Good thread

It isn't good to overlook my thread! Post!

>>36333340
goodness is a wholly human invention. behaviors which are conducive to a civil society. we are social beings and social laws are built into us. there is no fundamental right and wrong. you can't choose how you feel though. you can't escape what you are.

>>36333340
its what separates us from animals, anyone that thinks we are the same as animals is either edgy or a psychopath

>>36333887

>goodness is a wholly human invention. behaviors which are conducive to a civil society.

But it doesn't seem like we get to choose, ourselves, which behaviors are conducive to a civil society. Some are, and some aren't.

This seems to lend a great deal of objectivity to the idea of goodness.

>>36333950

Do you contend that an animal is incapable of being good? If so, why?

>>36334116
it's larger than you, yes. it's on a societal level. we have evolved to operate in numbers. beyond the limits of our society goodness does not exist however. it is not objective. we share that with some other species but there is an end to it.

>>36333340
Moral good is a human construct, but that just follows from morality being a human construct. I get the sense that you're asking about goodness in a broader sense though.

If you consider our physiology, "good" to our brains can mean one of four things. The first is whatever promotes activity in the (well-known) reward structures within our brain, which in turn alters your behavior to be motivated to approach and seek that reward once more. The second is whatever promotes activity in the pleasure hot-spots within our brain, which in turn causes you to feel euphoria. The third is whatever promotes positive emotional states through specific activity in the limbic system within our brain. The fourth is whatever receives a positive valuation in the executive decision areas of our multimodal association cortex.

If you consider our society, "good" would be whatever behavior or achievement falls within the norms or goals of the said society. This is closely related to the anthropological "common good" of something that benefits the most people in the largest way.

Overall "good" is a fuzzy concept, vaguely defined so that we can use it in simple ways. As soon as you get specific about it, you'll find you aren't talking about everyone's idea of "good" anymore.

>>36334150
You're retarded lmao
The only good there is is what makes your life better you just ignore laws and rules when it suits you
The only reason everyone can't ignore the rules is because they're deluded normies/sheep. Very few people have the intelligence needed to form there own morals. I have an official IQ of 146 so I am perfectly capable of doing without useless other peoole

File: StaySpooked.png (96KB, 500x538px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 500x538px

>>36333340
'Good' and 'evil' are spooks, get with the program, anon.

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-17 at 3.10.09 AM.png (33KB, 1286x96px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1286x96px

>>36334225
your post is embarrassingly bad. you brag about being intelligent...which has no real bearing on the thread...and yet you misspell very basic words.

i'm including a screenshot of your post so you can't delete it to save face. better luck next time.

File: whatweapon.png (853KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

853KB, 900x600px

>>36333887
This. Many things are simply of human invention. The concept of value, morality, religion, all of it created by human minds. Nothing in this universe is worth anything, because value is a human concept. The life of a human child is not more valuable than the life of a gorilla. We just say it is because the baby has more potential, but even then for all we know the child could grow up to become a gangbanger and kill somebody elses kid in a shooting. Murderers are not "worse" than other, more normal citizens. The universe cares not for our pretty human values. This isn't to say that we shouldn't seek to uphold them. On the contrary, we should seek justice wherever it can be found. While nothing is inherently wrong, and nothing is inherently good, we should still uphold our morals, whatever they may be. Debates on whether certain things are wrong or right, are pointless endeavors. Morality is created by human minds, and has no absolutes. Do we blame the murderer for doing what makes him happy? Is he not merely fulfilling his desires? Following this train of thought, one may consider a murderer more admirable than an unhappy office worker. Some might see the murderer as a man pursuing happiness, not caring what society or the law thinks of his actions, while the office worker may be seen as weak willed and cowardly, not doing what makes him happy. We all have different perspectives and viewpoints when it comes to what goodness is, none of them absolute or true. In a way, we are all wrong, as we're trying to guess the nature of something that does not truly exist. Goodness is what you believe it to be, as it only exists in our hearts to begin with. If you're curious what I believe goodness is, I believe that goodness is helping the innocent, and punishing the guilty. The universe may not care for those who have been unjustly killed, but I sure as hell do. That's my perspective on these things. I am curious as to what you all think, so do give me a reply.

>>36334283
>implying I would ever delete my posts
>implying I'm less intelligent then you
I am the smartest person you will ever meet on this board... You cannot hope to grasp my intelligence. With pure logic and reasoning I will destroy you're arguments. Don't even try to challenge me. Simply stare in the face of the most gifted human ever to be born... Maybe you should print that screenshot you made and frame it for posterity...

>>36334338
i'm afraid i'm not getting whatever kind of joke this is

Objective good and evil exists. It seems obvious sometimes, and other times not so much. Perhaps the development of wisdom coincides with one's acuity in accurately determining what is good and what is evil.

I think the issue gets confused not because of relativism, but because of the limitations of language and our grasp on the total context of actions as they occur. Hence why general moral guidelines are typically accurate and functional, but struggle with complex problems, often requiring endless revisions to the original moral code to account for many variables. Therefore there is a common pretension that goodness is merely a human invention; instead i believe the truth is that humans did not invent goodness, but rather that we must work to understand goodness and model it the best we can, even while the path is not always clear and easy to apprehend.

Goodness is struggle.

>>36334530
So, give me a case of good or evil being obvious. By obvious I mean an explanation isn't needed.

>>36334657

How about you give me one instead. Try, at least.

>>36334703
You're the one saying it seems obvious sometimes. I don't think it does. So I'm asking you for an example.

>>36334717

Try, at least. It's no good if I do your work for you.