"evil"

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
We do 'instinctively' know absolute right from wrong. The problem is that this is masked by an instinct toward selfish behavior.

If 'morality' seems to be different from culture to culture it is because at least one of the cultures is not truly moral. This is also true of the 'morality' of a single culture that has changed over time.

There is no "truly moral".

Originally posted by serigado
There is no "truly moral".

Of course there is. Do you believe that truth is absolute?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Of course there is. Do you believe that truth is absolute?

Of course there is not.
There is one truth, but one can never know it for sure or prove it.

Why do you think there's an absolute morale to guide our lives? Religious reasoning?

Originally posted by serigado
Of course there is not.
There is one truth, but one can never know it for sure or prove it.

Why do you think there's an absolute morale to guide our lives? Religious reasoning?

I assume your first sentence applies to 'true morality'.

I believe there exists an absolute truth which I assume is what you mean by 'one truth'. Just as there exists a right understanding of our physical world, there exists a right way of being that brings peace, harmony, contentment, etc. for all.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I assume your first sentence applies to 'true morality'.

I believe there exists an absolute truth which I assume is what you mean by 'one truth'. Just as there exists a right understanding of our physical world, there exists a right way of being that brings peace, harmony, contentment, etc. for all.

There can be several ways, equally valid. I could even say the most efficient way to bring peace harmony, etc is not the most moral one... to current standards, at least.

Morale depends on how society evolved, how values evolved, the needs of the people. Therefore it is relative, not absolute... do you disagree?

Originally posted by serigado
There can be several ways, equally valid. I could even say the most efficient way to bring peace harmony, etc is not the most moral one... to current standards, at least.

Morale depends on how society evolved, how values evolved, the needs of the people. Therefore it is relative, not absolute... do you disagree?

I'm not talking about 'current standards'. Quite frankly, I know of no current culture that has 'standards' that come even close to approaching true morality.

I wouldn't think that you'd think that scientific truths "depend on how society evolved, how values evolved, the needs of the people." The truths exist regardless. However, society shapes how and when the truths are uncovered and adopted. I believe the same to be true of moral truths.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm not talking about 'current standards'. Quite frankly, I know of no current culture that has 'standards' that come even close to approaching true morality.

I wouldn't think that you'd think that scientific truths "depend on how society evolved, how values evolved, the needs of the people." The truths exist regardless. However, society shapes how and ...[text shortened]... en the truths are uncovered and adopted. I believe the same to be true of moral truths.

Scientific truths exist in nature, so they depend on the nature.
Morale exists in the individual , it depends on the individual.

Nature as always behaving the same way, mankind has not. So it's hard to define a "moral truth" in morale is intrinsic with the individual...

Originally posted by serigado
Scientific truths exist in nature, so they depend on the nature.
Morale exists in the individual , it depends on the individual.

Nature as always behaving the same way, mankind has not. So it's hard to define a "moral truth" in morale is intrinsic with the individual...

Think outside the box.

Moral truths are also always the same. As little as man understands about the physical world, he understands even less about himself.

What makes you say that it is intrinsic in the individual and not independent?

I suppose, you could also look at scientific truths as being dependent on the individual. No two individuals have the exact same conceptual model of nature. However, it doesn't mean that there doesn't exist a "true" model. Similarly a "true" model exists for morality.

This shouldn't be that difficult to conceptualize.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Think outside the box.

Moral truths are also always the same. As little as man understands about the physical world, he understands even less about himself.

What makes you say that it is intrinsic in the individual and not independent?

I suppose, you could also look at scientific truths as being dependent on the individual. No two individuals ...[text shortened]... a "true" model exists for morality.

This shouldn't be that difficult to conceptualize.

Because without individuals there would be no morale. So it's about the indivuals' psychology. Where does morale reflect in the Universe, or the Universe teaches us something about morale? It's a concept created by men to give a code of conduit.
By the other hand, nature exists by itself, by definition. It's not comparable.
Where is morale besides the concept we have of it?

Originally posted by serigado
Because without individuals there would be no morale. So it's about the indivuals' psychology. Where does morale reflect in the Universe, or the Universe teaches us something about morale? It's a concept created by men to give a code of conduit.
By the other hand, nature exists by itself, by definition. It's not comparable.
Where is morale besides the concept we have of it?

It's funny. I've spoken to several individuals who believe that ALL truths are relative and they give a lot of arguments similar to what you're giving here. I can't say as I was able to convince any of them that there are some things as concrete as scientific truths no less the abstract moral truth.

But maybe if we approach this more abstractly. What do you think of overarching concepts of morality such as love, compassion, justice, etc.? Is it a coincidence that so many cultures have independently recognized these as the foundation for moral behavior?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
does evil exist? what is good and evil? are we not just animals with no more of a significant existence of every other animal? if so, is there any significance to morals at all?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

evil (noun)

1 a: the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing b: a cosmic evil force
2: something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity

evil (adj)

1 a: morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked b: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct

2 aarchaic : inferior b: causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive c: disagreeable

3 a: causing harm : pernicious b: marked by misfortune : unlucky

-------------------
Yes I would say evil exists.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
does evil exist? what is good and evil? are we not just animals with no more of a significant existence of every other animal? if so, is there any significance to morals at all?

What's with the scare quotes?? It's not "evil" it's Eeeevil. Pronounced eeh-ville. usually followed with a muhahaha!

Edit: and, oh yeah, yes it exists.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
does evil exist? what is good and evil? are we not just animals with no more of a significant existence of every other animal? if so, is there any significance to morals at all?

If you believe in the existence of supernatural beings such as god and ghosts and fairies and demons and unicorns and tooth fairies (or is it teeth fairies?) then believing in the existence of some externalised thing - evil - will probably be pretty easy.
Since I don't believe in these things, then for me the whole notion of evil is problematic.
Do people do bad things? Of course.
Is this evil? Well, I guess you could call it that. But then you go down the path of evil existing without people at all - evil as an external, separate entity.
I would call that ridiculous, and so I tend to avoid the use of the term.
People do bad things ...

As for morals? That's just how we agree collectively to treat each other. I would call that pretty significant.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It's funny. I've spoken to several individuals who believe that ALL truths are relative and they give a lot of arguments similar to what you're giving here. I can't say as I was able to convince any of them that there are some things as concrete as scientific truths no less the abstract moral truth.

But maybe if we approach this more abstractly. What ...[text shortened]... t so many cultures have independently recognized these as the foundation for moral behavior?

I would ask why so many cultures come with so many different concepts of morale, justice and love. Nowadays things converge because we are all in contact with one another.
Scientific truth does not exist. Science doesn't claim to be the truth. So your comparision to moral truth doesn't make sense.
You're reasoning is so confounded I don't know where to start with... It's not obviously wrong, but you're starting with the wrong basis to make your arguments.

1 - Morale starts in individuals.
2 - Morale doesn't exist besides the concept we make of it.
3 - Morale, being intrinsic to human mind is dependent of it by inherently.

Your argument is trying to compare your viewpoint with something that although it's approximate to the consensus, bends it a little. Try not to bend it and let's start from the beginning with the basics.

Originally posted by serigado
I would ask why so many cultures come with so many different concepts of morale, justice and love. Nowadays things converge because we are all in contact with one another.
Scientific truth does not exist. Science doesn't claim to be the truth. So your comparision to moral truth doesn't make sense.
You're reasoning is so confounded I don't know where to s nds it a little. Try not to bend it and let's start from the beginning with the basics.

When I was saying 'scientific truth', it was intended as short-hand for the absolute truth that science seeks. I was hoping that that was already established.

What you call ''the basics' is a flawed premise. If you can conceive of an absolute truth that science seeks, why can't you conceive of an absolute truth that should define 'morality'? I'm not saying it does or has, I'm saying it should.

Let's try something else:
Would you rather people be honest with you or dishonest with you? Why?