I was listening to an interview with Neuroscientist Sam Harris yesterday being interviewed by Ben Shapiro, who asked him, where does your concept of the good come from and why is it universal?

https://youtu.be/Nb-o6NZiWrw?t=1606

Sam says the foundation for him is, "We have an opportunity. We're in a circumstance where there's a range of possible experiences, ranging from the very bad, to the very good. We don't know how bad things can get, nor do we know how good they can get, but we know the general direction we want to head. If the world becomes more and more characterized by love and joy and creativity and compassion and insight and fun, you could make a long list of those characteristics, but there's a jewel of a thousand facets that we want more of. And there's a far darker jewel of many facets that we want far less of. And this spectrum admits seeming paradoxes. We both know of instances where something good came out of something bad, there's a silver lining to certain kinds of pain. And then there's a possible world where the worst possible kind of misery for everybody. If bad is going to mean anything, it applies there. If you're going to say it doesn't apply there, if you're going to say yeah, it's bad there, but there are things that are worse, then I don't know what you're talking about. If you're going to argue that there is a state that is bad, meaning misery for everybody, then there must also be a state that is the opposite, good for everybody."
Shapiro dismisses that as an 'ontological argument'.

In other words, the question is, Where does morality come from?

Morality comes from the human mind. We are emotional machines. We dislike pain. We dislike being cheated. We don't like to be kicked, pushed to the ground, having our things that we worked for stolen from us.

If we had no emotions, then there would not be laws such as "Don't kill", "Don't steal", "Don't touch my butt".

A couple of humans can decide for themselves what is moral and what is not. No gods are required. Our emotions lead us to morality.

On top of that, emotions are a product of evolution. An animal that feels pain, can avoid situations that are a threat for his survival. An animal that feels hunger knows just how much food to eat.
So, I think, by extension, all animals are more or less similar and humans are just another type of animal.

No god is required to tell a cat to run away from a large dog. No god is required to let a cat know he is thirsty.

It is all an automated system.

Conclusion: the foundation for morality is emotion.


~~~~iceman9090

Good is that which aids humanity. No god needed.

Tell me about "aids."

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good is that which aids humanity. No god needed.

I like Sam's definition, it's the opposite of bad and we all know what bad is, misery.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like Sam's definition, it's the opposite of bad
> and we all know what bad is...

Michael Jackson?

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I like Sam's definition, it's the opposite of
> bad
> > and we all know what bad is...
>
> Michael Jackson?

Yes, raping kids is bad, even if you give them Jesus Juice first and pay them lots of money to keep quiet about it.

Is murdering jews bad ? According to Hitler, murdering jews is good.

+Dave the Atheist:
"Is murdering jews bad ? According to Hitler, murdering jews is good."

==Killing people just because they are of a certain culture? Why kill them all?
First, Hitler needs to define what morality is.

I would define it as hurting people not being moral. I would definitely considering killing being not moral unless if we are talking about self-defense.

~~~~iceman9090

Good? A medium cheeseburger and a cold beer.

>> "Where does your concept of "good" come from?"

From the culture and environment I was raised in.

I can't think of a better source than the golden rule. Conversely, I reject the whole Jesus forgiveness fetish. I need do nothing for those who have done unto me.

donbagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't think of a better source than the golden
> rule. Conversely, I reject the whole Jesus
> forgiveness fetish. I need do nothing for those
> who have done unto me.

That's actually what Sam Harris argued in the YouTube video in the OP, but the golden rule wasn't original to Jesus. Epicurus came up with the "Law of Reciprocity" which was well known, 300 years before Christ (not to mention articulating non-deterministic atomic theory) And the Jains, the oldest continuous religion in the world, came up with the idea of Karma in 900BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Jainism

It's a universal concept that's been codified into every religion. Sam Harris spoke about that too. He also spoke about altruism in animals, like even Monkeys have a refined sense of right and wrong, fairness and unfairness.
If you put two monkeys side by side cages and give one monkey a beet root and another monkey a grape, as a reward for performing the same task, the monkey who gets the beet root will go ape shit in protest, every time.
All animal species have rules of behavior they follow in order to co-operate, in order to reproduce and thrive.
So did we before religion.
Religion just codified the rules of behavior other animals know by instinct, so that they could sell it back to us in a neatly packaged 'religion' that appeals to our mammalian middle brains, deep seated need to belong and be accepted into the herd, which is where the herd mentality and tribalism comes from, unfortunately.
Like Sagan said, "“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

Fortunately, despite the pain of separation from the herd and rejection we suffered, we are among the lucky few who got our power back from the charlatans who captured far too many generations before us. I for one took a stand against the charlatans, once I allowed myself to follow the trail of evidence to its most logical conclusion.

Yes, what I call the golden rule goes back to ancient firesides. Maybe that's why I like it. It holds up a little longer than a priesthood manual.

donbagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, what I call the golden rule goes back to
> ancient firesides. Maybe that's why I like it. It
> holds up a little longer than a priesthood manual.

Precisely.

Game theory.

From the many demonstrations of it from people I have been fortunate to have encountered and spent time with throughout my life.

Hahahahaha!

Define 'bad' and what's leftover is 'good'.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hahahahaha!
>
> Define 'bad' and what's leftover is 'good'.

No matter how 'bad' it gets, as long as you have life, it still beats the alternative.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> elderolddog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hahahahaha!
> >
> > Define 'bad' and what's leftover is 'good'.


> No matter how 'bad' it
> gets, as long as you
> have life, it still
> beats the alternative.


So what's your explanation for suicide?

elderolddog Wrote:
> So what's your explanation for suicide?

It's rarely good, unless the guy who commits suicide was a murderer or rapist.

Bacon.

Razortooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bacon.

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be
> happy.


