Good and Evil.

ольга said:
Есть светские безрелигиозные общества. У них какое понимание "добра" и "зла"?
А что для Вас лично "добро" и "зло"?
Click to expand...
You could easily post that in English Olga.

I do not recognise evil, it suggests a real thing when it is not. Can people do bad things? Terrible things? Unimaginable things? To civilians as an army? To women, children? Yes.

They do those things for a lot of reasons. I do not think Russian soldiers, professional, hard core trained, some of the toughest in the world would bomb a children's hospital, but they did.

You think a tough guy like that would want to kill a baby? Or die trying to save one?
 
Pinball1970 said:
You could easily post that in English Olga.

I do not recognise evil, it suggests a real thing when it is not. Can people do bad things? Terrible things? Unimaginable things? To civilians as an army? To women, children? Yes.

They do those things for a lot of reasons. I do not think Russian soldiers, professional, hard core trained, some of the toughest in the world would bomb a children's hospital, but they did.

You think a tough guy like that would want to kill a baby? Or die trying to save one?
Click to expand...

Pinball1970 said:
Чему Вы удивляетесь? Большевики царскую семью расстреляли, в которой тоже в основном были женщины и дети. Мой прадед воевал с ними до последнего. Он умер в эмиграции. И сами цари убивали своих соперников, даже младенцев. Но я сейчас не об этом. Есть ли ещё у кого-нибудь в природе такие понятия, как добро и зло, кроме человека? Львы, например, убивают чужих детёнышей даже своего вида, а коты могут съесть и собственных котят. Считают ли они это злом? Думаю, что нет.
Click to expand...
 
ольга said:
What is meant by this? How did this concept come about?
Click to expand...

The first organized communities had to formulate rules for holding society together. Rule breaking had to be presented as "bad" or "not desirable" as part of a strategy for deterring misconduct, and thereby also help individuals avoid punishment or consequences by warning them ahead of time.

"Evil" or whatever word is utilized as a label should indeed just be a general concept that subsumes specific acts or circumstances that qualify for membership in the idea.

But ancient peoples had residual animist tendencies which drove them to even reify abstract concepts as intentional beings, forces, and agencies. So it was inevitable that just as they personified Death and War and hundreds of other generalities as deities and various categories of entities, they would also do similar with Good (following rules) and Evil (breaking rules). Not just treating them as distributed essences, but those pervading influences ultimately emanating from anthropomorphic characters (like Elohim, Lucifer, etc).

Since systems of morality are invented, elevating their provenance and authority to sacred things beyond ordinary humans also covered that origin up (suppressed doubts about such) and enhanced the motivation for adhering to them.

Today, secular intellectuals depend on reasoned arguments and justifications to persuade more educated and less superstitious populations (and governments) to accept their ethical formulations. So the ancient dependence on personifying concepts to get people to accept _X_ is no longer heavily the case. But still you may see primeval echoes of people reacting angrily to violations of moral code in a way reminiscent of holy forces that have been defiled (i.e., responding as if more than just made-up principles that we follow as part of a social contract).
_
 
They're just words, like any other.

Atheists recognize good and evil, it's just that religions removed personal accountability from human and gave it to god.

So believers can pretend that good and evil is delivered and judged from on-high - out of their control - whereas atheists have no such scape goat. Good and evil are entirely human.

Sometimes I envy believers. They can always pretend they're not responsible. Pass the buck to god. Like lifelong teenagers.
 
ольга said:
What is meant by this? How did this concept come about?
Click to expand...
The concept of good and evil arose independently across multiple cultures while evolving through religion, law and philosophy hence it wasn't a concept that was invented or discovered but instead is a reflection of humanities enduring effort to understand justice, morality and human nature.
 
ольга said:
What is meant by this? How did this concept come about?
Click to expand...
Люди всегда считают злом то, что разрушает их жизнь - смерть, убийства, болезни, воровство(украсть - значит лишить другого ресурсов, в животном мире это означает обречь на голодную смерть), и т.п. И мы опять приходим к этому главному(единственному?) для всего живого смыслу - выживание. Что такое "выживание", "жизнь"? Это сохранение определённой физической Системы, мы почему то не хотим просто бесстрастно распасться на бездушные атомы. И наше понятие Добра и Зла сводится к одному: сохраняем свою Систему - Добро. Разрушаем Систему - Зло. А чем Система лучше или хуже Свободы?
 
