Knowledge of Good and Evil

[William]

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

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #30]

What a lousy cheat

ad hominem

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.

Same thing, same objective.

You really think that theism offers a society where nobody pays taxes?

You got that perspective from my post?
Or perhaps it is a display of symptom of an internal prevalence you operate from.

Rather, a theistic society will pay more because the Theist Authorities want their cut and don't of course pay taxes..

I think the only freedom from such slavery is to pay the authorities everything in exchange for everything.

That way, society cuts out the middleman (authorities) and the use of money or any other value system can be done away with.

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

How the mind wanders through the scenarios and ends back at the same point that it started, no wiser for the experience...

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.

You mean "does my argument no favours"?

How is pointing out the same not (at the very least), allowing one the opportunity to see there is no difference between the positions re how they "work"? (providing more supporting evidence that those who blow their trumpets on either side are doing so on hot air).

Arguing that one is as bad/good as the other is a no-brainer since it is obvious to any who activate their mindfulness with sparks of truth.

I myself saw the irony in the meme.



One side can always blacken the cloth of the other, since both are of the same cloth.
Such might call themselve "theists" or "atheists" but what are they really, since they are practically too similar to be that different from each other?

Meantime, those who seem to be at an advantage (like Elon Musk), appear to have made their way around those dynamics - including the tactic of referring to himself as a "Cultural Christian" as part of the act, thus avoiding the consequences of outright religious indignation whilst simultaneously avoiding having to be an atheist.

Perhaps there is a reason why liberty holds a flaming torch rather than having a beam of radiant light extending from her head, forever - in all directions.

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #27]

It seems only difference between government and mafia is that mafia has family values.

[TRANSPONDER]

I had to think back to what the above exchanges were. In fact there is no discussion here but three points

I suppose it is permissible to reverse an atheist quip about Jesus and adapt it to make some point about the state and taxes.

Then, your response was agreeing with 1213, not me, about his irrelevant point that paying taxes = slavery, which of course makes no difference to the Bible endorsing slavery.

Which is the third point; Whatever ideas you and 1213 have about the immorality of the state levying taxes, that is nothing to do with the immorality of the Bible, in endorsing what is absolutely chattel slavery.

For the rest, this is not the political forum, so I leave you to your socio - political musings and get back to the topic. Which is the usual wrongheaded thinking about good and evil, which is based on morality or ethics, which is derived from human social instincts, not some cosmic law that classifies everything into good and evil. That is the only point that matters - the whole topic was misconceived, and the odd not to say wacky socio -political postings I leave to you and the moderators.

[William]

I had to think back to what the above exchanges were. In fact there is no discussion here but three points

Okay.

I suppose it is permissible to reverse an atheist quip about Jesus and adapt it to make some point about the state and taxes.

Is that a relatively recent supposition?

Then, your response was agreeing with 1213, not me, about his irrelevant point that paying taxes = slavery, which of course makes no difference to the Bible endorsing slavery.

From my perspective, 1213 was making an honest observation. Why critique one and turn a blind eye to the other?

Which is the third point; Whatever ideas you and 1213 have about the immorality of the state levying taxes, that is nothing to do with the immorality of the Bible, in endorsing what is absolutely chattel slavery.

Let's not get all bifurcation on terms and conditions. Slavery has its own spectrum but altogether signifies the reality that so does freedom.
Which is to say, it is all relative. Arguing that we are far better off in today's world takes on a different context to the reality of the current situation - almost like declaring that we are better off slaves than the slaves of old were because we have state instituted "freedom".

Liberties' Torch.

Which circles back to the thread topic question...
Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

[TRANSPONDER]

I had to think back to what the above exchanges were. In fact there is no discussion here but three points

Okay.

I suppose it is permissible to reverse an atheist quip about Jesus and adapt it to make some point about the state and taxes.

Is that a relatively recent supposition?

