THE definition of GOOD and EVIL?

I have been writing a book and I have come to a point where I need a conflict a villain no not a villin the protein but an adversary of my “hero”. Then I ran into a problem I truly cannot say I understand with all my philosophy and theology – what good is and what evil is. Why is he/she/it evil? Why do they choose or born to be this way or do these things etcetera? What is evil to start we understand good for the things we find pleasurable but in other thoughts we find that these pleasurable things can be of ways of evil that being like sex. A very touchy subject matter to most Americans a little more open-minded are the Europeans on the subject but just the same. That being said for example if we go toward the all too common Christian route an example of good and evil per say.

What is it to kill another instead to murder another? What really defines this? Are you avenging the death of your wife is this then killing? Or is it murder because you take the life of another from their family? Making more or less the eye for an eye theme. Or another example from a different approach would be to say to kill for food or is it murder because you are still taking a life? How extreme is it?

So the question in its simplest form I can come up with is what is TRULY evil and what motivates one or something to be this way (apart from the flawed idea of the first sin)?

RULES OF THIS TOPIC
First off- these are the rules of this discussion as I see fit to attempt to stop meaningless badgering and false insight toward a goal or an idea.

1. BE OPEN-MINDED!!! Proof, not opinion. Your argument needs proof to be a fact- so if you do not have proof to show that your opinion is a fact then I recommend you leave this discussion before a moderator deletes your from the forum or thread by the least for you not being open-minded.

2. Reasonable arguments. Do not throw in the idea that because you are catholic you are right. We all come from different backgrounds and don’t be a pompous fool to think that because you come from that background that you know where that background even comes from. How much about the REAL history do you know not of what you are told- but for this example at play can you read Hebrew? Or by that matter Greek?

3. Descript examples. Be descriptive make sure you are clear of what you mean to not start a flame war or argument.

4. This is not a debate whatsoever to prove one idea wrong from another- this is the attempt to gather the ideas that there are in place and then find the fallacies of the ideas given to attempt to find something that even at this extent may not be able to understand at this point in our adaptation of this world.

Post and be friendly please. :)

Wow, actual rules. :D


First, in the story, the villain doesn't necessarily have to be evil, but rather to just have opposing views or motivations to the hero.


I think that true evil is when there is forethought, planning, and orderly action with intent to do what is considered wrong, on a continuing basis. Kidnapping someone in order to torture them falls in this category. Avenging the death of a family member, if the person is otherwise law abiding, etc, is different in some cases (see below)

Or there can be a gradual decline/descent into evil, like the street kid that gets into a little trouble, then a little more, then more and more as time goes on until he's a drug kingpin or whatever as an adult. Sometimes this sort of behavior is a result of just having to survive, but IMO in today's society you always have a choice.


Kill vs murder. Your car slides off of an icy road and you hit someone and they die. Killed. You're driving your car and aim for that bastard that punched you last week and he dies. That's murder. Murder indicates that you planned it and/or did it intentionally. But then the law (US) says there's manslaughter if it wasn't premeditated. I'd say it goes to motive of the person doing the killing. If you intended to kill them, it's murder. But an accident is just that.

Revenge. Curiously, this might depend on the culture as to whether it's right or wrong. In some societies, it is expected for a family member to avenge a wrongful death, regardless of the law. In others it is strictly the provenance of the government to kill the killers. I'll stay away from the debate of whether capital punishment is right or wrong.

check these out 3 pages on one and the other so far two pages- the turbo doge guys are argying if it belogns in their forum :I

http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=117610

http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/046475.html

Toksin - good
Toskin - evil

throw some filler material in there and ya got six chapters.

good and evil are determined within the environment that causally effects a person's action, subsequent to the judgement of others who place opinions about it, which then is expanded to their environment which places them in a defined response to the action, which is determined later by the environment that they are acted [or acting] upon.

Basic behavioral theory, Skinner/Wagnerian quotes.

Essentially, those who opine good/evil into a person's actions are merely reacting to their influences [environment] either at the time [cause-effect at base level] or through behavioraL CONDITIONING. At a larger scale, society as a group performs in a similar manner, and as society provides "rules" of conduct acceptable for all, they are merely espousing their conditioning from other's conditioning, etc. etc.

First off, you have to believe in a religion or ideology to have something to define whats good and evil with. Otherwise you'll be what I call a villa-fascist, and judge it by your own oppinions. Myself, I don't like the the whole idea of a strict Good vs. Evil world, only Intelligense vs. Ignorancy, oppinion vs oppinion and ofcourse everyone vs. my religion.

First off, you have to believe in a religion or ideology to have something to define whats good and evil with. Otherwise you'll be what I call a villa-fascist, and judge it by your own oppinions. Myself, I don't like the the whole idea of a strict Good vs. Evil world, only Intelligense vs. Ignorancy, oppinion vs oppinion and ofcourse everyone vs. my religion.


Hmmmm...I don't think that religion is required to understand good and evil. I think we would all agree that tying someone up and torturing them to death is evil, and that running into a burning house to save someone is good.

Now I'd agree that there are warped individuals out there who don't think there's anything wrong with torturing people.

Aren't good and evil decided culturally?

Hmmmm...I don't think that religion is required to understand good and evil. I think we would all agree that tying someone up and torturing them to death is evil, and that running into a burning house to save someone is good.

Now I'd agree that there are warped individuals out there who don't think there's anything wrong with torturing people.

Aren't good and evil decided culturally?

