Greatest I am wrote: ↑
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:28 pm
Are you seriously suggesting that "evil" is some sort of primal force of nature like gravity. I suppose that "good" is likewise a force of nature?
How would you account that the simple observed fact that what is one person's good is another person's evil and Vice Versa?
Hobbes had it when he said that which is good is that which pleases man; Evil is that which pleases him not.
I would like to comment on this and did in that rather longish post on page one.
Yes, human against human evil is natural and so is good.
We default to good to a point where science is having a hard time explaining why we are so good.
We default to evil as a last resort.
No I do not think you have answered the point at all.
We know people do good and bad things. But there being good or bad is generally dependant on POV.
As for the video..
Dawkins struggling with Altruism is just an embarrassment to many people who find goodness near to their own way of life. Natural Selection results in a variety of strategies, that are not determined by eventual outcomes, but given by the results of survival. Evolution is not expected to get everything perfectly right. Darwin's theory does not have to result in every single act only working to promote the genes doing the act.
So, in general an altruistic attitude tends to result in good co-operative acts which promote the wider family. But since there is no DIRECT feedback mechanism, altruism of a dog bitch in suckling kittens; or a lioness adopting a baboon baby does not fly against natural selection in any sense, because traits are generalising, they cannot hope to always be specific. Cross species acts of altruism, or altruism for one's own species for people a thousand miles away simply underlines the fact of Natural Selection, without doing anything to argue against it.
Cases of psychopathy where individuals were wholly self centred are rare, but are able to thrive on the backs of those that are more generally well disposed to help others. One has to imagine what a world would be like if everyone were psychopathic. It would not be very successful at all.
I was arguing against the absurd notion that "evil" or "good" are forces of nature. They are simply not. Even a psycho can do good things - that is to say act according to another's benefit, though the psycho might have ulterior motives, the act can result in good.
Let us imagine that a psycho wishing to lure another person into their will, continues to provide nice things to that person; food, lifts, job offers, outings. Now let us imagine that his target is also a psycho and feels no obligation but is using the association for their own benefit. The acts are still good for the target. We could easily enough re-arrange the combination; two psychos; two non psychos; and one of each vice versa. The acts would be good acts, but the outcomes would be different.
An act to save a person's life might be well intentioned yet do evil. Whereas killing intended as evil might do good. It would not take much imagination to find such examples. But where is "evil" as a force?