ольга said:
Люди всегда считают злом то, что разрушает их жизнь - смерть, убийства, болезни, воровство(украсть - значит лишить другого ресурсов, в животном мире это означает обречь на голодную смерть), и т.п. И мы опять приходим к этому главному(единственному?) для всего живого смыслу - выживание. Что такое "выживание", "жизнь"? Это сохранение определённой физической Системы, мы почему то не хотим просто бесстрастно распасться на бездушные атомы. И наше понятие Добра и Зла сводится к одному: сохраняем свою Систему - Добро. Разрушаем Систему - Зло. А чем Система лучше или хуже Свободы?
Click to expand...
I have said this before, our morals ethics EVOLVE with us. We are social animals so have an innate sense of what is right and wrong. All social animals have it, this is not mysterious.
Animals in a social group that do not co-operate, behave or contribute do not do well.
 
Pinball1970 said:
I have said this before, our morals ethics EVOLVE with us. We are social animals so have an innate sense of what is right and wrong. All social animals have it, this is not mysterious.
Animals in a social group that do not co-operate, behave or contribute do not do well.
Click to expand...
Пин, я не об этом. Я о стремлении всего живого сохранять свою определённую физическую систему. Вы же не беспорядочный набор атомов? Нет, вы система. Откуда у живых объектов это желание выжить, сохранить систему?
 
(Q) said:
The concept of good and evil arose independently across multiple cultures while evolving through religion, law and philosophy hence it wasn't a concept that was invented or discovered but instead is a reflection of humanities enduring effort to understand justice, morality and human nature.
Click to expand...
Отражение постоянных усилий человечества сохранить свою жизнь.
 
DaveC426913 said:
They're just words, like any other.

Atheists recognize good and evil, it's just that religions removed personal accountability from human and gave it to god.

So believers can pretend that good and evil is delivered and judged from on-high - out of their control - whereas atheists have no such scape goat. Good and evil are entirely human.

Sometimes I envy believers. They can always pretend they're not responsible. Pass the buck to god. Like lifelong teenagers.
Click to expand...
Что такое добро, и что такое зло, в Вашем понимании?
 
ольга said:
Where does this desire to survive, to preserve the system come from in living objects?
Click to expand...
It evolved.

Primitive critters without a strong desire/ability to survive were eaten, thereby failing passing on their genes of lackadaisicality. Critters that had a strong desire to live got eaten less and passed on their survival genes more often.
 
C C said:
The first organized communities had to formulate rules for holding society together. Rule breaking had to be presented as "bad" or "not desirable" as part of a strategy for deterring misconduct, and thereby also help individuals avoid punishment or consequences by warning them ahead of time.

"Evil" or whatever word is utilized as a label should indeed just be a general concept that subsumes specific acts or circumstances that qualify for membership in the idea.

But ancient peoples had residual animist tendencies which drove them to even reify abstract concepts as intentional beings, forces, and agencies. So it was inevitable that just as they personified Death and War and hundreds of other generalities as deities and various categories of entities, they would also do similar with Good (following rules) and Evil (breaking rules). Not just treating them as distributed essences, but those pervading influences ultimately emanating from anthropomorphic characters (like Elohim, Lucifer, etc).

Since systems of morality are invented, elevating their provenance and authority to sacred things beyond ordinary humans also covered that origin up (suppressed doubts about such) and enhanced the motivation for adhering to them.

Today, secular intellectuals depend on reasoned arguments and justifications to persuade more educated and less superstitious populations (and governments) to accept their ethical formulations. So the ancient dependence on personifying concepts to get people to accept _X_ is no longer heavily the case. But still you may see primeval echoes of people reacting angrily to violations of moral code in a way reminiscent of holy forces that have been defiled (i.e., responding as if more than just made-up principles that we follow as part of a social contract).
_
Click to expand...
Всё, что мешает обществу и отдельному индивиду выживать, то, что их разрушает - считается злом.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top