If there is an 'almighty creator' and an afterlife, death and suffering are completely meaningless.

Interesting, are these themes obvious or are they "hidden"? — IvoryBlackBishop

The Talos Principle deals with a lot of philosophical themes directly, for example by asking the player thought-provoking questions and having the player read documents and texts.

There's a lot of subtlety to it. Interpretation is left up to the player and the game doesn't really impose a viewpoint nor does it give straight-forward answers.

Besides this, the game is also quite beautiful in its presentation.

It raised a lot of questions in me, about being and consciousness, about beauty, about happiness.

I can keep praising this game all day! Can't recommend it enough.

Sometimes I feel the need to give this thread a bit of attention. If I could only give one person the same sort of experience I had when playing this game, the effort would be worth it.



This is the soundtrack to the Talos Principle. I find that I listen to it on a regular basis, when I need to clear my mind. Sometimes music, or a game, can make us experience things that words cannot.

It is said that if one wants to improve the world, one should start with improving themselves.

I think the individual good and the good of all is closely connected.

Well, I don’t agree with this part. We think we want to be happy, but for the most part we don’t even know what it IS to be happy. I think our strongest motivation is fear, but I believe there is an underlying impetus to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, which can operate at its fullest capacity in humanity - although it rarely does. — Possibility

Could you be more specific with what part you don't agree? Because to me it seems like we're mostly in agreement.

Maybe I would add that fear and happiness are closely related, in the sense that fear almost always directly interferes without our desire to be happy.

At the very start of this thread it was claimed that humans have an innate tendency towards immoral behavior.

I disagreed, stating that humans have an innate tendency towards being happy, but that their ignorance leads them pursue things that do not make them happy and to do things that are immoral.

Sure, but that is too simple. A perceived bad act by one may not be perceived as bad by another. A perceived bad act can cause a perceived bad act by another, which to yet another might be perceived as justice. — Noah Te Stroete

My earlier posts deal with the matter of perception.

So, I'm knowledgeable (not ignorant) when I know how to and act in ways that make myself happy? — TheMadFool

Personally I prefer the term wisdom as the opposite of ignorance, and knowing how to make oneself happy, and acting accordingly, is one aspect of wisdom.

Does that mean that if I don't know how to make myself happy, which makes me ignorant, then I'm necessarily evil? All unhappy people, because they're ignorant, are necessarily evil then? — TheMadFool

I don't really believe in evil people, but ignorance may or may not lead one to commit evil actions. It may also lead to actions which are simply neutral.

For simplicity's sake, lets call good actions those which bring happiness, evil actions which take it away, and neutral actions those that do not affect our happiness.

Are those things really inescapable? Do they really result in death when they are lacking? Or is this what our perceptions, mostly influenced by the sort of society we live in, are pressured into believing? — Tzeentch


So how aren't they? — schopenhauer1

A few of the things you listed, like "dealing with other people', "survival through cultural institutions", "finding relationships".

If one doesn't like these premises, what is stopping one from adopting a life that doesn't involve them?

"Dealing with one's own inability to be satisfied", is this truly a premise? Don't you know anybody that is satisfied in life? And if you do, what makes them different from you?

You also name things like "cause & effect" and "randomness". I suppose those are pretty much inescapable. Though, perception plays a large role in how we experience these factors. The Stoics have said a lot about this topic.

I think many of the things seen as "premises" are actually choices.

Improve in what way? — Brett

We're getting into psychology here, and this question would be answered differently depending on what person we're talking about.

A possible motive would be that a parent is projecting their failures onto the child, and punishing the child instead of themselves. The "benefit" would lie in the fact that the parent does not have to acknowledge their own failures.

Another could be that the parent blames the child for their lot in life, and they use the child to vent their frustration.

These hypothetical situations are of limited value, though. Every person is different and other things will explain their behavior. It's important to note that some of these processes may happen subconsciously.

Then why would they act badly? A good person will only act in a good way, so it’s only the neutral people doing all the damage? If they have no side of them that is no good then where does this bad behaviour spring from? — Brett

Ignorance. That's basically the point I've been trying to make the whole time.
They desire happiness (or 'the Good'), but simply haven't the slightest clue of how to get there.