Then, your response was agreeing with 1213, not me, about his irrelevant point that paying taxes = slavery, which of course makes no difference to the Bible endorsing slavery.

From my perspective, 1213 was making an honest observation. Why critique one and turn a blind eye to the other?

Which is the third point; Whatever ideas you and 1213 have about the immorality of the state levying taxes, that is nothing to do with the immorality of the Bible, in endorsing what is absolutely chattel slavery.

Let's not get all bifurcation on terms and conditions. Slavery has its own spectrum but altogether signifies the reality that so does freedom.
Which is to say, it is all relative. Arguing that we are far better off in today's world takes on a different context to the reality of the current situation - almost like declaring that we are better off slaves than the slaves of old were because we have state instituted "freedom".

Liberties' Torch.

Which circles back to the thread topic question...
Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

If you can't tell the difference between chattel slavery and paying taxers to the society that one lives in - as a principle, not denying that some really do try it on - then I can only consign you back to voting for one who intends to use the State as his own personal piggy bank.

This is not a good point, by 1213, you or anyone else. Itr is the Left who are supposed to be the spongers who leech off the system. The ones who seem to be on the side of a religious authoritarian society are the last ones who will be complaining about taxes, either because they won't dare to or they will be incommunicado, behind concrete walls.

So there it is, apart from the impudent rip - off of an atheist argument, it is misapplied and a miserable attempt to appeal to individual greed to sow discontent with the System, which shows a woeful lack of support for the law and order, either at state or federal level, that I would suppose the politics they would be expected to favor keeps banging on about.

But apart from the putrid attempts to politicise this whole thing, this does not in any way excuse the Bible from endorsing chattel slavery - which it does, and that is not changed even if one does equate civic responsibility with enslaving foreigners.

I don't know which inverts my supper worse - the attempts to pretend that the OT does not rubber - stamp chattel slavery, or the apparent argument that if it does it's ok then.

If it was good enough for Nathan Bedford Forrest, it's good enough for you, hey?

[bjs1]

[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.

Correct, you offered no meaning. That became the problem. If we don’t clearly understand what we are talking about then we will likely come to a false conclusion. If we use the word “knowledge” vaguely, then the same word is used for different things, which is the fallacy of equivocation.

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 use of the word “knowledge” is ambiguous. Its meaning can have different nuances in different settings.

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.

That is possible, which is why we must clearly define our meaning.

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

Yes, but with the meaning clearly defined so that it is less ambiguous.

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?

I have never robbed a bank. I know that robbing banks is wrong. I can do what is right (not rob a bank) without personal knowledge of that 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.

Sort of, but in the sense that, in your example, later generations of that Tribe would not need to eat the mushrooms or see anyone else eating the mushrooms. The information could be passed down without participation or observance.

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.

I agree.

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.

Hence the distinction between intellectual and experiential knowledge. Knowing that robbing a bank is wrong is not shameful. First-hand knowledge of having robbed a bank is.

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?

I fear you lost me here. I don’t understand your meaning.

[William]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #36]

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

You offered no meaning. That became the problem.

What problem "became"?

If we don’t clearly understand what we are talking about then we will likely come to a false conclusion.

We would likely come to different conclusions and then we could try and establish which conclusions are false or true.

If we use the word “knowledge” vaguely, then the same word is used for different things, which is the fallacy of equivocation.

Part of the enquiry (re the question) has to do with how the word “knowledge” could ever be used for different things. It is often conflated with "belief" - which is a different thing.

Those that do so, are only making such vague because such are accepted as having same/similar meaning which allows one to use those words interchangeably.
That is the source of said equivocation, and if one is to avoid that, one needs to ditch the practice.

The use of the word “knowledge” is ambiguous. Its meaning can have different nuances in different settings.

Whereas knowledge is knowledge and has only one meaning. Any nuances have to do with how much one knows about any particular thing.

One can have a little knowledge, an average amount of knowledge or a lot of knowledge about any particular thing. All can be classified under the heading "Knowledge" without being ambiguous.

