Empathy

Ah ok we can now agree that there is a range and a specutrum of behavior that falls between the two points of good and evil. Cool, im fine with that (not sure about the karma part though).

No you dont have to be evil to rape or torture, you just need to be brought up in an enviornment that tells you its ok to commit those acts. Psych 101.

If i had grown up in a third world country where torture is common place there is every chance i would torture also. Would that make me evil? no, i think it would make me weak-spirited, simple minded, and a conformist for a set of societal standards.
I feel these words better describe the mind set that lead to those sort of actions, i dont think the word evil sheds any light on how i arrived at those actions atall.

Its an evil act yes, i dont think it makes someone an evil person though, as you said yourself we have to look at someone *entire* life to judge a person no just one action, no matter how horrible we think it is.

I think efficiency is a bad way to go about finding the truth and more likely to result in easy/simple answers rather than explainations that fit the facts most adequately.

No i dont use the words good and evil because 9 times out of 10 they dont aquately describe what it is im trying to define. I dont think anyone (least of all me) is using big words for the sake of appearing clever, theyre simply tools to better understand the situation with greater accuracy.

Yep i agree, theres exceptions to every rule and no reason why you cant have a lack of compassion in an affluent society and compassion in a poverty stricken society.

Good/evil arnt instincts but i know what youre saying yeah.

Dont assume that just because you dont think you work that way that noone else does. In fact id argue that you do act this way already, youve created or rationalised a moral argument to make it ok for you to eat chicken even though you believe eating meat is wrong.
Chickens are actually the worst treated animal out of all the animals we commonly eat, even 'free range' chickens generally live in conditions so bad and inhumane if someone treated their pets this way theyd most likely be locked up.
But eating chicken is ok, because you need your extra protien, so you can flick the switch off in your head for any compassionate feelings for those chickens.
You said that you dont understand how people can just 'switch off' their compassion? well, look inside your own mind youre doing it already.
The same rationality you use to make it acceptable to yourself to eat chicken is the same rationality people use to commit any number of atrocities. Its the exact same process at work, this is how alot of the 'evil' you percieve in the world actually works.

I dont see what you find so complex, people let themselves off having to be compassionate, either via societal norms, expectations of authority figures, or their general upbringing.
Its actually pretty simple once you realise that humans are essentially lazy and in general want a quiet easy life, not listening to that compassionate inner voice makes life far less of a struggle, and is therefore a highly attractive position to most people.

I dont have any psychologist friends, and i dont think ive once degenerated into 'psychobabble' by talking about peoples 'inner child' or 'lack of self-esteem or some such.
My friends (who arnt psychologists) have no problems understanding what it is im talking about when i discuss these things, i think im talking pretty plain english to be honest.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I thought you were against teaching people to control themselves? if youre all for it, then i really dont understand where your argument lies.
From the outset all ive done is outline ways in which we could develop ways to help people treat each other with more humanity.

So why do you get confused and knock me for using 'big words' when im simply using terms you should be entirely familiar with?

.
You can tell that by talking to someone on a forum for a couple of hours? im going to suggest that making assumptions like that based on a short conversation over the internet is pretty silly.
I think youd be rubbish in a fight! <-- see ridiculous.

Huh? i dont have a degree, never been to university in my life and i understand words beyond 'good' and 'bad'. None of my friends have degrees either and they have no problems understanding or using a wide range of words to describe people and their actions.

So what are you proposing? that we stop using 'big words' so that the stupid or uneducated wont feel bad when they dont understand? sorry but thats absurd, if everyone followed that logic within a couple of generations all the knowledge and intellect weve gained as a species would completely die out and wed simply be grunting at each other.

Well youve still provided no evidence for this despite bringing up this percentage 3 times now.

Jeez now youve gone back three steps, you agreed earlier that there is a spectrum between good and evil. And now youre saying that no, people are either good or evil and any emotions inbetween are faked either way.
Could you please decide your postion on this?
Btw Jung didnt believe anything like this.

Sorry but thats nonsense, you can get protiens from plenty of other sources other than meat. Its a medical myth that we *need* meat and get ill/die younger when we dont. In fact studies have shown the reverse to be true, people who eat meat are more likely to die sooner.
Not *entirely* relevant to the argument but worth mentioning.

Then what you call evil is what most people these days call a sociopath.

But we can surive in the west quite comfortably now without eating meat, therefore meat has become a vice/pleasure based in the destruction and pain other beings. So going by your own criteria people who eat meat in the west must be evil also?

I actually already explained how they do it while still having empathy but you either didnt agree/didnt read it.

But most live in the grey, thats what you need to accept. Can you really avoid the vast majority of people all your life and simple deal with people you feel are good or evil according to your standards?
Embrace the stuff inbetween man, it might be abit scarier and less certain but thats where most people are.

But if good and evil are extremes, and you admit there is a grey area inbetween why are you labeling the grey as good and evil as well?
Your logic is completely falling apart.
By calling people either good or evil youre actually fighting against what even *you* know to be true - that most people arnt good or evil and exist in a grey state somewhere inbetween the two.

lol But you dont know anyone ANY BETTER by labeling the grey as black or white. Which youve pretty much admitted that this is all youre really doing in practice.

Why not just conclude that someone is probably 'untrustworthy' then if what youre really worried about is getting fucked over. You dont need to label people as evil not to get fucked over, thats completely alarmist and over the top.
If anything youre likely to get yourself fucked over by labeling people as either good or bad. I live in the grey which means that no one i know is inherently good (because good people can still do bad things) and im still warey of them in certain situations.
Its actually your position which leaves you most vulnerable, i think youre leaving your self open to confusion and hurt when people dont end up living upto the labels you ascribe them.

I call them sociopaths, but my problem isnt with the label itself, its the fact that you choose to label people who exist in the grey areas with your black and white labels to make life easier for yourself. Which youve already admitted to doing.

