Re: The Nature of Man

On 17 Nov 2012, at 15:45, Rami Rustom wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>  
> wrote:
>>
>> On 16 Nov 2012, at 15:42, Rami Rustom wrote:
>>
>>> All evils are caused by insufficient knowledge. So all good is due  
>>> to
>>> sufficient knowledge. This is the principle of optimism. This means
>>> that for every evil act, had the evildoer known that his act was  
>>> evil,
>>> and that there was a good option available to him, he would have  
>>> done
>>> good instead of evil. To explain this principle, I'll consider a few
>>> hypothetical situations.
>>>
>>> The first situation involves a parent giving her baby a bottle of
>>> formula. The baby takes a sip and puts the bottle down on his tray.
>>> Then the parent tried to coax the baby with cute eating methods
>>> involving airplane sounds. The baby kept turning his head. Then the
>>> parent got anxious and tried to force it in his mouth thinking that
>>> she's doing it in the best interest of her baby. The baby  
>>> responded by
>>> hitting the bottle, knocking it to the floor. Then the parent used
>>> more force and succeeded in getting her baby to drink the formula.
>>> Hours later, the baby died. The autopsy showed that the baby was
>>> poisoned. The police learned that the formula was tainted -- not  
>>> just
>>> the formula in the baby's bottle, but also the whole batch of  
>>> formula
>>> shipped by the manufacturer.
>>>
>>> It’s important to consider who committed evil; the parent, the baby,
>>> or both. The baby knew that the formula tasted really bad, so each
>>> time that he rejected it, he was doing good. The parent knew that  
>>> her
>>> baby rejected the formula, so each time that she tried to coerce her
>>> baby to drink it, she was committing evil.
>>>
>>> Now consider a situation identical in all respects but one -- the
>>> formula wasn’t tainted, so the baby didn't die. Who acted immorally?
>>> Can the answer be different? Logically, the answer cannot be
>>> different. Morality does not depend on the actual results, but  
>>> rather
>>> only the expected results. To illustrate this point, consider  
>>> whether
>>> or not it is moral for a father of five young children to choose to
>>> spend all their wealth on lottery tickets. Does the moral choice
>>> depend on whether or not he wins? No, the moral choice depends on
>>> whether or not he’s expected to win.
>>>
>>> As I’ve illustrated, every evil act is caused by insufficient
>>> knowledge. In the case of the parent who forced her baby to drink  
>>> the
>>> bottle, had she known that coercing people is expected to lead to  
>>> bad
>>> results, and that persuasion doesn't have that fault, she would not
>>> have resorted to coercion. In the case of the father who spent his
>>> entire life savings on lottery tickets, had he known that his choice
>>> is expected to lead to bad results, and that he had a better way to
>>> spend the wealth, he would not have committed evil.
>>>
>>> At some point in the future, when every human being understands this
>>> principle of optimism well, and has sufficient knowledge, all evils
>>> will be eradicated.
>>>
>>>
>>> Criticisms? Questions?
>>
>> I am not convinced. I think that human evil comes from jealousy,
>
> Feeling jealous means that the person has a lack of knowledge. To be
> jealous means to dislike the idea that somebody else has something
> that I don't have and that I want to have. What could I possibly gain
> by this sort of thinking? Nothing good.

I agree, but jealousy is irrational at the start, and is highly  
emotive. I say this by experience, you can reason people on it. they  
will say "i understand" (in the lmucky case), but they will still be  
jealous; never seen someone jealous cured, except rarely by big life  
experience, or some shock.



> A better way to think about it
> is to like the idea that I just learned that somebody else has
> something that I don't have and I want it and I could emulate him to
> learn it (or acquire it).

It will not work. For jealous people, the neighbors' grass is always  
(irrationally) more green, even if yellow.



>
>
>> addiction to power,
>
> People who want that have a zero-sum worldview.

Explain what you mean and how you related that to addiction of power  
(or money).


> This is a lack of knowledge.

This is not clear.



>
>
>> inferiority/superiority complexes,
>
> If one believes he is inferior to another, he should emulate the
> superior one to improve himself.

Those who feel inferior can't emulate the one they think being  
superior, and that is why the feel (usually wrongly, not always with  
respect to some task) to be inferior.



>
>
>> the instinct of
>> following leadership, etc.
>
> There is no such instinct. Instincts are inborn. We are not born with
> knowledge that explains what is a leader and what is a follower.

I doubt this. All mammals are born with a tun of prejudices and  
instincts.


>
>
>>
>> I can agree that at some level all this is a product of ignorance,  
>> but
>> I am still not sure that at such a level, the whole physical universe
>> is a product of ignorance and delusion, so that to eradicate the
>> delusion, and evil, would not be equivalent with the eradicating of
>> the physical reality.
>>
>> A minimal but solid part of evil is build in in our survival  
>> instinct,
>
> None of our (inborn) instincts are evil. They are ***all*** good. For
> example, the inborn idea of crying when hungry or otherwise
> uncomfortable.

When you have a baby you might change your mind (grin).



>
>
>> and is part of the game, if only to make sense of the good. That i
>> something rather well explained by the taoist philosopher.
>>
>> I am not sure we can eradicate evil, as the relation between evil and
>> good is like the extremities of an arrow, and if you cut the arrows
>> you just get two new one, with still an evil part and a good part.
>
> Why do you believe that good/evil is like an arrow?

Because the opposition between bad and good has never work, but harm  
reduction does work, from my many reading and experiences, and  
observations.



>
>
>> So
>> I tend to not believe in an totally absolute good/evil distinction
>> (even if I do believe a part of it is absolute), but I do believe
>> strongly in harm reduction policy.
>
> Are you saying that morality is relative?

Partially so, as moral is based on good/bad, and good/bad is relative  
to me. If the tiger eat me, it is good for him, bad for me; if i eat  
the fish it is good for me, bad for the fish.

There is a part of good/bad which can be universal, but still have  
that indexical feature;



>
>
>>
>> Evil has important relation with ignorance, but ignorance is
>> unavoidable:
>
> What do you mean by "ignorance is unavoidable"? Are you saying that
> some problems are insoluble?

Most of them are. Both practically and theoretically.



>
>
>> we can only scratch the surface, and sometimes we can
>> only have faith--- as some truth can be known but never been publicly
>> justified, or they become lies.
>
> Justification is a false concept.

> Could you rephrase your idea without
> using that word?

Please feel free to use any other word which convey a similar meaning.  
You can use "explanation" here.



>
> Why do you care about **public** justification?

So that people can criticize them.




>
>
>>
>> I am not sure if a lot of evil is not coming from the attempts made  
>> by
>> some humans to eradicate evil.
>
> Yes, via coercion.

I am not sure. Coercion can be recognized and we can fight it.  
Hypocrisy is more subtle. I prefer clear coercion than brain washing  
subtle technic.


>
>
>> Those humans very often believe to know
>> some truth, and tend to impose it to others.
>
> via coercion.
>
>
>> That is evil: when others
>> try to think at your place.
>
> Right. Like most parents do to their children.

This can be justified, or explained, for little children.


>
>
>> The best we can hope is that people minds
>> their own business, and do their work.
>
> Yes. Freedom. Each one of us should have the freedom to pursue our own
> happiness and we should not violate the freedom of others to pursue
> their own happiness.

So you agree that If some people want be romantic and married, it is  
OK (unless they coerce for other people doing that, 'course)?



>
>
>> Each of us is the only judge of
>> what is good or evil for only oneself, as we might be very different
>> from each others.
>
> Are you saying that morality is relative?

Partially so. See above.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/