DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 07, 2016 5:56 am

Prismatic567 wrote:The one example [amongst many researches done] was to counter Arminius' point that 'no one is born with moral competency, rather moral is learned'.

If you want to give a credible counter you will need to have some idea of the other research done [do a literature review] on this point.

Note most people can understand basic morality and those psychologists who has done research on it are surely capable of understanding what is morality at the basic level.

It doesn't matter how many. 1000 idiots still think like idiots.

If you want any "study" to gain actual scientific credibility, you must provide their exact, precise, scientific definition of the concepts they are trying to measure. Saying "well everyone knows what morality is", is NOT scientific. And any study that claims to be scientific yet didn't even know that one fact, isn't worth anything at all, no matter how many such ignorant people attempt the same task.

Prismatic567 wrote:When I refer to those research I am backing it with my knowledge of the Philosophy of Morality.

One of my forte is on Philosophy of Moral & Ethics with emphasis of Kant and in general.

I haven't seen that you have any special knowledge of the "Philosophy of Morality". The fact that you haven't given a precise definition for "Moral Behavior" and for "Evil" (only a vague one), implies that your standard for "knowledge" is pretty low. As a philosopher wanting to deal with science, you should be far more pedantic. You cannot ask the scientists to do your job for you or even understand why you do it.

Prismatic567 wrote:Such research as the above will substantiate many of Kant's fundamentals on his Philosophy of Morality, e.g. his Categorical Imperative and his full Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Perhaps it is just me but I tend to go with the motto of Science, "Nullius in Verbe" (take no one's word). I don't really care what Kant might have said or anyone else from 100s of years ago. The question is whether you can present the case yourself.

Prismatic567 wrote:I wonder what is your credibility and strength on this topic of morality and Ethics? Give me some references or anything to support your claim your have any reasonable knowledge on the Philosophy of Morality. I predict your idea of Morality may be grounded on a delusion??

First, what my credentials might be is completely irrelevant because I am not the one making the claim, but rather merely checking your logic. Secondly, as I stated, "Nullius in Verbe", so who cares what my credentials or anyone else's might be? I don't care what your "credentials" might be. Philosophy is NOT about worshiping idols and props.

If you want to convince me personally, you absolutely must provide an unambiguous, precise definition of the critical words and concepts you are using. After that, it is usually merely an issue of coherently maintaining your language (aka "Logic") . It doesn't matter what the subject is.

In case you are wondering, morality is a code of ethics established as a base standard of behavior to be expected from all members of a selected group. "Universal morality" doesn't make a whole lot of sense because the grouping implies that all living creaturs are to be expected to obey a code of ethics.

Infants, as Arminius has pointed out, are not part of the specified group for which morals and evilness would apply.
Last edited by James S Saint on Wed Sep 07, 2016 7:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 6:43 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:The one example [amongst many researches done] was to counter Arminius' point that 'no one is born with moral competency, rather moral is learned'.

If you want to give a credible counter you will need to have some idea of the other research done [do a literature review] on this point.

Note most people can understand basic morality and those psychologists who has done research on it are surely capable of understanding what is morality at the basic level.

It doesn't matter how many. 1000 idiots still think like idiots.

If you want any "study" to gain actual scientific credibility, you must probide their exact, precise, scientific definition of the concepts they are trying to measure. Saying "well everyone knows what morality is", is NOT scientific. And any study that claims to be scientific yet didn't even know that one fact, isn't worth anything at all, no matter how many such ignorant people attempt the same task.

Prismatic567 wrote:When I refer to those research I am backing it with my knowledge of the Philosophy of Morality.

One of my forte is on Philosophy of Moral & Ethics with emphasis of Kant and in general.

I haven't seen that you have any special knowledge of the "Philosophy of Morality". The fact that you haven't given a precise definition for "Moral Behavior" and for "Evil" (only a vague one), implies that your standard for "knowledge" is pretty low. As a philosopher wanting to deal with science, you should be far more pedantic. You cannot ask the scientists to do your job for you or even understand why you do it.

