Transcendent good

Eglantine wrote (30/12/17):

"But is that transience sad only in our minds? Not sad or evil in itself. The whole universe is in a state of change. Some will say a state of decay but as matter cannot be destroyed all matter simply changes state."

What may "in itself" mean? Does "in itself" exist? I guess that for there to be "in itself" there has to be a disembodied consciousness floating around like a ghost.

We moderns accept the state of change, that all is transient. Me, I'd say that transience, change, is the name of the relative world into which we are thrown at our birth, and without change there would be nothing. If there be good (noun) that transcends this relative world I'd like to know it, but I won't accept superstitions .

Fennel wrote(21/12/17):

"I'm not sure Alexa, I think most humans (apart from psychopaths) have an inbuilt instinct for right and wrong, though upbringing affects it too.
Most religions have certain values in common."

Yes, I think modern mainstream,world, religions have The Golden Rule in common.
You say "apart from psychopaths". There are also those who are seduced by evil ideologies, and also those who while pretending to be religious people are alienated from common human kindness.

Eglantine, your post certainly made me think!
I agree with your first paragraph and I thought that suffering is not evil in itself, but unnecessary and excessive suffering is an evil. When other humans are responsible for inflicting unnecessary and excessive suffering those humans are acting evilly. Agreed?

Maybe it's not a matter of opinion but is a matter of fact whether or not "survival of the species is an inherent drive". I myself doubt very much that this is the case. My guess is that until the last five decades during which ecology became mainstream only a few few people had any idea that a species might go extinct. I think general awareness of extinction of species began with the book "Silent Spring". There are some people who believe that extinction of the human so devilish species would be an improvement.

Your last sentence about means and ends is tricky because of varying circumstances. Fighting soldiers do in fact sacrifice themselves for the common good, defence of the realm. Self sacrifice for others is one of the most honoured virtues and is illustrated by the supreme sacrifice of Christ. But sacrifice for a magical superstitious process like the wicker man sort of sacrifice is not so good. And sacrifice of large swathes of humanity for the perceived benefit of a favoured few, e.g. Nazi policy, is proved for all time to be evil.

Thanks Alexa, I will look it up ?

Bridgeit, regarding "the battle between"the OT and the NT I do recommend Karen Armstrong's 'A History of God' where she traces the evolution of God belief with reference to changing ideas of God.

Trisher wrote;

"One reason tribal cultures killed one of twins was because in times of attack the family would be able to carry one baby and a small child and run, with more than one baby it would be difficult.
Human sacrifice and blood sacrifice has been a feature of many societies. And arguably the story of the crucifixion and the wine and water are an echo of the young man sacrificed to ensure a good harvest."

Trisher,

The human sacrifice origin of the atonement of Christ is a little worrying. I pick through the Gospels for wisdom which I can accept. The Atonement, the Resurrection, and the Virgin Birth I call superstitions. I find wisdom in the parables of Jesus.

I appreciate metaphorical interpretations of the above credal myths. I guess few modern people are attracted to metaphors.

I don't accept that Starbird. The beliefs of those people were every bit as real to them as any religion that has come from a "prophet", guided the way in which they lived and dealt with others and dealt with ways in which they could access an afterlife. Thus the idea that there is a notion of innate "good" doesn't bear examination through history and culture.
Superstition to one person is truth to another.

Sadly that mindset is still with us today, God instigatied it, but allegedly he then saw the error of his way, & sent Jesus to change our ways, & so it still goes on today the battle between the old & New Testament !

One reason tribal cultures killed one of twins was because in times of attack the family would be able to carry one baby and a small child and run, with more than one baby it would be difficult.
Human sacrifice and blood sacrifice has been a feature of many societies. And arguably the story of the crucifixion and the wine and water are an echo of the young man sacrificed to ensure a good harvest.

Eglantine the examples you give are based on superstition rather than the teachings of a Prophet/founder of a religion that claims to come from “God”. The teachings of the major religions tend to have a common thread of goodness in them but are often distorted by priests and followers for their own purposes.

But religion and what is deemed "good" or "evil" by any religion has always been influenced by the society in which it is created.
Just as an example the Vikings faith rewarded those who died fighting, saw the successful pillaging of other cultures as a good and natural part of life.
Mayan religion valued human sacrifice as a route to pleasing the gods.
Some aboriginal tribes would kill one of any twins born and this was not seen as evil.
Temptation only exists where certain things are forbidden.

