Does good and evil really exist?

[Slartibartfast]

The more I read about moral psychology, the more I become convinced that moral behavior is based on instincts and adaptations necessary for survival.

The story as I see it is that humanity developed pro-social strategies to enhance our chances at survival as individuals or as a species.

Some examples:

Murder versus justified kills. Murder is seen largely as causing the aggressive and illegitimate death of an ingroup. That ingroup may be based on nationalism (tribalism) or some other identifier. Yet the death of the other (an individual who belongs to a competing group, like ISIS, a communist (given US mainstream culture) or maybe a monarchist in the 1700s). But the justification tends to rely on how close this person identifies with ones culture or tribe. Because war is nothing but competing tribes, no different then 10,000 years ago.

Competing groups. Social and moral psychology both have research showing that tribalism or nationalism tends to increase in presence of competing groups. This is true even in trivial groups as small as young teens at summer camp, rival sports teams, or even cliques in highschool. People tend to demonize what they see as an outgroup and attribute all sorts of nasty traits. For example, this forum is rife with people demonizing other political groups with only anecdotal justification. This behavior rewards pleasure centers and less intelligent people will blindly follow that pleasure.

Even religion, based on the fact that there are thousands, even in the modern world, is theorized to be an adaption for pro social behavior that helps us overcome personal selfishness (natures answer to the free rider problem) but is just a trick our brain plays on us. Remember, evolution is not guided and will take even inefficient methods, so long as they work.

In conclusion, all of this points to survival strategies not actual good and evil. Just animals doing what animals try to do, survive.

Personally, I see these instincts should be followed even if they are an illusion. It increases my pleasure and the pleasure of those around me, even though its arbitrary. Why not feel good if we can. So I am a supporter of these instincts. But the truth is, all morality is an illusion.

even things like supposed logical applications of morality, when examined under an MRI or anything real (real = science and not some logical equation, logic being mostly arbitrary) and verifiable. Shows the prefrontal cortex as built to justify instincts after the fact. Humans largely are not capable of true logic.

 

[Paschendale]

Morality is mainly a function of our biology. We evolved as gregarious, cooperative creatures. We prosper in communities. Most of the time, severing social ties and striking out on your own is a very bad idea. As such, we evolved to be more cooperative. The idea that there is some moral right and wrong written into the stars? That's pretty absurd. But the factors that lead us to make moral choices are written into our DNA.

 

[Paleocon]

The more I read about moral psychology, the more I become convinced that moral behavior is based on instincts and adaptations necessary for survival.

The story as I see it is that humanity developed pro-social strategies to enhance our chances at survival as individuals or as a species.

Some examples:

Murder versus justified kills. Murder is seen largely as causing the aggressive and illegitimate death of an ingroup. That ingroup may be based on nationalism (tribalism) or some other identifier. Yet the death of the other (an individual who belongs to a competing group, like ISIS, a communist (given US mainstream culture) or maybe a monarchist in the 1700s). But the justification tends to rely on how close this person identifies with ones culture or tribe. Because war is nothing but competing tribes, no different then 10,000 years ago.

Competing groups. Social and moral psychology both have research showing that tribalism or nationalism tends to increase in presence of competing groups. This is true even in trivial groups as small as young teens at summer camp, rival sports teams, or even cliques in highschool. People tend to demonize what they see as an outgroup and attribute all sorts of nasty traits. For example, this forum is rife with people demonizing other political groups with only anecdotal justification. This behavior rewards pleasure centers and less intelligent people will blindly follow that pleasure.

Even religion, based on the fact that there are thousands, even in the modern world, is theorized to be an adaption for pro social behavior that helps us overcome personal selfishness (natures answer to the free rider problem) but is just a trick our brain plays on us. Remember, evolution is not guided and will take even inefficient methods, so long as they work.

In conclusion, all of this points to survival strategies not actual good and evil. Just animals doing what animals try to do, survive.

Personally, I see these instincts should be followed even if they are an illusion. It increases my pleasure and the pleasure of those around me, even though its arbitrary. Why not feel good if we can. So I am a supporter of these instincts. But the truth is, all morality is an illusion.

What does this have to do with morality?

 

[Slartibartfast]

What does this have to do with morality?

I am showing the basis of morality is biological and not any other viewpoint such as transcendence

 

[Jango]

From a humanist and psychological perspective, yes, because we have the capacity for complex emotions. But that doesn't mean that it is reality based, as our emotions tend to negatively impact the intellectual capacity of our brains. As far as civilizations go (sociology), there is behavior that is done without question because it is the norm just as their behavior that goes against the norm and is profusely questioned. Each community is unique as to what they consider acceptable behavior to be.