No, you need religion to define Good and Evil. Since a totally non religious person, as in a person who believe in "science" would say that it does not exist. Only people with different cultures, yes. My belief says, that all people are born with an almost plain brain. If raised with love and care, he'll be loving and caring. If raised amongst hatred, he'll be filled with hatred. Because the brain is nothing but a very very complicated computer, not a divine keeper of a "soul". The brain itself thrives for but one thing; to feed the senses and feelings. Say you want to be happy, you do what makes you happy. Say you're hungry, then you eat. What makes you happy and what you want to eat is something you've been rasied with, or might have in your genes, you cannot have simply chosen it, since a computer has no free will. Ones and zeros can't "get a mind of its own" and create a third number, cause there is just ones and zeroes in the human brain. Pulse, no pulse. Electricity, no electricity. Then if you, like a religious person who has been rasied with a defination of Evil, hate a person for doing something, it's like you hate your dog for not helping out cleaning the house, or hate your room for being so cold. It's when religion tries to blend with science, atheism and agnosticism this questions occur.

Good points. But if true, then why don't we see societies where torture and killing are acceptable? In ancient times there were several cultures where the religion said this was acceptable.

Also, you can hear about some people that realize a bad situation (parents on drugs, or beatings in the home) and remove themselves from it, so even if they were raised in that situation they realized it is bad and make a choice not to be involved with it.

Good points. But if true, then why don't we see societies where torture and killing are acceptable? In ancient times there were several cultures where the religion said this was acceptable.

Also, you can hear about some people that realize a bad situation (parents on drugs, or beatings in the home) and remove themselves from it, so even if they were raised in that situation they realized it is bad and make a choice not to be involved with it.

Then he realizes that it's not good for himself, not for the ideal of good and bad. Then he feed another need, to relieve himself of what he's feeling bad about.

And we don't see torture as something acceptable since we follow the ideals set up by the mind itself; Torture is bad because it hurts. And it hurts because the body is taking some kind of damage bla bla. We simply are more sympathetic nowadays.

Then he realizes that it's not good for himself, not for the ideal of good and bad. Then he feed another need, to relieve himself of what he's feeling bad about.

And we don't see torture as something acceptable since we follow the ideals set up by the mind itself; Torture is bad because it hurts. And it hurts because the body is taking some kind of damage bla bla. We simply are more sympathetic nowadays.
Ok so he realizes it's NOT GOOD for himself, so it's bad for him. Couldn't this individual come to think (independently of religion) that it is wrong (evil) to torture people?

So torture is bad because it hurts. People understand pain and so inflicting pain (since they've experienced it themselves) is not a nice thing to do.

So following these two statements, I would think that people would be able to realize the difference between good and evil independently of religion. It's just that without religion they would not necessarily use those words to describe it. Right and Wrong.

Ok so he realizes it's NOT GOOD for himself, so it's bad for him. Couldn't this individual come to think (independently of religion) that it is wrong (evil) to torture people?

So torture is bad because it hurts. People understand pain and so inflicting pain (since they've experienced it themselves) is not a nice thing to do.

So following these two statements, I would think that people would be able to realize the difference between good and evil independently of religion. It's just that without religion they would not necessarily use those words to describe it. Right and Wrong.

But to define an act as evil, then it has to be based on something that cannot have occured in the mind of the person who comitted the "evil deed". And that is that he did it because he is evil. Now in reality, he did it for his own winning, and this spins onto a philosophy i've currently forgotten the name of, but its that selfishness and being kindhearted also cannot exist, since its all about doing something for your own winning.

But all this still can be avoided if you avoid using the terms "evil/bad/wrong" since it has totally different meaning to religious and non-religious people. Sure, you can call yourself an atheist and still believe in good and evil people, but then you haven't got the idea of atheism. A christian defines the terms as something you choose to do, in sole purpose of hurting people. Most people define it as mean or selfish, wich is like the christian defination except that these people don't have any reason for their defination. Me, i define them as an act of ignorancy, an act that does not apply with society and won't work out if everyone would do so.

An atheist doesn't belive in God. But they could still know what is nice to do to someone and what is not.

Everyone is self serving - that is, doing something for their own winning, or being selfish - to some extent. It's just that some people believe that doing something against someone else isn't wrong; also, there are different amounts of "wrong" that can be done...pushing someone out of the way in a movie line, not so bad. Pushing someone over a cliff so you can see better, obviously bad.

Here's an example - if you think about it, both atheists and deists should have the same view about murder, but for different reasons. A deist believes they will be punished for murder once they die. But an atheist isn't afraid of that. Rather, and atheist should realize that if they kill someone, by their own beliefs they are taking away the only chance that someone had to live. Food for thought.

Anyway I agree that a newly born child is a blank slate, ready to be filled with information. I can see how someone raised in a brutal environment would think that certain things are ok to do; but there has to be SOMETHING that they know doing is wrong. Take an organized crime figure. They may get to the top by being brutal, killing, stealing, whatever. But there are some things they know are wrong to do.

An atheist doesn't belive in God. But they could still know what is nice to do to someone and what is not.

Everyone is self serving - that is, doing something for their own winning, or being selfish - to some extent. It's just that some people believe that doing something against someone else isn't wrong; also, there are different amounts of "wrong" that can be done...pushing someone out of the way in a movie line, not so bad. Pushing someone over a cliff so you can see better, obviously bad.

Here's an example - if you think about it, both atheists and deists should have the same view about murder, but for different reasons. A deist believes they will be punished for murder once they die. But an atheist isn't afraid of that. Rather, and atheist should realize that if they kill someone, by their own beliefs they are taking away the only chance that someone had to live. Food for thought.

