Good vs. Evil? Does NATURAL good exist? What about evil?

[Possumking]

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?

[AmishRakeFight]

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

[domesticated om]

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

[warden99]

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

[Theoryofrelativity]

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'.

[glaucon]

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.

[Theoryofrelativity]

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.

[glaucon]

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.

[RoyLennigan]

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.

[Quagmire]

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.

[spidergoat]

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.

[Possumking]

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."

[Theoryofrelativity]

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.

[Theoryofrelativity]

http://www.designinference.com/docum...an_Origins.pdf

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

[BSFilter]

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.

[Theoryofrelativity]

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."

[Theoryofrelativity]

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.

[Quagmire]

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.

[BSFilter]

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

[Quagmire]

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.