Gary's Corner

[Immanuel Can]

...everyone knows what is good and what is bad.

Do they all agree?

What's your supposition, if they do not?

[Lacewing]

...everyone knows what is good and what is bad.

Do they all agree?

What's your supposition, if they do not?

I won't answer your question if you won't answer mine.

[Walker]

Do they all agree?

What's your supposition, if they do not?

I won't answer your question if you won't answer mine.

Of course they all agree.
Give it a modicum of thought, and you will agree too.

As a principle:
Mutual agreement about what is good, and what is bad, is the root of what constitutes punishment, for both parties.
Killing someone with kindness isn't exactly punishment.*

Bad action punishes bad action.
Good action rewards good action.

Those who mix it up know what they're doing.
Motivation is inspiration for the permutations.

Now, by the rules you've established, you’re supposed to answer IC’s question.
You can do it.


*good action as a response to bad action relies on the conscience of the bad actor to perform self-punishment (remorse, regret, new resolutions), which either puts faith in divine retribution or in a strict culture of honor.

[Walker]

Sure. But "innate" is not necessarily as synonym for "good."

If only it were ... because everyone knows what is good and what is bad.

That's why folks sometimes feel the need to apologize for something they did that was bad, because apology can assuage if properly received after a wronging.

Right.

But we might add this complicating factor: is it possible that when somebody begins to violate what he knows is good and do what is bad instead, that same person poisons his own conscience? And if he persists, how long is it until his natural desire to abate feelings of cognitive dissonance impel him to begin to rationalize his choices to himself? And how long can it be until such a one has lost his own spiritual "compass," and begins to deceive himself into thinking what's wrong is actually just fine?

We observe it every day.

Absolutely, well said.

It boils down to a Billy Bob quote:
"Think bad, and bad is what you get."

The mind-body connection also implies the inverse.
Do bad, and bad thinking is what you get.

This brilliant Billy Bob observation flies in the face of the philosophy that we are free to think anything, without consequences manifesting as action, or vice versa ... and this philosophy is the natural result of a modern, fragmented life where people do all kinds of strange things, such as sitting on the freeway*, not moving, in the good old summertime.

I understand that your concern is that good and evil require an intellectual, absolute moral structure as a touchstone to guide the action that is defined as good or evil. This is why society grants individuals dispensation from moral judgement for enforcing order, by threatening to do things to miscreants that miscreants agree are bad.

*a quaint misnomer

[Walker]

(continued)

It's interesting how the movies have portrayed James Bond as a cool guy, separating conscience and deed.
As I recall from reading Ian Fleming's novels so long ago, Bond was tormented, and yet functional.
Not exactly Sean Connery.
The latest Bond movies have hinted at Fleming's truer apprehension.

[Immanuel Can]

Do they all agree?

What's your supposition, if they do not?

I won't answer your question if you won't answer mine.

I'll answer: of course they don't.

But now, so what? What do you make of that?

[Immanuel Can]

If only it were ... because everyone knows what is good and what is bad.

That's why folks sometimes feel the need to apologize for something they did that was bad, because apology can assuage if properly received after a wronging.

Right.

But we might add this complicating factor: is it possible that when somebody begins to violate what he knows is good and do what is bad instead, that same person poisons his own conscience? And if he persists, how long is it until his natural desire to abate feelings of cognitive dissonance impel him to begin to rationalize his choices to himself? And how long can it be until such a one has lost his own spiritual "compass," and begins to deceive himself into thinking what's wrong is actually just fine?

We observe it every day.

Absolutely, well said.

It boils down to a Billy Bob quote:
"Think bad, and bad is what you get."

I think it's worse than that. Rather, we think good, but get bad. And it's that fact that needs an explanation.

Let me provide an example with which you'll have some sympathy, I'm sure.

Communism is utopianism. It promises a "paradise on earth" called "the triumph of the proletariat" and "the classless society." It presents itself as being "anti-Fascist," and "equitable," and "just." It's awash with moral ideals of all kinds, is it not? And yet it robs and kills people, and has turned out to be the most homicidal creed in human history, by orders of magnitude.

Now, you and I agree that it would be right for things to be "fair," or "equitable," or "just," do we not? So how can human beings know these "good" concepts, and yet end up robbing, torturing and murdering one another -- and do so in the name of these very virtues?

