THE definition of GOOD and EVIL?

[fredjacksonsan]

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?

[MonsterBengt]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

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?

[fredjacksonsan]

OK so now it gets more complex.

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.

[MonsterBengt]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

OK so now it gets more complex.

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.

[fredjacksonsan]

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.

[drunken monkey]

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

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

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.

[drunken monkey]

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

[fredjacksonsan]

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.

[drunken monkey]

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.

[MishaA]

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...

[nismogt_rfreak]

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.

[MonsterBengt]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

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.

[fredjacksonsan]

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.

[drunken monkey]

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.