Welcome to planet earth!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Karma just means, that you get out of life what you put into it, it's not saying that life is fair, it's just saying that if you abuse the environment, eventually the environment returns the abuse, maybe not even to you directly. Not everyone believes in Karma, but reality is cause and effect, and it's something people learn over time, through experience, you know, if you ever had a period where you did do bad stuff, or you were what we'd consider a bad person, eventually your own environment becomes more stressful, more toxic, etc because often when you do bad things, it attracts it to you. It's like magnetism. The same thing happens when you do good things. This is not the case 100% of the time, just a general observation.

Alright, these tools work for you, you should use them. I understand your tools, and the books, I read a lot, all the time. I don't always agree with semantics of what I read, and I don't agree with every psychologist I meet, because I know that yes while some psychologists have good intentions, you also have psychologists who do evil acts. As an example, you have psychologists who plant false memories. There are people who go to a therapist who believe something is wrong with them, often they get told they may have been raped, and go through memory regression to find out they had been raped. Psychology is worth studying, but psychologists are not always right so I do not trust every word a psychologist says.

It's not that I believe "eating" meat is wrong. I believe TORTURE is wrong.

And thats wrong. Where do we disagree?

I don't eat chicken every single day, or even every week, but when I have a choice between chicken or fish, or when I run out of fish, my options become more limited as to where I'll get a source of protien. It's not that I feel good about eating the chicken, or that I don't think about how chickens are treated, so it's not that my compassion is shut off, it's more that I cannot eat fish every single day, otherwise I would.

It's not shut off. I feel what you are saying about the chickens, but it's not like supermarkets give us many options. You get the same types of meats, all the time, or you get fish. I don't think it's healthy to completely sacrifice meat, I think if it were up to me, I'd be completely happy eating just fish all the time, but let's be realistic, what are you going to do when you run out of fish and someone offers you chicken? What do you do when it's thanksgiving and everyone is eating turkey, are you going to be the asshole who demands fish, even when you have fish every single day or every other day?

Yes, we need better options in the supermarket, let's focus on that. You can buy chickens which arent tortured, they sell that, but if we are going to give up most meat, then we will move to fish, the question then becomes, which meats, which fish, and how to handle the problems with the expensive price, and the over fishing, and other problems which will occur. Fish does run out, and it's seasonal, unlike chicken which seems to be all year round and never runs out.

Morality is rational. I'm not using rationality to justify eating chicken. I admit, I'd eat fish if it were practical to eat it every day. Fish is healthier than chicken, and it's more ethical, which makes it super rational. I'd choose fish over chicken any day, but when chicken is all thats there, I'll eat chicken.

The only ethically difficult question you have given was the chicken question. The food question is a tough ethical question, but it's going to take more than a few people going vegan, or vegetarian to solve the problem. Vegans and vegetarians, are busy focused on telling people what they can't do, instead of telling people what they can't do. People don't really want to hear what foods they can't eat, they want and need to hear what foods they can eat.

If every food is either unhealthy, or tortures animals, whats left? As a result most humans aren't even eating real food. If you are vegetarian or vegan you are ahead of the curve on an ethical issue, but the issue will not be solved JUST with compassion, as you can feel bad and still eat because it's right in your face, it takes both compassion and practicality to solve. Practical solutions are solutions which don't take a complete change of lifestyle, shopping habits, and other extremes. The first step is to get people to actually be aware of the harm they are doing, once people become aware then they can take steps to miimize it. Remember I define a good person as a person who minimizes harm, I'm not saying anyone is harmless.

Plain english, have you been to a typical church? Most people are church do talk in good and evil.

I'm not against helping people who ask for help, BEFORE they commit a crime. If someone is thinking negative thoughts they can be corrected. If someone has an urge to rape, they can be corrected.

Once they pass the barrier and actually do it, it's a different story. I'm not going to try to help them at that point. I'm going to be trying to help the victims.

People helping people instead of people hurting people.

I don't knock you for using big words, I'm asking you, how will you simplify what you are saying so that even a common ignorant fool can understand it? Good and evil, very simple, but everyone understands.

You are right, you cannot tell anything about anyone from a forum. You cannot tell anything about anyone in person either, at least not from a conversation. But you know, maybe I said that to learn something about you.

A lot of the words you use, require that a person have read certain books. What about people who don't read a lot?

I think thats a bit extreme, I don't think we will lose all knowledge overnight, but you are correct, you have a point.

Robert Hares official study. But in general, there are plenty of sites and information online, complete with studies.

There is a spectrum, this is true, but at some point, you'll discover where on the spectrum they fall, and if they are mostly good, or mostly evil. Basically over time you learn both which direction they are going in, and where they place on the spectrum.

Jung called evil "the shadow". It's the same thing really, but Jungs version of evil, was more like the dark side, the bad side we all have. The form of evil I'm talking about is similar, but it's the destructive nature of man.

And this is something we disagree on. Sometimes I think being a Vegan is alright, but it's not natural. Humans are not designed to be Vegan. So I guess I'm traditional on this, I do think humans need meat, it's a matter of which meat. I do not think humans are designed to live off veggies, despite the ethical concerns, let's be realistic, we never in our history were complete vegetarians, and not everyone can be a vegetarian and have it be healthy for their body type. You can, for me I'm supposed to eat fish, for another person they need more protien than both of us, it depends on the individual, different individuals are designed for different diets due to years of evolution.

Not exactly. I said destructive. Some people are destructive as hell, and some people aren't. It's possible to teach people, sociopath or not, to not be so destructive. I know because I've seen it. So as a result you have sociopaths who don't commit a lot of crimes and act so destructive that I consider them evil. Then you have the most destructive people, they destroy for fun, they enjoy it. My opinion is that psychology alone does not make a person good or evil, it's also conditioning, it's also based on what they personally want out of life and what they ultimately do with their life. It's based on a lot of different things, but it's never be so simple that you can say "This person thinks evil so they are". It's more that people have to actually be doing evil.

If you need proof, I'm sure there is at least one friend of yours, or family member, who is a sociopath, and who does not torture animals or do stuff like that. In fact they might be nice to animals, or at least respectful.

