People

[NidoKING]

I've been thinking about this lately.

Are people inherently the same? I mean, do they come onto this earth equal, discounting environmental factors and the like?

For example, can any person on earth be better than another person? We all have our faults and flaws, but everyone also has good things about them. And if there isn't a way for you to be better than anyone else, is there a point in trying?

Is there even a way to judge this?

Love to hear y'alls thoughts on this.

[The Editor]

Perhaps overall, considering the interplay of all factors, everybody is the same. But otherwise we're all different.

[NidoKING]

So can someone consciously strive to become and become a better person?

[Stein]

We all have the same potential, but we all develop differently. It really just depends upon who you are, not your environment.

Life itself is about trying to be the person you want to be, and in extension accomplish your dreams as that person. Don't get too discouraged Nidoking, being unhappy is an important part of life. It'll begin climbing again, you just have to remember that it will always cycle.

[NidoKING]

I'm not unhappy, just thoughtful

[Stein]

Good to hear, it was just a guess after all.

[pichubro]

Hmm... Is it fair to say that people born with disabilities can have the same potential? Or are you talking about pre-birth, where there's a chance you'll evade any diseases that hinder your life later on, and keep you from your goals?

But, if no one, or everyone had the same disease(s), then we would have the same potential, give or take. However, society works best when everyone is doing something different. We need strong people to build, and gentle people to care about others. Smart people for government and teachings, and people with enough wit to farm successfully.

[NidoKING]

Yeah, I understand the need for different kinds of people, but is it possible for everyone to be good people.
Like a person can be gentle and a good person, and a person can be smart and a good person. A person can also be smart and a bad person though.

[The Editor]

Yes, it is possible (in the most philosophical sense of the word). However, it definitely isn't even remotely probable. For one thing good and bad are purely subjective: there is no such thing as objective morality. Therefore there will always be cases where different people have a different perspective on the morality of an action.

[NidoKING]

No such thing as objective morality eh? I beg to differ, there are definitly objective morals.

[The Editor]

Where? And while you're at it, explain how objective morale facts are a) hard-coded into the physical structure of the universe and b) detected by us mere mortals.

[NidoKING]

I don't need to, when's the last time a girl got raped and it was a moral thing to do?

[The Editor]

That doesn't make it objectively wrong, it merely means that the majority think it's wrong.

[NidoKING]

Oh whatever, I'm not going to argue with you over something stupid like that.

[The Editor]

Seeing as I intend to be an engineer, this is pretty much the only thing my A-level in religious philosophy is good for.

[pichubro]

Yeah, I understand the need for different kinds of people, but is it possible for everyone to be good people.
Like a person can be gentle and a good person, and a person can be smart and a good person. A person can also be smart and a bad person though.

Good and bad is suggestive. One person may do something for their needs and it can make them believe they did a good thing, while others say it is a bad thing.

I know this is probably not a good example, but freeing the slaves in America was considered good by Abraham Lincoln and those who fought for it, yet the economy and people of the south abhorred to the idea and the president. Likewise, Lincoln's assassination can go both ways as well.

There will never be a time where everyone's on the same path and there will never be a time when 100% of a idea is agreed upon. And I've got a better example for this:

There is a lion in Africa out to get his next meal. He spots a zebra and chases after it.
If you cheer for the lion, you are cheering that he gets fed but the zebra has to die. If you cheer for the zebra, you're choosing for the zebra to live and the lion to starve. There is no right one to cheer for.
Moreover, if and when the lion makes a kill, he has to protect his meal from other lions, because they weren't strong enough to take the zebra down and had to resort to stealing, which can be morally wrong in the animal world because then the scavengers will have to wait longer for food.

[NidoKING]

Actually I think your first example was better

But that's just because animals lack conciousness the way we humans do. They do what they must to survive, in a way you could say they don't have a choice. Everything is pre-programmed into them, they don't make decisions based on morals in any way. Animals, unless suffering from a mental disease, do NOT kill unless for food or in their own defense.

Obviously some people would disagree, but humans should be held to a higher code than animals, because we DO have a choice to kill, especially, if I may use Alfred Sauvy, in first world countries.
You're definitly right though, it's about perspective, what's good in one person's mind might not be another's...

This has definitly gone off of what I meant it to, but I guess I don't mind.

[The Editor]

Morality is a social construct. Nobody is born with morality: they're taught it. You look at an action and consider how society would treat you for it, weigh it up against the benefits it has for you and there we have it, one moral judgement. I'm not saying morality isn't good or important. And holding people up to a moral code is perfectly reasonable, seeing as society wrote it for itself.

[Stein]

@Nidoking I don't think that's true. What basis forms that conclusion? Has any human experienced an animals thought process directly? You can't infer what goes on in the mind by what's reflected outwardly. If that were true, than humanity wouldn't be facing half the problems it is now. That's not true either, animals can be as big of dicks as humans. We're both prone to the same sorts of behavior.

