We should not boast of our own morality

[Donnadogsoth]

As a Christian, I notice that the doctrine of Original Sin and Jesus's commandment not to judge others is confirmed by neuroscience.  The brain's structure and activity is related to everything we do.  In a very real sense the brain forms who we are personality-wise.  Case studies of catastrophic brain injury or brain damage due to maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy all show this fact, which I'm sure you're all aware of.

 

Beyond this, neuroscience shows that psychopathic brains differ markedly from neurotypical brains, or in the given study of 121 medium-security US inmates, relatively neurotypical.  These psychopaths are people who lack the neural architecture needed to spur the development of moral, empathic personalities.

 

One may differ with the term, but neurotypicals are in a sense merely benefitting from grace.  You can use "fate" or "chance" if you like.  But, the point is, you are moral only because you have been given the right neural architecture, like startup-capital for one's morality-enterprise.  Lacking this architecture, you would do as psychopaths do.  How then can anyone condemn them?

 

This intrinsic potential for psychopathy which underlies all human beings' minds and which is a universally inherited tendency, flows like a dark river beneath the psyche and can be associated with the Freudian "id," continually plashing forth wicked thoughts into the ego.  For those blessed with grace, these thoughts can be be opposed by the superego or developed conscience, but the individual cannot take full credit for these victories, which are always the result of initial brain structures and patterns given to him by God (or "fate" or "evolution" as you prefer).

 

This is not to say that humans do not freely make moral choices, only that the only decisions we make require the grace of a particular brain structure that suppresses our psychopathic natures which we inherit from our earliest ancestors.  Thus no man can judge another finally, lest he be judged by the same yardstick and condemned.  Our ultimate moral choice is to align ourselves with the incarnate Good and so survive the ego-stripping that a final Judgement would involve.

[thebeardslastcall]

If someone tries to kill me and I have to kill him or neutralize him to defend myself, am I judging him? Grace or anti-grace, to not acknowledge who people are and act appropriately is suicidal. Are you asking not to be judged for your lack of grace as displayed by your posts on these forums? What is judgement in the real world to you? Five paragraphs and I have little idea what you're talking about or suggesting or denying. You sound like you're arguing a brand of Determinism, denying responsibility for people, but also suggesting God should judge them (finally)  for something he did and something they had no control over. Do you not see any contradictions or oddities in what you are saying? Can I not judge you for continuing to post nonsense on these boards? Do you have and know the principle of trollism?

[Wuzzums]

Judging is not immoral.

A person that did wrong and has not been touched by grace suffers nothing from being judges because he is incapable to.

A person that did wrong and has been touched by grace will suffer from being judged and rightfully so.

In not judging in either cases all I am achieving is harm to myself perhaps even others.

 

Where there is choice there is responsibility. Judgement is another form of choice. Rejecting the act of judgement therefore is equal to running away from responsibility.

[Troubador]

So we have free will to be good, but hang on truly evil people have no choice because God made them that way? I really don't get where you are going with this?

 

Furthermore the statement judge not lest ye yourself be judged, or however it is phrased isn't a blanket ban on all judgements ever. For example please feel free to put on your judgy pants if I suffer a brain injury and start acting irrationally to the point of endangering others. In fact scratch that feel free to scrutinise my every utterance and action, critique away!

 

I can't promise to self-correct every infraction I may commit in your eyes, but I'll give it a good deep think particularly if you're kind, friendly and wise. In short the prohibition is against setting yourself up as some supreme moral arbiter accepting no criticism yourself. If I'm happy for you to judge me I can judge you right? That would appear to be the deal.

 

If it is reciprocal what's the problem? In addition if I'm ever a mortal threat to people for whatever reason I would want to be judged and neutralised in such a way that no one else got hurt. If that means I'm shot in self defense, or preferably I'm incarcerated peacefully and stuck in a prison or mental institution where I'm no further threat you all go right ahead.

 

That being the case I reserve the right to be part of a community that judges it members with a view towards self improvement and keeping everyone safe, and I will make my own judgements commensurate with my own level of knowledge and wisdom. I don't see how any of that contradicts judge not lest I myself be judged.