I don't know about that. Yeah technically we have the technology and ability to find meat replacements, but it's not going to be veggies, it's going to likely be either synthetic meat, or a product with the exact nutritional value and taste of meat. People will not move from eating steak to mushrooms over night unless the mushroom tastes and has the exact nutritional value of steak.

I deal with people I know. Grey people are difficult to know, I deal with them, but it's difficult to know them. The difference is, when you know a person well, you know what they will or won't do in any given situation. It's difficult with people who function in the grey, maybe this is fine for business relationships but for friendships you need trust.

There is no trust in between. And people barely know each other, if they know each other at all.

Because the grey is just confusing, it's where people are sure, but these people may not have found themselves, or may not know themselves, or may not let other people know them, or whatever. How do you form a friendship without trust? You need some kind of trust, you need to be able to KNOW the person, not just know the front. I'd say the grey is filled with people who are putting up fronts, or being players, or schemesters, or politicians, or that sort. Sure this is where a lot of people function and operate, but do you really want your entire life to be in the grey?

Most people don't know themselves well enough and so they function in a grey state, or they know themselves but they wear a mask in public, or they are in a state of apathy, where they function in the grey because they feel no love or hate either way. It's a lot of reasons why people would choose to function in the grey, the problem with the grey is that the grey world, this is the world of business, of work, of boring every day life. When exactly do you actually get to be yourself if you are always busy trying to be "normal" or "grey" or focused only on profits etc? How do you get close to anyone in the grey world where everything is like illusion?

You know them in your mind only if you can label them. If you cannot label them how can you know them? It's like not knowing their name. You are right, there are not a lot of good people and not a lot of evil people, so you don't simply define people by good and evil, you define them by what they do.

If a person is a taker, it's because they take and never give. It does not mean they are evil, or a bad person, it just means they have a bad habit, but thats how you'll label them in your brain if they act like that. There are many other labels people have for people that they give people in their brain. For most people these labels stay in the brain, but they do exist and you know it.

You label people so you can organize your own mind, it's not about the external world. It's about the internal world. Everyone puts people into boxes. It's impossible not to. When you do it, you have to do it based on what they actually did, and then it's fair.

No, I'm not confused and hurt when people don't live up to labels because these labels are on a spectrum, and they arent something that I place people on, they place themselves into these positions based on their actions. People basically choose how other people view them, if a person does not want to be evil, they don't have to act evil.
People know when they are acting evil or acting good, and people know that how they act, their behavior, is how people judge character. There are no expectations, but there are patterns. A thief is a thief, a liar is a liar, these are their patterns and they don't usually change, unless the person is on drugs.

Yeah, and how do you judge people? Don't pretend like you don't judge people. Everyone judges character. So how do you judge character? You use psychology? All I know is, like anyone else, I judge people. I have my own internal organizing methods for doing it. Good and evil are just boxes, no one really knows much more than that, because it's just to organize the information.

Information is experience. People are judged by the experiences. Over time you'll judge a person anyway, it's unavoidable, even if you just are business partners, you'll figure out who not to lend money to based on experience. You'll figure out who not to even trust based on experience. You'll learn all you need to know based on experience, and if you want to function in the grey, go ahead, you'd make a great politician.

Myself, I'm not a politician, I'd like to have a somewhat normal life. You cannot exist in the grey ALL the time, with EVERYONE. You can exist in the grey when you are around people who function in the grey. You are grey right now because you operate in the grey, thats your mode. Anyone who is "good" or "evil" can operate in the grey mode when doing business, thats the neutral mode.

It's not like people do evil things 100% of the time. It's not like people do good 100% of the time.

And yeah I'm on planet earth, but I don't understand humans and gave up trying to. I'm just trying to deal with people.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That doesnt make sense, you dont have to eat fish everyday, and nothing negative is going to happen your health is going to happen if you dont eat some chicken from time to time.
I think what youre really saying is that you fish it boring to eat fish all the time and youd rather eat some chicken to make life more interesting.
Youre ignoring your own moral standards simply to serve your own sense of pleasure it seems - the same criteria you in fact use to label people as evil could quite rationally be applied using your own logic to yourself.
I do similiar things myself (im no where near perfect) but i think one should at least be honest enough with oneself to aknowledge what youre actually going.

You believe its ok to switch off compassion in certain social instances to make life eaiser?
Again its these sorts of beliefs that are the root of alot of the evil you percieve in the world.

No i dont attend, do you go to Church yourself?

It doesnt have to be as extreme as someone who rapes, im talking about people who cannot form long lasting relationships due to inabilities to conceptualise their partner's feeling. Alot of people have trouble with practical day to day emphatic reasoning, that effects them and their loved ones.
I see no reason why these sorts of people couldnt be taught to develop their conceptual ability to aid compassion and empathy.

Ok so now youre saying there is a genuine spectrum going on. whereas before you were proposing there is no genuine spectrum rather people on opposite ends of the spectrum and alot of faking inbetween.
Have you really thought about your position on this issue?
You seem somewhat confused about your opinion on this matter, which makes it near impossible to keep up.

You believe genetic evolution should dictate our moral standards for us as opposed to social evolution?

Theres no medical reason to support any of those ideas, the idea that not eating meat is unhealthy is based in myth and superstition.

I actually find quorn makes an amazing substitute for meat these days, some of their products i honestly would not be able to tell the difference between the fake and the real thing.

You only deal with extreme characters then? youd only befriend someone you could equate with people like ghandi or hitler?

Where do you find these people to befriend who have absolute morality or absolute immorality is what i want to know. Where on earth do you find them?

So you believe its only when people engage in leisure they are either angels or demons? the world of work is the only area of human life in which people can ever display moral ambiguity?

I dont get where in the conversation you suddenly decided that moral ambiguity is tied exclusively to the world of commerce.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So what if i decide to label you as insane or a fool (i dont believe either of those things just for the record) do i suddenly know YOU better from giving you a label. Or have i mearly invented a caricature in my head of you that makes the complex person that is you, easily to deal with?