Anyway I agree that a newly born child is a blank slate, ready to be filled with information. I can see how someone raised in a brutal environment would think that certain things are ok to do; but there has to be SOMETHING that they know doing is wrong. Take an organized crime figure. They may get to the top by being brutal, killing, stealing, whatever. But there are some things they know are wrong to do.

What are we arguing about again?

What are we arguing about again?
:spit:


I forgot. Some guy is writing a book or something. :p


edit: he wanted to know why his bad guy was evil. I guess he has plenty of ideas now!! :lol:

:spit:


I forgot. Some guy is writing a book or something. :p


edit: he wanted to know why his bad guy was evil. I guess he has plenty of ideas now!! :lol:

Abit too much maybe

I think we scared him off.....

Toksin - good
Toskin - evil

throw some filler material in there and ya got six chapters.:rofl:

I don't believe that there is such a thing as "evil", and more that someone just gets misguided. that's just my two cents.

So would you say that Jeffrey Dahmer was simply misguided then?

How about Hitler and his plans to intentionally kill off an entire religion?

Well they weren't evil, they were different. Hitler believed in a state of politics and philosophy that included killing off every Jew on earth, for the sake of the white race. This still only fall on the 4th place on the Killingspree top list. Above there's the plague, communism and religion. are those 3 evil? The plague was a disease which was probably dispatched by nature to kill off alot of people, since they were over populating the earth and was starving to death anyway (or something like that). Radical communists believe that all capitalists are evil, and would like to kill them all of for the sake of mankind. In some cases, they even killed off all intelligent and educated people they could get their hands on to ensure that no one would you know, think differently. Religious people who kill people are convinced of something, often that their belief is the right one and everyone else is evil and should be put down. Take the catholic inquisation for instance; protestants were hunted down and killed off like rats.

All except the plague has been guided into killing, and could've been guided into something else, right? So i'd say yeah, they have been misguided.

How is Dahmer not evil? He killed people, cut them up and ate them. When they caught him, he had human parts in his freezer.

I think that evil is often in the perception of the observer. To Hitler, his acts were necessary. To most everyone else, they were evil.

How is Dahmer not evil? He killed people, cut them up and ate them. When they caught him, he had human parts in his freezer.

I think that evil is often in the perception of the observer. To Hitler, his acts were necessary. To most everyone else, they were evil.

Evil is still a word for describing something people won't take the time to understand, and simply put in the Evil basket with everything else that differ from them.

Dahmer was like everybody else, a preinstructed computer with a disorder and not big enough wall between his wishes and actions, in his brain (mothercard). "He" as in the hands and mouth of Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate people, on the command by "his" brain, which had an overstimulated wish for human flesh.

If "Evil" were to exist, there have to be a Devil. And then it's not Jeffrey's "fault" either, is it? It's the Devil. It's like calling every person grewn up in a ghetto, with an alcoholic father who beat the family up while the mother is injecting heroin in the bathroom evil when they commit their first violent action. Or calling the dog evil when it bites you after kicking it over and over.

Blight, there is a lot of good stuff already in this thread about the various motives and lifestyles of evil behavior. But if you'd like an actual text for reference, check out some of Joseph Campbell's work "The Hero's Journey". Basically, you get the whole idea of the plight of the hero. The conflict exists or is presented by not necessarily a person of evil but perhaps crappy circumstances and the hero seeks revenge etc. The hero must go through "the belly of the beast" before attaining the epiphany needed to overcome the "evil". Okay, this is all in a brief nutshell. In other words, you really can't have a story without a conflict ergo you need to have an evil entity or antithesis or antihero to your thesis or hero. You probably have already figured all that out though. That is the beauty of authorship. You can take on any direction you want and add all the conflict or evil and stack it up against your hero. As long as the hero can defeat the conflict and/or evil then you have a happy ending. If the hero dies then so be it. That is normally refered to as tragedy. Most tragedies are significant enough to illustrate an ongoing conflict that usually is not thwarted within the single story. I can go on and on but I'm not a teacher even though I studied to be a literature professor in college.

Evil is still a word for describing something people won't take the time to understand, and simply put in the Evil basket with everything else that differ from them.

Dahmer was like everybody else, a preinstructed computer with a disorder and not big enough wall between his wishes and actions, in his brain (mothercard). "He" as in the hands and mouth of Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate people, on the command by "his" brain, which had an overstimulated wish for human flesh.

If "Evil" were to exist, there have to be a Devil. And then it's not Jeffrey's "fault" either, is it? It's the Devil. It's like calling every person grewn up in a ghetto, with an alcoholic father who beat the family up while the mother is injecting heroin in the bathroom evil when they commit their first violent action. Or calling the dog evil when it bites you after kicking it over and over.

This makes it sounds as if we're not responsible for our own actions, whether there's a God or not. If there's God and the devil, then hey, it's the devil's fault. If not, our brains are "prewired" as commanded by our brains.

I'm a big fan of free will. You do as YOU decide.

Jeffrey Dahmer, by most accounts, was insane. Insane, as in not normal, or deranged. You could also say, "outside of the bell curve", as in beyond the what is considered normal by humans. That could be thought of as not evil, but "prewired", and in that case I'd agree.

This makes it sounds as if we're not responsible for our own actions, whether there's a God or not. If there's God and the devil, then hey, it's the devil's fault. If not, our brains are "prewired" as commanded by our brains.

I'm a big fan of free will. You do as YOU decide.

Jeffrey Dahmer, by most accounts, was insane. Insane, as in not normal, or deranged. You could also say, "outside of the bell curve", as in beyond the what is considered normal by humans.