Personally, I don't think an action is all that constitutes an evil deed.

Most importantly, there must also be an awareness of a moral dimension. I don't think animals are capable of that.

Similarly, can a child who is unaware of the consequences and moral implications of his actions be called evil?

Evil recognizes no boundaries in my humble opinion: parents have slain children so we can forget about strangers shooting you in a random act of violence. Evil is not restricted to only the ignorant. — TheMadFool

Hmm.. I think our definitions of ignorance may differ.

I'll give you a short version of what I discussed with others in this thread;

I believe humans are motivated primarily by a desire to be happy. When a person's actions do not contribute to or even undermine their happiness, I consider those actions ignorant.

In the case of a parent hurting their children, they obviously must be quite miserable to begin with. Their misery clouds their perception, to the point that they believe hurting their children will improve their situation. It's safe to say that it won't. It probably makes them even worse.

(My strong suspicions are that) Evil actions cannot contribute to a person's happiness. Thus evil is necessarily an act of ignorance.

If you don't mind me asking, what do you think comes naturally to us, good or evil or both, and why?

Thinking a bit more on the issue, I feel we need free will in order to own up to our actions whatever they may be.

If we're good by nature - programmed to be so - then the notion of a good person is at stake: we can't be good if we didn't choose to be good. Free will would be necessary in such cases but then we'd have to deal with problematic people who choose evil. Such a world would have good and evil

On the other hand if we're programmed to be evil then giving us free will makes sense only as a means to allow us some goodness i.e. the choice then is not to do evil and do good. Such a world would have good and evil.

The difference between the two worlds is that in one free will enables goodness and in the other it enables evil.

Perhaps our natural tendencies are balanced between good and evil and we're morally ambiguous creatures. In such a world free will would certainly assure responsibility for both our good deeds and bad deeds. Such a world would have good and evil.

Which of the three possible moral worlds do we live in? — TheMadFool

I lean towards people being either naturally neutral or good.

People desire to happy. They want to love and to be loved, prefer positive emotions over negative emotions, etc. However, due to all sorts of factors, like upbringing and societal norms, people often end up pursuing this goal in the wrong way (ignorance), and this may lead to them undermining their pursuit of happiness. These may be neutral actions (pointless actions, basically), or they may actively undermine other people's happiness too, which could be considered evil actions.

Whether a fundamental desire to be happy is enough to call people fundamentally good is an interesting question. I'd say it makes them neutral, at least.

I realize I'm making some big jumps. Just trying to give you a general outline of my thoughts, and we can go into more detail if you're interested.

Does this then mean humans are naturally good? — Brett

That would be an interesting thought to explore, but for now I'll stick with neutral.

I didn’t say animals, I said primates. If you don’t think they’re capable of evil or good then how would you define good, is it something only humans are capable of? — Brett

I consider good and evil to be closely related to rationality and reason; the higher faculties of mind that only humans are capable of. Humans are capable of understanding the consequences of and motivations behind their actions to a far greater degree than animals. Humans are also capable of self-reflection.

So yes, to me morality is something that only concerns humans.

We're now experiencing difficulty at this notion of "happiness."

From what I understand about a really evil guy like Carl Panzram is that he may have reached this "happy" state if the entire universe burst into flames.

I feel like you're pushing a different notion of happiness though. I feel like you're pushing one that's a little more universal, maybe something more in line with Eudaimonia? I thought I suggested this idea to you earlier but you shot it down.

Happiness is a difficult subject though. Something might make you happy in the short term, or it could be unpleasant in the moment but form a good long-term memory. I would usually view happiness/content as a subjective thing, but I'm not totally closed off to the notion of some sort of Eudaimonic happiness either. — BitconnectCarlos

I do believe there is something like 'true happiness', maybe close to the Greek idea of eudaimonia. (I do like classical Greek philosophy in general). Or perhaps maybe something close to Buddhist ideas of enlightenment.

