GDR writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
What makes it good to me is the warm feeling I get and the knowledge that I am not harming others.
I assume that some people get warm fuzzies torturing people. Also I think the idea isn't that you're not just "not harming" others but that you are actually helping others.
I specifically said "and not harming others", so why bring up cases of torturers who are clearly harming others? They are obviously not doing something good, even if they fell good about, because they are causing harm. Some people are broken and take pleasure from harming others. The rest of us think it is good to try to stop them and that is why we pass laws to hold them accountable.
Does my every action have to be helping others?
We can all agree that it is "bad" but on the other hand it seems to make the perpetrators feel good so why is it bad.
Because it harms others. Why do you keep ignoring that?
I would contend that there is an "ultimate" sense of what is good and that, as I said, would by definition have to come from something outside of our human existence.
This makes no sense to me. It seems obvious to me that our sense of what is good can only come from human existence and experience.
What I do question is the idea that if we are only the result of mindless chemical processes then what is good?
What is with the continuous description as "mindless chemical processes?" When you tell someone how to mix, for example, backing soda and water, do you say mix the mindless backing soda in the mindless water so it will mindlessly dissolve?
I think most chemical processes called people would say good is what doesn't harm others.
As pointed out by someone on this thread, the result of what individuals in societies come to a consensus on defines goodness for that culture. Different societies come to different conclusions.
And if they get goodness wrong because they are harming people, which is not goodness, then the rest of human society stands up to them and makes them stop.
My contention is that we can only recognize what is good and what is evil because there is a universal understanding of what is good.
Yes, from human experience we have developed a universal understanding of what is good. We can quite easily detect when sick people and their ideas cause harm to others.
In simple terms it boils down to the Golden Rule.
Yes.
However, if there is nothing but chemical processes then the "Golden Rule" is only golden in societies that decide that it is.
And those societies by their nature try to demonstrate why the golden rule is good to those who do not know the rule or those who insist on breaking the rule.
I don't understand what chemical processes have to do with the golden rule.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
™ Version 4.2
(1)