That's it Bridgeit.
I'm not sure Alexa, I think most humans (apart from psychopaths) have an inbuilt instinct for right and wrong, though upbringing affects it too.
Most religions have certain values in common.

It's that old serpent again isn't it ?rearing his head of temptation. But I guess without him we wouldn't all be here. !

Fennel, how, and in what way do humans know?

Cultures of belief differ quite widely. Look at political attachments for instance and see how a conservative 'knows' what is good and how a progressive 'knows' what is good.
Even families differ in their cultural beliefs. One family might teach the children that it's okay to be slapped for being naughty whilst another family teaches the children that slapping is bad.

Another way of looking at it -
I think most humans, when faced with a choice of dealing with a problematic situation, know what is the 'right' thing to do.
Ifwe do the right thing, that's Good. But often the evil urge sneaks in and plays on our selfish natures to persuades us to do the 'wrong' thing.

Bridgeit, for years I believed that good was an adjective, not a noun. Lately I have been a little less of a convinced atheist.

Eglantine, again I agree with you. Sadness is a feeling that pertains to conscious creatures. I expect then you'd agree with me that sadness doesn't transcend the creatures of this world.

However, as far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on whether or there is transcendent good.

Good exists as an adjective, so it could also be linked to something bad ( although we mostly think of it pertaining to something pleasant) i.e., someone who wantonly kills or exacts revenge etc, could feel very good indeed. Perhaps it would better to describe 'good people ' as ,for example ' kind , compassionate etc , or doing good deads as opposed to just ' good'

But is that transience sad only in our minds? Not sad or evil in itself. The whole universe is in a state of change. Some will say a state of decay but as matter cannot be destroyed all matter simply changes state.

Eglantine21 wrote:

"It is the sense of loss and grief that the living experience that disposes us to think that it is an evil we should avoid."

Of course I agree and I doubt if anyone doesn't fear bereavement and terrible loss. In my previous reply to you I was giving an objective answer not about my own fears.

It seems to me that death, loss, mourning, and grief are inescapable conditions of life and are not therefore moral evils.

I like to differentiate between on the one hand moral evils which are often a matter of opinion or tradition, and on the other hand natural evils such as the sad transience of all living creatures

I don't think death is a bad thing at all Alexa. It is the sense of loss and grief that the living experience that disposes us to think that it is an evil we should avoid.
Death is just a change of state. I don't mean this in the religious/spiritual sense but in the physicists sense of matter cannot be created or destroyed but constantly undergoes change.
Survival of the species is an inherent drive. In answer to Trisher there may be circumstances individually and as a group where the death of one or more members can be seen as 'good" if it achieves that end.

Eglantine21 wrote:

"And Trishers example presupposes that death is a bad thing in itself.

Maybe not an intrinsic sense of "evil" Misadventure, but an intrinsic sense of what is needed for survival. In some circumstances survival of the self and in others survival of the group."

(Trisher's example was about how Inuit expose to lethal cold those individuals surplus to the group's requirements for survival)

Eglantine, are you saying that death is not a bad thing in itself?

If so, I'd not only agree with you I'd go further and say that without transience there could not be life. Without knowing that my death would stop my life I'd not have any purpose to my life.

I wonder though, if a child had no input whatsoever, how developed their sense of right or wrong would be?
Young children playing together - say toddler age - take a lot of telling about sharing, not hitting, not biting. I'm not saying children are inherently evil. Just wondering whether the sense of fairness and justice develops naturally, or is coached by parents so that we can expect reasonable behaviour?

So is it 'evil' to leave a baby to die or an old person (some committed suicide it is thought)? It used to be thought a sin to committ suicide.
Eglantine21 I didn't say death was a bad thing- although I accept it is seen as such in our society. The Inuit may view it differently I don't know enough about them, If we do assume death isn't a bad thing do we then view some killing as acceptable?

Miss Adventure wrote:

"Do we know evil, without being taught? Is it somewhere inside us, this sense of knowing what is evil and why?"

I seem to remember that there were some respectable experiment done with very young children as subjects, experiments which showed that very young children had 'instinctive' ideas of fairness.