[Donnadogsoth]

If someone tries to kill me and I have to kill him or neutralize him to defend myself, am I judging him? Grace or anti-grace, to not acknowledge who people are and act appropriately is suicidal. Are you asking not to be judged for your lack of grace as displayed by your posts on these forums? What is judgement in the real world to you? Five paragraphs and I have little idea what you're talking about or suggesting or denying. You sound like you're arguing a brand of Determinism, denying responsibility for people, but also suggesting God should judge them (finally)  for something he did and something they had no control over. Do you not see any contradictions or oddities in what you are saying? Can I not judge you for continuing to post nonsense on these boards? Do you have and know the principle of trollism?

 

I'm not talking about the need to judge people in practical terms, such as someone attempting to murder you.  I'm not trying to vilipend your need to judge in those situations.  I'm referring to judgement in the final sense, of having your worth judged by a God in aeternal terms.  In that sense we cannot boast of our morality, because it is grace that allows us to have it in the first place.  Without our morally-germane brain structures, we would all be psychopaths and therefore all subject to judgement by those men who boast about their own moral superiority.  Does that make it clearer?

[Donnadogsoth]

So we have free will to be good, but hang on truly evil people have no choice because God made them that way? I really don't get where you are going with this?

 

Furthermore the statement judge not lest ye yourself be judged, or however it is phrased isn't a blanket ban on all judgements ever. For example please feel free to put on your judgy pants if I suffer a brain injury and start acting irrationally to the point of endangering others. In fact scratch that feel free to scrutinise my every utterance and action, critique away!

 

I can't promise to self-correct every infraction I may commit in your eyes, but I'll give it a good deep think particularly if you're kind, friendly and wise. In short the prohibition is against setting yourself up as some supreme moral arbiter accepting no criticism yourself. If I'm happy for you to judge me I can judge you right? That would appear to be the deal.

 

If it is reciprocal what's the problem? In addition if I'm ever a mortal threat to people for whatever reason I would want to be judged and neutralised in such a way that no one else got hurt. If that means I'm shot in self defense, or preferably I'm incarcerated peacefully and stuck in a prison or mental institution where I'm no further threat you all go right ahead.

 

That being the case I reserve the right to be part of a community that judges it members with a view towards self improvement and keeping everyone safe, and I will make my own judgements commensurate with my own level of knowledge and wisdom. I don't see how any of that contradicts judge not lest I myself be judged.

 

Yes, we judge in temporal things, necessarily for our own survival and the survival of society.  No one is disputing this.  "Judging" refers to final judgements of a person's value before God.

 

Re: the boldfaced text:  we have free will but the only reason we don't always use our free choices for evil is because we have the right neural architecture.  Psychopaths have free will, but they have zero reason in their brains in terms of emotional rewards and penalties to choose to be good.  If they choose good it will be a result of external rewards/penalties making choosing good seem worthwhile.  Ergo, we should not boast about our own moral superiority because it is just by the grace of God or his substitute Evolution that we have our psychopathic desires suppressed.

[RCali]

Boasting has a function, just like judging has. You boast and judge morality to keep evil at bay. It's the way we have to stay safe and identify danger. Without this and total tolerance of others, you'd live among criminals and generally shit people. And shit people are a bunch that many people here in the forums grown among. Tell them to get accostumed to it and go back to it, because judging is something you should not do. Responses are, most likely, not going to be too positive.

 

What's the worst: judging someone's character too soon, with too little information, or to not judge at all and be tolerant, regardless of information?

[EclecticIdealist]

I've never understood why it is so difficult for some Christians to understand what the Bible teaches.

 

When it comes to boasting, the Bible teaches it is sinful vanity or pride, except when one is boasting about the greatness of God, in God's power, mercy, forgiveness, and other Godly qualities. Boasting in one's supposed morality is considered vanity akin to the sins of the Pharisees which are soundly condemned by Jesus.

 

As for judgment or judging, "Judge not lest thee be judged" is a commandment against hypocritically condemning people, not about condemning bad behavior.

