have their own 'laws' if you like. for example the saying 'never shit on your own doorstep' means you may rob but not in your own neighbourhood. They protect their own neghbourhood and those in it, so actually living in a criminal neighbourhood in some respects can be safe if there are a lot! They also keep out rival criminals. I am NOT a criminal and am not part of this culture, I just know a little of it from days gone by.

Also drug dealers may expect violence if they 'trade' in one of these areas.

millions died in agony, a suffering never before seen, and never since equaled, sacrifice, responsibility, nobility, standing up against facism.

'lest we forget'

:'(

you want to know or see or talk good, remember why you are free too.

New Info on altruism: From an evolutionary standpoint, altruism is puzzling because these altruistic animals would have less of a chance of reproduction and should disappear over time. However, many "altruistic" animals actually take part in what is called reciprocal altruism –where they only help the animals who they know will later help them in return. If one animal is not “good” and does not sacrifice for the others;– it’s likely that the animal be shut out from the group. This solves the evolutionary problem, because the “mooching” animals would die, and the “good” animals would live. These "good" animals, on the other hand, could be said to actually be selfish, because they are only good due to the fact that they want other animals to be “good” in return.

New Info on altruism: From an evolutionary standpoint, altruism is puzzling because these altruistic animals would have less of a chance of reproduction and should disappear over time. However, many "altruistic" animals actually take part in what is called reciprocal altruism –where they only help the animals who they know will later help them in return. If one animal is not “good” and does not sacrifice for the others;– it’s likely that the animal be shut out from the group. This solves the evolutionary problem, because the “mooching” animals would die, and the “good” animals would live. These "good" animals, on the other hand, could be said to actually be selfish, because they are only good due to the fact that they want other animals to be “good” in return.

except for the fact that some altruistic acts put the altruisitic animal in imminent danger of death, so if that animal dies as a result of their altruism then it hasn't helped thema jot has it? Example, animals raising the alarm call will draw immeidate attention to themselves and thus become the target of the predator.

I think through this thread we should gather as much info as we can on altruism, and then see if it is as appears that there may actually be an element of 'natural' goodness, goodness for goodness sake. As thus far this thread has shown inconsisitencies and contradictions to existing arguments that it is merely a 'survival' mechanism and therefore selfish in origin and therefore NOT true goodness. I think this is worth some indepth investigation.

I think if we can find some examples of altruism existing in sepcies NOT required to 'parent' then we may be on to something as thus far I still think my theory that altruism is connected to the requirement to 'parent' is the most likely explanation and the only one so far that has not been adequately refuted or contradicted.

Let's look again at what we have so far.

Who's up for it?

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1420-9101.1991.4030487.x

Meanwhile..........

Sex-linked altruism: A stepping-stone in the evolution of social behavior?
Tadeusz J. Kawecki*
Abstract

"A verbal model is presented for a mechanism that enhances the probability of the evolution of altruism in diploids if the gene for altruism arises on the X chromosome. If the altruism takes place between sibs of the homogametic sex, the condition for spread of a sex-linked gene for altruism is less stringent than for an autosomal gene. Then, with altruistic behavior present, selection for increased efficiency (benefit/cost ratio) may raise the efficiency above the autosomal threshold before autosomal modifiers are widespread enough to eliminate the behavior. The results of computer simulations confirms that, if the initial benefit/cost ratio is lower than 2, sex-linkage can make the evolution of altruism more likely"

Anyone interested in this topic please read the paper that the link directs you to, and deliver your comments and views re 'altruistic gene'

i just have to revive this thread and ask...

if civilizations were able to develop because, let's say, man has an innate sense of order, wouldn't that be enough proof that human nature is inherently good? to strive for something good, like development, cannot be evil.

many theories contradicts what i just said, i know. if you can, you can quote these theories (behaviorism, social psychology, etc...) and show me if my assumption about man's nature is correct.

i just have to revive this thread and ask...

if civilizations were able to develop because, let's say, man has an innate sense of order, wouldn't that be enough proof that human nature is inherently good? to strive for something good, like development, cannot be evil.

many theories contradicts what i just said, i know. if you can, you can quote these theories (behaviorism, social psychology, etc...) and show me if my assumption about man's nature is correct.