@Editor Here are my feelings about your argument
http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/exte...t.50247503_16/


Fundamentally, life can not be sustained without killing. Everything we eat was living at some point, or came from something that was. Not to mention that there are many, many other motives that drive somebody to take another life. It's just the way the world is. It doesn't make killing any less of a terrible act, but it's a burden we have to bear. Morality is impossible to generalize guidelines for. Each situation is unique, because of that you have to decide for yourself what is right and wrong as it happens. The code develops itself from there. The problem with many peoples idea of morality is that they don't base it around the way life is, but by what they feel it ought to be. This does more harm than good, especially when they feel the other way of living contradicts the good in humanity. Their own judgemental attitude prevents them from growing as people. It's a pretty terrible state of affairs, society is today.

[Stein]

Did you post twice and delete them both, editor?

[NidoKING]

@Nidoking I don't think that's true. What basis forms that conclusion? Has any human experienced an animals thought process directly? You can't infer what goes on in the mind by what's reflected outwardly. If that were true, than humanity wouldn't be facing half the problems it is now. That's not true either, animals can be as big of dicks as humans. We're both prone to the same sorts of behavior.

Well the basis that forms that conclusion (not trying to be smart with you or anything) is that animals do not form governments, they do not go to church, they do not build civilizations, they do not execute their own for crimes, they do not need to have material possessions; you say that you can't infer what goes on in the mind by what's reflected owtwardly, but that's simply not true. If half the scientists (not that I necessarily agree with them) are correct, we are just animals, but WE do all of these things.
Animals don't do testing on US, we do it on THEM. We dominate all of them, not the other way around (with some exceptions, see thread 'Polar bear defends itself from raving fat woman').

Quite simply, if animals had the conciousness that we have, that would also mean that they had the intelligence. If they had this intelligence, there are plenty of animals that could very easily dominate the hairless/clawless/night-visionless/soft, pink-skinned bipedal being that currently dominates the earth(Once again, see thread 'Polar bear defends itself from raving fat woman').

This is actually turning into a fun discussion Thanks Stein, or GS, or whatever you want to be called

[NidoKING]

Oh, and I forgot to add, if consciousness does not manifest itself on the outside, then your behavior comparison has no meaning, because behavior is observed through outward signs, whether from internal or external stimuli.

[NidoKING]

Morality is a social construct. Nobody is born with morality: they're taught it. You look at an action and consider how society would treat you for it, weigh it up against the benefits it has for you and there we have it, one moral judgement. I'm not saying morality isn't good or important. And holding people up to a moral code is perfectly reasonable, seeing as society wrote it for itself.

I apologize for the triple post.

The Editor, this is a problem. See, you've given yourself over to being a mindless sheep, because you view 'society' as an entity that governs all. This is a gross fallacy.
If everyone just followed society, then nothing would ever change. If morality was nothing more than a social construct, as you postulate, then where would anyone get the desire for change? Revolution? Not gonna happen. Reform? Nada. Human beings learn morals (among other things) that 'society' does not teach them. But then, where do these morals come from? There has to be some source outside of society that these come from.

I do believe that I chose poor wording earlier though. I do not believe that there is such a thing as 'objective morality'. I don't think that moral laws are like the laws that define gravity or anything like that. But I DO believe that on a base level everyone has a set of morals that they are born with.
For instance, and this may be a bad example, but take a soldier who kills a man during war. 'Society' says that this is okay, because he is fighting for his country, and defending the innocents. But does this man weep? Yes. Society has given him the go-ahead. But there is something else holding him back, what is it? (And please do no tell me this does not happen.)

[Stein]

Well the basis that forms that conclusion (not trying to be smart with you or anything) is that animals do not form governments, they do not go to church, they do not build civilizations, they do not execute their own for crimes, they do not need to have material possessions; you say that you can't infer what goes on in the mind by what's reflected owtwardly, but that's simply not true. If half the scientists (not that I necessarily agree with them) are correct, we are just animals, but WE do all of these things.
Animals don't do testing on US, we do it on THEM. We dominate all of them, not the other way around (with some exceptions, see thread 'Polar bear defends itself from raving fat woman').

Quite simply, if animals had the conciousness that we have, that would also mean that they had the intelligence. If they had this intelligence, there are plenty of animals that could very easily dominate the hairless/clawless/night-visionless/soft, pink-skinned bipedal being that currently dominates the earth(Once again, see thread 'Polar bear defends itself from raving fat woman').

This is actually turning into a fun discussion Thanks Stein, or GS, or whatever you want to be called

But can society really be used as the measure of intelligence? It can be argued that perhaps most animals are satisfied with the life they have and are infinitely wise than humans, this is an idea held by some, not me however. The real point is we have too much of a communication barrier between us and them to be making any real meaningful conclusion about their thought processes. In my experience animals and humans seem to be similar, they have a society all their own. Just a very, very, different culture. You can call me whichever you like more, I'm used to being called either. :nigga:

[Stein]

Oh, and I forgot to add, if consciousness does not manifest itself on the outside, then your behavior comparison has no meaning, because behavior is observed through outward signs, whether from internal or external stimuli.

That's not true either. While outward behavior does tell something about a person often times it can be misleading. Because of that it is not a valid source to be cited solelyon when dealing with something like personality. The behavior observed is subjectively interpreted, because of that without verification from the animal itself there is no way to determine if it alone is a valid source. Much like how you can't judge someone solely by how they dress despite how it could very well say a lot about them.