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.

That is possible, which is why we must clearly define our meaning.

What clear definition have you given re knowledge which helps to answer the question?

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

Yes, but with the meaning clearly defined so that it is less ambiguous.

Knowledge is not what requires clear definition. Good and evil are - because it is those things which are ambiguous.
In other words, we can agree with what knowledge means, but still disagree as to what is good and what is evil.

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

I have never robbed a bank. I know that robbing banks is wrong. I can do what is right (not rob a bank) without personal knowledge of that evil.

How is it that you know robbing banks is wrong?

Wouldn't the same apply the other way around? One could argue that robbing banks is good, even that you have no personal knowledge of that good.

What other "knowledge" does one obtain but through experience and observation?

You argue that it is "intellectual knowledge" yet the intellect also is based in experience and observation.

Can you provide a suitable example of an intellectual knowledge which does not require experience and observation?

Your bank robbery example still requires experience and observation - which would answer my question how is it that you know robbing banks is wrong - because you observe (and thus experience) the consequences meted out on those who have done so.
Just because you have not personally experienced punishment for robbing a bank (because you have refrained from doing so) does not mean that you lack at least intellectual experience re the consequences of such activity.

This being the case, wouldn't you agree that without knowledge of good and evil, we can't have morality?

Sort of, but in the sense that, in your example, later generations of that Tribe would not need to eat the mushrooms or see anyone else eating the mushrooms. The information could be passed down without participation or observance.

Not really. Just because one does not personally indulge does not mean that one is therefore not participating in the knowledge being observed.

A clear example of this would be a Christian who gets their knowledge from the Bible either by reading, having it read or both - one is by that, participating and observing.
One cannot truly gain knowledge by not participating and observing. In that sense both observing and participating mean the same thing/can be conflated.

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.

Hence the distinction between intellectual and experiential knowledge. Knowing that robbing a bank is wrong is not shameful. First-hand knowledge of having robbed a bank is.

What is intellectually known in the knowledge that a rule is declared?
My answer is that the voice imposing the rule (and consequence of breaking the rule) has been intellectually experienced. What can be experienced without intelligence being involved in order that knowledge is gained?
One has not experience shame in the knowledge (one is instructed by a voice that one should not do something,) because one has not yet done that something.
In the case of the story, shame was unknown. It was not a case of being known, but not experienced. It was not known because it was not experienced.

The experience of shame only came after the rule was broken. Yet, if the rule was not made in the first place, how is the shame to be experience if there was no rule to break?

This question focuses on participation re experience.
Without the voice participating the owner of the voice would not gain knowledge. Yet by participating the voice created a rule which upon been broken, allowed for those who broke the rule to experience shame.

Therefore, experiencing shame cannot happen if there are no rules to break.

Therefore an argument re this is that without knowledge of good and evil, we cannot have morality, because the one is the same as the other.
Declared rules = Knowledge of good and evil = Experiencing morality

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?

You lost me here. I don’t understand your meaning.

Assuming if true that;
Declared rules = Knowledge of good and evil = Experiencing morality
then;
can that morality help us to know what the mythology is attempting to tell us and whether what it is attempting to tell us, is the truth?

The use of ambiguous language is apparent in that the consequences of breaking the rule was death but what was "death" to those who had no knowledge of it through participation and experience? Death in that sense, could only have been an ambiguous notion.

Further to that, what we have nowadays in the way of thousands of reports and subsequent scientific studies re NDE's is far more knowledge about death removing the mystery which has prevailed and been argued over for centuries - a mystery left unexplained in the garden story.
Even the part where the voice also said those who broke the rule would die on that day is an example of more ambiguity (adding to an already ambiguous notion) because the offenders lived to ripe old ages, measure in years rather than days.

"On that day" they surely did not die.

Even in popular explanations offered (such as "they died spiritually") doesn't make anything less ambiguous for that.

