[Jay Pan ROKK]

Originally Posted by Pillbox Joe

It truly exists for anyone. However, it's only subjective. It exists in the mind. There is no absolute quantifiable evidence of good or evil.

OK, i agree.

It exists although in the mind, it needs a consciousness.

[Jerome_1]

Originally Posted by Pillbox Joe

It truly exists for anyone. However, it's only subjective. It exists in the mind. There is no absolute quantifiable evidence of good or evil.

The only way a conscience or evidence of a conscience can be measured is to ask people questions regarding different moral dilemmas and see if they answer the same way.

I posted a study on here before of a evolutionary biologist who did exactly this. His findings were that people for the most part did answer certain moral dilemmas using the same logic.

Link: Is Morality Innate and Universal? | Memory, Emotions, & Decisions | DISCOVER Magazine

Richard Dawkins also accepts that people have a sense of what is right and wrong and that it is universal, he attributes this to the social and cultural effects of evolution rather than being instilled in us by a creator.

[Pillbox Joe]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

The only way a conscience or evidence of a conscience can be measured is to ask people questions regarding different moral dilemmas and see if they answer the same way.

I posted a study on here before of a evolutionary biologist who did exactly this. His findings were that people for the most part did answer certain moral dilemmas using the same logic.

Link: Is Morality Innate and Universal? | Memory, Emotions, & Decisions | DISCOVER Magazine

Richard Dawkins also accepts that people have a sense of what is right and wrong and that it is universal, he attributes this to the social and cultural effects of evolution rather than being instilled in us by a creator.

LOL even the first question

"A healthy man walks into a hospital where five patients are awaiting organ transplants. Is it morally acceptable to kill the man in order to harvest his organs to save the lives of five others? If you instantly answered no, you share a near-universal response to the dilemma, one offered by peoples and cultures all over the globe."

states "near" universal, stating that nothing found from his research is conclusive. Even I would see killing the healthy man as acceptable. What a crock of shit.

There are even tribes in Papa New Guinea that practice morally detestable practices according to western belief such as pedophilia. There are tribes of people that have eatten the corpse of their dead "see laughing sickness." There are cultures throughout history that share virtually no moral parallels out there. Only one of the Roman emperors wasn't bisexual, and he was a blundering idiot and among the least mentally capable of all the emperors.

[Pillbox Joe]

^^^

Even more to my point, change the question, one man has to die to save everyone from cancer, but he doesn't want to. Should he be killed? I guarantee the majority would have it in for him at that point. Why? Because human life's worth is subjective. Morality is subjective. Dawkins has an agenda for his psuedo research, but it isn't in the interest of science, I can assure you.

[Jerome_1]

Originally Posted by Pillbox Joe

LOL even the first question

"A healthy man walks into a hospital where five patients are awaiting organ transplants. Is it morally acceptable to kill the man in order to harvest his organs to save the lives of five others? If you instantly answered no, you share a near-universal response to the dilemma, one offered by peoples and cultures all over the globe."

states "near" universal, stating that nothing found from his research is conclusive. Even I would see killing the healthy man as acceptable. What a crock of shit.

There are even tribes in Papa New Guinea that practice morally detestable practices according to western belief such as pedophilia. There are tribes of people that have eatten the corpse of their dead "see laughing sickness." There are cultures throughout history that share virtually no moral parallels out there. Only one of the Roman emperors wasn't bisexual, and he was a blundering idiot and among the least mentally capable of all the emperors.

I don't think there has been any extensive investigations into finding out whether or not people have a universal sense of morality.

That link i posted wasn't extensive, but it did suggest that people do have the same degree of morality when answering moral dilemmas that couldn't be blamed on social conditioning.

Your other points are moot, because you can show how people behaved at a certain point in history. You can't show if the people engaging in that behaviour thought it was right or wrong.

[godking]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

They do believe it is wrong, that is my argument, they just suppress their conscience.

Serial killers and serial rapists know what they are doing is wrong. Even the criminal justice system recognizes this, they only receive a more lenient sentence if they are deemed to be mentally ill.

define wrong what we today consider wrong people a 100 years ago or even 50 yeqrs ago would not see a s wrong.

[Samus Aran]

I dunno...it is a tough concept. I definitely feel evil thoughts at times...though I have never acted on them. Subconsciously I will manipulate though that are close to me, to meet my ends...when I never intend to.

Does that make me evil, or unstable?

[RJ Powell]

Even the Nazis were troubled and puzzled by the savagery, brutality and overall depravity of the Japanese army in WW2.

If Nazis think you are a little fucked up, then it must be real bad.

[David Koresh]

Originally Posted by Pillbox Joe

^^^

Even more to my point, change the question, one man has to die to save everyone from cancer, but he doesn't want to. Should he be killed? I guarantee the majority would have it in for him at that point. Why? Because human life's worth is subjective. Morality is subjective. Dawkins has an agenda for his psuedo research, but it isn't in the interest of science, I can assure you.

The majority of people would NOT have it in for him and I'm pretty sure this has been surveyed and proven. This is also why it is illegal for us to do such an abhorrent thing. Robbing people of their natural freedom for the good of others does not fit into any sound ethical system. It is no different than slavery.

There is something to say about innate moral universals though. There is no denying they exist. In fact it can be argued that our moral impulses transcend us as a species as shown by studies on primates. However, I don't think this resolves all ethical quandaries in the least. Its more of starting point for deeper ethical inquiry and calculation.

[Akuma Kanji]

Consider this: is killing an infant an evil act?

I would think so. But when a silverback Gorilla rolls in and defeats another and takes over his harem, among his first acts is to kill all the infants. This has been observed on many occasions.

Consider this: Chimpanzees rape and murder. Adolecents leave territory that is theirs and enter those of an opposing troop and then beat the first straggler they see to death. This also has been observed on many occasions

Are these primates Evil? We share a common legacy with them. They are animals...as are we.

Humans have the capacity for similar violence, and worse. Worse because our brains are more complex and our imaginations (and malfunctions) more rich with variation. But this complexity is what makes us come up with a concept such as Evil, and enables us to curb our most impulsive (even ingrained) urges and to think before we act, to set standards of behavior. People who commit acts that society considers counter productive to the group must be met with discipline.

The essence of a person is their business. And Good and Evil are moral judgements best reserved to evaluate events in time and specific responses made by men. The capacity for both lie within us all. Just as they do among other (less cererbral) apes.