 

The Bible is very explicit that certain behaviors are sins and must be eschewed. It is also very explicit that a person, particularly a Christian, should be principally concerned with their own sins and sinful behavior, not the sinful actions or behavior of their neighbors. This is not to suggest that the person ought not exhort people who are sinning to eschew their sinful behavior; but rather, that before one seeks to do so, one gets their own houses in order--that they pluck the proverbial sty from their own eye before seeking to pluck the mote from their neighbor's eye.

 

In short, according to the New Testament, to condemn others for their sins is to be like Satan. To condemn sin and forgive others is to be like Jesus.

[neeeel]

Yes, we judge in temporal things, necessarily for our own survival and the survival of society. No one is disputing this. "Judging" refers to final judgements of a person's value before God.

 

Re: the boldfaced text: we have free will but the only reason we don't always use our free choices for evil is because we have the right neural architecture. Psychopaths have free will, but they have zero reason in their brains in terms of emotional rewards and penalties to choose to be good. If they choose good it will be a result of external rewards/penalties making choosing good seem worthwhile. Ergo, we should not boast about our own moral superiority because it is just by the grace of God or his substitute Evolution that we have our psychopathic desires suppressed.

 

I am fairly sure that you also do good for the same reasons, ie external rewards or penalties. I doubt anyone is good just cos they are good. Any internal rewards are just thoughts about external rewards

[Donnadogsoth]

I am fairly sure that you also do good for the same reasons, ie external rewards or penalties. I doubt anyone is good just cos they are good. Any internal rewards are just thoughts about external rewards

 

What external reward is one thinking about when one is feeling benevolent towards a wounded bird?

[neeeel]

What external reward is one thinking about when one is feeling benevolent towards a wounded bird?

 

Obviously I cant exactly answer this question, as its hypothetical. Could be things like approval of others, warm feelings of "doing good" or "being good" having your discomfort over an injured animal assuaged, 

[Donnadogsoth]

Obviously I cant exactly answer this question, as its hypothetical. Could be things like approval of others, warm feelings of "doing good" or "being good" having your discomfort over an injured animal assuaged, 

 

Others' approval is external, but feelings of doing good are internal.  I don't see why a person could not be motivated solely by internal rewards with regards to any given act.

[neeeel]

internal rewards are still rewards

[Donnadogsoth]

internal rewards are still rewards

 

Indubitably.  Do we agree that without rewards of some kind, no-one acts good?

[thebeardslastcall]

Indubitably.  Do we agree that without rewards of some kind, no-one acts good?

Brain dead people don't act good, check.

[neeeel]

Indubitably.  Do we agree that without rewards of some kind, no-one acts good?

 

You were making the point that sociopaths only do good when the result of external rewards/penalties making choosing good seem worthwhile. I was pointing out that you ( and I ) do the same, and now you are agreeing with me, that everyone acts good only because of rewards. I am a bit confused, perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying about sociopaths.

[thecurrentyear]

You were making the point that sociopaths only do good when the result of external rewards/penalties making choosing good seem worthwhile. I was pointing out that you ( and I ) do the same, and now you are agreeing with me, that everyone acts good only because of rewards. I am a bit confused, perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying about sociopaths.

 

We're all sociopaths, duh.

[Donnadogsoth]

You were making the point that sociopaths only do good when the result of external rewards/penalties making choosing good seem worthwhile. I was pointing out that you ( and I ) do the same, and now you are agreeing with me, that everyone acts good only because of rewards. I am a bit confused, perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying about sociopaths.

 

I am saying psychopaths lack internal rewards for doing good (e.g., "doing good is its own reward") and, so, only do good for the sake of external rewards like prestige, money, or sex.  A psychopath will never save a wounded animal out of sheer compassion, to gain the satisfaction of an internal reward, for example, because the psychopath's "compassion circuits" don't exist.  They may enter into a love relationship because of the external rewards that brings, but those rewards don't include love, because the psychopath's "love circuits" don't exist.  And a psychopath may support justice, but only out of sadism or self-interest in having a safe society, but not because he believes in justice as a principle.

