Knowledge of Good and Evil

[William]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

[William]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #19]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

It depends on what you mean

I don't think so. I offered no meaning. The question can be understood without adding what I think the question means. The question itself - when answered - shows us what meaning those answering, place upon it.

Let us not commit the fallacy of equivocation by treating the word “knowledge” as if it means the same thing in every instance.

Equivocation = the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; (Prevarication = the deliberate act of deviating from the truth.) "I say this without equivocation"

The question is neither ambiguous or promoting the act of avoidance.

The question does however, show us through the answers being offered that their are differing interpretations of both "knowledge" and "morality" and these answers may be the result of the use of ambiguous language to conceal a truth or to avoid committing oneself to a truth or the deliberate act of deviating from a truth.

Even then we have the task of finding out if such behaviour in any circumstance, is immoral or not.

In that, this points to the idea we have the ability to know the difference between good and evil, at least up to the point where it serves our individual/group envisioned expectations/preferences et al.

I do not see how allowing the conflation of belief and knowledge to "under some circumstances" be an acceptable practice, even that is is a prevalent one - taught as such.

Morality cannot exist without an intellectual understanding of right and wrong.

Which is like saying without knowledge of good and evil, we cannot have morality

However, if someone were able always to do what was right that person, who understands right and wrong intellectually, would have no experiential knowledge of evil.

How is it possible to be one who has been able to "do what was right" while having no personal knowledge of evil?

Are you referring to a participation in in good/evil acts? Observance is also participation, since one observing acts of evil is gaining knowledge through the act of participating in observance.

For example, in relation to untimely death, The Forest Tribe learned that certain mushrooms consumed allowed one to experience alternate realities, but other mushrooms consumed, resulted in untimely death.

Experiencing alternate realities was considered by The Forest Tribe to being good, while untimely death was considered evil.

The knowledge gained by The Forest Tribe allowed for that information to be shared and preserved, so that untimely death became a thing of the past.
In that, everyone born into the tribe was able to be taught the knowledge without having participated in the truth of the knowledge but by simply observing, their participation enabled them to be informed.

I would point back to the opening chapters of Genesis. Adam and Eve had an intellectual understanding of right and wrong while they were in the Garden, but it was not until they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that they gained the experiential knowledge of doing something immoral. Or again, they could understand shame as a concept, but it was not until they sinned that they had something to be ashamed of.

Even so (as I have come to know) if we are going to include the mythology of one culture, through the lens of another, I find (re obtaining knowledge) that it is best to include any information re the original cultures interpretation of the mythology and have often found that by doing so, their is a broader nuance available for analisis.

Shame can only be experienced through a direct correlation between a rule and the breaking of a rule.
In the mythology, "a voice in the garden" is attributed with that which made the rule which made it possible for shame to then be experienced - especially when it has also been attached to punishment as the outcome of breaking the rule.

What also requires examining is the idea that knowledge of good and evil is something one should be ashamed of.

So - adding a mythology which attempts to explain but ultimately employs the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth may = the deliberate act of deviating from the truth.

Can the knowledge of good and evil help us to know what the mythology is attempting to tell us and whether what it is attempting to tell us, is the truth?

[William]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

If being moral is doing what is best for societies, then yes I would think.

Morality far too often gets confusing once we pretend a god concept is involved. Next thing we know, we're on crusades as if that is good for anyone. God concepts can be a mechanism to harm societies while feeling justified.

Would the world not be a better place if we discard all the available god concept ideas and focused instead on doing what is best for societies? Killing/shunning people for believing in the wrong God would no longer be a thing and actions would be determined to be good/evil based on whether or not societies are benefiting.

It is problematic to assume without religion that societies would operate differently.

Perhaps the best we could do is imagine what it would have been like without theism in the world and what type of society would have evolved as a result.

However, in doing so we would have to ignore what was and replace it with what wasn’t, and even so – of what purpose would doing so change anything in the actual world?
All that seems to be achieved going along that path is a type of lamenting, with underlying complaint and subsequent finger-pointing and perhaps even further disempowerment than we are already experiencing as a specie.

I don’t see how the idea we are within a mindfully created thing can be given either blame or credit for outcomes we experience (as a specie as well as individuals within the collective society of humanity) as the approach appears to be disingenuous – at least from my perspective.
“Being moral” obvious has different meanings depending on the individuals take on things. But the question being asked isn’t about being “moral” so much as it is about being able to act based on knowledge re the good and evil aspects of morality.

How are “societies” to determine which are which in relation to deciding what “is best for societies” and alongside that, what makes societies so relevant/important that they should benefit from all the collective (and harvested/invested energy of the participants necessary) for such to be?

Obviously, no individual can buck the systems without consequences (be that homelessness or execution and all else along that spectrum. We cannot defy a society regardless of whether the society is theistic or atheistic. That freedom is not available without the accompanying consequence.

Thus, whether we exist within a mindfully created thing or not, those rules are still there and we have the choice whether to follow them or suffer the consequences of not following them.
Killing/shunning people will happen regardless of whether the society is theist or atheist based.

[AgnosticBoy]

Morality far too often gets confusing once we pretend a god concept is involved. Next thing we know, we're on crusades as if that is good for anyone. God concepts can be a mechanism to harm societies while feeling justified.

Would the world not be a better place if we discard all the available god concept ideas and focused instead on doing what is best for societies? Killing/shunning people for believing in the wrong God would no longer be a thing and actions would be determined to be good/evil based on whether or not societies are benefiting.

