Discussion on human nature

I would say society has changed a great deal since the dawn of the age of humans. Consider that at one point in time there were two species of 'humans' on the planet. The competition was fierce but ultimately Sapiens won out because of their larger, more evolved brain. A larger brain that would go on to invent all kinds of ideas and eventually learn how to chronicle. In all periods of human society, the definition of evil has changed through hearsay and definitely the evolution of religion has helped to spur definitions of what is evil and good.


Bare with me if my information is incorrect, but you get the idea :D

In Biblical times, the Roman Senate? considered followers of Christ 'evil' and heretics. They were all men of course, because women were not allowed in politics. So many were killed in the name of Rome. Tales of undead vampires were spread throughout Europe making many people scared and the actions of certain historical figures did not help.(Vlad Tepish, Elizabeth Bathory) Plus in early American settlements, many young women were killed because they were believed to be evil Satan worshiping witches trying to pretend to be innocent. And Juries that condemned them were usually all men, and not always unbiased.

Many types of lifestyles today would be considered evil if society as a whole still believed what they did in the past. But the human brain continued to evolve and slowly over the centuries what humans teach the next generation as far as what is good behavior and bad behavior changed, though much has remained the same. We are still taught that harming another person is wrong and taking what doesn't belong to us is wrong. Only a few other exceptions come to mind..Miltary combat training and Law Enforcement where killing is usually very last resort.

I think if you look over the history of the humans, women are at the very core, the less dominant gender. Consider that most governments were formed by men, most wars were started by men in power. And women could not vote anywhere until very recently. And there still has not been a female president. So I think at the very core of society, there is a difference between males and females.
Weyune
Warrant Officer I
Warrant Officer I
Krusshyk wrote:Calling "good" and "evil" a cultural construct implies some pretty interesting things dwilah.

If Good and Evil are just labels applied by individuals to specific actions, any act can arbitrarily be considered good or evil and is inherantly devoid of either "essence".

I disagree. Torturing animals is wrong. I don't care if another culture says it isn't. Do I run the risk of "ethnocentrism" by saying that torturing animals is wrong because that is how it is done in my culture? I sure do. But it is a risk I am willing to take...becuase there has to be a "Good and Evil" yardstick, independent of cultural belief that we measure actions against. We create the yardstick through thought, logic, and contemplation.
And since every one is different and thinks differently, that yardstick is different for every single person. Even if only in the minutest detail, it is still a different yardstick. A society is a consensus of those yardsticks and thus a construct of the society.
Isleh
The Kika'Vati Order
The Kika'Vati Order
Isleh wrote:
And since every one is different and thinks differently, that yardstick is different for every single person. Even if only in the minutest detail, it is still a different yardstick. A society is a consensus of those yardsticks and thus a construct of the society.
and those yardsticks are used to beat on the knuckles of other people who don't have the same yardstick, thus leading a knuckle-crushing war on the entire society
Skorixor
Grand Moff
Grand Moff
Isleh wrote:
Krusshyk wrote:Calling "good" and "evil" a cultural construct implies some pretty interesting things dwilah.

If Good and Evil are just labels applied by individuals to specific actions, any act can arbitrarily be considered good or evil and is inherantly devoid of either "essence".

I disagree. Torturing animals is wrong. I don't care if another culture says it isn't. Do I run the risk of "ethnocentrism" by saying that torturing animals is wrong because that is how it is done in my culture? I sure do. But it is a risk I am willing to take...becuase there has to be a "Good and Evil" yardstick, independent of cultural belief that we measure actions against. We create the yardstick through thought, logic, and contemplation.
And since every one is different and thinks differently, that yardstick is different for every single person. Even if only in the minutest detail, it is still a different yardstick. A society is a consensus of those yardsticks and thus a construct of the society.
I suppose I should qualify my position a bit.

We keep mentioning that "society defines good and evil"...what I am getting at, is that what society thinks is irrelevent.

My point is that the "moral yardstick" as I call it, supercedes culture. It is getting at "universal" truths, truths that disregard what a specific culture says about them. An absolute truth that is irrefutable.

I am saying that there is a "Good" and there is an "Evil" and neither of those things are defined by society; they simply exist in and of themselves. How they got there? Who cares...that is a question for people studying creation. I am just concerned with their mere existence and whether we can arrive at defining these.

I still stand by the fact that if we say "what is good and evil should vary from culture to culture" we are making good acts and evil acts arbitrary.

An act can be considered "evil" by one culture and "good" by another and that doesn't bother anyone? Then why in the hell did we bother labeling it as such in the first place?