[neeeel]

I am saying psychopaths lack internal rewards for doing good (e.g., "doing good is its own reward") and, so, only do good for the sake of external rewards like prestige, money, or sex.  A psychopath will never save a wounded animal out of sheer compassion, to gain the satisfaction of an internal reward, for example, because the psychopath's "compassion circuits" don't exist.  They may enter into a love relationship because of the external rewards that brings, but those rewards don't include love, because the psychopath's "love circuits" don't exist.  And a psychopath may support justice, but only out of sadism or self-interest in having a safe society, but not because he believes in justice as a principle.

 

But you agreed that everyone acts good only because of rewards? And now you are saying they can act out of "sheer compassion". It seems like a contradiction to me

[Donnadogsoth]

But you agreed that everyone acts good only because of rewards? And now you are saying they can act out of "sheer compassion". It seems like a contradiction to me

 

Compassion is an internal reward:  one does good, one feels good--without need for external rewards like praise, gifts, status, or money.  You contended that you are "...fairly sure that you also do good for the same reasons, ie external rewards or penalties. I doubt anyone is good just cos they are good. Any internal rewards are just thoughts about external rewards."  Do you still think this, that all internal rewards are "just thoughts about external rewards," or do you agree with me that internal rewards can sometimes suffice to motivate an individual to perform a good act?

[neeeel]

Compassion is an internal reward:  one does good, one feels good--without need for external rewards like praise, gifts, status, or money.  You contended that you are "...fairly sure that you also do good for the same reasons, ie external rewards or penalties. I doubt anyone is good just cos they are good. Any internal rewards are just thoughts about external rewards."  Do you still think this, that all internal rewards are "just thoughts about external rewards," or do you agree with me that internal rewards can sometimes suffice to motivate an individual to perform a good act?

 

I dont see the difference between internal and external rewards. but if you are saying that people only do good to get rewards ( internal or external ) then I would agree with that.

[EclecticIdealist]

Without our morally-germane brain structures, we would all be psychopaths and therefore all subject to judgement by those men who boast about their own moral superiority.

The parts of the brain that give us the faculty of empathy, the ability to place ourselves in the experience of another, do indeed appear to be what separates normal people from psychopaths. Sociopaths appear to have damage done to this part of their brain through repeated trauma affecting the development of or harming the normal functioning of these areas of the brain.

 

We have free will but the only reason we don't always use our free choices for evil is because we have the right neural architecture.  Psychopaths have free will, but they have zero reason in their brains in terms of emotional rewards and penalties to choose to be good. If they choose good it will be a result of external rewards/penalties making choosing good seem worthwhile.  Ergo, we should not boast about our own moral superiority because it is just by the grace of God or his substitute Evolution that we have our psychopathic desires suppressed.

Actually, that's not quite correct. Psychopaths and sociopaths don't lack the mechanisms for internally "punishing" or "rewarding" certain types of behavior; they lack the empathy that allows them to relate to another person's experience in such a way that would prevent them from engaging in certain behaviors that cause harm to others or prompt them to engage in behaviors that would benefit others. In essence, they lack the sense of oneness, connection, or kinship with other people or other living beings.

 

Others' approval is external, but feelings of doing good are internal.  I don't see why a person could not be motivated solely by internal rewards with regards to any given act.

I completely agree. Whether the reward is purely internal or external, doing "good" for the reward one gets or expects or hopes to receive is a self-serving behavior.

 

I am saying psychopaths lack internal rewards for doing good (e.g., "doing good is its own reward") and, so, only do good for the sake of external rewards like prestige, money, or sex.  A psychopath will never save a wounded animal out of sheer compassion, to gain the satisfaction of an internal reward, for example, because the psychopath's "compassion circuits" don't exist.  They may enter into a love relationship because of the external rewards that brings, but those rewards don't include love, because the psychopath's "love circuits" don't exist.  And a psychopath may support justice, but only out of sadism or self-interest in having a safe society, but not because he believes in justice as a principle.