Then you and I have two totally different beliefs. I see no logic whatsoever in the phenomena of Free Will. Think over it for a sec; how would it work out in our brains (which is just some gooey materials which sends electrical impulses here and there)? And why would nature designed it in the first place? And where do you draw the line between Free Will and not Free Will? And what actions do you classify as something that's been affected by something around oneself, and what's not? Where's that line? Also, where's the line between an "involuantary" move (like retracting your hand if in contact with something really hot) and something of "Free Will"? If there's a line to draw, you know you've found something thats "wrong", and people has two words for it to easen up understanding it and talking about it.

OK. Free will.

You make hundreds of decisions each day. Coffee or orange juice? Walk or drive? Fast food or cook for yourself? Punch that idiot in the mouth or walk away? The decisions you make for yourself define in part who you are.

The sense of self, who we are, is somewhat beyond comprehension. I don't pretend to know how my lump of gray matter allows me to think I'm me, but it does. It's like, how does the jet engine on that 747 make it go? Most people don't know, but we still go on holiday in a plane. Same thing: it doesn't matter how your brain works, but that it does. Free will, also known as deciding what to do for yourself, exists.

Now as far as "good" and "evil" are you saying that the definition are due to religion? We discussed earlier how some actions could be considered to be "not nice" or "against the conventions of society" in some way or another. When I'm saying good or evil in this thread, I'm talking about some action that is seen as either wrong or right, independent of anything religious.

Can there be right and wrong without religion? I think there can be. When you have a society that has a convention, or group thought, that something is right or wrong to do, then that is defining. Take the example of a WWII U-boat. The crew knows that to open the torpedo tubes and let water in will kill everyone, so therefore it is wrong to do that. Now comes along one crewman who does exactly that, knowing that he is dooming all the sailors aboard. Although that individual may see no problem with his actions (being insane, suicidal, or whatever) the rest of the crew would see that action as wrong. So you have a very small society that sees an action taken by one person in that society as wrong. Religion doesn't enter into it.

Can you agree with that?

OK. Free will.

You make hundreds of decisions each day. Coffee or orange juice? Walk or drive? Fast food or cook for yourself? Punch that idiot in the mouth or walk away? The decisions you make for yourself define in part who you are.


No, who "you are" decide what you'll do. If free will existed like that, there would be no hate in the world, since everybody would decide to not hate. Though that doesn't add up either, because then you'd be satisfying a feeling (comfort/happiness) over another (hate), without being affected from the outside (people saying hate is wrong).

Just making sure; I take the Free Will concept as something untouchable, unexplainable and not-to-be-compared-with-a-computer.

I take the concept of Good and Evil as something you're born into, and miraculously choose to do, without any influence by your surroundings whatsoever.

The sense of self, who we are, is somewhat beyond comprehension. I don't pretend to know how my lump of gray matter allows me to think I'm me, but it does. It's like, how does the jet engine on that 747 make it go? Most people don't know, but we still go on holiday in a plane. Same thing: it doesn't matter how your brain works, but that it does. Free will, also known as deciding what to do for yourself, exists.

Then again, different beliefs. I don't believe that "yourself/oneself" as you put it exists either, its logically impossible. What we know as consciousness is merely the system of feelings and curiosity, painted before us like on a monitor, to make "us" make the moves we need to make to survive.

Now as far as "good" and "evil" are you saying that the definition are due to religion? We discussed earlier how some actions could be considered to be "not nice" or "against the conventions of society" in some way or another. When I'm saying good or evil in this thread, I'm talking about some action that is seen as either wrong or right, independent of anything religious.

Can there be right and wrong without religion? I think there can be. When you have a society that has a convention, or group thought, that something is right or wrong to do, then that is defining. Take the example of a WWII U-boat. The crew knows that to open the torpedo tubes and let water in will kill everyone, so therefore it is wrong to do that. Now comes along one crewman who does exactly that, knowing that he is dooming all the sailors aboard. Although that individual may see no problem with his actions (being insane, suicidal, or whatever) the rest of the crew would see that action as wrong. So you have a very small society that sees an action taken by one person in that society as wrong. Religion doesn't enter into it.

To say right or wrong, you have to base it on some standards. If you mean society, then there are different kinds of society. If you mean religiously, then theres different religions. If you mean overall, all people from anywhere, then theres ALOT of different people with very different views on right or wrong. That's why I don't like the words whatsoever when it comes to discussing ethics and morale matters, I find it not very democratic. In other words, I think we shouldn't use the two words. Instead; use the words Rational vs. Not Rational. And by saying that, base it on your current location/government. And if we are to use the words right or wrong, than use them as Legal vs. Illegal. I might've said something to confuse you of what I meant about religion in the matter, but I mean to say that if you believe that somebody would do something by pure evil or goodness, then its a religious belief, since it doesn't add up with logic.

Hmmm.....

Ok, let's go with a very basic example of good and evil (or right and wrong, whatever)

Two people exist. One person cuts the arm off of another. Right or wrong?

Hmmm.....

Ok, let's go with a very basic example of good and evil (or right and wrong, whatever)

Two people exist. One person cuts the arm off of another. Right or wrong?

According to who? Me? And under what circumstances? ;

Person 1 suddenly attacks person 2 non provoked, on the street with a chainsaw and cut his arm off.

or

A psychopat with huge body structure, attacks your girlfriend and start to strangle her. You, who are really really small and weak are now holding a chainsaw and do the only thing you see as a possibility to stop the maniac and cut his arms off. (cheesy example, but you get the idea, maybe he attacks you when youre chopping down trees, get a grip 'round your throat to kill you and you then cut his arms off with your chainsaw.)