Prismatic567 wrote:Such research as the above will substantiate many of Kant's fundamentals on his Philosophy of Morality, e.g. his Categorical Imperative and his full Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Perhaps it is just me but I tend to go with the motto of Science, "Nullius in Verbe" (take no one's word). I don't really care what Kant might have said or anyone else from 100s of years ago. The question is whether you can present the case yourself.

Prismatic567 wrote:I wonder what is your credibility and strength on this topic of morality and Ethics? Give me some references or anything to support your claim your have any reasonable knowledge on the Philosophy of Morality. I predict your idea of Morality may be grounded on a delusion??

First, what my credentials might be is completely irrelevant because I am not the one making the claim, but rather merely checking your logic. Secondly, as I stated, "Nullius in Verbe", so who cares what my credentials or anyone else's might be? I don't care what your "credentials" might be. Philosophy is NOT about worshiping idols and props.

If you want to convince me personally, you absolutely must provide an unambiguous, precise definition of the critical words and concepts you are using. After that, it is usually merely an issue of coherently maintaining your language (aka "Logic"). It doesn't matter what the subject is.

In case you are wondering, morality is a code of ethics established as a base standard of behavior to be expected from all members of a selected group. "Universal morality" does make a whole lot of sense because the group implies that all living creature are to be expected to obey a code of ethics.

Infants, as Arminius has pointed out, are not part of the specified group for which morals and evilness would apply.
I understand for you to explain your understanding of Morality and Ethic ["Nullius in Verbe"] would be tedious within a forum like this. That is why I asked you to quote some references on your coverage of the subject.

Since this is a philosophy forum, a study of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics is necessary. To discount Kant [one of the greatest philosopher ever] on ethics exposed your ignorance in the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

One may not agree with every philosopher on Morality and Ethics but one should at least understand [not necessary agree] the theories and principles propounded by the various reputable philosophers on the subject of Morality and Ethics. Something like a Literature Review.

If you cannot quote or mention any of the reputable philosophers you are ignorant of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

In case you are wondering, morality is a code of ethics established as a base standard of behavior to be expected from all members of a selected group. "Universal morality" does make a whole lot of sense because the group implies that all living creature are to be expected to obey a code of ethics.
The above are childish views.
On a more refined basis there is a difference between Morality and Ethics.
Morality deals with the theory and principles whereas Ethics is applied Morality, like Pure and Applied Mathematics, Physics, etc.

As with Kant I agree with "Universal morality" which should be unconditional absolute moral principles [as the Categorical Imperatives] but not a set from a personal God which is delusional.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 07, 2016 7:36 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
In case you are wondering, morality is a code of ethics established as a base standard of behavior to be expected from all members of a selected group. "Universal morality" doesn't make a whole lot of sense because the group implies that all living creature are to be expected to obey a code of ethics.
The above are childish views.

Perhaps so, but you haven't provided anything better, hardly anything at all.

And my apologies .. I mistakenly typed "does make sense..." when I meant "doesn't make sense...".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby One Liner » Wed Sep 07, 2016 8:12 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
One Liner wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Any counter to my above argument to support the OP?.

Humans are not evil, but instead can perform evil (not good) actions; where evil actions are defined as anything that is contrary to the specific social norms (moral system) of a particular collection of individuals.
You missed my point in the OP.

I did not state "Human are Evil" period.
I stated
"DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil"

Note the word "POTENTIAL."
This potential is the critical element.
The fact is this potential cannot be got rid of within the DNA and in the brain at least in the present and for a long time to come.

As humans evolved through 6 million years, this potential to commit 'evil' acts has been suppressed by inhibitors in the brain.

Unfortunately as a characteristic of Normal Distribution [Re Bell Curve] is in natural there are a percentile of human who has weak inhibitors that are unable to control their 'evil' impulses.

The above is the reason why there is so much evil [of a range of degrees] in the world at present and will be in the future.

Therefore the effective action for humanity to manage the levels of evil existing at present and in the future is to focus on the ultimate root cause [the potential and the inhibitors] instead of fire-fighting the non-critical causes.