Doing good is its own reward only if what is termed "good" is internally generated or motivated or consistent with one's ideals. IF what is termed "good" is not consistent with one's own ideals, but is only consistent with society's ideals, doing good is NOT its own reward for the person doing it; in such a situation, only external rewards or the avoidance of punishment will prompt such behavior. Justice is an ideal, not a principle. Nevertheless, as you correctly state, a psychopath will or won't support justice based on the desirability of the outcome; certainly not out of empathy for the victims of injustice.

 

Compassion is an internal reward:  one does good, one feels good--without need for external rewards like praise, gifts, status, or money.  You contended that you are "...fairly sure that you also do good for the same reasons, ie external rewards or penalties. I doubt anyone is good just 'cause they are good. Any internal rewards are just thoughts about external rewards."  Do you still think this, that all internal rewards are "just thoughts about external rewards," or do you agree with me that internal rewards can sometimes suffice to motivate an individual to perform a good act?

Compassion is synonymous with or has its origins in empathy or "feeling with another". One feels good when the actions one engages in causes the other to feel good. It's self-serving while simultaneously benefiting others (the family or tribe) and is thus perpetuated generationally. People who lack empathy or compassion for others will not experience the empathic reward of "doing good to others". Dehumanizing others through prejudice and bigotry furthers the lack of empathy and compassion for others.

 

Racism and bigotry only foster the decrease in empathy between people, especially between people of different races, ethnicities, countries of origin, etc. If one truly desires to reduce crime and increase a sense of brotherhood and cooperation, one should focus on increasing empathy for others, not decreasing it, fostering unity, not division, focusing on the similarities not the differences, fostering nonviolent communication, cooperation, and reconciliation; not force, compulsion, and punishment for real or perceived wrongs.

[Donnadogsoth]

Actually, that's not quite correct. Psychopaths and sociopaths don't lack the mechanisms for internally "punishing" or "rewarding" certain types of behavior; they lack the empathy that allows them to relate to another person's experience in such a way that would prevent them from engaging in certain behaviors that cause harm to others or prompt them to engage in behaviors that would benefit others. In essence, they lack the sense of oneness, connection, or kinship with other people or other living beings.

 

I believe I essentially stated the same thing. Empathising, and hence internal rewards/punishments regarding good/evil behaviour, depends on neural anatomy which psychopaths lack. So I think we are on the same page here.

 

 

 

Doing good is its own reward only if what is termed "good" is internally generated or motivated or consistent with one's ideals. IF what is termed "good" is not consistent with one's own ideals, but is only consistent with society's ideals, doing good is NOT its own reward for the person doing it; in such a situation, only external rewards or the avoidance of punishment will prompt such behavior. Justice is an ideal, not a principle. Nevertheless, as you correctly state, a psychopath will or won't support justice based on the desirability of the outcome; certainly not out of empathy for the victims of injustice.

 

What's the difference between a principle and an ideal?

 

 

Compassion is synonymous with or has its origins in empathy or "feeling with another". One feels good when the actions one engages in causes the other to feel good. It's self-serving while simultaneously benefiting others (the family or tribe) and is thus perpetuated generationally. People who lack empathy or compassion for others will not experience the empathic reward of "doing good to others". Dehumanizing others through prejudice and bigotry furthers the lack of empathy and compassion for others.

 

Racism and bigotry only foster the decrease in empathy between people, especially between people of different races, ethnicities, countries of origin, etc. If one truly desires to reduce crime and increase a sense of brotherhood and cooperation, one should focus on increasing empathy for others, not decreasing it, fostering unity, not division, focusing on the similarities not the differences, fostering nonviolent communication, cooperation, and reconciliation; not force, compulsion, and punishment for real or perceived wrongs.

 

Nationalistic caveats aside, I'm inclined to agree, but all of that is in vain unless humanity can agree on a common definition of man, viz., being made in the image of God, capable of discovering and acting on principle rather than merely on beast-like sensuous instinct. That is the basis for sound ecumenical efforts aimed at transcending crime, division, differences, and wrongs, and it acts so through the media of classical art and science, the one intended to educate the emotions, the other to discover ways to optimise our survival power as a species. Art and science, and their corollary, economic development, supply tangible ways for people to work together on common, constructive goals. Absent this, we have disruption and anomie in the population, easily bested by the oligarchs and their agents, and all the best and most noble-minded efforts towards peace, reconciliation, unity, and the like will be swept aside in a new Dark Age.

