Lori,
I'm proposing that if you want to know "what's wrong with us, and what's wrong with the world" to look in the Bible, and it will tell you. I'm not saying that is a "solution", but it IS an answer. There is no solution other than what God has planned in the future for Satan. If you want to know what the true difference between right and wrong is, then look at the utopia, then look out your window. And there ya go! If you want to know WHY there is no solution and never will be til Christ returns, then again, look in the Bible.
Lori, answers can be gotten in an even better way by analyzing people's behavior and what motivates, or rewards, such behavior. Then, if behavior is undesirable (impacts negatively on average and personal happiness), one tries to figure out how to take away or counterbalance the motivations or rewards, but in such a way as to minimize any negative impact on general popular and individual satisfaction. The Bible is <u>an</u> answer. But not the best one by far.
There <u>is</u> a solution. If not a perfect one, there nevertheless exists an optimal one. And it's not the Bible. While I don't claim to possess the optimal solution, it nevertheless exists. Hopefully, by the end of this post you'll be able to see why I think so.
As for your method of determining right from wrong, you are pretty close to being correct. What you are doing, intuitively, is testing a theoretical scenario. You are saying: according to my theory of social dynamics, if I set up the initial conditions in such and such a way, what will be the outcome? You are essentially making a theoretical prediction. Not very religious of you (in fact, quite scientific) -- even if you don't realize it. The problem is, your particular theory of folk psychology and social dynamics is as anscient and dysfunctional as alchemy. Better theories have been around for at least decades, although they have not been extensively popularized.
But I endorse the general approach. We generate a set of theories in psychology and sociology. Then, we use those theories to search for the best ideal outcomes possible, to define an ultimate (if not altogether achievable) goal in direction of which we want to move. Then, we figure out <u>practical methods</u> for moving in that direction -- rather than just sitting back and wishing we were back in Eden, we work to approximate that ideal right here on Earth.
A proof positive that such a process of refinement works, is the world at large. There are nations where people are generally happy, and then there are nations which people would gladly flee, if only allowed to. So indeed, even regardless of fundamental human nature (which is invariant), the laws, rules, and dynamics imposed by a society do make a huge difference. This is what I have in mind when I speak of "practical solutions". And as you can see (hopefully), such solutions are not planned by God, but found by mankind through a painful historical process of trial and error -- an almost scientific endeavour, and indeed often driven by the avantgarde thinkers of the time.
And BTW, what is this with the "social determination" that you were talking about, AS IF society determines what is right and wrong. What????? How in the bleep do you get that? Society has NO IDEA what's right and wrong and why.
You would have been more correct if you claimed that the sky is orange with purple spots. Every single society on Earth that ever existed, had established its own codex of morality and etiquette. Social determination is merely my way of referring to the structure of laws and tradition that is passed along family lines and enforced by the society at large. And societies usually have extremely refined ideas of right and wrong, even regardless of their technological level or religion. This is because right and wrong are determined by the human emotional apparatus -- which is universal (obviously) across our species, and always plays a prominent role in shaping our personal and social behaviors.
However, the usual social wisdom typically begins to fail when borderline issues appear which cannot be clearly judged as good or bad by emotions alone. It also begins to fail when entirely new situations arise which have no precedent. This is when new law must be laid, and much more scientifically refined and precise definitions of good and bad must be used to try to arrive at optimal arrangements.
All society has ever had is a bunch of sorry rationalizations for cop outs and a bunch of pain to go with it. Like I said....society says "Greed is good because it drives efficiencies in the market. Greed is good because if I work hard then I DESERVE a $50K car to drive while some kids are starving a half mile from my house." I say "Greed is a sin. Period. And if you got rid of it completely, we'd all be a hell of a lot happier." So Boris, why are we all so greedy? Why do people rationalize things that they know are wrong? Why? Why?
So you see, you've already found a failing in your theory of folk psychology -- only you don't realize it. In fact, it is entirely natural for humans to be greedy -- greed and egotism are definitely evolved traits, as they are eminently helpful for survival and reproductive success. The same can be said of anger, envy, lust, sloth, and many other "sins". In fact, there is fundamentally nothing wrong with these traits, they are part of our very nature. To deny them is to deny who we are. To try to eradicate them is to try to commit suicide.
However, while individually these traits are beneficial (and therefore emotionally rewarded), they result in harm to others when exhibited within a collective. Being the social animals that we are, therefore, we must try to strike a balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the group. While much of sin makes an individual happy, it usually makes the group as a whole less happy (for example, think of laissez-faire capitalism). On the other hand, policies targeted to exclusively benefit the group as a whole marginalize individual happiness (for example, think of communism). A compromise is the only way to attack this dilemma with any success (think of something like the prototypical modern socialist-capitalistic democracy).
Incidentally, that is why "people rationalize things that they know are wrong". These things are actually very "right" as far as the individual is concerned (they are as "right" as wanting to eat, and eating, when you are hungry), so the individual has every emotional and physiological motivation to do these things. However, a certain doctrine deeply internalized by the said individual tells him/her that the very things he/she desires and does are hideously wrong (with no real explanation for why that is so). Therefore, there is an inevitable push for rationalization -- at which the said person is very adept indeed, since they had to master the art in order to internalize the doctrine in the first place. Hence, rather than accepting who they are and correctly understanding (in terms of individual/group tradeoffs) why it is that they shouldn't follow certain urges, the person ends up being a thorough hypocrite in an attempt to both satisfy the impossible self-image imposed by the doctrine, and the actual real self. This is how come we have all these criminals who, in their own mind, did nothing wrong.
Do I sound like a 2 year old? LOL!
No, you don't sound like a 2 year old. You, however, do sound like someone who either never deeply entertained, or refuses to embrace, the practical side of life. Not to single you out, this mistake has been made by an overwhelming majority of all humans who ever lived. However, what if what I just wrote above (and a little more beyond that) was part of the mandatory and repeated education, so that everybody had these ideas in mind from the outset? Could it possibly then be that fewer people would afford to be hypocrites, and could it be that with a better understanding of foundations for morality and law, people might be less inclined to transgress? I don't know, but I'd say it's worth a shot. Trial and error, remember?
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 29, 2000).]