Everyone is looking for this sort of true happiness (consciously or unconsciously), but very few find it. Many look for it in the wrong places. Western society teaches people such happiness can be found in material things. I doubt that, but to each their own.

Also, I think true happiness, morality and reason are closely connected. If our reasoning faculty is deluded (perception), we get led onto false trails on our quest for happiness, which can have dire consequences for ourselves and others.

Especially when I was a moral nihilist in my teens I would just do things because "fuck it" - there was no standard of morality present that I could even ever meaningfully violate. — BitconnectCarlos

You were testing your convictions on your surroundings, trying to validate them. The benefit you were seeking seems obvious to me, even if you may not be convinced yourself.

Things like "fuck it" are exactly the kinds of motivations I'd expect an angsty teenager to express, trying to look cool. No offense.

I do believe that the vast majority of men, in their hearts, know that certain things are absolutely wrong but they just choose to ignore it or deliberately violate it. — BitconnectCarlos

I believe so too. Which I why I do not agree with the notion that humans are naturally evil.

Perhaps I'd phrase it slightly different, but only to highlight my point. I think most people are (perhaps unconsciously) aware that their actions violate moral principles, but they do not care because they do not see the direct benefit of behaving morally.

I'm well aware that abuse and maltreatment plays a huge role, but ultimately one's troubles are their own. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not saying they do not carry responsibility for their actions. But when we understand the process they went through to arrive in their twisted state, we have an easier time recognizing where and how their perception was deluded.

Why is that a deluded perception? It did benefit him. He got off, sexually. — BitconnectCarlos

Every person desires to be happy (or content). ("every person desires the Good")

Our perception is what we use to guide ourselves to this goal.

Did Bundy's actions made him a happier person?

Well, we can't look into the man's head, but I'll wager an educated guess that he was probably deeply unhappy.

Other motivations or drives would be jealousy, hate, a sexual motive, or just the implicit recognition that the life of the victim doesn't matter and that murder could be convenient. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, but why aren't these motivated by a perception of what is good? (or maybe 'not good', in the example of hate).

Surely, when someone pursues a sexual relation with someone else, isn't it obvious that this person does so because they believe it benefits them?

I honestly believe the choice to murder in some cases is essentially just someone saying "fuck it" to the universe and moral instruction. I honestly believe that to be the case. They are choosing to turn their back on that. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think it is that simple.

A lot of psychopathic behavior can be directly linked to abuses people have endured when they were children, for example.

However, we are talk about evil here. — BitconnectCarlos

The initial premise of the thread included that evil was a natural tendency in all humans. So that is broader than just the sort of extreme evil committed by the world's worst criminals.

Lately I have seen a number of interviews from convicted murderers so if you want to talk about evil that seems like a good resource. — BitconnectCarlos

I occasionally watch those. They are interesting. But such persons are often extremely manipulative and/or narcissistic. There's no real way to tell if they are lying or telling the truth when they talk about the things that went on in their heads when they committed their deeds.

Often it is related to sexual pleasure or some form of power fantasy, though.

I do think it's a grave mistake to chalk up all evil to ignorance. It would imply to me that you could sit in front of, say, Ted Bundy and explain to him "well if only you knew the wonders of Philosophy and...." — BitconnectCarlos

When people are left to their own malignant thoughts for too long, it may be really difficult to ever drag them back into reality. Sure.

However, I do not believe people are born that way. Ted Bundy had a troublesome youth. There's no telling what may have happened to him during his youth that could have been the catalyst for his behavior in later life.

But he too derived sexual pleasure from his acts, leading us back to the person always pursuing what they think benefit them and deluded perception.

Both intrinsic and instrumental?

If it’s instinctive then I assume it’s natural. — Brett

For an animal, perhaps. I would not extend this line of reasoning to humans.

Therefore evil exists without the cause being ignorance. — Brett

Perhaps. Like I said before, I don't consider animals to be capable of evil or good.

And why would murder be instinctive? — Brett

Sustenance?

One could live self-sufficiently somewhere? Maybe in a community?

But it might be easier than that. If stops paying taxes and has no permanent place of residence, you'd disappear off most government's radars as well.

