I think evolution provided us with instincts to stick with the
ideas and behaviors we are taught as children (in some cases the
childhood indoctrination), so that when we go against them we feel bad
things (guilt, fear) and when we follow them we feel much better,
relaxed and even full of joy. The evolutionary benefit of this should
be easy to figure out.
Our "conscience" is one of those things we are taught -- the mores and rules of our culture. Hence people can end up doing perfectly awful things but feel nothing if they were not taught against it in childhood. For the most part, however, because of a sort of natural selection among cultures, what the culture teaches is fairly moral and usually a reasonably good guide.
Our beliefs are another thing -- which can have the serious downside that we believe things stubbornly rather than changing them into opinions subject to critical scrutiny. These beliefs can be compared to furniture we sit on without noticing they are there -- we don't see them as subject to question and can react emotionally when others do, sometimes in some cultures with deadly effect. I have found meditation about such things useful.
Whether or not "good" and "evil" exist as objective realities in themselves is a philosophical question. I feel that we should analyze our beliefs about good behavior rationally, rather than the emotions our instinct produces, but this is hard -- not just to recognize the effect the instinct is having on us (such as creating harmful revulsions) but also to force ourselves to avoid intuitive judgments. Various philosophical schools have tried to reduce the rational process down to deduction from fundamental principles, with a good deal of success, although in some cases with difficulties in highly artificial theoretical scenarios. Study of this ethical history is a good idea if one wants to discern what is really good and bad rather than what our culture and instincts tell us.
We know that some people seem to be born without the instincts described above, and feel no emotions when they do wrong -- the tendency is seen to run in families (hence is genetic) and is usually called sociopathy. I think this phenomenon serves to provide extremely strong evidence of the correctness of my opinion as described above.
Our "conscience" is one of those things we are taught -- the mores and rules of our culture. Hence people can end up doing perfectly awful things but feel nothing if they were not taught against it in childhood. For the most part, however, because of a sort of natural selection among cultures, what the culture teaches is fairly moral and usually a reasonably good guide.
Our beliefs are another thing -- which can have the serious downside that we believe things stubbornly rather than changing them into opinions subject to critical scrutiny. These beliefs can be compared to furniture we sit on without noticing they are there -- we don't see them as subject to question and can react emotionally when others do, sometimes in some cultures with deadly effect. I have found meditation about such things useful.
Whether or not "good" and "evil" exist as objective realities in themselves is a philosophical question. I feel that we should analyze our beliefs about good behavior rationally, rather than the emotions our instinct produces, but this is hard -- not just to recognize the effect the instinct is having on us (such as creating harmful revulsions) but also to force ourselves to avoid intuitive judgments. Various philosophical schools have tried to reduce the rational process down to deduction from fundamental principles, with a good deal of success, although in some cases with difficulties in highly artificial theoretical scenarios. Study of this ethical history is a good idea if one wants to discern what is really good and bad rather than what our culture and instincts tell us.
We know that some people seem to be born without the instincts described above, and feel no emotions when they do wrong -- the tendency is seen to run in families (hence is genetic) and is usually called sociopathy. I think this phenomenon serves to provide extremely strong evidence of the correctness of my opinion as described above.
No comments:
Post a Comment