Ok, so now you seem to be suggesting that these labels you ascribe are somewhat erroneous, if you can acknowledge the lack of actual value your labels have i really dont see why you feel the need to continue to cling to them.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ah so now the spectrum exists again...

Maybe you should think about organizing people into more diverse mental catagories rather than sticking everyone into two large filing cabinets.

Ur..yeah of course, but i dont know anyone in business who says 'yeah dont lend money to that manager theyre evil.'
People generally just use the word 'untrustworthy' in those instances, its slighty more realistic to the situation than painting someone as the spawn of satan.

ur what? you do realise you function in the grey too right? we've already established you can suspend your own moral standards for the sake of convience, so that already pushes you into the grey.
If you believe youre all over in the white as some kind of perfect entity devoid of any ill-will or ability to harm or act in selfishness then youre fantasising.

Im not even sure we're speaking on the same terms anymore, im not entirely sure you even completely understand what a 'spectrum' entails to be quite honest - its not three colours its EVERY shade inbetween darkness and brightness.
Like when i say, 'grey' people i dont mean middle aged men in grey suits who work in banks, you do realise that thats just a colour that could appear anywhere between black and white on our established moral spectrum?
I feel youre out of your depth on this to be really honest.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I actually meant what I said. It's about supply. I don't really care about interesting or taste, I care most of all about health. A human does need protien at least once a day, especially a male. As to how much, it depends on the individual body and how you feel after you consume it. When I don't consume any protien at all I get weak and even lose weight. That's not good because it also means losing strength.

I'm not ignoring my moral standards. I eat fish most of the time, I eat chicken once in a while, I can give up chicken right now, if I had a years supply of fish guarenteed. I don't really care for chicken, and I usually don't buy it when I consume it. I did not buy the turkey on thanksgiving, but of course if it's offered to me, why should I decline it? It's not like I paid for it.

You've got my reasoning all wrong. The reason we don't eat what we want 100% of the time, is because somedays chicken is more availible than fish, somedays chicken is right up in your face, as person after person is offering it to you, while fish is not so availible. You ignore the fact that while you might only buy fish and only eat fish, if everyone else eats chicken, you could still end up eating chicken.

I never switched it off. I never said I prefer chicken over fish. I say if chicken is already cooked and everyones eating it, and you have to cook fish yourself, or if you just run out of fish and you have access to chicken, it's morally acceptable to eat the chicken. What you vegans and vegetarians don't realize is, you don't have to BUY the food to still be offered the food, or be around the food, or just see everyone else eating it and be socially pressured into it.

It's very difficult to avoid turkey on thanksgiving, vegetarian or not, if someone shoves a plate of food in your face, and it looks good, and you havent had it in months, you'll end up eating it. Once again it's not really morally wrong to eat chicken, the wrong is in supporting the torture. If someone else already purchased the food and is eating it, if something is already purchased, and you did not buy it, is it still morally wrong if it has no influence on the chickens?

Once again I never said it's morally wrong to eat meat. I don't see how not eating meat will prevent chickens from being tortured alone, the main reason not to eat chicken is because when you eat it you feel bad afterwards. It's not because it's "evil" to eat it, it's evil to torture it. After someone buys it and cooks it, it's your choice if you want to eat it or not. I'd rather not, but we all slip up on occassions.

There are many roots of evil. I'd say most of the roots of evil are emotional.

I'm around people who do.

Are you talking about sociopaths? autistic people? These people can seek help if they'd like to learn how to properly treat a partner. There are people who are trained in teaching that to people who don't naturally have empathy.
It won't teach them how to feel, but it will teach them the rules, all you really need are the rules, if you follow the rules you can maintain a successful relationship.

They don't have to "develop" their empathy. It's more that if they don't have it, they can use their reasoning ability to make up for it. If they do have it, they can develop it, but why would a person want to? I did that, its very painful.

Do you know how painful it is to feel the suffering of the world? It might seem good to do this, but it makes the world too painful for some people. Some people would rather stay numb and sane. I'm not numb enough, and thats why I don't like to operate in the grey.

I don't know if people are fake in between, but I know there are a lot of fakes. I 'm unable to say how many, but I know there are a lot, in fact I could even say that fakers might be the majority of people. I don't meet a lot of honest, open, real people. I meet a lot of fake people, so because thats what I see most of the time, I'm guessing this is the most popular type, and that this is the grey area you are talking about.

Fake people, are generally the most difficult to deal with because you don't really know what they are thinking, what they are feeling, or anything, it's difficult to predict them because they are almost random. I understand why people are fake, everyone is fake from time to time, but why would someone want to be in that mode all of the time? It seems some people are ALWAYS being fake and never real and I don't know how to be friends with that.

I'm not confused. I definately believe in good and evil. But when you ask me to define it, and want me to detail it on a spectrum, and then make it as complex as your definition, it becomes more difficult because my mind simplifies the complex down to a few words, and you want me to take a few words and blow it up back into the complex. I'd say that the analysis of individuals is a complex process, the analysis of good and evil is a complex process, and it's hard work. It's not fun. But it's neccessary to judge, and people do it. People judge character. You've heard people say someone is a good or bad person havent you? You've heard people use the word evil.

I don't understand that sorta question. They both are related and connected, how can you socially evolve if you cannot communicate?

It's based on thousands of years of human history, it's also based on my genetic code, people in my family line ate meat, how much I don't know, but certainly it wasnt that we were vegetarians, otherwise I'd be able to go vegetarian a lot easier. Vegetarian is good for people whos bodies can handle it, and who can get the calories they need so they don't lose weight. If you want to maintain a healthy weight, vegetarian diet makes it very difficult, because the body burns muscle when calories run out, and veggies have less calories. Let's also remember that fish has omega fats, and other fats which are vitally important for the brain and for human health, to ignore that humans are designed to eat meat is a bit silly. We have fangs, not as sharp as wolves, but it's obvious that we are omnivores, so it's not a myth of any sort.