I didn't miss your point of the OP but instead am pointing out that no humans are evil or can become (to be) evil but their actions can (depending on definition).
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 8:19 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
In case you are wondering, morality is a code of ethics established as a base standard of behavior to be expected from all members of a selected group. "Universal morality" doesn't make a whole lot of sense because the group implies that all living creature are to be expected to obey a code of ethics.
The above are childish views.

Perhaps so, but you haven't provided anything better, hardly anything at all.

And my apologies .. I mistakenly typed "does make sense..." when I meant "doesn't make sense...".


    Since this is a philosophy forum, a study of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics is necessary. To discount Kant [one of the greatest philosopher ever] on ethics exposed your ignorance in the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

    One may not agree with every philosopher on Morality and Ethics but one should at least understand [not necessary agree] the theories and principles propounded by the various reputable philosophers on the subject of Morality and Ethics. Something like a Literature Review.

    If you cannot quote or mention any of the reputable philosophers you are ignorant of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

I have not started with anything serious yet, but from the above proposals I am opening a big door and inviting you into a whole vista of philosophical knowledge.

Instead of inventing the wheels, if you point to any of these
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

1 Defining ethics
2 Meta-ethics
3 Normative ethics
3.1 Virtue ethics
3.1.1 Stoicism
3.1.2 Contemporary virtue ethics
3.2 Hedonism
3.2.1 Cyrenaic hedonism
3.2.2 Epicureanism
3.3 State consequentialism
3.4 Consequentialism/Teleology
3.4.1 Utilitarianism
3.5 Deontology
3.6 Pragmatic ethics
3.7 Role ethics
3.8 Anarchist ethics
3.9 Postmodern ethics

It would definitely save a lot of hassles and enable us to zoom into the specific differences rather than trying to establish our basic positions.

If your morality and ethics principles do not fit into any of the above, then yours are likely to be ineffective unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 8:39 am

One Liner wrote:I didn't miss your point of the OP but instead am pointing out that no humans are evil or can become (to be) evil but their actions can (depending on definition).
Generally we cannot simply accused someone as evil without justifications of the evil acts they have committed.

However if a person consistently and persistently commit acts of evil [as defined] then we can state the person is evil as qualified to the evidence of the acts of evil s/he has committed.
Therefore there is no issue and most people will agree Hitler was an evil person as qualified to the evil [as defined] acts he had committed.

So it is because of their evil [as defined] acts that we can state a person is evil.

As for the individual who has not committed any acts of evil [as defined], we cannot state such an individual will become evil based on speculations.

However we can not deny the fact that a percentile of all humans are born with an active tendency to commit evil acts and violence because it is a fact based on evidence that SOME human did commit evil acts and violence.

The question is were these actual acts of evil and violence based on Nature factors or Nurture factors.
I have demonstrated they are influenced by both 'Nature' and 'Nurture' factors.
Arminius and James S Saint insist evil acts are only caused by 'Nuture' factors. Such views are based on ignorance of human nature.

If they insist on the cause of evil as only due to 'Nurture' factors and ignore the 'Nature' factors they will never be able to resolve the evil acts of human in the future.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby One Liner » Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:38 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
One Liner wrote:I didn't miss your point of the OP but instead am pointing out that no humans are evil or can become (to be) evil but their actions can (depending on definition).
Generally we cannot simply accused someone as evil without justifications of the evil acts they have committed.

However if a person consistently and persistently commit acts of evil [as defined] then we can state the person is evil as qualified to the evidence of the acts of evil s/he has committed.
Therefore there is no issue and most people will agree Hitler was an evil person as qualified to the evil [as defined] acts he had committed.

So it is because of their evil [as defined] acts that we can state a person is evil.

As for the individual who has not committed any acts of evil [as defined], we cannot state such an individual will become evil based on speculations.

However we can not deny the fact that a percentile of all humans are born with an active tendency to commit evil acts and violence because it is a fact based on evidence that SOME human did commit evil acts and violence.

The question is were these actual acts of evil and violence based on Nature factors or Nurture factors.
I have demonstrated they are influenced by both 'Nature' and 'Nurture' factors.
Arminius and James S Saint insist evil acts are only caused by 'Nuture' factors. Such views are based on ignorance of human nature.