I dont see the difference between internal and external rewards. but if you are aaying that people only do good to get rewards ( internal or external ) then I would agree with that.

 

All rewards I refer to are brain-rewards.  An external brain-reward in my parlance is the brain-reward an actor receives in response to some kind of tangible object (an increased bank balance, a sexual encounter, a new Corvette, the robes of office) that the actor obtains by a particular activity.  An internal reward is when there is no tangible object obtained (saving a turtle from destruction on a road), but the actor experiences a brain-reward regarding the activity anyway.  Psychopaths specifically lack the neural anatomy needed to supply them with empathically-based internal brain-rewards.

[EclecticIdealist]

I believe I essentially stated the same thing. Empathising, and hence internal rewards/punishments regarding good/evil behaviour, depends on neural anatomy which psychopaths lack. So I think we are on the same page here.

 

It depends upon the definitions of good and evil. If good and evil are limited to our interactions with our fellow human beings and perhaps with animals, then we agree.

 

What's the difference between a principle and an ideal?

 

An ideal is that which one may promote or aspire to, a condition or state of being or existence which one might desire. A principle is the relationship between actions and outcomes, causes and effects. One uses principles to achieve or maintain ideals. Universal Justice is an ideal. The idea that a person must caged in a jail or prison for a period of time to pay for their crimes with a loss of liberty is a principle (an incorrect one in my opinion). Ideals are the ends principles are the means to those ends.

 

Nationalistic caveats aside, I'm inclined to agree, but all of that is in vain unless humanity can agree on a common definition of man, viz., being made in the image of God, capable of discovering and acting on principle rather than merely on beast-like sensuous instinct. ...

There are a number of problems with this position, not the least of which is the notion that such an ideal is impossible to achieve without  the superstitious belief in being created in the image of God. It isn't necessary to believe in superstition in order to believe that every human being is capable of acting rationally (discovering abstract relationships between causes and effects), and being indoctrinated into a behaving in ethical (internally directed sense of right and wrong) and moral (the aggregate ethics of the individual members of society which are obligatorily followed as a condition of free and welcome participation) behavior. What IS necessary is for all the members of society to perceive that they are equal participants in society, with equal opportunity to contribute to and benefit from society. When there is a disparity that is perceived (whether real and justified, or imaginary and unjustified), there will be division and strife and such conflict often manifests in increased crime, violence, and drug abuse which serves to perpetuate the division generationally. The perception (whether legitimate or not) of injustice is almost always the basis of violence and property crimes.

 

All rewards I refer to are brain-rewards.  ...  Psychopaths specifically lack the neural anatomy needed to supply them with empathically-based internal brain-rewards.

 

Agreed, that's what I was saying and it seems you were saying as well.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

It depends upon the definitions of good and evil. If good and evil are limited to our interactions with our fellow human beings and perhaps with animals, then we agree.

 

Let's say good and evil are limited to our interactions with beings capable of suffering.

 

 

An ideal is that which one may promote or aspire to, a condition or state of being or existence which one might desire. A principle is the relationship between actions and outcomes, causes and effects. One uses principles to achieve or maintain ideals. Universal Justice is an ideal. The idea that a person must caged in a jail or prison for a period of time to pay for their crimes with a loss of liberty is a principle (an incorrect one in my opinion). Ideals are the ends principles are the means to those ends.

 

I counter that a principle is a substance that leads to an effect.  The principle of universal gravitation leads to the effect of elliptical orbits of the planets and other bodies around Sol.  The (false) principle of oligarchism leads to human beings degraded, demoralised, and dominated.  Its opposing and true principle of republicanism leads to humans organising their affairs on the basis of a true understanding of the nature of man.  The ends of justice are happiness and survival, so we could call them ideals, but “sweets to the sweet, piss to the bitter” is a principle, just as is the (what you call false) prison principle.  The principle of justice may be tempered by the principle of mercy, and by other concerns, but it remains a principle.