 

[Goshin]

Yes, there is real good and real evil.


Work in law enforcement for a year or two... you'll see both.

 

[the_recruit]

Personally, I see these instincts should be followed even if they are an illusion. It increases my pleasure and the pleasure of those around me, even though its arbitrary. Why not feel good if we can. So I am a supporter of these instincts. But the truth is, all morality is an illusion.

Complete and total fail. You are espousing morality. "These instincts should be followed" is an ethical claim. "We should increase pleasure" is an ethical claim. You are asserting normative statements, moral claims. And, then, in the very next sentence say "all moral claims are false". :doh

Your argument is completely self-defeating. If there is no morality, then there is nothing we should do. By definition. To claim "there is nothing we should do" and "we should follow these instincts to increase pleasure" is total nonsense.

 

[lizzie]

Whether or not good and evil really exist is less of an issue to me than the idea that one cannot exist without the other, and that without our emotional nature, we would be far less inclined toward either passing judgment or on the same hand rationalizing why we should not judge at all. We are highly inconsistent wrt being willing to practice what we claim to uphold as true and just.

 

[US Conservative]

Yes, there is real good and real evil.


Work in law enforcement for a year or two... you'll see both.

You would know more than most of us, but Ive seen a few things in 14 years as a paramedic-there is absolute evil in the world that would make anyone-including the saltiest of cops cringe. Most people haven't seen into the eyes of that beast, but it certainly exists.

To those that dont understand this, I suggest college level courses in psychology, sociology, and perhaps spend some time working in an emergency room. Jail's and even more so prisons would be better-but they aren't accessible to the general public.

Its worse than most people know, some of us presume too much of why people do what they do.

 

[Unrepresented]

You would know more than most of us, but Ive seen a few things in 14 years as a paramedic-there is absolute evil in the world that would make anyone-including the saltiest of cops cringe. Most people haven't seen into the eyes of that beast, but it certainly exists.

To those that dont understand this, I suggest college level courses in psychology, sociology, and perhaps spend some time working in an emergency room. Jail's and even more so prisons would be better-but they aren't accessible to the general public.

Its worse than most people know, some of us presume too much of why people do what they do.

Your fear of something doesn't make it evil, it just makes it something you fear. "Evil" is a term used to create cohesion within a social group by defining expectations and boundaries. The "evil" you've seen are violations of your established collective social order or the social order you're advocating implementing, which will by nature be a subjective set of criteria.

 

[US Conservative]

Your fear of something doesn't make it evil, it just makes it something you fear. "Evil" is a term used to create cohesion within a social group by defining expectations and boundaries. The "evil" you've seen are violations of your established collective social order or the social order you're advocating implementing, which will by nature be a subjective set of criteria.

What you are trying to do is make sense of the bits and pieces you know into something more cohesive-thats fine but you are going to find out there are many things outside your theories. Work 6 months in psychology and let us know what you find. Start in a jail ward.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Complete and total fail. You are espousing morality. "These instincts should be followed" is an ethical claim. "We should increase pleasure" is an ethical claim. You are asserting normative statements, moral claims. And, then, in the very next sentence say "all moral claims are false". :doh

Your argument is completely self-defeating. If there is no morality, then there is nothing we should do. By definition. To claim "there is nothing we should do" and "we should follow these instincts to increase pleasure" is total nonsense.

1. Morality and the concept of good and evil are not necessarily the same thing
2. The reason to suggest a behavior can easily have nothing to do with morality


For example: the statement "one ought not eat too much candy to avoid a stomach ache".

This is an ought, yet the concern is entirely practical and does not necessarily imply that not following that "ought" is bad, but that a behavior can backfire in some situations. One may have just eaten so the effect of the candy could be blunted due to the presence of protein and fiber for example.

This is the same sort of type of suggestion. In a normal brain structure and functional level, one will feel driven to perform pro social behaviors to increase ones sense of pleasure and happiness. Just as one ought to not bite their tongue off, jump into boiling water, avoid love and sex, or avoid making friends, etc. None of those specific behaviors are moral or immoral. The assumption behind those statements is a set of functioning behavioral drivers. If one asexual for example, the suggestion to seek out sex wouldn't work. So the ought here is aimed at an audience will already want to do these types of things.