If they insist on the cause of evil as only due to 'Nurture' factors and ignore the 'Nature' factors they will never be able to resolve the evil acts of human in the future.

How many evil acts, or what severity of evil act, does a person have to commit to be classified as evil and is this classification-limit based on nurture or nature.
One Liner
Thinker
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Kriswest » Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:39 am

Nature of an animal to be evil would mean nature needs evil if nature needs evil then nature has intentions and thoughts. That would mean that a physical body has sentience seperate from the mental thoughts of the animal. This means the brain has no control of the body. But, this cannot be. Evil is only nurture. Nature has no ethics or morality, it is not one thinking entity.
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20554
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:54 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Since this is a philosophy forum, a study of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics is necessary.

No. Because this is a philosophy forum, an understanding of the concepts of ethics and morals is necessary. Whatever anyone thought or said in ancient history is irrelevant (and really belongs in the Philosophy form, not the religion forum).

This is not a site wherein a man can stand upon the shoulders of giants and speak without serious interruption. You can study the giants of the past and try to learn what you can (most probably not what they really intended) and then perhaps add to what you believe that you know. But when it comes to professing it here, you must be able to build your thesis from the ground up all on your own merit.

Imagine if I was to say, "Jesus said ..X....". Would you give "X" any greater credit? Perhaps Buddha, Moses, Heidegger, Einstein, whoever? Who you choose to worship is your own business. But to presume that your audience worships the same people is presumptuous (the very seed of all sin).

Prismatic567 wrote: To discount Kant [one of the greatest philosopher ever] on ethics exposed your ignorance in the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

To rely on his name exposes your ignorance (for the reasons stated above).

Prismatic567 wrote:One may not agree with every philosopher on Morality and Ethics but one should at least understand [not necessary agree] the theories and principles propounded by the various reputable philosophers on the subject of Morality and Ethics. Something like a Literature Review.

If you cannot quote or mention any of the reputable philosophers you are ignorant of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Not really. I can explain physics and psychology without mentioning anyone's name. What makes you think that I have to know someone else's thesis in order to explain my own?

Why do you have to use someone else's name in order to promote your own thesis? Is it yours? Or is it his? If it is his, I will wait to discuss it with him.

Prismatic567 wrote:I have not started with anything serious yet

Well, that is good to know, because you really aren't getting off on the right foot.

Prismatic567 wrote:, but from the above proposals I am opening a big door and inviting you into a whole vista of philosophical knowledge.

Yeah well .. don't count your chickens.

Prismatic567 wrote:Instead of inventing the wheels, if you point to any of these
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

1 Defining ethics
2 Meta-ethics
3 Normative ethics
3.1 Virtue ethics
3.1.1 Stoicism
3.1.2 Contemporary virtue ethics
3.2 Hedonism
3.2.1 Cyrenaic hedonism
3.2.2 Epicureanism
3.3 State consequentialism
3.4 Consequentialism/Teleology
3.4.1 Utilitarianism
3.5 Deontology
3.6 Pragmatic ethics
3.7 Role ethics
3.8 Anarchist ethics
3.9 Postmodern ethics

It would definitely save a lot of hassles and enable us to zoom into the specific differences rather than trying to establish our basic positions.

We are not "inventing". We are trying to get YOU to fully explain YOUR thesis (not that of Kant). And to do that, you must fully define the critical terms involved (quite possibly different than those of Kant without you realizing it). You may quote Kant for your definitions if you like, but if you cannot define your concepts, you most certainly cannot use science as a source.

Prismatic567 wrote:If your morality and ethics principles do not fit into any of the above, then yours are likely to be ineffective unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

If you cannot even define your own, this whole thread is going to be "ineffective".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Arminius » Wed Sep 07, 2016 2:23 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:There is a 'Nature' and 'Nurture' aspect to Morality [What is Good and What is Evil].
DNA wise, all humans are born with the POTENTIAL with basic morality.

There has been lots of studies relating to inherent morality within humans via the study of babies which are less than one year old, i.e. to discount the 'Nurture' element.
Here is one article from Scientific American to lend greater credibility of my point;

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... of-babies/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU

False!

You are „arguing“ like this guy.