When meat substitutes have the exact same nutritional values, and taste, then get back to me. I want to see a meat that has omega fats and all the health benefits of a salmon, or a steak, and then I'll take you seriously even if it does not take like steak. I tried meat alternatives before and they taste NOTHING like meat, not even similar. Maybe you don't notice because your genetic metabolism make you a vegetarian anyway. You shouldnt be eating meat. I think before the rest follow, it has to be in their advantage not to eat meat. As much as you say, that veggies are health, sure, but most guys also like keeping their muscles and not looking like how vegetarians typically look, and often feel.

I like people who are real. Ghandi and Hitler were real. I'm not saying I'd have been friends with either of them, but they were extreme in the sorta way, that everyone saw how real they were. When you meet Hitler you could see and feel his intensity, and when you meet ghandi you can see and feel his. I'm not saying I'd have wanted to meet either of them, I'm just saying that everyone knew these people, they seem knowable. Being knowable is important. You always mention ordinary people, normal people, etc, sure normal people are important, does this mean I'm going to understand normal people? Not really.

Normal people don't make any sense, they are inconsistant, irrational, difficult to interpret, difficult to understand if not impossible, difficult to know, sometimes very shallow, sometimes they feel completely empty, motionless, careless as if they are in a constant state of apathy.

This is the majority, and really, these people come and go. I'm open to friendship with normal people, I don't judge people just on good and evil. Loyalty and trustworthiness is more important than good and evil. A normal friend, who is loyal, reliable, trustworthy, etc, is most valueable, but they have to be consistant. If a person is loyal, if there is trust, then friendship is possible, because trust is the glue to friendship.

The other aspects, tell you how they feel, it helps you understand them and know them better. Grey people are difficult to trust, but if a person can function in the grey, but manage to be trustworthy, I can be friends with them.

All you need to know is that they exist. You mentioned Ghandi and Hitler, these were your two examples, right? Plenty of people are trying to live like Ghandi and plenty of people are trying to live like Hitler, as we speak. Where do you find them? All around you, the same places you find normal people, you find abnormal people.

At work, moral ambiguity is expected, depending on the job and the politics. My point is, most people don't want to have their personal lives filled with politics and drama. So thats the difference. We are talking about your close friends here, these people you need to know VERY well, there should be little to no ambiguity, because if there is, you can bet your $ that it's going to come back to haunt you.

Because in business, morals are thrown out the window for profits. But should you expect your friends to backstab you? No. You are not in competition with your friends.

I'm sure many people do label me in their mind as insane or a fool. Whats new? Everyone labels me, everyone labels you.

My labels have value to me. I never said it can make sense to any outsider.
.

Even if you have larger categories, it ultimately boils down to yes or no.

I do. People have reputations, and word spreads that manager X is a taker, they might use another word, like con-artist, or whatever they want to call the guy, but when he screws one person, it goes on record, and it ruins his reputation. He earns the reputation based on his behavior and deserves the reputation he earns. People then KNOW how he is. If you didnt call a thief a thief, it's still a thief.

Convienence? You are assuming A LOT about me, a lot more than you should. I never said it was my moral standard to never eat meat, thats your moral standard, I said it's my moral standard to not torture animals, and I don't want to support the torture of animals. Eating meat is fuzzy morally because just not eating meat doesnt really influence anything, not buying meat on the other hand has greater influence. So I buy less, I buy mostly fish, but considering that I have to eat meat at least once a day, because I'm not a complete vegan, at least not yet, I'm sometimes stuck in a situation where chicken is the best option, or even the only option as sometimes it's the only meat around. You are saying, don't eat meat, eat something else, etc etc, because you are a vegan and you HAVE something else, or you know what else to eat, but in general unless you want to live on soaps and carbs, you'll need protien. In fact, high carb is not healthy for all people, just so you'll be aware, it's healthy for your metabolism, and others it's not healthy.

Sure, but this helps you organize it in your mind how? Do you measure people on a scale of good and evil? Do you measure people on a character scale to see how intelligent they are or how their personality is? Do you in your mind rate people from 1-10? what if you don't have time to be so precise? You'll have to eventually make a judgement even if it's wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat
http://www.new-harvest.org/default.php

 

You do realise you can get protien from food sources other than meat right? beans, grains, pasta, theres actually alot of food out there which contains protien that you might not be aware of.

But i dont understand why you have this idea in your head that if you need an almost daily supply of fish to stay healthy, theres really nothing to support that.

Again i dont really understand why you feel like the only food on offer is fish and the only substitute to this is chicken. There are thousands of different types of foods out there.
If youre happy to switch to chicken everytime fish runs out i dont really understand why youre not happy to switch to beef, lamb, or pork either.
Im not entirely sure how youve rationalised that its ok to eat meat as long as its chicken and as long as you didnt pay for it.
If you consume a chicken even if someone else did pay for it, theyre more likely to go out and buy another one because youve eaten the supply and they need to stock up on more.

I understand that you dont believe eating meat is wrong (i actually dont either), you only believe supporting harm,torture, and mistreatment is.
And yes i agree, if everyone is at the table and you say..have a slice of turkey, no that isnt really going to make an overall difference.
But if you eat chicken on a semi-regular basis, then i really cant see how you marry that up or make it ok with your moral beliefs.
You are consuming on a yearly basis probably a considerable amount of chicken and in doing so supporting the entire market for it.

So your moral standards arnt based on any genuine morality or feelings of empathy, you just dont want to feel guilty about. Doesnt that seem abit 'fake' and grey to you?

Well i dont think you can really assume that if you slip up everyone else does, a great deal of people never slip up atall.
Im not trying to appear 'holier than thou' here, as i said i am far from perfect, im just saying its kind of erroneous to assume that something must be true of everyone because its true of you.

No i was refering to people with prehaps borderline personality disorders, which isnt based in a neurological lack of empathy, more of an inability to practically use those sorts of feelings.
As i said in my original post the emotion 'mind' can be developed every bit as the intellectual mind.