 

 

There are a number of problems with this position, not the least of which is the notion that such an ideal is impossible to achieve without  the superstitious belief in being created in the image of God. It isn't necessary to believe in superstition in order to believe that every human being is capable of acting rationally (discovering abstract relationships between causes and effects), and being indoctrinated into a behaving in ethical (internally directed sense of right and wrong) and moral (the aggregate ethics of the individual members of society which are obligatorily followed as a condition of free and welcome participation) behavior. What IS necessary is for all the members of society to perceive that they are equal participants in society, with equal opportunity to contribute to and benefit from society. When there is a disparity that is perceived (whether real and justified, or imaginary and unjustified), there will be division and strife and such conflict often manifests in increased crime, violence, and drug abuse which serves to perpetuate the division generationally. The perception (whether legitimate or not) of injustice is almost always the basis of violence and property crimes.

 

Superstition is believing if you step on a crack you'll break your mother's back.  The idea that man is created in the image of the Creator is scientific fact.  If you're an Atheist, it doesn't matter, treat “Creator” as an Archetype.  We are made in the image of that Archetype.  It is the most powerful Archetype conceivable and we are in its image.  We must be wary of moving away from this concept, to thinking we are merely clever apes.  Being an ape is not a noble thing, it is depressing to human ambition.  Most people believe in some sort of religion because they refuse to relinquish the symbolic power those religions hold that refer, to better or worse degrees, to the humanistic definition I have given.  There is a reason Christendom, and not China, or Africa, or South America, went to Luna.  There is reason the science of Christian economy, to the degree it is practised, dominates the world.  The proper conception of man is what is needed, to inspire.  Trying to level the playing field by appealing to our love and wonder and sense of fair play is putting cart before horse.   The horse is human identity, creativity, the passengers are human goodwill and the like.

[EclecticIdealist]

Let's say good and evil are limited to our interactions with beings capable of suffering.

 

As long as we don't start arbitrarily defining who is "capable of suffering".

 

I counter that a principle is a substance that leads to an effect. The principle of universal gravitation leads to the effect of elliptical orbits of the planets and other bodies around Sol.

 

That which leads to an effect is a cause. However, principles, are not the same thing as causes or phenomena. Principles are the the relationships between cause and effect. Application of the principles of aerodynamics allow a pilot to fly a plane through the air. Application of the principle of gravity and the conservation of momentum and energy allow a person to describe the orbits and movements of celestial objects as well as predict and explain whether a building can fall to the ground at near freefall speeds without having its supporting structure blown out of the way with explosives.

 

The (false) principle of oligarchism leads to human beings degraded, demoralised, and dominated. Its opposing and true principle of republicanism leads to humans organising their affairs on the basis of a true understanding of the nature of man.

 

An oligarchy is merely the rule of few over many applied to a society. It is not a principle, neither is it true or false. It is simply a description of a form of control. That oligarchies tends to lead to a degraded, demoralized, and dominated populace would be a principle. That a republican form of government tends to be more equitable, and tends to allow ensure more freedom for the members of society is also a principle. The cause is the form of government, the effect is, among other things the amount of freedom afforded the members of the society. If the ideal one is concerned with is universal liberty, then a correct or true principle would be that a republican form of government is more likely to secure more liberty for the populace over the long term than an oligarchy.

 

The ends of justice are happiness and survival, so we could call them ideals, but “sweets to the sweet, piss to the bitter” is a principle, just as is the (what you call false) prison principle.  The principle of justice may be tempered by the principle of mercy, and by other concerns, but it remains a principle.

 

Happiness and survival are by no means the end result of justice. A person who receives justice does not receive happiness unless happiness is what they deserve to receive. Justice does not ensure survival either, if survival is not a person's due "reward" or "punishment".  Happiness can certainly be considered an ideal. Survival would also be an ideal. However, Justice is simply another ideal, the ideal of receiving the punishment or reward, or the restitution or recompense that is one's due as a consequence of one's actions. Justice is an ideal because receiving what may be deemed "rightfully belonging to one" is not guaranteed. Mercy is also an ideal. It is the avoidance of punishment that is due, or the receiving of a reward or recompense that is more than what one is due or deserves. Mercy is the result of the grace of another, not their duty or obligation.

