In MsgID on Tue, 10 Mar 2009
10:21:11 -0400, in uk.philosophy.atheism, 'Christopher A. Lee' wrote:

>>I've always used 'good' and 'evil' as personal terms, not connecting them
>>to other people's definitions purely because I know those other
>>definitions vary so widely.
>
>For most people it's the effect of one's actions at the receiving end.

Close.. I'd say the effects of one's actions on the society around one are
an important consideration.

>People who need rules to tell them what is good and bad, are amoral
>sociopaths.
>
>>My view is that there are two (possibly equally viable) modes of thought. 
>
>You don't need "modes of thought".

Didn't you know what I meant? Points of view, attitudes, ways to evaluate
the relative merits of different habitual actions and reactions?

>As a societal species we are born with a certain amount of empathy.
>We're not the only ones. Other primates exhibit it. Even cats and dogs
>do, for the humans they adopt.

You don't accept then the almost equal (personal) benefit from merely
appearing to have empathy, or rather from having the empathy but just
using it to understand the 'opposition' (competition)

Being totally self centred, keeping one's inner motivations hidden away
and merely play acting at responding to empathic sensation, while actually
using it to judge when and how to selfishly 'strike' and then to conceal
the fact that you have, seems to me to have *almost* as much long term
personal benefit, and possibly significantly more short term benefit,
without necessarily benefiting society in the least.

What I was trying to get across is that the benefits from habitual honesty
plus what can appear as apparently altruistic behaviour are subtle (though
I believe very significant) and that it is easy to miss those benefits and
choose a different approach.

I believe that the analysis necessary to see the power of the subtle
medium/longterm benefits of honesty and empathy, via cooperation and
society, ought to be part of the early education of (perhaps you'd call it
the memetic transfer to?) children.

You pay much attention to the religion-scarred moralising that we so often
hear around us. That holds little interest for me except as a part of what
I see as the incredibly messed up surroundings within which I must
function. I believe the religion stuff will die out and that the 'rest of
us' ought to have a well thought out and easily transferable framework to
replace it.

Dave J.