It seems these options reject government without imposing anything on others, no?

I'm not interested in playing games.

I would regard it as a form of instinctive behavior, which for an animal may be considered 'natural'.

However, this situation knocks down pleasure and pain as forming ultimate, final ends and having intrinsic value as some moral theories like consequentialism suggests. It's not that pleasure and pain have intrinsic value; on the contrary they're simply means, i.e. posses only instrumental value, for the real objective of life - survival. — TheMadFool

It's an interesting question you pose.

The first question that comes to my mind is, why couldn't it be both?

I don't think animals have the capacity for evil nor good.

But lets say, for the sake of argument, that they do commit evil acts.

Your point being?

So what form of government would you prefer instead? — Brett

Our discussion is not about what I prefer, but about what is legitimate.

If you reject one form of government than you must presumably have another preference in mind. You can’t just rid yourself of a government you don’t like and exist in a vacuum. — Brett

I can't?

Couldn't I theoretically move to some desolate place where no government has a say over me, without bothering anyone else?

I'm not advocating to impose my preferences on anyone else. That's the exact thing I take issue with.

Not really.

I just don't consider evil to be a natural tendency, but a tendency born out of ignorance.

... but we can generalize in that we can say most/almost all/the majority of some particular class of objects are <insert predicate>. — TheMadFool

I can see the practical merit in that, but not the philosophical one.

Once we agree that some people aren't naturally evil, aren't we drawn to the question why that is so?

Is it just every person does what they perceive to be good for themselves? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes.

In sum, I'm just saying it's just not right to let rationality (or someone lack of) take center stage when other motivations or drives of action take a much bigger role. — BitconnectCarlos

Such as?


As far as I am concerned your examples change little about my premise, except for the fact that some very mentally ill people may not fit the bill. Don't you find it telling that you need to go to the extremest of examples in order to find a fault in my argument?

Tell you what, if you agree that 99.9% of people are motivated by what they believe is good for them, I will agree with you that 0.01% may not, because they suffer from some brain malfunction.

However if they reject the system of government, in this case representative democracy, then you could regard them as dissidents. In that case they would be hoping for another form of government. However, the government is still imposing itself on the dissidents on behalf of the people that elected them. So the imposing is still legitimate. — Brett

This makes no sense to me.

Imposing one's will upon another is, in my opinion, illegitimate, whether one does it on behalf of other people or not.

My point is that governments have no right to rule over people who do not want to be ruled by it.

What else could it be, unless you reject representative democracy, and then you’re imposing your view on others. And I assume you’d feel justified. — Brett

Rejecting something does not equal imposing it on others.

I like to force people to leave others alone sometimes... dunno 'bout you. I would not call such action immoral. Yet, on pains of coherence or special pleading, you must. — creativesoul

Like I said, there are exceptions on the individual level, however the criteria that need to be checked will not realisitically apply to governments.

It seems to me you are using a generalization about what are supposedly natural tendencies in humans to explain complicated problems like free will and the problem of evil. I think this is unsound.

I'll ask again, what about all the people who do not exhibited those tendencies? Are they not human? And if they are, then apparently the tendencies aren't as natural as you consider them to be.

I think it was over $300 which he used to get high. I suppose it's possible he could have been thinking "I am doing this in pursuit of the Good" but I think that's extremely unlikely in view of other factors. — BitconnectCarlos

If, in that moment, he was not convinced his actions would be good for him, why would he have committed his crime?

I just don't find it helpful at all to be like "oh well if he only knew eudamonia or whatever or was aware of the existence of, I don't know, higher pleasures.... I'm sorry but it's just babble. — BitconnectCarlos

I think it is safe to assume the man's actions did not make him happy. Can we therefore not say the man was ignorant of what brings him happiness?

Read about Carl Panzram if you want serious psychological insight into a sadistic serial killer. He wrote a book detailing his thoughts. The man fundamentally hated humanity. He hated the universe and he had a deep-seeded rage. Understanding this misanthropy and rage will take you much further in terms of understanding evil than someone misunderstanding rationality. — BitconnectCarlos

Why couldn't a serial killer be guided by a flawed perception?