 

Superstition is believing if you step on a crack you'll break your mother's back.

 

That is merely one example of superstition. It is not the only example. Superstition is an irrational or nonrational belief in false or unprovable principles - relationships of cause and effect which are either not correct or true, or simply cannot be proven to be correct or true.

 

The idea that man is created in the image of the Creator is scientific fact. If you're an Atheist, it doesn't matter, treat “Creator” as an Archetype. We are made in the image of that Archetype.  It is the most powerful Archetype conceivable and we are in its image.

 

Claiming something to be a scientific fact which is not a scientific fact is sophistry, not science. There are no scientific facts demonstrating that man is created. There are merely scientific theories suggesting that man has evolved from from previous species of apes. These theories may be incorrect, based on incorrect or false premises; but if the theory is correct, man was not created, man evolved and there is no "Archetypical Image" which we are "fashioned" after.

 

We must be wary of moving away from this concept, to thinking we are merely clever apes.  Being an ape is not a noble thing, it is depressing to human ambition.

 

The idea that being an ape is not a noble thing is a anthropocentric bias or bigotry against other apes. Man can be both noble and "a clever ape". It is only depressing to the ambition of those who imagine that if we are similar to the other animals living on this planet that we are incapable of striving to be better, of directing our lives and aspirations to higher purposes. If you must believe the superstitions, myths, legends, and fables you were taught by your religious instructors in order to aspire to a life greater than pursuing your most basic instinctual urges, then by all means keep believing them. Just understand that not everyone needs to believe that they are created in the image of an omniscient and omnipotent creator deity who just happens to look identical to modern human beings or homo sapiens in order to aspire to living a noble, ethical, and moral life.

 

Most people believe in some sort of religion because they refuse to relinquish the symbolic power those religions hold that refer, to better or worse degrees, to the humanistic definition I have given.  There is a reason Christendom, and not China, or Africa, or South America, went to Luna. There is reason the science of Christian economy, to the degree it is practised, dominates the world.

 

There is nothing inherently Christian about economics. Principles of Science and Economics were well known and understood long before Christianity. If the Dark Ages have taught us anything, it has taught us that few things stifle technological progress and the general prosperity of a nation than supporting an oligarchy or feudal class system the way Christendom did for nearly two thousand years before the age of Enlightenment and Reason prompted a resurgent interest in republican principles in the minds of the American Revolutionaries. A strong case can be made that the less the influence of Christendom, and Roman Catholicism in particular, the more socio-economic and technological progress is made.

 

The proper conception of man is what is needed, to inspire. Trying to level the playing field by appealing to our love and wonder and sense of fair play is putting cart before horse. The horse is human identity, creativity, the passengers are human goodwill and the like.

 

The "proper conception of man" is defined by one's preference. If one's preference is for truth and accuracy, then the proper conception of man is attained through scientific inquiry. If on the other hand one's preferences is for superstition and tradition, then an appeal to millennia old religious texts may be the preferred direction of inquiry. As for "leveling the playing field", I believe that will only be done as individuals and groups give up the notion that our differences are more important than our similarities, and we do not require superstitious religious belief to do that; nor do I believe that only religion can provide an inspiring or elevating conception of man for individuals to aspire to.

[dsayers]

Boasting has a function, just like judging has. You boast and judge morality to keep evil at bay.

I wanted to resonate this sentiment as I agree with it. When we praise ourselves for our accomplishments, we invite people of quality to join us and diminish the space in which toxic people can thrive. I am very proud of all the virtue I exemplify present day. especially when you consider the decades of unanimous trumpeting of ideas to the contrary. Such a severe current I swam against DELIBERATELY, by choice. 

 

OP's process becomes absurd when taken to its conclusion. If you use your arm to help somebody, can you not be proud of your choice just because some people don't have arms? Also, empathy develops after a child is born, and can be retarded by trauma. I'm just curious what OP's motivation was in trying to convince virtuous people to not self-praise was.