"Civilization may owe its very existence to the power of beer to loosen tongues, scholars suggest."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201806/how-beer-stirred-civilization

It also could have been just the ticket to sedate and control a population of "essential workers."

My late wife, my children and my parents. My dad was the gold standard for compassion and honesty.

Oh I can promise you that my definition of good is utterly selfish.

BTW, I hate the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have done unto you is bad advice. On my mission I would have wanted nothing more than having an old apostle tell me that X was bad and Y would save me. So I proceeded to tell everyone that X was bad and that Y was their only hope. The Golden Rule is the basis for the just war theory and forced conversion. You ever hear the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions? Well the Golden Rule is the personification of that statement.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh I can promise you that my definition of good is
> utterly selfish.
>
> BTW, I hate the golden rule. Do unto others as you
> would have done unto you is bad advice. On my
> mission I would have wanted nothing more than
> having an old apostle tell me that X was bad and Y
> would save me. So I proceeded to tell everyone
> that X was bad and that Y was their only hope. The
> Golden Rule is the basis for the just war theory
> and forced conversion. You ever hear the saying
> that the road to hell is paved with good
> intentions? Well the Golden Rule is the
> personification of that statement.

So it should really be called the bullshit rule?
I disagree, because it's like the Dalai Lama said, "Don't just be good, be good for something. And if you can't do that, at least don't do any harm."
I agree with him.
It's fine to be nice and polite, but in reality, if you're there to do work, you do work.

The issue is that being "good for something" requires having a definition or concept of good. Since it is established that good is not a universal constant it's kind of like saying "you be you".

And wouldn't "do no harm" be a good thing? So if someone is cognizant enough to do no harm wouldn't they be doing good?

I'm not actually against defining good, I just think that we need to do more than say platitudes and quote noble people. We need to really take the time to understand.

Oh and I'm pretty sure what is good for me is good for me. So I'm perfectly fine saying that selfishness is a good thing.

I'm with Jacob. The moment you tell someone to be "good for something," you are tying moral behavior to a cause. And a cause means that some people or situations are better than others.

"Be good" is a general exhortation. It is a moral imperative without caveat.

You admit it in your first sentence. Good for you.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well the Golden Rule is the
> personification of that statement.

I agree. It needs clarifications. Do unto others as others would have you do unto them but then that confuses the whole "tough love" and addiction interventions ideas.

I think it best in our adaptive natures not to try and find gold in rules.

To answer the question literally:

My personal concept of "good" comes from two different sources, which act synergistically with each other:

1) the Jewish concept of "tikkun olam" ["repairing the world"], which is understood, by Jews, as an obligation for [specifically] all Jews--though the concept is freely available to anyone and everyone, whether or not they are Jewish

2) the Hindu concept of karma (the concept that the doing of a specific act, no matter what that act may be, has a reverberating effect both on the world around us (the three-dimensional world we live in), and also--simultaneously--on our own, personal, "long histories" (which means: all of our incarnations, throughout time, added together)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2020 09:36PM by Tevai.

A lot of people act as if whatever you can get away with is good.

I doubt I'm alone in feeling really good about averaging a speed higher than the posted speed limit. Averaging 85 mph in a 70 mph zone is ever so delicious, yes?

The word "conniver" certainly exists and when we use it to describe someone, we usually imply a negative quality. But most connivers seem to be pleased with themselves, when they are successful. I connive at times, or maybe I'm just being clever?

Conniving to save money? Good thing or not?

If only there were a set of rules by which to live!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A lot of people act as if whatever you can get
> away with is good.
>
> I doubt I'm alone in feeling really good about
> averaging a speed higher than the posted speed
> limit. Averaging 85 mph in a 70 mph zone is ever
> so delicious, yes?

Yeah, right up until you see the flashing lights behind you.
Then the extra 15 miles you gained in the past hour, seem hardly worth $250. So you tend to worry about that, so it keeps everybody from going 140 in a 70. Because then you go to jail and probably kill somebody. So obviously laws do keep us from being criminals. If there were no law people would just wander into the stores and grab food and leave.
Actually they do that now and laws don't stop them. So bad example.

So what keeps you from shoplifting every time you go to the store? THey can't stop you these days, or the Safeway gets hit with a multi million dollar personal injury lawsuit if you hurt a shoplifter in apprehending them. So you can yell at the guy, take his picture and tell him not to take your stuff and call the cops, but by the time the cops get there you're down the road. So why not shoplift?
Because they've got cameras of you and videos of you stealing shit and then plug it into their crimestopper software and boom, two men in blue come visit you in 10minutes and haul you off to jail.

Okay then, so without laws you can't be any kind of guilty.

And knowing that at any second you could be pulled over doesn't seem to be an effective deterrent, the proof of which is that speeding drivers keep being pulled over!

How high do you rank strict obedience to motor vehicle laws when it comes to choosing friends? And what makes your standards the way things ought to be?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay then, so without laws you can't be any kind
> of guilty.
>
> And knowing that at any second you could be pulled
> over doesn't seem to be an effective deterrent,
> the proof of which is that speeding drivers keep
> being pulled over!
>
> How high do you rank strict obedience to motor
> vehicle laws when it comes to choosing friends?
> And what makes your standards the way things ought
> to be?

Since I don't strictly follow the speed limit, I don't use it as any kind of a criteria for picking friends. The only criteria I have for picking friends is, are they trustworthy or not? I generally see most people as friends I just have not yet made friends with, unless they give me a good indication why I shouldn't trust them.
Then they can piss off!
Everything is relative.

> Everything is relative.

Fascinating! And all this time I thought you were totally grounded in, at least, your version of a definitive Reality.

"Reality is Relative!"

Finally, we may have a basis for understanding one another.

A: 80's reruns of Star Trek and the SuperFriends