It is problematic to assume without religion that societies would operate differently.

Perhaps the best we could do is imagine what it would have been like without theism in the world and what type of society would have evolved as a result.

We already have some examples of that when it comes to totalitarian governments, like that of Joseph Stalin.

When the era of Communist rule began in Russia in 1917, religion was seen as a hindrance to a thriving socialist society. As Karl Marx, coauthor of the The Communist Manifesto, declared, “Communism begins where atheism begins.”

Source: https://www.history.com/news/joseph-sta ... heism-ussr

...And we all know how Stalin's society progressed.

This is only to show that even non-religious societies can be bad for humanity. Removing religion doesn't necessarily make things better.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #22]


Yes. Thank you. I think. Human parameters of morality and moral codes are going to be used, unless religion or some atheists Dogma has a grip on the community. This is why democracy matters,and humanism and human morality, with all its' flaws, the best we have, because we can question and debate and change, just as we do with science, and is the reason why authoritarianism (whether religious or political) is actually stonger, because it asmits flaws, where authoritarian relimes, religious or political (or both) are actually weak, because they break under pressure
. Even if they deny that it has broken.


[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #23]

We do. It actually got a bit less horrible under later rulers until the Afghan war broke it and Gorbachov had to try to normalise the cult with the rest of the world. But the Bottom Line that NobodyTalks About - who has military backing? With the military backing Democracy, Gorbachev retired to sulk in denial.

Cue Putin and Ukraine. Another post perhaps But pointing to atheistic regimes as though this is the only kind is wrong and worse than wrong. We all know about Authoritaran religious regimes, or indeed dictators who use religion to back up their horrible rule. Or would love to, if they could just carry the next election.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #24]

I think from our current perspective re experience it is obvious that theistic and atheistic tendency re the shaping of social goings on can be observed to being both as negligent as one another in providing anything resembling "what is best for societies"...

...or as someone else explained it.

[Purple Knight]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

I have to pose a question in return. Let's say killing people is evil. Let's just say it is.

But Adam and Eve don't know killing people is evil. Still, they know they want to stay alive, so when they learn that if you bash people over the head with heavy rocks, they die, they say to one another, let's not do that. You want to stay alive and so do I. It would be bad if one of us killed the other. So let's agree not to.

So they are doing morality but don't know so...?

Okay, so here's the big question: Is there any true moral tenet that cannot be achieved this way?

This is only to show that even non-religious societies can be bad for humanity. Removing religion doesn't necessarily make things better.

I know that now. But in the 90's, when the movie Contact quoted a statistic that 95% of people were somehow religious, it certainly seemed like ALL of this moral bigotry came from religion. How even could you insist that your morality was divine - higher than another's - unless you believed in the divine? By my mind you couldn't. And so I thought, if we could just get rid of these darn religious people, we would be forced to start from a position of everyone's morality is equal. But the religious people have been sent to the corner and the non-religious people have just started up with the being dogmatic.

It's like if people were drinking poison through straws, you took away the straws, and then found that the people just opened their mouths and the poison floated in.

[1213]

You know that at one time slavery was generally considered ok, though everyone knew it was bad for the slaves....

I think it is still considered ok, people just call it with a different name to feel like they are better. Everyone who must pay taxes is a slave.

That is palpably dishonest and utterly discredits your case. Slavery - ownership of one person by another - is not to any reasonable person the same as contributing to the society one lives in. This is more than just saying it wasn't Slavery back then because taxes, but is saying it would be ok now, because of taxes. ...

I am not the one who thinks it is ok that people must pay taxes. A person who must pay taxes, must work for the tax collector, and there is no meaningful difference to an ancient slave. But, I understand if you want to see them differently, because then you can act like you are better than them.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #24]

I think from our current perspective re experience it is obvious that theistic and atheistic tendency re the shaping of social goings on can be observed to being both as negligent as one another in providing anything resembling "what is best for societies"...

...or as someone else explained it.

That is indeed as ideal. I suspect it is the ideal that is used to construct desired - for heavens, with the usual cult - figure dominating all but not demanding more than a modicum or our eternal attention.

But Life was not designed for our convenience, and the fact is that our present society with all the faults (so many of which could be got rid of if only we understood ourselves better and got rid of Dogmas, religious and political) affords us a morer enjoyable and rewarding lifestyle than humans centuries ago can have dreamed of.

Ignorance and short - sightedness makes up gripers, who only see the glass half empty of the perfect life we think we are entitled to, not the one half full of a life of half - ease, and half opportunity for relatively little effort at self - sustainment.

I won't go into the way we, the people, let us be exploited by self - serving creeps and buffoons who want to make us dissatisfied with a social system that overall works rather smoothly to give us this rather excellent life.

[William]

[Replying to 1213 in post #27]

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to 1213 in post #27]

What a lousy cheat Re - using the coercion of Jesusgod (I'll save you from the torment I'll inflict if you don't let me save yo.') into state coercion.

You really think that theism offers a society where nobody pays taxes? Rather, a theistic society will pay more because the Theist Authorities want their cut and don't of course pay taxes..

And maybe it's the Sharya system where the faithful are exempt and wrong believers pay taxes.

And when there are no more unbelievers to bully an exploit?

our dirty tricks atheist cartoon reversed does you and you case no favors, old son.