Image

Your views are very constipated and merely hand waving.

You are the one who has constipated and merely hand waving views. You have absolutely no idea. You can and you will never give any proof or eviddence for you stupid "statements", because they are completely false. There is no gene for morality, for ethics, for philosophy. All what humans can do when it comes to good or evil is to learn what it means, and that is also the reason why it is absolutely useless to educate little children before they have reached the age of the acquisition of the adult langiuage. Language (I mean the adult language - not the "baby talk") is required for e.g. the learning what good or evil means.

Your alledged "tendency" does not exist. It seems that you have never learned what morality means - as if you have never been young. If a human who has reached the child/adult border, thus an adolescent age of about 14 yearsr or some years more (it depends on each case), and does not knwo what morality in the sense of a good-and-evil-system means, then this human will probably never leran what it means. That is the point.

Prismatic567 wrote:In contrast note James S Saint who at least gave some explanations to justify his views [which I do not agree and countered].

You are trying to drive a wedge between me and him. I gave given explanations too. It seems that you do even not know what explanations are.

Again: You are the one who has not given any explanation. All what you are telling here about this subject is mere nonsense. What you are telling here is similar to the nonsensical statement that "babies" would be "atheists". That is false. There is no gene for religion, for theology, for ethics, for philosophy. Your "statements" are completely false.

Prismatic567 wrote:I mentioned;
There has been lots of studies relating to inherent morality within humans via the study of babies which are less than one year old, i.e. to discount the 'Nurture' element.

That are no studies but mere nonsense !

Is it possible that your developmental age is less than one year? You just do not know what "good" and "evil" mean.

I suggest you start learning your first language again before you judge about things you have absoluetly no idea of.

Prismatic567 wrote:Attacking this one example I gave is not effective.

It is most effective.

Prismatic567 wrote:I suggest you research on this topic and reflect on the conclusions instead of giving these very unhealthy "constipated" views.

Again and again: You are the one who has unhealthy constipated views. You have absolutely no idea of morality, ehtics, logic, definitions, ... and so on and so forth.

You have no arguments, and so (of course) you start insulting all those who counter your false "statements". That is typical for you, the "progressed human" (so your self-evaluation is false too).
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Arminius » Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:57 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Your psychologist references are off mark for the same reason that you are - a complete lack of understanding of what morality and evil actually is and is actually all about.

One of my forte is on Philosophy of Moral & Ethics with emphasis of Kant and in general. Such research as the above will substantiate many of Kant's fundamentals on his Philosophy of Morality, e.g. his Categorical Imperative and his full Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

You are merely misusing Kant's philosophy.

You "statements" in this and another thread referring to the same subject indicate that you know almost nothing about moral and ethics, not much about Kant's philosophy, and, moreover, nothing at all about genetics, learning, children, education.

I have helped, thus supported you in some other threads where you said some true words about Kant. But in this and another thread referring to the same subject you are really talking illogical, incoherent nonsense about things you know almost nothing about, in some cases even nothing at all.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:38 am

Arminius wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Your psychologist references are off mark for the same reason that you are - a complete lack of understanding of what morality and evil actually is and is actually all about.

One of my forte is on Philosophy of Moral & Ethics with emphasis of Kant and in general. Such research as the above will substantiate many of Kant's fundamentals on his Philosophy of Morality, e.g. his Categorical Imperative and his full Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

You are merely misusing Kant's philosophy.

You "statements" in this and another thread referring to the same subject indicate that you know almost nothing about moral and ethics, not much about Kant's philosophy, and, moreover, nothing at all about genetics, learning, children, education.

I have helped, thus supported you in some other threads where you said some true words about Kant. But in this and another thread referring to the same subject you are really talking illogical, incoherent nonsense about things you know almost nothing about, in some cases even nothing at all.
You are always blabbering your condemnations of my views without any proper arguments nor justifications. That is not the way for any credible intellectual and philosophical discussions.

Btw, I have spent always 3 years full time basis studying Kant and his philosophy so your views i.e.
"Arminius:
you know almost nothing about moral and ethics, not much about Kant's philosophy, and, moreover, nothing at all about genetics, learning, children, education
"

appear to be silly and stupid from my perspective.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 7:47 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Since this is a philosophy forum, a study of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics is necessary.