Now you've gone and made 3 people in the example. Let me make it even more straightforward.

You and I are in a room. There is no religion, no outside influence. For all intents and purposes, we are alone in the world.

I cut off your arm while you are asleep. You live.

What is your perception of the event?

Now you've gone and made 3 people in the example. Let me make it even more straightforward.

You and I are in a room. There is no religion, no outside influence. For all intents and purposes, we are alone in the world.

I cut off your arm while you are asleep. You live.

What is your perception of the event?

Interesting argument. Now I would have one influence, and that can't be changed, because than there wouldn't be any question at all. That influence is my feelings. I will be in alot of pain, wich the brain signifies as something bad, since it's not good for your body (the thing your feelings are made up to protect). Then, you could ask the same thing if im drugged and don't feel any pain. Or simply don't waken when you cut it off, but wake later, and survive without any pain. Then I'll be in mental pain, because I want my arm, I need it. That'll also be defined as bad by my feelings. I would say that that'd be wrong, based on my beliefs and morals.

Then I ask you back; what are your intentions or motives when you cut it off?

OK so now it gets more complex. :biggrin:

Assuming that your arm was normal and healthy (as in no gangrene or whatever) your view, regardless of my motive, is that it was wrong to cut off your arm. Therefore it could be said that cutting off your arm, harming you unnecessarily, is a bad thing; "evil" if you will. So the act was evil.

Motivation to do so? If in this example I was normal, and just did it to do it without contemplating actions, or for a laugh or to see what happened, it was still an evil thing to be done. If I did it to provide me with an advantage in future dealings with you, it's still wrong, though my motivation was power. If I was insane, then it's simply insanity. There are too many possible motivations to go through them all; IMO the fact that you perceive the act as wrong makes it wrong; you have been wronged, had something - your arm - taken from you for no reason.

But regardless of the reason I decided to do it(except insanity, and I'll exclude insanity from now on), I put the question to you, based on one of your previous posts: if my brain is wired to do this sort of thing from the outset, was there no free will involved? I firmly believe that it would take a conscious decision and an act of will to cut someone's arm off.

So there we have the center of the discussion: Why? What motivation?

If it was accidental, it was just that - so although you were wronged by the loss of your arm, it was a tragic accident and although I would feel guilty, it wasn't intentional.

Intentional: if I did it for power over you, there are many different reasons. Maybe you were threatening me and are more powerful, so in our 2 person universe I needed to save myself from future beatings. In this case it would be self defense; I decided not to kill you, but rather to render you weaker to either stop what you were doing or to gain supremacy.

If I was a sadistic person and took pleasure in removing your arm and seeing the fear you exibited afterwards, perhaps that could be a valid motivation, although some would argue it comes close to insanity.

Perhaps the scariest motivation would be the cold, scientific one. I decide that it is important to find out just what happens when an arm is removed, and use you for the study, without any thought of right and wrong. This sort of motivation could be the worst, because the quest for knowledge is put above any harm that is done to the other being. Self-centered ego is the only thing involved. Perhaps conscious of it, in which case definitely evil, or completely unaware (due to concentration) that the action may cause harm.

OK so now it gets more complex. :biggrin:

I can hear people saying "Is that still possible?"


But regardless of the reason I decided to do it(except insanity, and I'll exclude insanity from now on), I put the question to you, based on one of your previous posts: if my brain is wired to do this sort of thing from the outset, was there no free will involved? I firmly believe that it would take a conscious decision and an act of will to cut someone's arm off.

Well, this discussion has taking a slight turn (unavoidable) into you criticizing my belief (im not whining, ofcourse you'll criticize it), and our two different beliefs on Free will are hindering the discussion. And I can't reply to that without saying something that is of my belief.

Free will is never involved. Your brain decided that's the best thing for you. A conscious decision is something you experience, it's your brain that figure out thats its a good thing for you to do.

We have two different things to motivate your choice in the room: 1. Human nature; primitive instincts used to survive, expand, gain knowledge and breed. 2. Because of things that've affected you throughout your lifetime, childhood, experiences and so on.

Though you've set up the rule of no outside influence, so #2 is out.

Intentional: if I did it for power over you, there are many different reasons. Maybe you were threatening me and are more powerful, so in our 2 person universe I needed to save myself from future beatings. In this case it would be self defense; I decided not to kill you, but rather to render you weaker to either stop what you were doing or to gain supremacy.

This is probably the most primitive action of the 3. You did it to ensure your survival, over trying to reach a diplomatic solution in the room. Since there is no influence of human rights, a political structure or democratically chosen Right and Wrong, then I see no wrong in doing so. No, that's not evil/wrong to do that under the circumstances IMO. If I were to say yes, than I'd have to say that the human race is evil and wrong, because of its brain structure and instincts. And I actually couldn't say that either, because saying that'd be stupid calling a big lump of goo evil or wrong. It's just a bad engineering job by nature/God (whole other discussion).

If I was a sadistic person and took pleasure in removing your arm and seeing the fear you exibited afterwards, perhaps that could be a valid motivation, although some would argue it comes close to insanity.

This is your brain giving in to another need/feeling; pleasure/happiness. The previous one was suvival btw. It's your lump o goo doing exactly what it's designed to do: it does it's best to recognize something that'll ensure you happiness and then it achieves it. Under the circumstances, with nothing telling him that it's wrong in any way to do this, than I see no evil in doing it. And I can't say its not wrong, since I'm influed by a world outside. But inside the room, I'd know nothing else ("That's wrong, You should know better! -How?".