Using words like ought outside of a moral context is a pretty common phrasing in the English language. Another example is a friend suggesting whether another friend should accept a date request from some cute guy or girl. "You ought to go out with him or her due to reasons x, y, z" would be far from a moral statement but a strong prompting or suggestion as typically understood by people

Nice try though

 

[Slartibartfast]

Whether or not good and evil really exist is less of an issue to me than the idea that one cannot exist without the other, and that without our emotional nature, we would be far less inclined toward either passing judgment or on the same hand rationalizing why we should not judge at all. We are highly inconsistent wrt being willing to practice what we claim to uphold as true and just.

Humans developed this idea of morality because it increases the chance of passing DNA to the next generation so it will often be inconsistently by design methinks. Consistent application offers less survival advantage.

Humanity is far from rational and natural selection seems to have no use for rationality.

 

[Paleocon]

I am showing the basis of morality is biological and not any other viewpoint such as transcendence

In what way did you show that?

 

[Slartibartfast]

In what way did you show that?

You might want to reread the first post

 

[Paleocon]

You might want to reread the first post

The implicit assumption is that subjective intent is all that matters. Why?

 

[Slartibartfast]

The implicit assumption is that subjective intent is all that matters. Why?

Because observation of human behavior and neuro-scientific studies show that, with very few exceptions, the brain processes morality mainly in the emotional centers meaning it is an innate biological trait. Even moral functions like transcendence (or holiness) and purity can be mapped out and show similar processing from person to person.

Those wonderful feelings people get in their rituals, well there's really nothing to that beyond reward centers lighting up and likely the result of our brains being programmed to create conditions that, if we were more technologically primitive, create greater social cohesion and conformity.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The implicit assumption is that subjective intent is all that matters. Why?

Here is an example from my post above how feelings of god can be stimulated showing its simply a biological function (the god helmet section)

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brain-religion2.htm

 

[Risky Thicket]

Love exists. We have all known love and experienced different types. Good, or compassion, is a product of love. Evil is the absence of love.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Love exists. We have all known love and experienced different types. Good, or compassion, is a product of love. Evil is the absence of love.

That's how I personally see it, but I'm not sure this is objective. For example there are multiple types of love, storge, philla, Eros, agape.

The wrong application of Eros can creates some rather nasty outcomes for example

 

[Unrepresented]

What you are trying to do is make sense of the bits and pieces you know into something more cohesive-thats fine but you are going to find out there are many things outside your theories. Work 6 months in psychology and let us know what you find. Start in a jail ward.

Being scared doesn't make you an objective expert on evil.

 

[lizzie]

What you are trying to do is make sense of the bits and pieces you know into something more cohesive-thats fine but you are going to find out there are many things outside your theories. Work 6 months in psychology and let us know what you find. Start in a jail ward.

Hell, just start in the county hospital. I worked in that setting for 5 years after getting out of nursing school, and had to change, as my attitude toward humanity was getting so bad. I worked on a pediatric and pedi ICU unit, and my estimation is that we probably had around 10% of the parents of those kids who were willing to stay with them during the hospitalization period. The rate of dysfunction was astounding.

 

[US Conservative]

Being scared doesn't make you an objective expert on evil.

Recognizing evil exists does not make one scared.

 

[US Conservative]

Hell, just start in the county hospital. I worked in that setting for 5 years after getting out of nursing school, and had to change, as my attitude toward humanity was getting so bad. I worked on a pediatric and pedi ICU unit, and my estimation is that we probably had around 10% of the parents of those kids who were willing to stay with them during the hospitalization period. The rate of dysfunction was astounding.

Oh yeah I worked in a peds ward for 3 months in school (loved the nurses there, btw) and I'd even stay at night/early morning with kids because their weren't any parents and they were terrified. And then there were 4 and 5 year olds who cursed like sailors and argued with the staff, and their parents would act like they didn't know where they got that attitude from-right. During my time there we had a 3 year old girl who wasn't ill but had been abused staying in the ward because the state was trying to find her a new home, she'd ride her tricycle around and we discovered she was afraid of the men with beards on the service-we surmised why. Fortunately my attending was way ahead of me and knew on upon that child's admission what tests to order to "incidentally" find signs of abuse, which were later used to put someone in jail.

Jail wards are just as tragic. And denying evil exists only helps the evil of the world.

 

[Unrepresented]

Recognizing evil exists does not make one scared.

Nothing that's innocuous is "evil." "Evil" is something that's threatening. It involves fear, whether for yourself or for someone else.