1. Positive: such rules tell us how to think and act. For example, be kind, love each other, help the poor, etc. In short, do good. — TheMadFool
2. Negative: such rules forbid some thoughts and actions. For example, don't kill, don't lie, etc. In short, don't do bad. — TheMadFool
The law, if I'm correct, is mostly about type 2 rules (negative rules). Judicial systems don't impose positive rules of society like they do negative rules. — TheMadFool
1. Positive: such rules tell us how to think and act. For example, be kind, love each other, help the poor, etc. In short, do good. — TheMadFool
Yet, we see so many people engaging in criminal activities and so few involved in practicing the positive rules of society. — TheMadFool
1. Even in the presence of encouragement to do good and the law not barring such activities we find so few good people. — TheMadFool
2. Even in the presence of laws preventing bad actions and the discouraging of evil we find so many bad people. — TheMadFool
interchangeably. — Buxtebuddha
The law, if I'm correct, is mostly about type 2 rules (negative rules). Judicial systems don't impose positive rules of society like they do negative rules. — TheMadFool
Hi. We could look at this another way. 'Don't murder' could be phrased as 'respect the lives of others.' Also 'give to the poor' could be phrased as 'don't cling to the wealth you control to the point of endangering the community's poor.' In short, I don't think the positive/negative categorization is essential. It's mostly skin-deep. — dog
In terms of enforcement, prohibition may be a more convenient form. Respecting the life of a stranger often means leaving them alone, not running them over, not interfering with their different but other-respecting lifestyle, etc. Since most of us do this most of the time, it's the violating actions that stand out (which argues we are mostly good or social). — dog
I suggest these people are Evil. — Cavacava
Yet, we see so many people engaging in criminal activities and so few involved in practicing the positive rules of society. — TheMadFool
So, doesn't that mean that people are inherently bad? — TheMadFool
That's a fine distinction but something tells me it all boils down to good vs evil. You uphold the law because you're good and you break it because you're bad. You do good because you're good and you don't do good because you're bad. — TheMadFool
That's fantastic. I too think goodness=invisibility. — TheMadFool
The bigger half? — TheMadFool
We have both selfish and altruistic urges, both of which we encourage in ourselves and each other: different urges at different times, depending... Which is ascendent? — Bitter Crank
Our deepest root values are to get along with each other. In other words, to be good. That doesn't mean that we don't do bad things. Social life involves dominance, aggression, and power along with the nice stuff. Civilization and technology have given us the ability to amplify our negative actions well beyond the effort it takes to make them. It's easier to be really bad than it used to be. — T Clark
Society, as I see it, is highly flammable kept below ignition point by the rule of law. The same can't be said of our good side. There's nothing that puts a cap on goodness and yet we don't see it effervescing to the surface. Rather what we see are instances where the law breaks down and the inevitable mayhem that follows. — TheMadFool
Objective or not we can't deny that our moral compasses align sufficiently well to find a common ground for my point. — TheMadFool
Isn't the rule of law existing all you need to see evidence of a good side? — MonfortS26
Maybe the reason our moral compasses align so well is because they are dependant on one another. — MonfortS26
I think forbidding something, as the law does, is to acknowledge our propensity for evil. — TheMadFool
That's a different topic but how does ''dependence'' translate into ''agreement''? — TheMadFool
Where are you getting this statistic? What makes you say that few people practice "positive rules" of society? — MonfortS26
I don't think you can label anything as inherently bad, just bad in relation to something else. — MonfortS26
You're trying to find black and white in a very grey concept. — MonfortS26
Does it matter? — MonfortS26
How many people are out there doing charity work? Compare that to how many criminals are out there? — TheMadFool
Why do we have CCTV cameras? — TheMadFool
How many charity organizations are there? So few, right? — TheMadFool
Why not? We may compare two people to assess who's better or worse but each can be said to be good or evil. — TheMadFool
But the grey lies between black and white. — TheMadFool
I think it does. What would an alien say about humanity? — TheMadFool
That's a false equivocation. How many people are living law-abiding lives as opposed to criminals? — MonfortS26
But just an example, if Wal-Mart didn't have security cameras, do you really think that people would steal more than they buy? — MonfortS26
Are you implying that any for-profit company is inherently evil? — MonfortS26