Perhaps the scariest motivation would be the cold, scientific one. I decide that it is important to find out just what happens when an arm is removed, and use you for the study, without any thought of right and wrong. This sort of motivation could be the worst, because the quest for knowledge is put above any harm that is done to the other being. Self-centered ego is the only thing involved. Perhaps conscious of it, in which case definitely evil, or completely unaware (due to concentration) that the action may cause harm.

To go back in time, I'd believe that big scientific steps in medical treatments probably have been made in similar ways (probably abit more complicated than just cutting ones arm off to see what happens though). And since there was nothing to tell you that cutting my arm off is wrong, then I can't see any reason to call it evil/wrong either. The brain's doing its duty and giving in to cutiosity.

Whoever made the human brain, did a poor job.

ok so we've wandered here and there, and (as philisophical discussions will) we have opened a new box. Can we agree that right and wrong are based on perspectives and motivation?

If so, then let's talk about free will. Because we seem to differ there greatly; I'm not criticizing your belief, but rather simply hold the opposite view: that free will exists.

how do you know that whatever your decision is for whatever situation is not predetermined by what ever god you choose (or not choose)?

how do you know that whatever your decision is for whatever situation is not predetermined by what ever god you choose (or not choose)?

Because I refuse to believe that my entire life is scripted.

but that in itself is not indicator of whether or not free will exists in you.

OK how about this: I could choose to continue to respond to this thread, or not. That is a choice. I could decide which route to take to work each day.

Chicken or Fish? McD's or KFC? I say that in virtually every choice you make you are exercising your free will.

but again, just because you feel like you made the choice, it doesn't mean that choice was by your own free will.

the chaos theory lovers out there AND the psychological manipulation/suggestion experts would say that prior to that decision making process, you were exposed to other elements that have guided you to "making" that choice. In other words, that decision wasn't actually made by you; rather you were made to make that decision.
You suggest that you have a choice in deciding to reply to the thread or not. Again, whether you do or don't isn't entirely a free will issue as it too a decision making process and a process is determined by other elements as I said before.

What I mean by this that what you are giving as examples are to me, the suggestion of free will; that is, some things feel like free will but aren't really free in the total sense of it.
To discuss free will, you first have to define free will.

So here's mine:
Free Will is the ability to do what is fundementally against one's nature.
example:
a machine has no free will; it does what it is made to do. If a machine had free will, it could then choose to not do what is in it's nature.
Man is a biological machine.

I guess we never figure out whether we have free will or not until we die :( We just don't have enough evidence on either side...

Let's look at it this way, Michael Meyers from the Halloween series has been regarded by Donald Pleasant's character in the films as "evil". He is determined to cause great harm to his family. He gains nothing from it, he is not sadistic, but he knows he is causing pain to others through brutal murder. I hate to use an old slasher movie as an example, but it's the best I got.

OK how about this: I could choose to continue to respond to this thread, or not. That is a choice. I could decide which route to take to work each day.

Chicken or Fish? McD's or KFC? I say that in virtually every choice you make you are exercising your free will.

No. You continue to respond and contribute with your beliefs to your threads because you have things you feel a need to share, reading my and the other comments and oppinions, and how mine differ from yours makes you post another reply. You wouldn't reply if there weren't anything to reply to. It's in your nature to reply to the things you see here. (sorry for making it sound personal, I'm just using a good example)

Look at it this way; everything I've said here can be explained logically. Free will cannot, which goes hand in hand with Good and Evil, since you need Free will to commit an Evil or Good deed. That's is also why I stated that you need religion do define the two. I'm not talking about the atheistic view. I'm not saying It's not real because it's not been scientifically proved, but it's not logically possible. As in nobody believed humans could ever fly, but birds still could. I'd put it as science vs logic.

If you try, you won't come up with any logical or theoretical explanation for free will. You also wouldn't come up with any difference of signifigance between the human brain and your computer. Like you said, you won't believe your life is scripted. It's not that melodramatic either; It's a mathematic matter of course. Your "thoughts" are mere ripples on the water produced by the Big Bang. A thought is electricity. What else would it be without religion interfering? These discussions occur in the first place because people think it doesn't feel good saying free will doesn't exist. Why? because they've allways been told it does. Why? Because nobody ever reached the conclusions before the conclusions became headen when religion took the place as the higher moral.

There have been several arguments against free will, or at least demanding proof. Since this is a philisophical discussion, please explain to me how free will does NOT exist, and how the decisions you make every day, or according to your statements, are not your own, but somehow predetermined.

free will is a belief that we have absolute control over our actions and thoughts.
If you truely possess free will, then free will yourself to not think, to not breath and to stop your heart beating.

free will is a belief that we have absolute control over our actions and thoughts.
If you truely possess free will, then free will yourself to not think, to not breath and to stop your heart beating.

I have to disagree that free will is a belief. Free will can be defined as: freedom of self determination and action independent of external causes.

Breathing and hearbeat are autonomous functions which are handled at a primitive part of the brain and not by conscious control, or we all would have died in infancy. They are not controllable by will except perhaps by a few very highly trained martial artists.

Not thinking can be achieved through meditation. Read up a little on Zen.

I think you're missing the point though, your outwardly directed actions are what are affected by your will, not necessarily your bodily functions. Will yourself to not pee. Ever. :lol:

However, we can all control our breathing and heartbeat through an act of will. Suicide by shotgun would work, and any insanity aside, would be an act of free will, aka a conscious decision to end one's own life.