I agree it is, but ultimately it does create a better world, which is what we all want at the end of the day right? despite how we might disagree about defintions and such i think we both can agree on that.

I dont think i can really relate to those people either, ive tried to in the past but its futile.

So do you still believe those labels are of use for catagorising the whole of society? do you see real benefits by continuing with this method of labeling as opposed to employing a wider set of definitions?
If so what are the benefits as you see them?

Ive never heard of the idea of their being different body types predisposed to meat-eating or vegetarianism. Is there any science to support this view?

No i meant its a myth that we need meat in our diet, we are designed to eat it alongside vegetables yes, but we dont need it in order to survive and maintain good health.

Again thats another myth, the 'pasty/puny vegetarian', in has no basis in fact other than a social myth. Im a vegetarian and im medium build/stocky and i do not suffer from feelings of tiredness.

Its not about being being normal or weird its just recognosing that pretty much everyone (even you) does good and bad. Its just how life is. Im sure even ghandi commited a few misdeeds in his time.
Humanbeings are not perfect thats all im saying.

Again its not about normality, just recognising that noone is morally perfect.

Ok i see what youre saying now.

But why bother if it doesnt bring you any closer to the truth? im not going to label simply because its social norm, if it doesnt bring me any closer to the truth then im being lead away from reality and into fantasy. Id rather atempt to lead as much of an objective life as i can.

Sure you can decide 'yes this person will make a good friend/partner' or 'no this person wont make a good friend/partner'.
But you dont have to frame them as good or evil in order to make those descisions.

You dont have to eat meat everyday (medically speaking), please do the research on the subject.
And not eating meat doesnt make you a vegan.
And you are still supporting torture even if you do buy less chicken, you said earlier that you couldnt understand how people switch off their values/compassion in certain situations.
Well everyone does this (even me), and this example of how you rationalise that is ok to eat meat some of the time proves that you do it yourself even if you arnt fully aware of it.
We rationalise/disguise the actions that we know contradict our internal values in order that we dont feel guilty. If you can understand this process, you should be able to understand how people can rape/murder/and torture as well.
Of course those actions are far more extreme, but the point is its the same psychological process at work that allows those people to live with their actions (unless they are sociopathic in which case they dont care either way and dont need to use this process).

Im not a vegan, vegans refuse to eat diary products also (i eat diary).

You can get protien from plenty of sources other than meat

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course, but i think for me (and i imagine most people) the process is non-verbal, i'll have an idea about someone of course. But i dont use a two catagory system because i think people are too dynamic to judge that absolutely.

 

Those are not complete protiens. If you do the research you'll see that you'd have to eat a lot more veggies to get complete protien and still might not be able to do it. Let's not also forget that certain enzymes and nutritients only exist in meat, like creatine, and arginine, along with many others.

Also once again, omega 3 fatty acids, DHA which is found in fish oil is important for brain health. Trust me, you are missing out on alot when you give up meats.

How do you get your daily supply of DHA and omega 3 fatty acids?

Fish has omega 3, and DHA, and it is high in easily digestable protien, complete protien. This not only keeps your muscles healthy, it keeps your brain healthy, and your heart healthy.

I'm not really into chicken either. But chicken is better/healthier than pork, lamb or beef.

I'm not the one buying it. I buy mostly fish, but if someone else buys chicken and my fish runs out, then I'll have chicken because thats all there is. If I don't eat it, they will, food does not get puchased based on what I will or won't eat, people buy food based on what they will or won't eat, regardless of what other people like. I don't like chicken, so It's not my primary meat source, but I'm still learning about replacements. I'm thinking I will keep fish as a meat source, and then just eat veggies and carbs, nuts, beans, rice. I only need one meat source, but fish is also the most expensive meat source, that does not help.

It has no influence on them. Hey it was worse, I convinced them to buy less beef and pork etc, but like I said, just because I decide not to eat something doesnt mean everyone else around me will. I don't like eating beef and pork at all, I don't mind chicken but I prefer fish. If it were up to me, I'd eat fish every single day for the rest of my life.
Now I know what you are going to say, you are going to say that even eating fish is wrong, but you have to think about how fish die. They die painlessly, and quick, and they are killed by the environment itself, if you had to hunt them, you could hunt them by the hundreds or thousands at a time.

This is not the same as torturing a chicken, or a cow, or a pig, etc.

Ok we are in agreement. But you are a full vegetarian right? This means you don't eat fish either. As far as I know, fish are not being tortured.
There might be problems with over-fishing, but as far as we know, fish die in the least painful way.

I never said I feel good about eating chicken. I eat it when there is nothing else to choose from. I do not have an endless supply of fish, despite what you may think, and fish is a lot more expensive than chicken, you know this as well as I do.

I'm not supporting the market as much as I was in the past. So while I'm not completely avoiding it, I consume it on a semi regular basis, eventually this will be not at all, but it won't happen over night. It requires that I adapt to all the silly holidays where people invite you over for turkey, or some other bird. It also means I'm going to have to find a meat similar in cost, that is a fish. So far the only fish that costs as cheap as chicken is sardines, and tuna, both which are difficult to get in large amounts like you can get chicken.

My moral standards are rational, I feel empathy, but it has to be practical to exercise it. If you want to get on my case for consuming chicken, go ahead, you have the moral highground on that issue. I never claimed I was morally perfect, no human is morally perfect, but as long as I'm on the path to moral perfection, it's the same path as yours. I can say the majority are not on this path.

Everyone slips up somewhere. There is not a person on earth who has not slipped up in any way. It's about the degree of slipup, the level of slipup. There are men, who are good men, who just cannot handle relationships. There are good women, who are good in many ways, but who are not good to themselves in all ways.

I never claimed anyone was flawless, or that people don't slip up. Empathy eventually does prevent people from slipping up, but if you use eating meat as an example, 99% of the country eats meat, it's not the same sort of example of say, rapist. So meat is both a cultural tradition, and it's got nutritional value, what you can do is promote high protien low carb veggies, that taste decent. This will help people make the transition.