The person you describe doesn't seem like a happy person, nor does he seem to make decisions that would turn him into one. It seems to me he is hopelessly lost.

I also think it's very questionable to give any sort of universal prescription for what 'happiness' amounts to as if it were just the same for every human being. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think I'm doing that.

I am, however, making an educated guess that the persons you describe are unhappy people. I also think I'm correct in that regard.

It seems like you interpreted the quote I shared earlier as 'every person desires to be a morally good person', but that is not what the quote says and not how I explained it.

Of course it is. That’s why they were elected, to enact the policies they were voted in on. To not do so would be a betrayal of the majority. — Brett

So, what about the minority that didn't elect them?

A case could be made that the power a government has over the people who voted for it is legitimate.

However, as long as there are dissidents, the government is imposing its will on people who do not wish it. What possible moral basis could there be for this? (in the context of government)

When there are no dissidents, there is consensus and therefore (broadly speaking) no imposing of will upon others.

Your position is a moral one. But your position isn’t clear to me. — Brett

Forcing people to do things they do not want to do is immoral.

On the individual level sometimes exceptions can be made for this rule, however I do not believe governments can realistically match these criteria. I could go into those criteria if you wish, but I don't think it's that relevant to our current discussion.

I used to think like that, but in the meanwhile, I have corrected my point of view. As far as I am concerned, you are allowed to "impose your will upon another" on the condition that you are willing to risk your life and die for what you believe in. — alcontali

There are situations in which 'imposing one's will on another' is in the best interest of the other. I do think that individuals can therefore under certain circumstances do this without it being immoral. A parent raising a child, for example.

However, I do not believe a government could realistically match the criteria required for the imposing to be considered moral, mainly due to the fact that the number of people they deal with are too large. For example, is a government willing to "risk its life" for its subjects?

I could go into further detail about what criteria I'm talking about, but I think you get the idea.

In social science and politics, power is the capacity of an individual to influence the conduct (behaviour) of others. — Brett

Isn't thereby a government that exercises power imposing its will upon others?

... however, as social beings, the same concept is seen as good and as something inherited or given for exercising humanistic objectives that will help, move, and empower others as well ... The use of power need not involve force or the threat of force (coercion). An example of using power without oppression is the concept "soft power," as compared to hard power. — Brett

Soft power is not "power without oppression". Soft power includes things like the use of media, which is capable of being and often is a tool of oppression.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12617.Manufacturing_Consent

A more fitting definition of soft power would be "Imposing one's will upon another, without the other noticing it."

Not a bit less immoral, as far as I am concerned.

Did the fellow not have some desire to do all those things, thinking it must make him wealthier/happier, etc? Was he not ignorant of the fact that none of his actions contributed to his happiness?

In the context of social relations I would describe power as "the ability to impose one's will upon another".

I consider that immoral, thus any government that utilizes such a principle I consider illegitimate.

Natural tendencies will predominate our behavioral repertoire - what comes natural to us will feature prominently in our conduct but only if there are no restrictions. For instance, it's natural for us to desire happiness and the majority behave in ways that show that is the case. Similarly, if there's a surge of immoral behavior when restrictions are removed, it's evidence that we are so inclined. — TheMadFool

Who is "us"? Does this "us" include all the people who would not act immorally if left to their own devices? These 'natural tendencies' seem little more than broad generalizations. Those may be sometimes useful as a practical tool, but often fail to describe accurately.

I use to think what you thought. — BitconnectCarlos

I doubt that. You either missed or chose to ignore an important nuance, namely;

The problem is that people's perceptions are hopelessly deluded, .... — Tzeentch

The deterrent factor is what concerns me because it's universal in scope. Yes, it has or is supposed to have its greatest use against murderers but I'm quite sure, if the law didn't exist, murder rates would sky-rocket; after all, even with the death penalty still in use, murder exists. Imagine what would happen without it? — TheMadFool

Ok, lets suppose there would be an increase. How would that make evil a natural tendency?