So, the idea/belief that one somehow "knows intellectually" or somehow has that knowledge installed ambiguously within one's psyche at the go-get doesn't/cannot align with the evidence that everything we know is something that we all had to learn from scratch by participating in the lessons our teaches put us through in order that we experience morality.

Which is to say, one cannot have morality as something one is born with. The knowledge of good and evil are learned through rules and breaking rules.

There has been no evidence that I am aware of which shows us we are born with this knowledge.

In order to gain knowledge of good and evil, one requires a rule being made and the observation of said rule being broken either by others or by oneself.,,either way knowledge is gained through said experience.

[TRANSPONDER]

It seems we have an ongoing problem with honesty and with understanding.

One is trying to pretend that we never know what we mean by anything, so no conclusions can be drawn. This is a familiar escape by Bible apologists, who fail to realise (like the 'we don't don't know what they meant, back then' evasion) means that no Bible - claim can be given any credibility. But because they assume Jesusgod and the Bible is the default , Faith without a case is good enough.

The other thing is that morality is subjective, which it is, but that doesn't mean it doesn't count. I said that this is the case from Art and music to sports and games. But there is no argument so good that it can't be ignored.

To these two, can be added wilful ignorance and faithbased dogma, that morality is innate, when it has to be taught by the society we live in, And/But - if it s innate - like a preference for human well - being, this is dismissed and ignored because there is No Objective Basis.

We are clearly in a debate where the Theist apologist side are trying to confuse the issue to get rid of it and dismiss anything that validates it so the only objective standard is ...well, confused.

Is it innate and god - given? Then it isn't working very well and has to be excused by more blame - game - it's all man's fault for not doing it as God wanted.'

Or it's down to the Bible, which also didn't work too well and can't be blamed on men as it is awful and slavery had to be overruled by human revulsion towards it, though Christians now try to claim the credit, and so doubt in fifty years' time, they'll be trying to pretend it was Christians leading the way in gender rights.

I'll resist the temptation to apply a few choice epithets to Christian apologetics, but repeat that the argument from morality was never a good one, because Bible morality itself is not good, and apologists and humanists must become as familiar with the evolution of morality and ethics through knowing archaeology and biology, including sociology and DNA, as they must become familiar with palaeontology in order to see through the attempts Creationists make to debunk evolution in hopes to make Genesis work.

[William]

This comes across as something of a rant including sweeping statements of opinion about "creationalists"...

Those who think we might well exist in a mindfully created thing can be group- referred to as "creationalists" but certainly not all are defending the genesis story or ignoring the evidence re evolution.

I am surprised that one fails to understand and appreciate the spectrum of creationism since one appears to be intelligent enough to do so...

[TRANSPONDER]

This comes across as something of a rant including sweeping statements of opinion about "creationalists"...

Those who think we might well exist in a mindfully created thing can be group- referred to as "creationalists" but certainly not all are defending the genesis story or ignoring the evidence re evolution.

I am surprised that one fails to understand and appreciate the spectrum of creationism since one appears to be intelligent enough to do so...

A bit of a rant maybe but that's the way I write. And what I write matters more than how I write and that is what should be addressed, rather than personals.

Also, while you may adapt the point o a more general social discussion, the morality apologetic is Christian apologetics - to make a gap for God, and the apologetics is driven bu fundamentalists if not creationists, as the whole point is to make a case for a god being needed, if mot proven.

I am surprised...well, not really, that you appear to fau il what a specific dogma, Creationism is, even if the creation - claim goes wider. Haven't I argued at times that Goddunnit doesn't prove any god or religion, just as evolution (broadly) does not disprove a god. Haven't i said that atheists can live with Deists, even if some Deists find it hard to tolerate Atheists, but Genesis - literalist creationists do not get invited to sit at our table. or they do like Jesus in Luke 11 37, sit at table and then roundly abuse his host. .