I didnt say everyone has the same strengths and weaknesses.

I have not mastered practically using empathy either, I don't consider myself disordered, I consider empathy nonpractical, impractical,

Expression is a communcation skill moreso than an intellectual skill.

Yes we can agree on that.

It's impossible to relate to everyone.

Psychologists define people based on how crazy they are. How is this better?

Yes there is science behind it, some people cannot tolerate much carbs, some people can tolerate a lot of carbs, some people need a high fat diet, some need a low fat diet, some need a high calorie diet, some need a low calorie diet. The difference is between the different metabolisms. Some people just have different bodies and need to eat different things.

Different bodies need different foods. People should eat what their ancestors ate. Some people had ancestors who did not eat high carb, and these people are healthier not eating high carb. Other people had ancestors who ate high carb, and these people are healthier eating high carb. What this means is that each person's diet should be individualized based on how they respond to it.

That's a perfect example. Your body is designed to be vegetarian. If you were not designed to be vegetarian, you'd feel weaker. It totally depends on individual bodies, diet is the type of thing which has to be individualized.

We were discussing good and evil, not good and bad. There is a difference between evil and bad.

I never said anyone would be morally perfect. I said good and evil.

It does not matter what you frame them as. It's still yes or no. It's still going to be yes or no.

If a person is on a low carb diet, then they must raise their protien and fat intake. The way to do this is by eating meats high in omega 3 fats, like fish. Carbs are not good for everyone. I admit I eat too many carbs, but I know high carb is not healthy for all people.

I never said I was against eating meat. I said I was against supporting torture.

You cannot use eating chicken, as an example of why people murder and rape. This would be like saying if someone eats chicken it's as morally wrong as rape, or as morally wrong as actually running the chicken factory. That's not true at all. It's as morally wrong to eat chicken as it is to buy ciggarettes or use drugs. People do it, it's wrong, but it's not directly wrong. You should not blame the drug addict for the crimes of the drug dealer.

No, unless you view humans as food.

So you eat eggs? This is almost as bad as eating chicken, but of course most vegetarians don't think of it like that. The question is, who is responsible for the pain chickens feel, the question is not who is eating the chicken or who benefits, because someone is directly responsible, and then others are indirectly responsible.

 

Why do you believe you need omega 3 acids everyday? i eat fish approx once a week btw.

No i eat fish (never said i was a vegetarian)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well actually you did, youve claimed from the start that you can only deal with people who lie on the opposite ends of the spectrum (good or evil) and that you cannot mix or associate with people who lie anywhere between the two (the morally or immorally imperfect).
So if you now say that no human can be morally perfect, then this amounts to the exact same thing ive been saying from the start - that we all exist somewhere in the grey.
It seems we've been in complete agreement from the start if thats your position, and im unsure how this debate even started. Unless youve changed your mind somewhere along the lines in this conversation, which would make alot more sense.

Sure, we're both trying to be good people by the sounds of things

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Really, why? it seems to me that if the human race lost its ability to empathise society would crumble within the space of a few decades.
If we had no empathy we'd sell each other out at every turn, the concept of trust would utterally alien and no agreements or social bonds could ever be adquately formed.
Its clear to me that empathy has evolved for a clear purpose, it puzzles me why people these days believe emotions are some muddlesome aspect of ourselves that get in the way of progress. Theyre absolutely funamental to our fuctioning as an autonomous species as far as i can see.


.

Im not sure id define psychology as understanding people on a sliding scale of 'craziness'.

Im not sure it really works like that, and even if it did it would be near impossible to establish what your ancestors diet consisted of going back 3 or 4 generations.

Yes i think there may be some truth in that, although i guess you can never really guage the effects of different diets untill trying them out.

Well with all due respect you have, thats what this entire debate has been about. Me atempting to convince you that almost all humanbeings exist somewhere in the grey area of the good/evil spectrum.
It seems a critical misunderstanding has occured if this is the case, prehaps when i spoke of people 'existing in the grey' you thought i meant, people being half good/half evil

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Which is why i specific in stating that eating chicken is not as morally wrong as raping a woman. I mearly stated the process of post-rationalisation or 'letting oneself off the hook' was exactly the same.

No,i meant milk, i dont eat eggs : p

 

I gave you my definition for evil. I never gave my definition for good. It's easy to see evil, it's so extreme that it's obvious when a person is being evil.
Good on the other hand is not so obvious, but there are extreme good.

Yeah and I'm sure thats exactly what some people want, it's not like everyone cares about the human race and society. Without empathy, society could still exist, if everyones chipped, watched at all times, and treated like a prisoner.

Thats what humans do, most humans do sell each other out at all times. There is not much trust. How many people do you trust? 2? 3? There would still be trust, theres trust not among people in the business world, and in the political world, and other places, but it's not the faith based trust, it's verified trust, the sorta trust based on facts. Maybe some people operate in this way already. If you control all your employees then you can trust them. You trust what you can control right?

Emotions are the problem. We aren't functioning as a species. We are a dying species. Accept the truth. Now you know the truth, go make money, do whatever you want to do.

Psychologists like to convince everyone that they are sick. I'm all for psychology, but I'm not for the corrupt aspects of it, like giving out all these pills and telling everyone they are sick.

Actually it is, your genetics.

 

I think thats very debatable, i tend to see emotions as having evolved for a reason, evolutionary theory states that empathy evolved to enable 'team playing' and to allow us to work together in large groups.
True it is just a theory and not verifiable truth, but id tend to agree with this.

Good point!

How do you figure that? we're thriving in sheer numbers more than at any point in our history, we're also more autonomous than at any other point in history.
Im not sure how you equate your statement with truth since it doesnt match up with reality.

Sure, it easy to turn it all into a labeling game of 'pick the disorder you have', and i agree that there does seem to be a problem in psychology at the moment with over labeling. I think there needs to be a sensible balance.

Agreed.

