Original sin or original innocence? - Page 2

smoothmoniker · 05-13-2003, 11:38 AM

Dave, why is there this 'hardwired' respect for selflessness if it is an evolutionary disadvantage?

(see the praise lauded on Syc's stranger as a relevant example)

-sm

smoothmoniker · 05-13-2003, 11:50 AM

whit -

You can't say anything about the moral standing of "society" and have it mean something other than the collective moral standing of the individual members. If Society promotes evil behavior, then there must be something evil in the collective morality of the members.

To put it another way, picture a closed system with nothing inside of it. Now, one at a time, you introduce babies that have had no prior interaction either inside or outside of the system. At some point as they grow and interact, "evil" behavior starts to emerge. How was it introduced to the system? There's nothing in there apart from individual humans. The corruption that exists must have existed in the individual members in order to be present in the collective group.

Unless, ya know, you wanna look for something outside that makes people evil

[cue evil Satan laugh]

-sm

05-13-2003, 11:52 AM

Because selflessness helps the selfish survive. If some dumb shit gives me a meal because I'm hungry, it means I get to live a little longer or a little better. We're thankful for suckers, because they increase the chances of our survival.

I'd even go further and say that if you whittle it down, people that give more are less able to defend themselves from the attacks of the vicious, survival-minded people (having fewer steaks to eat, for example), and therefore make easier targets. Decreasing the population increases the average ration size and makes life better for others.

We're always thankful to those who make it easier for us.

Now, I don't condone being an asshole, and I myself am fond of giving whenever I have an opportunity and am able to do so. But I definitely think that being selfish is what makes human beings a viable species. Without it, we'd be nowhere.

Undertoad · 05-13-2003, 12:25 PM

To go another way: humans definitely have built-in tribal instincts to be social and to encourage communication. We've also added layer upon layer of civilization and culture to our mental toolbox. And then we've mixed those instinctive, emotional reactions in with our learned behaviors to the point where it's hard to distinguish one from another.

But since all higher order animals include learned behaviors as part of their adaptability, we shouldn't make any assumptions about human nature based on the behavior of an infant. We all know that humans are not "finished" until they complete the learning phase, and considering children as fundamentally different from adults is pretty universal.

We don't say that since baby birds can't fly, the very nature of birds is not to fly. We take the learning phase of bird development as a given.

xoxoxoBruce · 05-13-2003, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Hey Bruce, of course it's subjective. If you can apply the terms after people are 'trained,' then why can't you apply the terms beforehand?

To call a baby good or evil is like saying they're stupid because they can't read and write. It simply doesn't apply because you haven't taught them what they have to do to meet your judgements.
That's what good and evil are, subjective judgements.
Some people see a kid tearing up the supermarket and see the demon seed.
Others see spirited tyke.
I see a speed bump.

juju · 05-13-2003, 04:34 PM

Bruce, it seems to me that you're trying to apply common sense to a high-falutin' philosophical argument. Don't you realize that the ultimate goal here is to fizz everything into one giant mush of intellectualism?

xoxoxoBruce · 05-13-2003, 04:37 PM

Quote:

We all know that humans are not "finished" until they complete the learning phase, and considering children as fundamentally different from adults is pretty universal.

The Amish are an extreme example. The certainly drill the kids in what they believe to be acceptable behavior but don't chastise them for not doing it. At about 16 to 21 the kid makes a decision on whether to join the order or not. If the do, then there is no more leeway. They must follow the rules.

elSicomoro · 05-13-2003, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Whit
Hey Syc, what about all the kids that are born retarded and/or otherwise disabled? They sure as hell started off with the score stacked against them. Why not start off a big ol' blackmark on the soul?

Nah...we're talking two different realms here.

The whole original sin concept, IMO, is one of the vestiges left from the days when God was considered an angry vengeful god. You still see that today in some of the Protestant religions. Catholicism still carries the original sin concept, but at the same time, Catholicism is symbol-heavy.

The way I see it, I didn't ask to be here. I didn't do anything wrong. And even if I did anything wrong, I didn't know any better. When a child comes into the world, it is the purest piece of mankind...so how the hell can anyone say that that child is with "original sin?" I understand that many Christians believe this, and I completely respect their right to worship in religions that go down that path. But don't push it on me like the sales guy at an appliance store.