My suggestion, then, is that positive thinking, or good intentions, have nothing whatever to offer us in relation to actually making us do the right thing. To know is one thing; but to do is another. Human beings know all kinds of good things, but so often do otherwise. Even the highest moral aspirations end up in gulags and pogroms. In fact, it is the very enthusiasms generated by the "goodness" of the intentions that seems to fire up the viciousness of the proponents: for what could be more "right" than "punch a Fascist," or "kill the reactionaries," or "stamp out all those who are standing between us and "heaven on earth"?

I understand that your concern is that good and evil require an intellectual, absolute moral structure as a touchstone to guide the action that is defined as good or evil.

No, that won't be enough. That's my real point. Our problem is not so much one of knowledge, of the mind, as it is of the choices we make, and the human nature from which we make them. Ideals themselves can become the impeller of cruelty, if a well-meaning person lacks the means to convert what he knows into actions consonant with morality.

This is why society grants individuals dispensation from moral judgement for enforcing order, by threatening to do things to miscreants that miscreants agree are bad.

Yet if all we had was a knowledge problem, they all it would take would be "re-education," and bad men would become instantly good. Rehabilitation would be easy, and universally successful.

I submit to you that it's not merely a lack of moral knowledge that we have; it's a lack of moral action, a deficiency in the ability to connect what we already know with what we are willing to do.

[Lacewing]

...everyone knows what is good and what is bad.

Do they all agree?

Of course they all agree.

of course they don't.

Got it!

But now, so what? What do you make of that?

Well, you guys made my point. I was responding to Walker's nonsense claim. If people all agreed on what is (and what they know of) good and bad, there wouldn't be all of the existing issues that result from disagreement (knowing differently). To think/suggest that we all must see/think/'know' the same reduces humankind down to a very small mindset... intended to serve that small mindset.

[Walker]

Well, you guys made my point. I was responding to Walker's nonsense claim.

I simply said that bad deeds are punished by bad deeds, a badness which both parties recognize.

That's not a claim. It's certainly not nonsense.

That's what happens in the absence of corruption.

[Walker]

Confusion and irrational reactions result when an individual is conditioned by the societal thoughts (rules) that conflict with innate, and thus God-given knowledge of right and wrong. Attachment to those societal thoughts that cause the conditioning, create the conflict.

[Walker]

In the presence of corruption, bad actions are rewarded with good actions.

This is possible because everyone innately knows good from bad,
which is why everyone knows when they are corrupting.

Innate knowledge is God-given.

[Lacewing]

we think good, but get bad

Let me provide an example

Here's an example: Christians and Trump

Christians want to do the right thing. Trump tells them he 'wants what they want', but he actually only serves himself (as he always has) which ends up being very bad for them.

Christians and Trump have different ideas about what is good and bad. Christians, in their effort to focus on what they believe to be good, chose badly. Now, many Christians are lured into serving their egos by continuing to justify the Dark Liar who tricked them, and by turning hatefully against any who recognized that it was bad. Thus, the goal of dark forces to transform the sheep into its own soldiers is moving along as intended. These soldiers will now make-up and possibly destroy anything in service to their egos which the dark forces awakened with strategic feedings. Turns out, having a propensity for 'belief' can work against you.

[Walker]

Faulty premise. Reasoning based on a faulty premise, is bad.

Bad Lacewing. Bad.

You know you are corrupting.

[Immanuel Can]

...everyone knows what is good and what is bad.

Do they all agree?

Of course they all agree.

of course they don't.

Got it!

But now, so what? What do you make of that?

Well, you guys made my point.

It's not at all clear you had one, honestly: that's why we had to ask. It was far from obvious.

From the fact that people disagree, all we can learn is that some people don't seem to know what good and bad are. But even if everybody on earth thought cancer, slavery or war was good, or that charity, love and health were bad...well, you can see the obvious conclusion.

If people all agreed on what is (and what they know of) good and bad, there wouldn't be all of the existing issues that result from disagreement (knowing differently).

So your assumption is that something is only good and bad if everybody agrees it is? How many people's agreement does it take, before something is actually thereby made good or bad?

[Lacewing]

From the fact that people disagree, all we can learn is that some people don't seem to know what good and bad are.

If that's all you can learn, that's your problem.

So your assumption is that something is only good and bad if everybody agrees it is?

Do you try to be stupid or evil... because it's hard to tell what else you're going for?

'Good' and 'bad' are concepts that people assign differently.

So, your self-righteous foundation is based on imagination.