No. Because this is a philosophy forum, an understanding of the concepts of ethics and morals is necessary. Whatever anyone thought or said in ancient history is irrelevant (and really belongs in the Philosophy form, not the religion forum).

This is not a site wherein a man can stand upon the shoulders of giants and speak without serious interruption. You can study the giants of the past and try to learn what you can (most probably not what they really intended) and then perhaps add to what you believe that you know. But when it comes to professing it here, you must be able to build your thesis from the ground up all on your own merit.

Imagine if I was to say, "Jesus said ..X....". Would you give "X" any greater credit? Perhaps Buddha, Moses, Heidegger, Einstein, whoever? Who you choose to worship is your own business. But to presume that your audience worships the same people is presumptuous (the very seed of all sin).
Btw have you read extensively or not.
If you have read widely you will note most of the good texts has a large section Bibliography.

Have you read this thread?
Note I have built up my hypothesis with my own views and at the same time supported with justified views from other sources.

Obviously! if you are representing Christians' views I definitely would expect you to quote from what Jesus said. I will note your personal views [as far as I am aware is not credible at all] on this but that would be secondary.

Prismatic567 wrote: To discount Kant [one of the greatest philosopher ever] on ethics exposed your ignorance in the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

To rely on his name exposes your ignorance (for the reasons stated above).
As mentioned above, I suggest you start a petition to condemn all those authors who had a Bibliography section in their books.
I presume when you discuss Physics, you will ignore the theories of Newton's, Einstein's, Bohrs' and other reputable Physicists and will only argue your own knowledge and views.

Prismatic567 wrote:One may not agree with every philosopher on Morality and Ethics but one should at least understand [not necessary agree] the theories and principles propounded by the various reputable philosophers on the subject of Morality and Ethics. Something like a Literature Review.

If you cannot quote or mention any of the reputable philosophers you are ignorant of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Not really. I can explain physics and psychology without mentioning anyone's name. What makes you think that I have to know someone else's thesis in order to explain my own?
From above;
I presume when you discuss Physics, you will ignore the theories of Newton's, Einstein's, Bohrs' and other reputable Physicists and will only argue your own knowledge and views.
No sane intellectual person will trust your gnat view on Physics and Psychology if you do not refer to accepted theories of the past.

Why do you have to use someone else's name in order to promote your own thesis? Is it yours? Or is it his? If it is his, I will wait to discuss it with him.
It is not 'promote' but 'support' my hypothesis. Have you ever presented an academic thesis? If yes, do you mean it does not have a Bibliography at all. If that is the case, it should go into a dustbin.
Show me one credible thesis [Masters or PhD] of the modern era where there is no reference to the theories or ideas of others.

If you cannot even define your own, this whole thread is going to be "ineffective".
So what? Such discussion are open to any one who is interested. If no one is interested then let it be so. No worries.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby James S Saint » Thu Sep 08, 2016 3:27 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:If you have read widely you will note most of the good texts has a large section Bibliography.

Have you read this thread?
Note I have built up my hypothesis with my own views and at the same time supported with justified views from other sources.

Obviously! if you are representing Christians' views I definitely would expect you to quote from what Jesus said. I will note your personal views [as far as I am aware is not credible at all] on this but that would be secondary.

Prismatic567 wrote: To discount Kant [one of the greatest philosopher ever] on ethics exposed your ignorance in the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

To rely on his name exposes your ignorance (for the reasons stated above).
As mentioned above, I suggest you start a petition to condemn all those authors who had a Bibliography section in their books.
I presume when you discuss Physics, you will ignore the theories of Newton's, Einstein's, Bohrs' and other reputable Physicists and will only argue your own knowledge and views.

Prismatic567 wrote:One may not agree with every philosopher on Morality and Ethics but one should at least understand [not necessary agree] the theories and principles propounded by the various reputable philosophers on the subject of Morality and Ethics. Something like a Literature Review.