Under what criteria do you make that categorization though? — MonfortS26
And expecting pure black or white is idealistic — MonfortS26
does another persons wrongdoing affect your desire to do good? — MonfortS26
I think the reason you see evil as being the predominant force is that you're viewing it from the side of good. Just as a thought experiment, imagine yourself to be the evilest person in the world. A pure evil incarnate. You want to rape, you want to steal, you want to commit genocide. You want to do every act of evil imaginable. Imagine how hard it would be to get away with it all. Is that not evidence of good? Good can't exist without evil. You can't measure one without the other as a comparison. They can't be anything but equal overall if you view it that way. — MonfortS26
You have a point. If you do the math then, yes, there are more law-abiding people around than criminals. But don't forget our proclivities. Look at what happens when the rule of law breaks down - disasters, political unrest, war, etc. Atrocities are part and parcel of such events. Doesn't that tell us something about our nature - that it's just Mr. Hyde kept in check by Dr. Jekyll. — TheMadFool
Yes, people would steal more without CCTV cameras. — TheMadFool
No, but how many non-profit organizations are there compared to for-profit companies? — TheMadFool
I'm being as realistic as possible. I've weighed in both our benevolent side and our evil side. The only thing is I find the evil side is winning. — TheMadFool
You said good and bad are relative terms. I agree but that doesn't do anything to relieve the burden of being guilty. — TheMadFool
Kant's categorical imperative is an example of a belief that what others do is as important as what you do. What would be the point of being the only person in the world who tells the truth? — TheMadFool
I'm being balanced as possible. — TheMadFool
If you'll notice earlier, I said the deepest root value is survival. "When the chips are down, these 'civilized people' will eat each other". We have an innate instinct to not die, when people feel their life is threatened, they do monstrous things. — MonfortS26
You missed my point. If there were 200 people who shop at a store each day, without cameras, do you think more than 100 of those people would steal? — MonfortS26
Saying that the deepest rooted value is survival is also somewhat faulty by tautology. Every value that is selected for is selected for survival enhancement. The general tendency of humans to band together is a value as "strongly rooted" as survival, because it was selected for it's benefit toward survival. It's likely that the remaining anti-social traits that we also find, like the sociopathy displayed by joker-types, were also selected for because, if they are present in very low percentages, they also have a positive influence on survival. — Akanthinos
how many people would close their eyes and act as if nothing was wrong if they saw someone else being victimised, and they had nothing to gain or lose by helping? — Akanthinos
The fact that they present in low percentages doesn't change the fact that they are present. To say that our desire to band together is as strong as our desire to survive is ignoring the fact that anti-social behavior exists, no matter how small their population. — MonfortS26
How can you say that survival is not a value? — MonfortS26
This attitude right there is what annoys me the most out of every depiction of post-apocalyptic scenarios. When the chips are down, the vast majority of people, civilised or not, do the same thing they do when the chips aren't down : they band together and try to make the most out of it. A group will always be stronger than an individual. — Akanthinos
Shit hits the fan, you'll find more people trying to rebuild society than people trying to abuse the lack of authority. They are all trying to survive. It's just that being generally polite, mostly good-tempered and sometimes altruistic is a better long-run survival strategy than being a dick. — Akanthinos
I'm not talking about your balance, I'm talking about the unending duality of good and evil. They are eternally balanced concepts, each dependant on the other for measurement of either. The can't be anything but equal. — MonfortS26
How many people are out there doing charity work? Compare that to how many criminals are out there?
Why do we have CCTV cameras? Why do we have punishment through law? Deterrence, no?
How many charity organizations are there? So few, right? — TheMadFool
I think our deepest root value is survival. We want to get along with each other because it is beneficial to our survival. We seek dominance, power and behave aggressively because it beneficial to our survival. I agree with the notion that civilization and technology are capable of creating more bad than before, but it's also capable of creating more good than before. All civilization and technology are doing are making us more powerful, what we do with that power is what matters. — MonfortS26
I think this shows a misunderstanding of human nature. — T Clark
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.