In the end, I think it's horse puckey. Just more subjective nonsense being forced down our throats by fanatics, some completely aware of their intent, others not realizing the error of their ways.

smoothmoniker · 05-13-2003, 07:39 PM

I don't know if this conversation is really possible until people are sitting at the same table. Until you've established that there is such a thing as evil, to ask whether people are born with a propensity toward it is rather meaningless. Until there is some agreement on the validity of people having an ethical orientation that is proper to their nature, asking what direction that orientation points is also meaningless.

The questions are worthwhile, but it's evident that a lot of groundwork needs to be laid prior to the present conversation. We should do so.

-sm

ScottSolomon · 05-15-2003, 01:55 AM

I think the basis for the struggle between good and evil is the struggle between rational thought, societal pressure, and animalistic desire.

Society requires us to conform to a social contract that is often in conflict with our personal desires for money, food, power, a mate, etc. Our animalistic desires are the main drivers in our lives. our raitonal mind is the arbiter of empathy and attempts to control the animalistic urges. Society provides the framework from which our rational mind derives it's rules for governing personal desire.

i do not believe - like Freud that these different aspects of self are polar opposites, but I think he was right about the gist of the strucure of human thought.

In this sense, yes we are born with original sin. We learn the societla constructs later.

juju · 05-15-2003, 03:07 AM

I don't understand how you got that conclusion from what you just said. Are you saying that "animalistic urges" are inherently evil? And that rationality is inherently good? If so, I'm not sure I agree.

Gomez da Killah · 05-15-2003, 03:25 PM

there is no evil, only man

ScottSolomon · 05-15-2003, 08:10 PM

Evil is a concept constructed to cordon off behavior that violates the social contract. In and of itself it has no meaning. I am not saying that all animalistic desire is behavior that would break the social contract, but different societies have differenc bounds for their social activity - in that sense evil is relative to those who perceive it.

Rationality allows one to adhear to the social contract and to imagine a condition beyond the contract. It is not any more good than it is evil, but it does allow one to make judgements about whether ones desires and the bahavior they elicit are appropriate for a given environment.

xoxoxoBruce · 05-18-2003, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Rationality allows one to adhear to the social contract and to imagine a condition beyond the contract.

But Saddam thought it was rational to kill and torture opponents.
So rational is as much subject to the individual as good and evil.

novice · 05-23-2003, 12:21 AM

Some aboriginal tribes in Australia still maintain the practice of stabbing offenders (usually in the thigh) as instant retribution for crimes. The stabbing rights are afforded to the victims family.
Personally I consider this to be torture (which sometimes leads to death through islation and infection, not to mention a complete lack of compassion for the stabee (?)).
The Aborigines, of course, do not share my opinion.
Good=Evil=Opinion=Inability to comprehend that which is perfectly acceptable to others=My brain melting.

05-15-2003, 01:55 AM	#25
ScottSolomon Coronation Incarnate Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: On the skin of a tiny planet in an obscure galaxy in a lackluster corner of the universe. Posts: 94	I think the basis for the struggle between good and evil is the struggle between rational thought, societal pressure, and animalistic desire. Society requires us to conform to a social contract that is often in conflict with our personal desires for money, food, power, a mate, etc. Our animalistic desires are the main drivers in our lives. our raitonal mind is the arbiter of empathy and attempts to control the animalistic urges. Society provides the framework from which our rational mind derives it's rules for governing personal desire. i do not believe - like Freud that these different aspects of self are polar opposites, but I think he was right about the gist of the strucure of human thought. In this sense, yes we are born with original sin. We learn the societla constructs later. __________________ The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. George Orwell

05-15-2003, 03:25 PM	#27
Gomez da Killah i'd rather be sleeping Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 12	there is no evil, only man __________________ love your country, fear your government

