Multiverse wrote:cezen wrote:Multiverse wrote:No, I don´t think we are. Good or evil, that is. There´s no such thing as right and wrong, you know, but thinking makes it so. =J
Really, I think that the fact that we consider Good to be something, well, good (I don´t think I have the vocabulary to explain this, but try to hang on anyway) speaks for our common wish to be nice to each other - however, this is a secondary wish that will often be put aside to make place for our urge to survive/breed. So conclusively, I think mankind wants to be good, but it´s at a generally lower priority than our wish to survive.
This is one possibly true perspective. Right and wrong may be social constructs based on social norms.
However, if you support this view that right and wrong are what we make of it, then you are also saying that things like human sacrifices and slavery were right in their civilizations based on the social norms of those time periods.
Nontheless, many philosophers would disagree with your perspective.
Also, following the logic of your first sentence - doesn't the fact that we consider evil to be something, well, evil speak for our common wish to be evil to each other? I mean, from what I can tell, you're reasoning also applies to the concept of evil.
True, I hadn´t thought of it that way. I wouldn´t agree when it´s put like that, but then again - I have no means of telling whether or not that´s a result of today´s norms.
As for my first sentence, that´s not really what I meant... hence the remark about my limited vocabulary.
If I was to invert the statement, I would replace the second evil with a bad, which I believe would revert the point back to its original meaning ("Doesn't the fact that we consider evil to be something, well, bad, speak for our common wish to be nice to each other?"). The first 'Good' in my statement refers to the act of being good to another being, while the second 'Good' is supposed to be understood as 'Positive'. Sorry if I´m being a bit unclear here. =J
I´ve realized that my original post is somehow contradictory, though: I say that good and evil doesn´t exist, and then go right on to stating that we´re basically good.
To clarify, I think that sometimes the first statement is true (in that society often sets a norm for what´d be the proper thing to do), and at other times the second (in that we, in the aforementioned and other situations, often consider the moral value of an option as a valid, logical argument).
I must confess, I still don't understand your logic...Wait, now I do
The fact that we consider evil bad and good positive speaks to our common wish to be nice?
That's a very subjective idea. Some people consider slavery and prejudice good. You seem to be saying that it matters less the action and more the intention - and that all our intentions are to do what we consider good. In that sense, there's no way to categorize anything as good or evil, including the Holocaust, because the person may have thought they were doing something positive regardless of the action.
Nontheless, I think there are probably people who do evil things and recognize them as bad, but do it regardless.
Furthermore, there are probably people who do things, and ignore any sense of morals when deciding to do it. They may look at the necessity of the action. They may look at how it benifits them - survival of the fittest. In that sense, they don't have a wish to be good or do something good. They may not even look at the world through a moral lens.
Last, if we considered the moral value of something valid and logical, wouldn't it cease to have moral value at all? Please explain.