That kind of rationale just does not sit well with me...it as an asynchrony that we deal with by saying "well that's their opinion and they are entitled". I disagree...they are not entitled. If an act is "wrong", it is "wrong" universally. Not just because I said so.

This sounds very egocentric, but believe me, this is not the case. I don't claim to know any of the truths I claim exist, but my faith in humanity tells me that through logic and reason, we CAN come to absolute truths and thereby judge an act irrefutably as good or evil.
Krusshyk
SWG Tales Founder
SWG Tales Founder
Krusshyk wrote:I suppose I should qualify my position a bit.

We keep mentioning that "society defines good and evil"...what I am getting at, is that what society thinks is irrelevent.

My point is that the "moral yardstick" as I call it, supercedes culture. It is getting at "universal" truths, truths that disregard what a specific culture says about them. An absolute truth that is irrefutable.

I am saying that there is a "Good" and there is an "Evil" and neither of those things are defined by society; they simply exist in and of themselves. How they got there? Who cares...that is a question for people studying creation. I am just concerned with their mere existence and whether we can arrive at defining these.

I still stand by the fact that if we say "what is good and evil should vary from culture to culture" we are making good acts and evil acts arbitrary.
I think Love is one universal truth that defines Good and should know no bounds.

Yet a major part of US Society fails to recognize that it should because of what society has taught them. Consider, I fall in love with a woman and have a homosexual relationship with that woman. Does that make me evil? There are yardsticks out there that would label me as such and deny me the right to be with the person I love. They would also deny me the benefits that those same people enjoy with their loved ones. The odd part about it is that these same people would most likely agree whole heartily with my first statement.

Society does define good and evil arbitrarily. Often with what society deems for it's benefit at that time irregardless of the universal truth that you seek.

You only need to look into the history books to see that.
An act can be considered "evil" by one culture and "good" by another and that doesn't bother anyone? Then why in the hell did we bother labeling it as such in the first place?
Because we as a whole are still looking for those universal truths.
Isleh
The Kika'Vati Order
The Kika'Vati Order
If fact, the search for universal truths and the concept of "Natural Law" is the source of the problem about homosexual rights that I just outlined.

The problem is that the argument of "Natural Law" vs Homosexaulity is that it fails to recognize something that I think should superceed it.

Love and the desire to give up everything so that the person you love can have everything.
Isleh
The Kika'Vati Order
The Kika'Vati Order
but what IS the meaning of life?
Skorixor
Grand Moff
Grand Moff
Skorixor wrote:but what IS the meaning of life?
Image

Shut up! Shut up, you American. You always talk, you Americans. You talk and you talk and say "let me tell you something" and "I just wanna say this". Well, you're dead now, so shut up!

:razz:
Isleh
The Kika'Vati Order
The Kika'Vati Order
Weyune wrote:
I think if you look over the history of the humans, women are at the very core, the less dominant gender. Consider that most governments were formed by men, most wars were started by men in power. And women could not vote anywhere until very recently. And there still has not been a female president. So I think at the very core of society, there is a difference between males and females.
I'll just touch on this one real quick. It is true that in recent times (such as the last 1000 years) many socitites were male dominate. But where was female dominate socities, and within the same time frame. Many Native American tribes were controlled by women, and those that weren't, still head women very high in respect, being the "Givers of Life" that they were. And here is a tidbit that many may not know. In Japan, before Confucionism (spelling?) came from China, female Samurai lead entire armies into battle. There was even a very short but moderately successful invasion of Mongolia, lead by a female "War Maiden," as they were sometimes refered to.

Not trying to start any gender strife on any thing, just putting out a little info.
Akura Tatsumura
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
and in Tomb Raider, Lara Croft can really kick some ass!
Skorixor
Grand Moff
Grand Moff
Akura Tatsumura wrote:
Weyune wrote:
I think if you look over the history of the humans, women are at the very core, the less dominant gender. Consider that most governments were formed by men, most wars were started by men in power. And women could not vote anywhere until very recently. And there still has not been a female president. So I think at the very core of society, there is a difference between males and females.
I'll just touch on this one real quick. It is true that in recent times (such as the last 1000 years) many socitites were male dominate. But where was female dominate socities, and within the same time frame. Many Native American tribes were controlled by women, and those that weren't, still head women very high in respect, being the "Givers of Life" that they were. And here is a tidbit that many may not know. In Japan, before Confucionism (spelling?) came from China, female Samurai lead entire armies into battle. There was even a very short but moderately successful invasion of Mongolia, lead by a female "War Maiden," as they were sometimes refered to.