If you cannot quote or mention any of the reputable philosophers you are ignorant of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Not really. I can explain physics and psychology without mentioning anyone's name. What makes you think that I have to know someone else's thesis in order to explain my own?
From above;
I presume when you discuss Physics, you will ignore the theories of Newton's, Einstein's, Bohrs' and other reputable Physicists and will only argue your own knowledge and views.
No sane intellectual person will trust your gnat view on Physics and Psychology if you do not refer to accepted theories of the past.

How would you know? And think about what precedence actually causes in society. But more than that, consider that THIS is NOT society at large. THIS is a Philosophy site wherein you seriously need to think more than worship what others have said.

Prismatic567 wrote:
Why do you have to use someone else's name in order to promote your own thesis? Is it yours? Or is it his? If it is his, I will wait to discuss it with him.
It is not 'promote' but 'support' my hypothesis. Have you ever presented an academic thesis? If yes, do you mean it does not have a Bibliography at all. If that is the case, it should go into a dustbin.
Show me one credible thesis [Masters or PhD] of the modern era where there is no reference to the theories or ideas of others.

You appear to misunderstand what a bibliography is for. It merely serves to show that you were not lying when you quoted someone. It, in no way, supports the truth of your own assertions. And it certainly doesn't provide forgiveness of the requirement to define your terms when referring to scientific evidence.

A bibliography in no way represents rationalization for assertions being made in the thesis.

You seem to be caught up in the whole "name dropping" thing used to impress and influence the apes. You really should hold that off, and especially the "patting yourself on the back" bit, until you have provided a solid foundation for your claim. You could have 18 PhDs, 4 Nobel Prizes, and certified letters from Mother Teressa and the Pope, yet none of that would mean anything at all to me or the thinking people on any Philosophy site. You are playing the Fascist.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:20 pm

DNA wise All humans are almost GAURANTEED to be evil.

But how evil? This particular planet, world, and daily life circumstances make them very evil.
At this point, the only way out of this hell is the DnA machine.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Kriswest » Thu Sep 08, 2016 8:21 pm

Evil is only a social construct.
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20554
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 8:51 pm

Kriswest wrote:Evil is only a social construct.


No. If there was a button that said lighting your foot on fire for a very long time, or getting heavenly spas, it would be evil to push the foot on fire button.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Kriswest » Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:23 pm

No, it would not be evil, it would be stupid or ignorant or it could save your life or another. We name actions as evil because they endanger , harm or kill family, another individual or society. It is a label for a degree of antisocial behavior. It is a socially constructed label for undesirable action. It is based on herd/pack reactions to a member being highly dangerous to the whole. All social creatures have this. It is not a huma thing and it is just part of life. Life cannot ever be perfect.
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20554
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:47 pm

Noone enjoys their foot on fire, and Nihilism doesn't exist.

You can say that not enjoying your foot on fire is a social construct, and good and bad doesn't exist, but it doesn't make it so.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Arminius » Fri Sep 09, 2016 12:24 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Your psychologist references are off mark for the same reason that you are - a complete lack of understanding of what morality and evil actually is and is actually all about.

One of my forte is on Philosophy of Moral & Ethics with emphasis of Kant and in general. Such research as the above will substantiate many of Kant's fundamentals on his Philosophy of Morality, e.g. his Categorical Imperative and his full Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:You are merely misusing Kant's philosophy.

You "statements" in this and another thread referring to the same subject indicate that you know almost nothing about moral and ethics, not much about Kant's philosophy, and, moreover, nothing at all about genetics, learning, children, education.

I have helped, thus supported you in some other threads where you said some true words about Kant. But in this and another thread referring to the same subject you are really talking illogical, incoherent nonsense about things you know almost nothing about, in some cases even nothing at all.
You are always blabbering your condemnations of my views without any proper arguments nor justifications. That is not the way for any credible intellectual and philosophical discussions.

You are the one who is „always blabbering“ his „condemnations“ of other „views without any proper arguments nor justifications“. So you are also the one who is not capable of prticipating in „credible intellectual and philosophical discussions“.

Note: I have quoted your problematic statements which can be found in all your threads.

Prismatic567 wrote:Btw, I have spent always 3 years full time basis studying Kant and his philosophy ....