Nope, you did. i think your getting your position confused with mine.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

hmm maybe we should wrap this up soon eh.

Then youre making no consistant sense, youve thrown away any kind of 'grey' inbetween the two states and are polarizing everyone as either good or evil again. Unless of course (as i asked in my previous post) what youre really saying is people who project good and evil in equal measure are the only individuals who can be put in the grey.
Again this seems to be a critical misunderstanding of what a spectrum actually is, a spectrum isnt three seperate colours its millions of shades in between two opposing colours.
I really dont think you have a clear understanding of your own position on this topic, so i think im going to have to wrap this up pretty soon.

Me neither, but as you said earlier alot of evil is simply based in ignorance.

I think youre changing your mind from post to post to be honest, as i said i think im going to have to throw in the towel after this, because theres no consistancy to your opinions/beliefs.
Im not sure youre certain what you believe on this issue to be honest, i think you have a general idea but nowhere near enough of a defined idea to start a debate with someone on a forum.

As i already said i do judge people, i just use more accurate/numerous catagories than good/evil.

Agreed.

I believe we can achieve ethical capitalism, i.e. fair competition as opposed to outright exploitation, i think by using our emotions and our rationality together we can have in theory the best of both worlds.
I think we can see the baby steps of this process already emerging as western governments bring in more and more legislation to ensure workers are not exploited.
We can have a world in which more people are happy, which even if youre not alturistic would still be beneficial as people being more content means less wars, conflict, strikes, global instability..basically the odds of shit comming back to you are considerably decreased.

 

I believe that empathy is more than ust picking up on non verbal cues. I think it is a form of telepathy; you and the other person are literally feeling the same thing.

I also believe that humans are less telepathic than some things in the animal world such as ants. You can not make sense of ant behavior unless you look at the ant colony as a single organism. In other words the ants are connected by one mind. This is observable and undeniable.

 

Speculation works out so much better than accepting something as true without supportive evidence (and potentially the existence of contradictory evidence)

 

Your point is entirely unclear. Are you making a point about my use of the word "believe." If so, I was merely announcing my opinion on the subject before stating my point: Ants are intelligent and telepathic.

 

If empathy were communicated via psychic interactions, then these emotions that take you over should also happen when you are blindfolded and you cannot tell who is in the room.

Your probably just picking up on micro-expressions, which are sub-conscious projections of our mental state. Most people cannot control them.
Different people can read these signals to different extents.

 

Yes. Specifically the word believe is generically 'to accept as true'. The context of how the word is used can show what kind of conditions are attached to the acceptance. For example, in the case of anything 'supernatural'... ex. 'Telepathy', 'God', 'Werewolves', there is no evidence that the 'supernatural' exists and some evidence that contradicts it; therefore, to 'believe' in any of these supernatural items means that you accept them as true without consideration to and / or comprehension of evidence.

You are asserting your opinion as objective truth by saying ants are *this* and *that*. You have effectively abandoned any hypothetical / theoretical stages and gone right for an objective conclusion. Meanwhile, in reality there isn't even a hint of evidence that 'Telepathy' exists.

 

-What's funny crunchy is that I was using the word believe to underline the fact that I was stating my opinion as opposed to stating that what I say is incontorvertible truth. I let my OPINION be known so that people would know which side I fall on.
-And, I did present evidence, anyone can observe ants for themselves and see that they exhibit both intelligence and some form of group mind that is as far as I know currently unexplainable by science. I'm just taking a wild guess here that you haven't really looked into ants all that much, in other words, it is you, not me, that hasn't looked at the evidence. Why don't you look at the evidence and then come back with whatever wild explanation it is you come up with to make the world fit back into your neat little box.

 

-What's funny crunchy is that I was using the word "believe" to underline the fact that I was stating my opinion as opposed to having it sound like what I say is incontorvertible truth. Remove the word "believe" from my above post and you'll see the difference. I let my opinion be known so that people would know which side I fall on.
-And, I did present evidence, anyone can observe ants for themselves and see that they exhibit both intelligence and some form of group mind that is as far as I know currently unexplainable by science. I'm just taking a wild guess here that you haven't really looked into ants all that much, in other words, it is you, not me, that hasn't looked at the evidence. Why don't you look at the evidence and then come back with whatever wild explanation it is you come up with to make the world fit back into your neat little box.

 

It's conclusive, empathy doesnt really exist, we are biological machines.

Or maybe empathy is just humans acting in their long term best interest. In that case it definately exists.

 

Have you ever listened to a song and felt empathy? sure. No facial expressions, sound can trigger it. Try listening to someone being victimized and beaten.

Hell even if you don't have the sound or visuals, just knowing reality is as fucked up as it is can trigger it.

 

Humans have the same behavior. It's just not as organized.

 

Why not say in my opinion? The word 'opinion' also has multiple meanings based on context. It ranges from accepting something as true to mere speculation. The word 'belief' doesnt appear to share that speculatory definition. If you really meant speculation then my bad

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(no foul, just no so clear language).

I would however point out that the very definition of telepathy is communication via some mechanism other than sensory perception. I haven't seen evidence of ants effectively communicating without physical antenna touch and smell.

On a side-note, I noticed that you had mentioned that you want people to know which side you fall on. There is a human tendency to polarize into exactly 2 camps on any particular issue. The reality is that there are often additional positions (some of the most infrequent ones being 'I don't know' and / or 'I speculate that').

Quite correct and I agree. Due to the inherent nature of this sub-forum I want to explain something (which you might be very well aware of). When something is 'unexplainable' by science, people whom are inclined to 'believe' tend to fill that lack of knowledge hole with various attractive fantasies. A common (and quite fallacious) argument arises that because science hasn't explained something that is proof that magic exists.

It was a wild guess indeed and an incorrect one.

I've looked at many points of evidence concerning how the 'mind' of an ant colony works. At present, I don't know (I don't even have any decent speculations at the moment). I will however assert that in order to achieve it, real sensory perception is required (i.e. no magic).