Not trying to start any gender strife on any thing, just putting out a little info.
Yes but how much of what you mention is taught in history lessons? I don't know, but it just seems like things like that are left out of being taught for a reason, that being the reason many people may not know it.

Either that or just many of us choose not to educate ourselves beyond what we are taught in school. I am glad to hear that even in the past there were women in powerful positions, though they were in other countries and/or other societies. It goes back to what Krusshyk was saying. The cultures that oppresed women in history(ex: Roman Senate) would have frowned upon those 'foreign' cultures who let women make important decicions and hold places of power(ex:China, female Samurai). But which culture would be right and which would be wrong in their views?

But I must halt here because I don't wish to derail the original topic.
Weyune
Warrant Officer I
Warrant Officer I
Isleh wrote:
Krusshyk wrote:I suppose I should qualify my position a bit.

We keep mentioning that "society defines good and evil"...what I am getting at, is that what society thinks is irrelevent.

My point is that the "moral yardstick" as I call it, supercedes culture. It is getting at "universal" truths, truths that disregard what a specific culture says about them. An absolute truth that is irrefutable.

I am saying that there is a "Good" and there is an "Evil" and neither of those things are defined by society; they simply exist in and of themselves. How they got there? Who cares...that is a question for people studying creation. I am just concerned with their mere existence and whether we can arrive at defining these.

I still stand by the fact that if we say "what is good and evil should vary from culture to culture" we are making good acts and evil acts arbitrary.
I think Love is one universal truth that defines Good and should know no bounds.

Yet a major part of US Society fails to recognize that it should because of what society has taught them. Consider, I fall in love with a woman and have a homosexual relationship with that woman. Does that make me evil? There are yardsticks out there that would label me as such and deny me the right to be with the person I love. They would also deny me the benefits that those same people enjoy with their loved ones. The odd part about it is that these same people would most likely agree whole heartily with my first statement.

Society does define good and evil arbitrarily. Often with what society deems for it's benefit at that time irregardless of the universal truth that you seek.

You only need to look into the history books to see that.
An act can be considered "evil" by one culture and "good" by another and that doesn't bother anyone? Then why in the hell did we bother labeling it as such in the first place?
Because we as a whole are still looking for those universal truths.
I was brought up to believe that homosexuality was wrong and a sin. One of the most famous bible stories in the old testiment revolves around Sodom and Gamora, and how the men and women of that city were evil with references to homosexuality.

Do I hate them? No. Do I dislike them? No. Do I agree with their lifestyle? No. That doesnt mean I can force my lifestyle on em though. I wouldnt even begin to do that. Its my opinoon that God gave us all free will, and its up to us to use it how we please to better our lives and those around us. If someone has an alternate lifestyle then mine and are comfortable with that, then I say rock on! Your setting an example of acceptance and freedom of morality that in this day and age is something we all need to be aware of.
User avatar
Novall
BH Correspondent
BH Correspondent
Discord
@mandaloretheuniter
Character Names
Novall Talon
Contact
Novall wrote: Do I hate them? No. Do I dislike them? No. Do I agree with their lifestyle? No. That doesnt mean I can force my lifestyle on em though. I wouldnt even begin to do that. Its my opinoon that God gave us all free will, and its up to us to use it how we please to better our lives and those around us. If someone has an alternate lifestyle then mine and are comfortable with that, then I say rock on! Your setting an example of acceptance and freedom of morality that in this day and age is something we all need to be aware of.
what about people who only have sex with hot apple pie?
Skorixor
Grand Moff
Grand Moff
Skorixor wrote:
Novall wrote: Do I hate them? No. Do I dislike them? No. Do I agree with their lifestyle? No. That doesnt mean I can force my lifestyle on em though. I wouldnt even begin to do that. Its my opinoon that God gave us all free will, and its up to us to use it how we please to better our lives and those around us. If someone has an alternate lifestyle then mine and are comfortable with that, then I say rock on! Your setting an example of acceptance and freedom of morality that in this day and age is something we all need to be aware of.
what about people who only have sex with hot apple pie?
If thats your thing man...rock it hard! lol

Just let me get my slice before you have sex with it...m'k?
User avatar
Novall
BH Correspondent
BH Correspondent
Discord
@mandaloretheuniter
Character Names
Novall Talon
Contact
Just so we are all clear here and there is no confusion...

I never mentioned "natural law" nor do I agree with anything it implies. Natural Law (I think one of St. Thomas Aquinas' personal favorite topics) is based solely on religious interpretation of how things "ought to be".

Is there a way things "ought to be"? Sure. Is it what Aquinas envisioned? Not from where I am sitting, no.
Krusshyk
SWG Tales Founder
SWG Tales Founder
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest