Psy paper

[DO]

Most of us have a concept of what is good, and what is bad. We apply these concepts to a code of ethics on how to get along in life and interact with others, which is generally called our morals.

However where do these concepts that lay down the foundation for good and bad come from? One could argue that physical experience would play a large part in this. Do something that caused us pain would deter us from doing something again, and doing something that provided us pleasure would encourage us to do it again. However there are many things that don't fall into that way of thinking. Things that can be pleasurable, but are causing us harm, and things that are painful that are good for us. So physical experience would play a weak link at best, and could very likely lead us astray of what is good for us.

Government would be another logical place to look for what gives us our sense of good and bad. However governments differ, and an action that one government might see as good; another might see as being terrible. Also what is seen as good and bad within a society the government manages can change, and that can be reflected in changes in laws. However it is possible that what an individual sees as being good and bad will differ from the rest of the government and society that he or she is a part of. Obviously something must have caused this difference to occur, and the individual must be pulling from another source to determine what is good and bad.

While governments can provide rules for a society to maintain itself, they do not provide us with a measure of what is good and bad for the individual. Religions are generally centered around providing an individual with a guide for what is good and bad. The beliefs of the religion and the practice can vary drastically from one religion to another; however the ideas of what is good and bad are usually very much the same between them.

If all religions pulled from the same source, all religions would be the same. The same beliefs, the same practices. However we only seem to find that they are similar with certain things. From this we can infer that while all religions differ at least slightly, there must also have been a common thread between all of them when they were created. A common thread that somehow transcends both space and time since the religions did not start all at the same time or same place, but at many different places and many different times throughout history.

Government can not provide us with what we need to know since it puts the good of society before the good of the individual. Physical experience can be misleading, and life experience can not be the answer since everyone has different lives, yet what we consider to be good seems to be very similar no matter our backgrounds. And while religions provide us with guidelines for what is good and bad which do not differ, they claim different sources for how those guidelines were founded. As such they do not explain the source of good and bad, but merely formalize it.

Having looked at all other options, we are forced to look for something within ourselves for the answer. Since this common thread of what lets us know what is good and what is bad seems to have existed throughout history, which is the only way that we could explain the beliefs on the definitions of what is good and bad of the religions being so similar; it must be something that is both part of each individual, yet at the same time transcends its existence.

There are only two things that fit this description. The first is our genetic code, which has remained largely unchanged since written history began (there are differences from person to person, but what makes a person a person genetically has not changed much). The other is less definable in terms of science, but has generally been referred to throughout history as the soul.


The question I present you with is which of these two items, our genetic code, or our soul is responsible for what we see as good, and why. Or is there an additional option that the argument did not cover? This is for my psy paper I need a little more to make the required amount of pages. Help a guy out? Also tell me if its any good.

[Souryusen]

http://www.rogerpbrown.com/photos/coworkers/dscn1622.jpg

[DO]

Why would you post in here if you have nothing to say you could of said, "Your paper is boring" but instead you posted a picture. Do you just post to increase your post count?

[Souryusen]

Nope.. your paper pretty much is boring as shit.

Why the fuck would you post something like that?

[NM]

Judging by that picture, I dont think Souryusen even read your paper...

[DO]

It can be use to start a debate and an intelligent conversation. Listen I dont want trouble if you dont like this topic dont post to it.

[Souryusen]

Originally posted by: NarutoMaster
Judging by that picture, I dont even think Souryusen even read your paper...

I did read it. If I hadn't taken the time to I wouldn't know how damned boring it is. The grammar is terrible, the facts aren't adequately supported, there are practically no transitions... did you just write this paper stream of consciousness??

[DO]

Its more of a write up. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

[Souryusen]

Originally posted by: DragonOutlaw
Its more of a write up.

Understood.

If you're trying to fill space then I suggest you build your intro and thesis statement. Transitions will make for a smoother paper and will add to the length as well.

If I may suggest this format for an intro.. "Tell them what you're about to tell them, tell them, tell them what you told them." Hammer the theme in there. I'm not going to pick apart the whole paper.. but there are some odd sentences in there that you might consider revising.

[DO]

Ah I do admit writing isnt my best subject. Thanks for the advice.

[Board of Command]

Pretty need ideas I must admit. I think there's a 3rd option, although it's hard to explain with words. I'll try my best here.

I think "good" and "bad" is derived from human intellect itself. At the beginning of the human race there were no such things as "good" and "bad", we only did the right thing (if you can call it that) and that is to feed ourselves. Let it be meat or plants, as long as we had something to eat we're living a good life. Then as our minds evolved, emotions and common sense changed the human race and created a social structure based on desire and greed. Every other emotion connected to these two. "Good" and "bad" were still pretty much undefined at this point. In order to keep this simple system intact people set up "rules" to control the amount of desire and greed each person can display.

Out of greed and desire, currency and values were invented. At this point there was somewhat of a blurry understanding of "good" and "bad", such as "it's bad to steal something of value". Is stealing a wrong thing to do? Depends on which side you're looking at. One might be stealing food to feed a sick family member, but in turn causes hunger to the victim of the theft. The basic idea behind this is that no matter what benefits one might gain from doing something, it is "bad" as long as it causes harm to anyone. This excludes law enforcers. I don't know much about the history or nature of law, so I'll just avoid it for now. From now on whenever I talk about people it's exluding law enforcement.

So this "good" and "bad" system went on for a while until people gradually started to mix the meanings of "good and bad" with "right and wrong". Generally speaking "good"="right" and "bad"="wrong", but there's always exceptions. "Good" and "bad" usually refer to the human society, while "right" and "wrong" in its purest form refer to the ecosystem.
For example: it's good to help people with AIDs, but it's wrong to help people with AIDs. The idea behind this statement is that helping someone to stay alive shows our desire to stay alive, but it's wrong since people that catch HIV are meant to die like they are supposed to. If nobody never helped HIV patients, then HIV would've become extinct long ago.

Err...I kinda confused myself with the last paragraph so I'll stop here. This might tie into the "genetic code" theory instead of being a separate option. Anyways, here's an excerpt from some weird thing I wrote last summer for no particular reason at all (seriously)


The one thing that all humans value equally is superiority. Not over other animals, but over each other. Superiority can come in many forms  appearance, strength, age, occupation, intelligence, and so forth. As long as there is a comparison with different levels, there would be a superior. Superiority exists in all other animals as well, but there is one other category that only exists in the human society: wealth. The ultimate difference between wealth and the rest is that it is something outside the human body. It can be transferred from one human to another, and it can be created and destroyed. From the beginning of human civilization to the present day, human society has been and always will be designed and built around wealth. The physical form of wealth has evolved greatly since the start, but its idea has remained exactly the same. Humans value the objects that they either have or want. Since humans value objects differently, the concept of currency was created. Everything bears a price, and presumably the higher the price, the higher the value.
Not sure if that's relevant or not but it's just my thoughts on the greed/desire system. btw feel free to critisize everything I wrote since I'm only 16 and don't know anything in this field.

[DO]

Not sure if that's relevant or not but it's just my thoughts on the greed/desire system. btw feel free to critisize everything I wrote since I'm only 16 and don't know anything in this field.

I'am only taking this class for the credits. i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif You seem to know what your talking about too.

[quote]
So this "good" and "bad" system went on for a while until people gradually started to mix the meanings of "good and bad" with "right and wrong". Generally speaking "good"="right" and "bad"="wrong", but there's always exceptions. "Good" and "bad" usually refer to the human society, while "right" and "wrong" in its purest form refer to the ecosystem.[quote]


Agreed.

[Assertn]

hahaha, the timing of souryusen's image added a nice comical effect in addition to message he tried to convey. God work sou i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

i kinda skimmed your paper, but i agree about how good and bad can be just conventions created from those who have the power to dictate such concepts.

[Lefty]

Lets not forget that good and evil are creations of man to give rason to anyone event that happens. it's a concept that only we can understand. Good and Evil is a concept created by the human mind. What people do are not good and bad they're trying to make a living or survive if you want to get down to it. In some cases to survive you need power. POwer to rule a people, a country or the world. Nothing is good or Evil it just is. Nad trying to break donw to weather the soul or DNA is the source of evil is a superfical matter. Evil and good do not exist. They are concepts, and thoughts. All things in this world exists diffrently to each life form. So in turn concepts will differ as well. so good and evil being a concept will be very diffrent as you go down the chain of life on this planet. But you reach a point were good and evil no longer exist. It become "I'm alive or dead". So good and evil are just a cover for life and death. Thats my take on it.

[PSJ]

i really dont want to comment to much or write my own opinion but i think your last paragraph BoC made alot of sense. ppl talk about saving victims of hunger in africa and things like that but all they do is send them enough food to keep them alive so they can suffer more, in the general sense of right its a good thing to do but is it really what these ppl want? to live another day just to suffer even more? thats all i have to say.

[Board of Command]

Thanks guys, I'm flattered i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif I'll be taking anthropology later this year and philosophy next year, so wait a year and I'll probably be able to give you a better answer i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif

[PSJ]

im thinking of taking philosophy to. and i will be taking psycology next year, it seems very interesting.

[DO]

It is interesting you'll learn things like nature vs nurture and moral development.

[Assertn]

im in an evolutionary psy class that is going over nature vs nurture and darwin's theory right now

[DO]

I'am kind of torn between the whole Nature Vs Nurtue issue myself.

[basey44]

sorry i didnt read ur paper, so ignore this post if ya want, but ill agree with sou's pic, i dont really like reading posts over 4 lines on gotwoot, to much thinking involved. unless its something interesting like naruto i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif
im sure other people will comment on ur paper though

[chambers]

dont forget history dictates what is good and bad also. more so than anythign you mentioned.

also when discussing nature vs nurture do you guys focus specifically on the human race or only on animals?

[Assertn]

Originally posted by: DragonOutlaw
I'am kind of torn between the whole Nature Vs Nurture issue myself.

evolutionary psychology dictates that isolating them into distinct nature and nurture categories isn't practical, and the common analagy made with this is one involving bread. You dont say that bread is 70% ingredients and 30% heat. You say that the ingredients, when introduced to a catalyst like heat, provides the product which is bread.

In this sense, the slate that everyone starts out with is the ingredients, which are the favorable physical traits as well as mental "modules" (that give us the abilities to do things such as face recognition, language learning, emotion, etc.) that are passed down through evolution. The personalities we recieve are the result of taking these ingredients to a catalyst (in this case, our environment).

well, something to that effect anyway.

[dragoonz]

Unless the question states"good" and "bad", don't use those words. Try and use things that are more sophisticated, such as "Positive" and "Negative". And definately don't use "things". Concepts, ideas, meme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme)s, whatever. Don't use "things".

I also think you're being too vague, you should quote and refernce some material.

Your structure needs some rework, if I talk to you on IRC, I can help you out with that if you like.



The other is less definable in terms of science, but has generally been referred to throughout history as the soul.This is actually defined by science as "Conciousness."

Take a look at this (http://junkerhq.net/MGS2/index.html). I thinkit would be VERY helpful to, and contains some very relevant information about memetics.

[Board of Command]

I think he's purposely using "good" and "bad" since that's his topic. He's not using "good" and "bad" to describe other stuff.

[dragoonz]

Very unlikely, using those kinds of words makes writing very bland. I seriously doubt that is what's in the question, unless he's in one of those dead-shit classes...

[Lefty]

The whole good and bad thing is a copout paper. If you want to do somehitng original, pick a subject like the whole kids not leaving their rooms in Japan or normal people suddenly going on killing rampages. At least somthing thats diffrent or not done to death already. I'm NOT trying to be insulting but it's just such a beaten horse.

[Assertn]

Originally posted by: Lefty
I'm trying to be insulting but it's just such a beaten horse.

then try harder

[Lefty]

I'm meant to say NOT trying to be insulting. Fucking shit type skills o mine