There is no such thing as good or evil.

it is not autonomic. you are thinking of sensations.

you can divide both along environmental factors.
you divide views of good and evil by culture.
you divide shades of red by lighting.

as for your international version of red..... there are many different shades of red that are important to different cultures. being native, i know that a deep and slightly dark red is often used in artwork.

what i mean by "when we perceive" is that:
a firetruck exists external to us.
the rays of light that just happen to be perceived as a color of red are just that, rays of light.

 

What is good and what is bad is completely up to mans perception.
What is good for me to do may be evil for you to do.

Now I never said good an evil don't exist, I simply stated that they were man made and subjective.
Personal morals derive from modern day ethics, as seen through the 'advancement' of civilizations.

Society does actually completely change the way we feel emotions.

As for your fucking another dudes wife scenario, if you feel it's wrong that to you it's obviously wrong. However some people do not have a monogamous relationship and thus it can be considered neutral.

 

some say the next stage in human evolution is the abolishing of morals. what would replace them is a more critical view that deals in healthy and unhealthy terms instead of these subjective good and bad.

 

Evolution takes too long.

 

not individual evolution.

traditional evolution does not exist anymore, as we are letting all sorts of genetically inept people reproduce in some cases much more easily than the so called genetically superior.

from "waking life"

THESE ESTIMATES ARE ROUGH, i havnt done that much research

it took roughly 2 billion years for life for occur
100,000 years for our evolved hominoid
about 10,000 for our conciousness
400 years for our society to evolve (agriculture, scientific revolutions, etc.)

looking at the nature of this evolutionary paradigm
its evident that we should be seeing this NEW evolution manifest itself
IN OUR LIFETIME
a NEW evolution
not the old, sterile, efficient way of evolution
but a new evolution of SELF
that stems from two types of information
digital and analog.

++++the digital being artificial intelligence

++++the analog being electro biology (the cloning of the organism)

and you link thedr two together with neurobiology.



in the old evolutionary paradigm
one organism would conquer the other
one would live, while the other would die off

but in the NEW evolutionary paradigm we would all exist as a mutually supportive grouping.

evolution now becomes an individual centered process, eminating from the needs and desires from the individual and not an external process, a passive process.

now imagine a neo human with a new individuality+
a new conciousness
this is only the begining of the new evolutionary cycle
because as the next cycle proceeds
the input is now this new intelligence
as intelligence pawns on intelligence
as ability pawns on ability
the speed changes
until what???

you reach a crescendo!
in a way, it could be imagined as an instantaneous fulfullment of human, and neo human potential.

it could be something totally different
it could be the amplification of the individual!
the multiplication of multiple existences!
parallell existences
now that the individual is not restricted by time and space.

these manifestations of neo humans COULD also be dramatically counter+intuitive.

these manifestations will be those of social adaptation:

parasitism, dominance, morality, war!!

These will be subject to deemphasis!
these will be subject to DeEVOLUTION!!

The new evolutionary paragidm will give us traits of truth, loyalty, justice, freedom, and this is what i hope to see.

 

http://scienceforums.com/topic/4870-the-self-manifesting-neo-human-evolution/
Did you copy paste that lol?

Do you have any research backing this up as I'd be interested to read about it.

 

no, it is all theoretical atm

 

That's a very good way to look that it, as much as I'd like to disagree and say good and evil does exist, you have a very valid point o.o

 

Can somebody respond to this?

 

Hmm. You have a very nice perspective. Its nice to see some of these deep questions not related to "Is god real?" etc.

 

Define terrorism.

Is killing a human being wrong?

 

Those are two separate things, but uh, terrorism revolves around wreaking terror on civilians to achieve some purpose, and killing a human being unjustly is wrong.

 

Ok, so America is a terrorist nation.

Who's to say what is unjustly?

 

You may be right. Please cite examples.

What is unjust is what can be reasoned as such. Of course, there must be a foundational point out of which all reason branches. There can be no argument there, and it is, when it boils down, a matter of one's choice. However, if it is not acknowledged, there is no hope of a civilized society or justice. This point to me seems to be respecting human dignity. Once we have accepted this, all future developments become objective.

So, in reality, to hold that morality is subjective is to hold that there should be no standard calling for the respect of another human being's dignity.

 

all future developments will not become objective. for example:
what is dignity....some could say it is working for 8 hours an hour compared to working for 8 dollars a week.
everything is relative. that is what is dangerous about terms like dignity and such.
also, how are we to respect.
respect comes in different forms. how are we to agree upon the correct form of respect to give to "human dignity"

to hold that something does not exist is not to say it, or something that stems from it, should not exist. lol



also, malakadang:
The biggest problem with terrorism is that governments are exempt from the label. This is because political violence committed by states against civilians is defined as war crimes or crimes against humanity. This is why the definition of state terrorism would be redundant (Shamir & Shikaki, 2002, p. 538).

 

What are you talking about..? By human dignity I mean the sacrosanct rights possessed by all.

 

I believe that you are just bringing up a highly debated topic known as the cultural differences argument.

Quoted from a piece by James Rachels:

Example for the Cultural Differences Argument:

"In some societies, such as among the Eskimos, infanticide is thought to be morally acceptable.

In other societies, such as our own, infanticide is thought to be morally odious.

Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong; it is merely a matter of opinion that varies from culture to culture. "

Rachels goes on to talk about how this is a tremendously influential argument. The problem with it is that the premises relate what people believe to what is actually true.

Rachels makes a counter argument:
"In some societies, the world is thought to be flat.

In other societies, the world is thought to be round.

Therefore, objectively speaking, the world is neither flat nor round. It is merely a matter of opinion that varies from culture to culture."

Just because people have conflicting beliefs, even whole societies, doesn't mean there isn't an objective truth. This merely means that one of those conflicting beliefs is wrong and it stands true that even a whole society's set of beliefs could be wrong.

I stand by James Rachel's reply to this argument and I disagree with you that there is no such thing as good or evil.

My source is: The Right Thing to Do - Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy (Fourth Edition)
Edited by James Rachels and Stuart Rachels

 

I think this is more of an argument between 'Right or Wrong'

 

the fact that you have to explain yourself at all proves my point

 

i would agree if we were talking about physical objects.
as we are talking about concepts, it is not valid to generalize his reply to it.

a better way to put it would be to ask, do right and wrong exist if the whole universe does not?

if you say yes, i can not argue against you because you are arguing for the plato's unprovable theory of forms.

if you say no, then what within the universe creates right and wrong?
humans?
if we create right and wrong, and cannot agree, how is there any kind of objective right and wrong?