DEEP Discussion Yet A-gain

1. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago

   
   What is good?   What is evil?   Is there a consensus at to what is defined as good & what is defined as evil?  Is good & evil based upon situation or moral relativity or is good & evil absolutes?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Women are evil and men are good, Grace. Simple enough! 

      replyreport
2. 61

   TessSchlesingerposted 4 years ago

   I would define good as those actions which lead to the greatest well being and survival for the greatest number of people/species for the longest period of time.
   
   I would define evil as anything that hindered the well being/life of any life force (man and/or animal).
   
   I would define ethics as those rules that ensure the greatest survival and well being for all people.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You might want to re-think that, for history shows that simply "survival of the fittest" produces the strongest, longest lasting species.
      
      You've also defined any and all predators/carnivores as "evil", simply for eating what evolution designed them to eat.  The bat, clearing out mosquitoes and the anteater would be evil by definition as would anyone taking antibiotics to rid themselves of disease causing bacteria.
      
      I don't think good and evil are black and white.

      replyreport
3. 61

   TessSchlesingerposted 4 years ago

   Nope.
   
   Not survival of the fittest.
   
   Survival of the best adapted.
   
   And human beings adapted by being a social and cooperative species.
   
   I'm betting you never did any science classes at university.
   
   Darwin's theory does not apply to individuals within the species. It applies to the species as a whole. In otherwise, mankind survived because it cooperated and worked together. It's the best adapted to the environment.
   
   When the species begin to fight within themselves, then it is divided, and divided, it falls.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You misunderstand.  Survival of the fittest means that only the strongest and fittest individuals, whether human or other species, survive to reproduce (basic Darwinian evolution).  The human species has taken the route of not only caring for their less able individuals (crippled, low IQ, etc.) but actively encouraging them to reproduce.
      
      That I would not care to live in a world where it was otherwise, the fact remains that it is not in the interests of the long term survival of the species, according to Darwin.  Which means that the "greatest number of people/species for the longest period of time in your post is not being observed and is therefore "evil".
      
      "I'm betting you never did any science classes at university."
      
      LOL  I've thought the same of you, judging from your propensity to debate from an emotional basis rather than a factual one.  FYI, my degree is in chemistry, I'm 9 credits short of one in physics (one class for a year) and one credit hour short of one in mathematics.  Yes, I understand evolution and I understand numbers theory behind it.
      
      "When the species begin to fight within themselves, then it is divided, and divided, it falls."
      
      Not necessarily; in more than a few species, young are destroyed by adults when possible, yet they are successful.  Or were until man came along but then that could be said of virtually everything but bacteria and viruses.  Chimpanzees conduct war between tribes, as do other species  Corals are in a constant state of battle with adjoining colonies.
      
      When it comes down to it, virtually all species will attack other members of that species if food availability is at stake.  They won't (generally) go after their own "family" or "colony" but any member of a different family is fair game if they intrude into the "wrong" geographical area.  Off the top of my head this is particularly true for omnivores and carnivores, while straight herbivores sometimes accept others of their own species.  Humans fit very neatly into this "kill anything that would eat our food or invade our territory" and always have. 
      
      Nor am I confidant that humanity is the "best adapted to the environment" - when our big brains have produced the ability, and willingness, to change that environment to our detriment, and we do so, I'm a little shaky on the idea that we are best adapted to survive.  We're a late comer to our world; only time will tell if the species can survive here.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Castlepalomaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Darwin did say, it is not the strongest or the most intelligent that survives.
         
         It is the species that is most diverse and adaptable that survive the longest. Human can learn alot more diversity and better ways than what we are doing right now.
         
         Rather than following these stupid wealthy energy vampires sucking the vital life out of us and the planet.

         replyreport
         1. 93

            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            According to FactCheck, Darwin never said that.  It is not in "origin of species" or in anything else he wrote.  It appears that the comment came from a 1963 speech by a Louisiana State University professor named Leon C. Megginson, according to the website Quote Investigator.
            
            The species most diverse and adaptable.  The only problem with that is that when one is diverse enough, or adapts through physical changes to BE diverse, it becomes a different species.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Castlepalomaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I don't give humans as much credit for survival. As much as the many other species that have already lived here for 10s or 100s of millions of years longer.
               
               Surely the immoral jellyfish that's been here for 650 million years has not the strength or intelligent because of no brain or backbone will adapt and diverse itself to continue to out live humans on this planet.
               
               Darwin's concept of evolutionary adaptation through natural selection became central to modern evolutionary theory, and it has now become the unifying concept of the life sciences. If we change from monkeys to human, it's because of a better diversity giving greater chances of survival.

               replyreport
4. 61

   TessSchlesingerposted 4 years ago

   Yup. As I was saying - the best adapted. And human being cooperated to survive.

   replyreport
5. 61

   Kelly Dearyposted 4 years ago

   I think cooperation is key to survival yes. Humans come together to make life easier but as life becomes easier there is less cooperation, more focus on self and vain pursuits eventually causing the social structure to fall.  Then the cycle starts over from the beginning.

   replyreport