05-15-2003, 08:10 PM	#28
ScottSolomon Coronation Incarnate Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: On the skin of a tiny planet in an obscure galaxy in a lackluster corner of the universe. Posts: 94	Evil is a concept constructed to cordon off behavior that violates the social contract. In and of itself it has no meaning. I am not saying that all animalistic desire is behavior that would break the social contract, but different societies have differenc bounds for their social activity - in that sense evil is relative to those who perceive it. Rationality allows one to adhear to the social contract and to imagine a condition beyond the contract. It is not any more good than it is evil, but it does allow one to make judgements about whether ones desires and the bahavior they elicit are appropriate for a given environment. __________________ The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. George Orwell

05-13-2003, 11:38 AM	#16
smoothmoniker to live and die in LA Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,090	Dave, why is there this 'hardwired' respect for selflessness if it is an evolutionary disadvantage? (see the praise lauded on Syc's stranger as a relevant example) -sm

05-13-2003, 11:50 AM	#17
smoothmoniker to live and die in LA Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,090	whit - You can't say anything about the moral standing of "society" and have it mean something other than the collective moral standing of the individual members. If Society promotes evil behavior, then there must be something evil in the collective morality of the members. To put it another way, picture a closed system with nothing inside of it. Now, one at a time, you introduce babies that have had no prior interaction either inside or outside of the system. At some point as they grow and interact, "evil" behavior starts to emerge. How was it introduced to the system? There's nothing in there apart from individual humans. The corruption that exists must have existed in the individual members in order to be present in the collective group. Unless, ya know, you wanna look for something outside that makes people evil [cue evil Satan laugh] -sm

05-13-2003, 11:52 AM	#18
dave Guest Posts: n/a	Because selflessness helps the selfish survive. If some dumb shit gives me a meal because I'm hungry, it means I get to live a little longer or a little better. We're thankful for suckers, because they increase the chances of our survival. I'd even go further and say that if you whittle it down, people that give more are less able to defend themselves from the attacks of the vicious, survival-minded people (having fewer steaks to eat, for example), and therefore make easier targets. Decreasing the population increases the average ration size and makes life better for others. We're always thankful to those who make it easier for us. Now, I don't condone being an asshole, and I myself am fond of giving whenever I have an opportunity and am able to do so. But I definitely think that being selfish is what makes human beings a viable species. Without it, we'd be nowhere.

05-13-2003, 12:25 PM	#19
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	To go another way: humans definitely have built-in tribal instincts to be social and to encourage communication. We've also added layer upon layer of civilization and culture to our mental toolbox. And then we've mixed those instinctive, emotional reactions in with our learned behaviors to the point where it's hard to distinguish one from another. But since all higher order animals include learned behaviors as part of their adaptability, we shouldn't make any assumptions about human nature based on the behavior of an infant. We all know that humans are not "finished" until they complete the learning phase, and considering children as fundamentally different from adults is pretty universal. We don't say that since baby birds can't fly, the very nature of birds is not to fly. We take the learning phase of bird development as a given.

05-13-2003, 04:34 PM	#21
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	Bruce, it seems to me that you're trying to apply common sense to a high-falutin' philosophical argument. Don't you realize that the ultimate goal here is to fizz everything into one giant mush of intellectualism?

05-13-2003, 07:39 PM	#24
smoothmoniker to live and die in LA Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,090	I don't know if this conversation is really possible until people are sitting at the same table. Until you've established that there is such a thing as evil, to ask whether people are born with a propensity toward it is rather meaningless. Until there is some agreement on the validity of people having an ethical orientation that is proper to their nature, asking what direction that orientation points is also meaningless. The questions are worthwhile, but it's evident that a lot of groundwork needs to be laid prior to the present conversation. We should do so. -sm

05-15-2003, 03:07 AM	#26
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	I don't understand how you got that conclusion from what you just said. Are you saying that "animalistic urges" are inherently evil? And that rationality is inherently good? If so, I'm not sure I agree.

05-23-2003, 12:21 AM	#30
novice Ignorance is bliss and I'm orgasmic Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: perth, australia Posts: 296	Some aboriginal tribes in Australia still maintain the practice of stabbing offenders (usually in the thigh) as instant retribution for crimes. The stabbing rights are afforded to the victims family. Personally I consider this to be torture (which sometimes leads to death through islation and infection, not to mention a complete lack of compassion for the stabee (?)). The Aborigines, of course, do not share my opinion. Good=Evil=Opinion=Inability to comprehend that which is perfectly acceptable to others=My brain melting.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)