So it seems that you will have to spent probably more than 30 years from now on in order to undertand what Kant was talking about. Your errors are not a ressult of Kant'’s philosophy but of your false interpretation and consequently of your false derivations from it.

If Kant lived today, he would be the first one who agreed with me and said to you: "Du bist nicht vernünftig, sondern doof oder zynisch“.

"Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten Unmündigkeit. Unmündigkeit ist das Unvermögen, sich seines Verstandes ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen. Selbstverschuldet ist diese Unmündigkeit, wenn die Ursache derselben nicht am Mangel des Verstandes, sondern der Entschließung und des Mutes liegt, sich seiner ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen. Sapere aude! Habe Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen! ist also der Wahlspruch der Aufklärung.“ - Immanuel Kant, Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?, 1784.

"Der Mohammedianism unterscheidet sich durch Stolz, weil er, statt der Wunder, an den Siegen und der Unterjochung vieler Völker die Bestätigung seines Glaubens findet, und seine Andachtsgebräuche alle von der mutigen Art sind.“ - Immanuel Kant, Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft, 1793, 4. Stück, 2. Teil, § 2, A 269, B 285.

"Der Mensch ist ein Tier, was eine Erziehung nötig hat.“ - Immanuel Kant, Reflexionen über die Anthropolgie, 1798.

What you are doing here in this webforum is just the oppositie of what Kant wanted his readers to do.

And what you are saying about "silly and stupid“ is nothing else than your self-description. You have given no single argument for your silly and stupid „statements“. Note: You are the one who has opened this thread. So you have to give coherent arguments for your subject. But you have given no single one. That is in fact silly and stupid.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Arminius » Fri Sep 09, 2016 12:37 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Why do you have to use someone else's name in order to promote your own thesis? Is it yours? Or is it his? If it is his, I will wait to discuss it with him.
It is not 'promote' but 'support' my hypothesis. Have you ever presented an academic thesis? If yes, do you mean it does not have a Bibliography at all. If that is the case, it should go into a dustbin.
Show me one credible thesis [Masters or PhD] of the modern era where there is no reference to the theories or ideas of others.

You appear to misunderstand what a bibliography is for. It merely serves to show that you were not lying when you quoted someone. It, in no way, supports the truth of your own assertions. And it certainly doesn't provide forgiveness of the requirement to define your terms when referring to scientific evidence.

A bibliography in no way represents rationalization for assertions being made in the thesis.

You seem to be caught up in the whole "name dropping" thing used to impress and influence the apes. You really should hold that off, and especially the "patting yourself on the back" bit, until you have provided a solid foundation for your claim. You could have 18 PhDs, 4 Nobel Prizes, and certified letters from Mother Teressa and the Pope, yet none of that would mean anything at all to me or the thinking people on any Philosophy site. You are playing the Fascist.

Yes. And the worst thing is that he - by doing that - is almost always misusing a dead phiosopher. :wink:
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Kriswest » Fri Sep 09, 2016 12:57 am

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:Noone enjoys their foot on fire, and Nihilism doesn't exist.

You can say that not enjoying your foot on fire is a social construct, and good and bad doesn't exist, but it doesn't make it so.

Where did I say enjoy???
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20554
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Fri Sep 09, 2016 1:02 am

If you don't enjoy it, it's evil. Nihilism doesn't exist.

The discrepancy is when it comes to killing. Can we say for sure if the victim enjoy's it or doesn't enjoy it, he could rebirth into heaven or hell 50/50, and some say, forcing that chance is Evil.

But I say, the entire world is evil, because they are forcing that chance by not devoting all energies to studying the afterlife, in order to determine and possibly that outcome. And I say society, is guilty of putting us in a living hell.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Kriswest » Fri Sep 09, 2016 1:26 am

So you are a religious person that worships evil and good
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20554
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: DNA wise ALL humans are born with a POTENTIAL to be Evil

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Fri Sep 09, 2016 1:54 am

Kriswest wrote:So you are a religious person that worships evil and good


I dont worship evil, I worship pleasure.

And why do I worship it? Because I have none of it whatsoever.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]