I have to disagree that free will is a belief. Free will can be defined as: freedom of self determination and action independent of external causes.

ahhh... a definition.
so are you saying that your actions are not influenced by any outside sources?
again, certain magic/mind reader experts will disagree with you there.

ahhh... a definition.
so are you saying that your actions are not influenced by any outside sources?
again, certain magic/mind reader experts will disagree with you there.

Nope, not at all.

Of course your decisions can be affected by outside influences. However free will is the ability to do something despite those influences.

I'm sure we all have been counseled not to spend money foolishly on something, but against all advice and common sense, went ahead and did it anyway. Then you looked back later and agreed that it was money wasted. That (to me) is a pretty good example of exercising your own free will to take an action despite outside influence. Yes, it could be argued that because of all the recommendations against it, one was influenced to do it be be rebellious. There are simply too many factors involved to make one flat statement that will cover every situation. IMO, suffice to say that some will exercise their free will in some situation, while other's won't.

and here's why I specifically use magicians and mindreaders as example.
They suggest and implant code words/sounds/images to get certain results.
The important bit here is that they work by taking advantage of how the brain works. They are essentially able to over-ride your normal behaviour. If another human being has this capability to alter how you think
(i.e your thoughts are just preconditioned brain actions/reactions)
then it suggests that your decisions and beliefs are just preconditioned brain actions/reactions.

and here's why I specifically use magicians and mindreaders as example.
They suggest and implant code words/sounds/images to get certain results.
The important bit here is that they work by taking advantage of how the brain works. They are essentially able to over-ride your normal behaviour. If another human being has this capability to alter how you think
(i.e your thoughts are just preconditioned brain actions/reactions)
then it suggests that your decisions and beliefs are just preconditioned brain actions/reactions.

Yep, and you can also be fooled into making a bad investment, and the guy that burned you jets off to Tahiti.

We're not talking about being fooled, whether by illusion or graft. We're talking about you making choices. For the magician or mindreader, you had to WANT to participate, same as the investment. If you didn't participate (as in chose not to) then you weren't exposed to it. So perhaps the people that want to participate in magic shows actually want to be fooled. They chose their form of entertainment.

it's not that simple and i am not talking about fooling someone.
There are examples of people going into events not knowing the outcome and they each succumb to the "programming".
they didn't set out wanting to be believed. In some cases, it isn't even believing something, rather that the one doing the stunt can make you do/think something. This again, indicating of how the brain works and that it is just programming.

There's a guy called Derren Brown.
In one show, he asked to interview two advertising executives.
They went to the meeting place in a taxi organised by Derren Brown where they had a simple brain storming exercise for an idea.
They know who Derren Brown is and what he does and the excercise was to illustrate the power of subliminal messages and advertising.

In short, their eventual idea and conceptual sketches matched 994.873% (random number my own...) with what Derren Brown had drawn and sealed before they turned up at the office.

Apparently, along the route, there were lots of little things placed that you wouldn't actively notice but would ultimately immediately affect what they would end up drawing.
They were free to think of whatever they wanted and come up with any idea that they wanted and draw whatever they wanted. In the terms of this discussion, during the excercise, they were doing things out of their own "free will" except that free will was influenced by Derren Brown before they even stepped into the office.

There is significant evidence from studies with animals that behavior can be predicted using algorithms, particularly with animals that display quite simple behaviors. This indicates that behavior may be merely a biochemical response controlled by genetec and evnironmental factors, and that no mental processing, no conscious choice is actually involved in controlling the behavior. There is no reason to think that humans are any different. Our behaviors are more complex, but they involve responses to environmental stimuli and are also affected by out genetic disposition to certain behaviors, a point I don't think anybody would argue with. For example, computers have been found to better predict the behavior of humans under specific environmental (experimental) conditions than other humans are. Our "free will" is likely only a response determined by factors outside of our control, and in that sense might actually be pre-determined in a sense. Given enough information about previous choices and genetic/environmental factors specific to every person, I would bet that computers could accurately predict the behavior of a specific person in nearly any situation.

The brain is a highly complex thing, and no one understands more than the merest basics.


it's not that simple and i am not talking about fooling someone.
There are examples of people going into events not knowing the outcome and they each succumb to the "programming".
they didn't set out wanting to be believed. In some cases, it isn't even believing something, rather that the one doing the stunt can make you do/think something. This again, indicating of how the brain works and that it is just programming.

Brainwashing. Check out The Manchurian Candidate sometime (the original)


There's a guy called Derren Brown.
In one show, he asked to interview two advertising executives.
They went to the meeting place in a taxi organised by Derren Brown where they had a simple brain storming exercise for an idea.
They know who Derren Brown is and what he does and the excercise was to illustrate the power of subliminal messages and advertising.

In short, their eventual idea and conceptual sketches matched 994.873% (random number my own...) with what Derren Brown had drawn and sealed before they turned up at the office.

Apparently, along the route, there were lots of little things placed that you wouldn't actively notice but would ultimately immediately affect what they would end up drawing.
They were free to think of whatever they wanted and come up with any idea that they wanted and draw whatever they wanted. In the terms of this discussion, during the excercise, they were doing things out of their own "free will" except that free will was influenced by Derren Brown before they even stepped into the office.
So he very cleverly manipulated the people riding in the cab. I agree that manipulation is certainly possible, and the in certain situations people are more likely to act in a certain way.