I think Good and Evil are just Mankinds form of catagorisation for opposite poles of existence....each in there veiw point Good....
I.E.
Adolf Hitler is viewed as Evil by Jews...Adolf Hitler is viewed as Good by Nazi's

G.W.Bush is viewed as Evil by Afghan's...G.W. is viewed as Good by his U.S. supporters.

Deforestation is viewed as Good by some company's...Deforestation is viewed as bad by Enviromentalists.

Christians (during the crusades/inquisition) tried promote the way of the Good...the People who feared for their lives lived under a reign of Evil.

If you class yourself as Good then you are automaticaly (IMO) giving someone else the class of Evil, as there is bound to be someone with opposite belief's/thought's/Ideals to you,And as their viewpoint is opposite with their standing being 'just' or Good you would be percieved/become 'Evil'..
I do not think a Natural Good and evil can exist..all life fights to exist so, can a Lethal Bacteria anymore catagorised as Evil as, a Lion killing a baby deer,or us killing for food....
GOOD/EVIL
Two catagories of viewpoints on the same standing with Manifestation in Physicality with each side being Good and each side being Evil, therefore it is both one and the same a 'catagory' with the siding only being percieved in the eye/mind of the beholder...imo

Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil isaiah 5:20....lol :shrug:

I do not think the concepts of good and evil apply to animals.
Yes, animals do act both with altruism toward progeny and siblings and without such altruism toward predators and prey. But human life is more complex and as such good and evil is not always clear.

For example, the conflict in choices between what feels good now and what is good in the long run for and individual or group is an eternal problem for man. Religions have answers for the various choices as does secular moral codes such as Aristotelean Ethics.

The central issue that has emerged in both Western and Eastern traditions is that control of one's emotions is main problem. Fear and desire if left unchecked lead to undesireable results as is well elaborated in both Greek and Shakespearean tragedies.

So one framing of the problem is that Good is behavior and thought that leads to a happy and productive life and Evil is the opposite.

If you want to have some real fun and laughter with this issue, read The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. Incredibly deep and hilariously funny. It can be found in audio mp3 format [via torrents] and listening to John Cleese [of Monty Python fame] read the part of the "evil" uncle is something NOT to be missed.

Cheers

My question is whether or not a natural good and/or evil exists in humans? Is our concept of good and evil solely shaped by society, or is there some inherent good that we are naturally born with? Is one of these natural "goods" empathy? If a human were born into the wild would it develop the ability to feel for other animals? Say it had plenty of food, would it give it to an obviously starving animal that it had never seen before? From the other side of the spectrum, would this human ever kill just for fun ---as some human hunters do?

This makes me think about whether or not the "bad things" that criminals do --such as theft, murder, etc.--- is really inherently/naturally bad when taken out of the context of society? Is it a primal instinct to survive which causes all bad, and therefore isn't <I>really</I> bad? Or is it only considered bad because it is destructive to the order of society?

I read somewhere in another thread that someone didn't think that it was bad for Spartans to drop unwanted babies off of cliffs --because that is what they did back then, that is how their society functioned. Is this purely and completely bad, or do we only consider it bad because its burned into our brains by society?

What are your thoughts?


I think that humans are born with a general sense of good and bad, like empathy. But those are easily taken away. Say the person's parents when it was a child taught him it was wrong to share, basically feel empathy. This wouldn't completely erase the feeling, because he'd still feel the feeling when a starving human came to him, because he had a surplus of food, but his mind would suppress the urge, because that is what he was taught. The only way to erase THAT would be to teach the boy that even the urge is horribly wrong. But when the time came, he would still feel it, but his mind would suppress the urge to have the urge in the first place. Humans are born with an inherit sense of good and evil, but society has a very high level of control over it. Even as a kid, I watched movies and TV shows that show characters being mean and rude to each other, but I still can't bring myself to be mean or (overly) nasty like the characters would be sometimes on the media I'd consume. That's my inherit sense, to be nice generally. Not all the time, I have a mean side, but I can't be nasty all the time or be too mean. The inherit sense of values change from person to person, but it is in everyone. Some people are really mean to everyone, but maybe they'd break down at the sight of someone crying over what they did or said. Or couldn't bring themselves to take the life of anyone or anything, etc.