The basics of the brain is all that matters, since you cannot draw a line between the two. The brain is the organ what distribute commands, collect information of the body's surroundings and adapt to it to survive. Why would nature create something unexplainable, mysterious, with the power to turn against itself or to choose not to sruvive and implant into a living being (which is something that's designed to survive and expand) ? Why I ask? It is all just a very very simple explanation, kinda like how parents explain things to their smallest ones. "Daad, daad, where do babies come from?" "Well.. God puts them in your mommy's stomach.. Then it pops out". The small one's is fine with that and don't ask anymore questions, since it makes sence right? God, who obviously exists, puts the baby in there. No questions asked.

Hear my controversy;
Feelings are electric impulses generated by one part of the brain to make the other part do whatever is necessary to survive (survive as in many different forms). Love is to make the body reproduce. Fear is to make your body avoid dangers (Fear for something you shouldn't fear is your brain's failure to adaptto new fears. Although is makes a good enough job refering to new things as dangerous; guns, electricity, bombs). Curiosity is part of the brains nature to expand (still thinking of a reason why, though that's not important at the moment). Free will does not exist as you know it. Free will in reality would be the brain's ability to adapt. You have a kliché feeling to it all, that's how you stay inside the box. See it as it really is. Analyze.

Another reasons for your belief is that you cannot see how your consciousness would be "fake", right? Since you do acknowledge the things I write here, and "choose" to reply. Then think if it in yet another perspective; Let's say Free will exists, then how would the consciousness of a being without it look? And what i've been saying all along; If it doesn't exist, then how does the consciousness of a being with it look?

Animals rely on preprogrammed instinct. They know one way to do something and they do it. Humans, on the other hand, can choose different approaches to the same goal and create new approaches to the goal. This expanding programming is free will.

Hear my controversy;
Feelings are electric impulses generated by one part of the brain to make the other part do whatever is necessary to survive (survive as in many different forms). Love is to make the body reproduce. Fear is to make your body avoid dangers (Fear for something you shouldn't fear is your brain's failure to adaptto new fears. Although is makes a good enough job refering to new things as dangerous; guns, electricity, bombs). Curiosity is part of the brains nature to expand (still thinking of a reason why, though that's not important at the moment). Free will does not exist as you know it. Free will in reality would be the brain's ability to adapt. You have a kliché feeling to it all, that's how you stay inside the box. See it as it really is. Analyze.


Agreed. The idea of the brain being a tool we use to solve new problems and help us adapt is pretty well established, and is essentially the reason we have been able to evolve to the point we have.

Animals rely on preprogrammed instinct. They know one way to do something and they do it. Humans, on the other hand, can choose different approaches to the same goal and create new approaches to the goal. This expanding programming is free will.

There is simply no scientific evidence to corroborate what you are saying. The human mind is not fundamentally different from "animals", especially higher primates like chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangs. These species are able to solve problems and process information above that of the level pre-teens and even early teens in some cases. Their brains function very similarly to ours, and given our evolutionary relationships, this shouldn't be a surprise. So would you say, based on this information, that ALL higher primates have free will? I don't think so. Our minds have an expanded capability for problem solving, but problem solving still exists in other species...it's just a variation on a theme. MonsterBengt said and I'll say it too; free will does not exist. We are pre-programmed just all other species are. Our actions change in response to environmental conditions in very complex ways, but that is all that it is.

I haven't read any of the replies and only the first sentence of the original post, but...

First of all, there's no such thing as evil. 'Evil' is only that which you personally find greatly displeasurable. The person you believe is doing 'evil' is doing 'good' in their own eyes.

Example: you think Hitler was evil, or performed evil actions at least. Hitler believed he was performing a great service to humanity. There is no desire to perform evil, there is no one that chooses to be evil. There are only different views as to what is good, and in our self importance we classify ideas that contradict with our own idea of good as 'evil'.

strangely enough, I was just re-watching the Jet Li/Tony Leung/Donnie Yen/Maggie Cheung film Hero the other day...

Athiest:

Evil is nothing more than the inability to ignore or keep your "basic animal urges and instincts" in check.

Believer:

There is a God and a Devil. One is good and one is evil.


Anyway, I'm in the believer camp and I didn't go into details because it's too late. Ask me tomorrow for a better description for both.

Athiest:

Evil is nothing more than the inability to ignore or keep your "basic animal urges and instincts" in check.

Believer:

There is a God and a Devil. One is good and one is evil.


Anyway, I'm in the believer camp and I didn't go into details because it's too late. Ask me tomorrow for a better description for both.

I'm asking you for a description of your side of it.

There is simply no scientific evidence to corroborate what you are saying. The human mind is not fundamentally different from "animals", especially higher primates like chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangs. These species are able to solve problems and process information above that of the level pre-teens and even early teens in some cases. Their brains function very similarly to ours, and given our evolutionary relationships, this shouldn't be a surprise. So would you say, based on this information, that ALL higher primates have free will? I don't think so. Our minds have an expanded capability for problem solving, but problem solving still exists in other species...it's just a variation on a theme. MonsterBengt said and I'll say it too; free will does not exist. We are pre-programmed just all other species are. Our actions change in response to environmental conditions in very complex ways, but that is all that it is.

I have this story for you;
We have this thin metal blinds we're all familiar with, and we're also familliar to the sound they make when the wind blows trough an open window. So we we're sitting at home watching TV. Then I thought it was getting hot inside and decided to open a window. 10min later, I still felt it was too hot inside, so I headed for another window, in the opposite side of the room. Then suddenly my dog, who was lying sleeping under the coffetable, ran off up teh stairs and hid in my parents bedroom because he's really scared of the sound the blinds make. He actually knew that by opening two windows, there would be a wind draught that'd make the blinds make alot of noise. And he didn't move when I opened the first window. And this is not even a top end primate.